“When I read this stuff, it makes sense to me.”  — Michael Savage, reacting to the campaign of Summer Shield, the Larouche candidate for Congress against Nancy Pelosi.
“savage is a stark raving lunatic and that’s why anyone would have him on the radio: to get other people to become stark raving lunatics” — revenire
……………………………………………………

The following comes from the American Mercury in May 1938, the respectable first half of the magazine’s existence (though the  unrespectability of the second half of the magazine’s existence perhaps comes from it retaining these same attitudes, notched up in shrillness as it was losing the battle).  I probably could pluck up a less obscure example of age old casual attitudes toward Misceganation, and its status as a Communist Plot, or party to fellow travellers of a sort of cultural “slumming it”, but here is Mona Lale’s “The Brides of Marx”.

There was one wild-eyed lass, I recall, who would appear at regular intervals in one of the Village bars with four male Comradews in tow.  They would take a prominent table and proceed to get drunk on straight gin, which the girl would buy, and entertain the others with lurid descriptions of their weird design for living: the girl, I gathered, received $50 a week from her family to stay away from her native Milwaukee, where she had created a city-wide scandal, and now was the communal mistress of the shaggy-haired quatret, whom she supported.  It was her boast that three psychiatrists had prounounced her hopeless, and that she had come near to driving them crazy.  This strange band stopped coming to the bar aftar a while, and the bartender learned later that the Pride of Milwaukee, as this Amazon was wont to refer to herself, had dispensed with her prediculous entourage and had gone native, up in Harlem.  Miscegenation, of course, bears the official sanction of old Karl, though denounced by intelligent negroes, and the color line is regarded by latter-day apostles as being merely another instance of capitalistic Jim-Crowism.  This undoubtedly has fetched scores of depraved white women into the fold, but the colored brother has, in most cases, retained a stolid indifference.  He finds his own women vastly more enticing than the run of white lady comrades, and when he does consort with them, I dare say he does so chiefly to plume his own ego.

Now skip forward to Lyndon Larouche on APRIL 13 2008 — the shot heard round, well — a half dozen blogs I suppose — available here.

I mean: Obama is a racist. I mean, with an African father–he wasn’t much of an African father, but was an African father of Kenya. He was part of a British operation, which took over Kenya, through MI5’s operation. But this guy was away from Kenya, and he married a Margaret Mead type, a woman who had a number of successive husbands, like Margaret Mead did. Went out to the poor, brown people, in Asia, and had sex with them! It was called “Coming in Samoa.” [groans, laughter] And she wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you’ll find Obama’s ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody’s climbing and swinging from the branches there–from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime–which is a branch of British intelligence.

And now David P Goldman –  who we well know for his membership in the org from 1968 to 1989 (are those the right dates?) — at “First Things”, a place where his fans refer to Obama as “Hussein Soetero” in the comments section:

Obama is the loyal son of a left-wing anthropologist mother who sought to expiate her white guilt by going to bed with Muslim Third World men. He is a Third World anthropologist studying us, learning our culture and our customs the better to neutralize what he considers to be a malignant American influence in world affairs.

John Podhoretz responds:

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, disgusting. In the first place, Obama is not responsible for his mother or her political views, any more than Ronald Reagan should have been be held accountable for the fact that his father was a drunk. In the second place, Goldman’s speculation about her sexual history is appalling in about a hundred different ways. I’m sure I’d hold no brief for Stanley Ann Dunham, but the idea that the lower-middle-class daughter of a furniture salesman from Mercer Island, Washington, would be awash in “white guilt” — far more a species of upper-middle-class Northeastern opinion — speaks more of Goldman’s inability to achieve imaginative sympathy with someone from circumstances different from his than it does anything about the president or his family.
Finally, there is Goldman’s description of Obama, who lived for less than a year in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10, as a “Third World anthropologist studying us.” Casting Obama as a malign foreign influence is a particular and unforgivable intellectual madness on the Right over the past two years. There is nothing foreign about Obama’s ideas or ideology, alas, which can be understood, in my view, almost entirely from the curricula and extracurricular ideas endemic in the American university in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when he was in college.
Goldman wrote a piece for First Things last year in which he revealed his history as a member of the bizarre and paranoid political cult around the extremist Lyndon LaRouche. Goldman intended the article to be an explanation of and break from his past. But thinking of the sort revealed in this blog item is in the direct line of descent from LaRouche’s vision of the world. It appears you can take the man out of LaRouche, but you can’t take LaRouche out of the man.

Let some debris float away — tackled here and here — and I’ll say something for Podhoretz.  A quick google search shows I’ve mentioned Podhoretz — whether John or Norman (who, for purposes here have similar enough views that I’ll lump together — I’d refine if I thought about them more often times.) — seven times.  All negative.  So that’s now seven negatives to one positive reference.
I doubt very much that John Podhoretz has come into contact with Larouche’s Monkey quote, so I guess I can say that he doesn’t know the half of it.

David Goldman seems to be getting the brunt of a lot of this:  Leaving aside for the moment the remarks of Spengler/Goldman (whose wide following has always baffled me, since it should have long since been obvious that he is nuts).  Maybe I should leave a break for him — what did I title that post?  “I Hope To Avoid Posting Anything Concerning David Goldman Following This Post”?
Here.  Dedicated to Lyndon Larouche and David P Goldman:  Bleh de bleh.

………………………………

A few notes on this thing from Cliff Kincaid  of “AIM“, and apparently something called  “America’s Survival, Inc” has released a youtube video that  exposes radio personality Alex Jones and his allies in the Lyndon LaRouche movement as behind some of the attempts to discredit the Tea Party movement.

For the love of gawd.  I guess I saw this snow-balling a tad.  I will add to my attempt to explain the Vinn Diagram of Larouche and Jones (ideas floating there, and they share some connections — past with one present with the other — with Webster Tarpley) that Alex Jones and his association with Ron Paul was there before the Republican Party.

One question: does Cliff Kinclaid read factnet and the posts of xlcer?

A former LaRouche insider and expert on the cult suggests that Jones and Tarpley are actually competitors for the same audience but have teamed up for common purposes. He, too, has noticed LaRouche material being posted on the Alex Jones and Ron Paul websites as well as various gold bug and tea party sites.
“Since Obama won,” he explained, “the cult is doing exactly what it did when Jimmy Carter was elected. It merely turned to try to be a parasite off of the right-wing anger and this time Obama is an easy target. This is the same cult that raised money and recruited among the left when Bush was in power and was being labeled a Nazi.”
This observer says that what the cult is doing is “carpetbagging” at any Tea Party or right-wing meeting or website it can find: “The idea is that they just abandoned the anti-Bush propaganda and are using the anti-Obama sentiment to raise money.”
They are also physically attending Tea Party meetings. He noted that the Tea Party movement in Massachusetts had a LaRouche cult member by the name of Rachel Brown address their meetings and go on their radio show. Indeed, Brown went on Tea Party radio to discuss “the British empire’s drive for global fascism.” It is typical of the LaRouche movement to attack the British, especially the Queen of England, for everything that goes wrong in the world. She went on that show with Harley Schlanger of the LaRouche political action committee.
“They just had a cult candidate named Kesha Rogers win a Democratic primary in Texas,” the former LaRouche insider said. “They will attend right-wing meetings to get some names to call back for more money. They will also feed more delusions which will backfire on the Tea Party.”

But Cliff Kinclaid is a hypocrite, isn’t he, on his concern about Larouche blurring into his precious political movement?  Note this headline posted by him on December 30, 2004.
AARP, LaRouche Oppose Private Social Security Accounts
… which I know because it was pointed out then by , um, me.

But, I support such an image as the bottom one here.  The video from Kincaid itself is… tedious.  I see him rolling from images of Obama Hitler to non Larouche (and non Jones) inflamatory signs.  Still, I’ll point to an Alex Jones listener.:
alfy1234 This Guy cliff is a shill. .He is a CIA plant. Watch loose change.
learn about the PRIVATE federal reserve and the IRS.
Learn about Rothchilds, Rockerfellers. and our fiat currency.Learn, Learn,learn.
You should never trust anyone 100% but learn whats going
It will be worth noting Alex Jones’s idea of Tea Party infiltrators.

……………………………………………………………..

Howie G says something.  Marielle Kronberg responds.

The LaRouche people have always invoked the national security argument, and screamed “witchhunt,” whenever anyone sued them, or whenever they were prosecuted.
Their view is that LaRouche’s policies and politics are so marvelous and life-giving that he should never be challenged on anything.

In other legal jurisdictions — we go to the front on Jeremiah Duggan.

Anonymous said…
Britain doesn’t have jurisdiction does it?

Maximillius said…
If we’re to continue this I’d like to know what your interest in the case is. Are you an interested observer or do you represent the LaRouche group in any way?  (I think we know the answer to that question.)
It sounds as if you’re attempting to dispute my comments on technicalities, when anyone with a clear mind examining the facts can see there are many, many holes in the story given by the German police.

Meanwhile, … no, really — Larouche has grave concerns over Obama — no animosity.  He wants Obama to avoid assassination.  Also thinks he’s swinging from every tree.-

Ivanov, The author is clearly confused. LaRouche is obviously trying to prevent the assassination of President Obama. Obama’s big ego is a strategic factor that would cause him to walk right into an assassin’s bullet. Also, it’s obvious the LaRouche has no personal grudge against Obama. If you haven’t noticed, about 3 in 5 Americans completely agree that Obama’s policies will result in genocide against Americans.

symsess If I told you to stop commenting on my blog because you are in danger of being assassinated you wouldn’t take that as a threat? LaRouche is not God; though many seem to think he is. I’m sure Obama is truly grateful for this warning. If only LaRouche had warned Kennedy too.
I beg to differ on LaRouche’s “grudge” against Obama. Slapping a Hitler mustache on anyone is the very definition of disdain and animosity. The problem with LaRouche is he lacks humility of any sort.

Incidentally, here’s some of La Rouche’s words on that topic.

“You have to take my judgment of this thing: To explain it to you, how this works, is too much, there are too many things. You’re not prepared to deal with this kind of thing, but let me tell you what’s happening. Take it from me, this is the situation. We’re now—and the President is an idiot! among his other qualifications. This guy is doing the worst thing possible, for a President who’s under target for assassination. I mean, they want to get rid of him!

I will state that this Media Interview is somewhat better than this.  Though he seems aiming about for the Michael Savage voters — or money.  BUT… a vote of confidence.:  If you ask me, the La Rouche people are no weirder than birthers.
They get kudos here.  I was glad to see the Larouchies out in force, with a dope-pushing queen in drag. There were also some plants with really ridiculous signs, which I don’t really think helps the dialogue.   AND  I kept finding their ‘literature’ in the trash cans on my walk from the White House back to Union Station last September.  Hard to read what they have to say when you have to dumpster dive to get at it.

This entry was posted on Friday, April 16th, 2010 at 1:18 pm and is filed under The LaRouche Challenge. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.