Danse's LaRouche Research

User Danse posted this over at the Truthaction forum... 

“LaRouche's beliefs were anti-Stalinist but
vanguardist. LaRouche considers himself, and has so proclaimed
publicly, the best qualified to lead (today, he claims that he is at
the peak of his mental prowess at the age of 81).”

Source:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche

His name keeps popping up in connection to the Bunk-port warning.
Until yesterday I had only heard of him via pop culture references. A
cursory glance at his political views seems to put him in fairly good
company.

At first.

He supports 911 truth, he is fervently anti-neocon, he is anti-Zionist,
he opposed deregulation of major industries during the Reagan
administration, he opposes the IMF and World Bank.

Interestingly, his views on government and economics seem to mirror Tarpley’s exactly. And I do mean exactly:

“He argues that an oligarchical faction within the financial community is in fact the principal enemy of progress.

“LaRouche maintains that supranational financial institutions such as
the International Monetary Fund are committed to a policy of looting
the living standards of the world's populations through austerity and
speculation, while contracting the actual productive base of these
economies — a policy that he claims is a revival of the economic
approach of the German central banker Hjalmar Schacht, who held office
both before and during the Nazi government of Adolf Hitler. To remedy
this, LaRouche proposes a new international conference, modeled on the
Bretton Woods conference, for the purpose of reorganizing a bankrupt
monetary system, and eliminating most of the presently unpayable debt.
For example, he advocates the retroactive cancellation of all financial
derivatives contracts. He proposes that new credits be created for very
large infrastructure projects all over the world; LaRouche has
published specific proposals for such projects in Europe, Asia, Africa,
the Middle East, North and South America, and Australia. LaRouche
considers it to be the unfinished mission of the United States of
America to end any form of colonialism, which he associates in
particular with the austerity policies of the International Monetary
Fund in the post-1972 period.”

No problem here.

Like Tarpley he is also particularly concerned about the British
Royal Family, arguing that the center of power lies more in the palaces
of Windsor than the boardrooms of the Pentagon, and that the drug trade
is largely controlled through MI6. Maybe, maybe not, I have no idea who
the real kingpins are, though I’m pretty sure they're not Colombian.

So far so good. Now we start to delve into more controversial territory.

LaRouche “often disparages the counterculture. In 1978, he wrote that
‘The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped
according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock)
specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are
controlled by British intelligence." [73][74]

This seems to be a popular theme amongst the populist right: the birth
of Rock N’ Roll was actually the day the music died. Black and White
become groovy multicolored and “traditional values” like “honey I’m
home” and “yessa massa” and “that Lawrence Welk sure is swell” began to
fade from our collective consciousness . Surely a development this
heinous could only have been hatched in the bowels of Tavistock?

LaRouche is anti-feminist, arguing (like Jones and the late Aaron
Russo) that the feminist movement was a Rockefeller plot designed to
break up the family and turn men and women against each other.

On the last two points, I consider both theories quite absurd. The
feminist movement – or something very like it – has been around since
the dawn of civilization – and indeed long before.

There was no such thing as a Rockefeller empire when Mary
Wollstonecraft wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Women”. Similarly,
there has always been a counterculture. You simply cannot have a
culture without something approaching a counterculture. Call it Yin and
Yang. Whether we’re talking about the birth of the blues, or jazz, or
the beatnik culture, or the hippies, or the Yippies, or the British
Invasion with their mop-tops and screaming fans, there have always been
underground movements threatening to shake things up and replace the
old with the new. These movements grow organically, usually amongst the
rebellious downtrodden, and are then appropriated by the middle and
upper classes.

This does not mean that the CIA and other entities did not infiltrate
and successfully steer the 60’s counter culture (for instance, through
the introduction of LSD or bogus front groups like the SLA) or attempt
to de-radicalize the feminist movement (by replacing its anarchist
roots with Marxist authoritarianism and anti-male rhetoric), but they
certainly did not “create” them.

Anyway, I digress. So far I see nothing here that would paint LaRouche
as a raving lunatic. His views, or some of them anyway, seem to be
fairly common amongst 911 truthers, even if (again, some of them) would
be considered wildly unorthodox in “mainstream” circles. He’s even been
attacked by the (“anti”) Defamation League and our old pal Chip Berlet
for “anti-semitism” and “Conspiracism”, respectively. So what’s the
problem?

--

The first problem is that he appears to be megalomaniac with delusions
of grandeur. How do I know this? Well for one because he founded
something called the LaRouche Youth Movement:

LaRouche Youth Movement

“A significant change in the LaRouche organization since LaRouche's
release from prison has been the development of the LaRouche Youth
Movement (LYM) beginning in 1999. Often described as a cult which
employs brainwashing techniques, the LYM's recruitment of young people
in the 18-25 year-old age bracket has reportedly brought more members
into the LaRouche organization than at any time in the past. On
September 9, 2003, members of the LYM interrupted a debate of the
Democratic candidates for president at Morgan State University in
Baltimore, Maryland and disrupted Democratic Party candidates' events
during the 2004 campaign, occasionally leading to arrests.”

Again, nothing wrong with disrupting Democracy Party Events – it’s a great idea – but consider the context.

“In 1973, according to some press accounts, the NCLC adopted
violent and disruptive tactics under LaRouche's direction. According to
the Village Voice, NCLC members physically attacked meetings of the
Communist Party and later of the SWP, and other groups who were classed
by LaRouche as "left-protofascists." According to the New York Times,
they also attacked CP members on the street and used nunchaku. LaRouche
called these attacks "Operation Mop-up."[25][26]

“The NCLC argued that they were acting merely in self-defense, but
according to Dennis King, their rhetoric suggested otherwise. "From
here on in," LaRouche proclaimed at a mass meeting of his East Coast
followers, "the CP cannot hold a meeting on the East Coast....We'll mop
them up in two months."[27]

I don’t know the source and I’m not sure if the allegations hold
water. LaRouche, for his part, claims that the violence was directed at
him, not vice versa, via provocateurs in the communist party.

Perhaps someone who lived through the era can shed more light on the
subject. An individual on blogger claims he witnessed many of these
shenanigans first hand.

Let’s put aside the alleged mob violence. What exactly does it mean to
be a “LaRouchie”. A former disciple outlines his experience here:

“One becomes completely child-like again and subject to the groups
teachings and the leaders wishes. The irony of the matter is that
LaRouche himself, who had studied mental manipulation, when he was
thinking of deprogramming members who he said had been kidnapped by the
CIA (actually a lie), describes very well how one can, in three short
days, change the “axioms of a person’s thinking”, and “tear off the
mask of the persona bourgeoisie” by intensive sessions that he called
“psycho sessions” or “ego stripping”, as well as “school for managing
executives,” using a much milder term.

Please refer to his brochure called “Beyond psychoanalysis”
published in the 70’s in the United States. In short LaRouche in my
opinion and from my experience makes his money from selling methods of
mind control!!!! (One cannot help but recognise the similarities
between the LaRouche organisation and such parties as the Nazi Party or
the Soviet Stalin Party, and one can conclude that he has made use of
some of their methods.)

…This is why, around the age of twenty, when one still has the time
to ask oneself good questions, and one does not yet have many
responsibilities to consider, one becomes the ideal prey for cults, in
particular those who tend to be more of a politically alternative
nature.”

http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/content/case/living_prison.htm

Which brings us back to the LaRouche youth movement. What is he
teaching these kids anyway? Well, to cherry pick two examples: LaRouche
is opposed to the legalization of drugs because it “creates a culture
of self-centered hedonism”, and he believes that global warming is
caused by “the Crab Nebula”.

So now we’re getting into David Ickean territory or the “National
Enquirer” method: large doses of truth mixed in with a healthy dose of
patent nonsense in order to discredit people who dare deviate from
official orthodoxy. Either that or he really does believe Global
Warming is caused by the Crab Nebula. I’m not sure which is worse,
frankly.

He is rabidly anti-gay. According to a personal account from an ex LaRouchie published here:

Lyn would constantly pepper his talks with his diatribes against "faggots and sodomizers" to whip us up.

During one of our campaigns we published a pamphlet called "The
Aquarian Conspiracy". Now we were calling Right to Life groups and
religious people to support Lyn. Part of our polemic was that
Homosexuality was Satanic in nature and part of the evil oligarchy's
plan to bring on the Dark Ages. We linked Homosexuals to Babylonian
cults, Aristotle, Jesuits, Tavistock, every British scientist and every
evil in the world.”

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Although technically this is hearsay, it gels perfectly with the words of LaRouche himself. In 1986 he wrote:

“We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS —
for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without
our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There
should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue.
Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not
want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and
cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United
States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable
creatures I ever saw! The so-called gay lobby, 8% of the population,
the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine
sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their
mind; it affects the way they vote!

… They're already beating up gays with baseball bats around the
country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball
bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to
recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them
up pretty bad. They'll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they're
beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts;
children go out with baseball bats and beat them up-which is perfectly
moral; they have the civil right to do that! It's a matter of
children's civil rights!

– Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.

I will not argue that LaRouche is an intelligence asset because I
have no proof as such. Being that he has been attacked by an obvious
mockingbird in Chip Berlet I would like to give him the benefit of the
doubt; perhaps he’s just your run-of-the mill cult leader with a
penchant for deep politics.

Unfortunately there isn’t much difference between your run-of-the mill
cult leader and your run-of-the mill cult-of-intelligence leader.
The ultimate goal is self-aggrandizement and expansion of power over
one’s minions. There is no honor in being the “leader” of a movement.
The real honor lies in teaching others to be leaders and in sharing
knowledge and power with all concerned. Far better to help someone
realize their own unique potential and learn from them in turn than
recreate people in your own image like a bunch of bobbleheads on an
assembly line.

That’s what’s great about the 911 truth movement. We HAVE no leaders. We are ALL leaders.

“Since the 1980s, a new set of theories about fascism has gained
attention in academia. These include the work of Roger Griffin (fascism
as a right-wing populist movement calling for heroic rebirth —
palingenesis) and Emilio Gentile (the sacralization of politics).
According to Griffin:

[F]ascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism,
one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution,
welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites
infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is
that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic
national rebirth (palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence”[20]

I worry that this is where the “populist right” is taking us.
Although the ostensible enemy is fascism and the ostensible cure
“saving the Republic”, a homophobic, mysoginist, anti-abortion
pseudo-Christian theocracy where Mexican children are rounded up and
placed in camps and a giant wall built along the border and
corporations deregulated doesn’t strike me as a particularly good
solution.