Make your own free website on Tripod.com

                                  Lyndon LaRouche is an idiot   

Brief Biography

Stating the obvious: It's a Cult

The Young LaRouchites

World View of LaRouche

The Evil British Empire

Adam Smith and the American Revolution

The American Civil War

The Iranian Revolution

Changing opinions of history

Neo-Cons and Hypocrisy

Slopping things together

Meet the Roosevelt's: Family divided in 2

Philosophy

More materialistic then Aristotle? 

Economics

 

            For those who do not know, Lyndon LaRouche is a man who sits on the fringes of the U.S political scene. The man is a self proclaimed economist, philosopher, and statesman. He has his own cult following properly known as “Larouchies” that has been running him for president since the early 1970s. Although he never managed to get anywhere, Mr. LaRouche has been able to get his name out and attract the attention of people in high places like President Ronald Reagan. I just want to make a summary of the history and ideas of this individual.

            It is fair to say that the followers of LaRouche are the most active political evangelizers in the United States. They spend their resources handing our literature at public places like the DMV, the library, courthouses, and could be found side by side with the Hare Krishnas at airports before 9/11. One notices that the bulk of their followers are aging baby boomers. The backbone of their movement goes back to the late 1960s inside the political movements on college campuses. Also unsurprisingly, his followers all dress and talk the same. With their short sleeve collared shirts, pocket protectors, and glasses, the Jehovas Witnesses or the actors from Revenge of the Nerds come to mind. Strange enough, they have a youth movement their followers call the “Larouche youth” Who is this strange bald headed 80-year-old man that these weird people promote?

 

                                            Brief Biography

            Larouche was born in New England. He read philosophy as a teenager. He also served in World War 2, somewhere in India. After the war he was attracted to the writings of Karl Marx, whom he said (and I believe rightly so) was the only one who criticized society. LL ended up joining the Socialist Workers Party, a communist sect of the Trotskyite persuasion and then joining the Spartakist League, which was a split from the S.W.P. The Spartakist League believed that the S.W.P. was betraying orthodox Trotskyism by taking a friendly view on Castro’s Cuba. Later on Larouche would even leave them to form his own group. During the 1960s LaRouche began recruiting followers at college campuses. He managed to get the backbone of his movement there, especially with the growth of the Students for Democratic Society(SDS). The Larouche people eventually were expelled from the SDS and formed the National Council of Labor Committees(NCLC). Larouche was still an out of the closet socialist publishing pamphlets like “Socialism or Barbarism.” But in a few years LaRouche would make a strange turn which most people say was to the extreme right. LaRouche gave up his socialist clothing and started talking about the glories of the Renaissance and the “American Intellectual Tradition.” I still believe that if one analyzes Larouche carefully his politics are “left” even if his attitude isn’t.

 

            Larouche first started running for president in the 1970s. His followers created the “Labor party” to run for state offices. This is not to be confused with the short lived U.S. Labor party of the 1930s, or the one of the 1990s created by American trade unions that still has a marginal existence. Later the Larouche labor party was disbanded and his followers decided to infiltrate the Democratic Party. They believed that joining the Democrats would give them more prestige and ability to recruit more followers. In 1986 Larouche was convicted of tax evasion and credit card fraud. The news reported that he would take money from peoples’ accounts without asking them. He was in jail for a few years. Larouche himself claims that the charges were bogus and that there really was a political conspiracy against him.

 

                            It's a Cult: duuh

    I don't think there are any peculiarities that make the Larouche cult stand out to much from other cults. The Larouchies all look the same and dress the same. When someone other then LaRouche writes in their publications he/she always quotes LaRouche like the bible. Like other cult groups they believe that the end of the world is coming soon (t in economic terms) and Larouche is the messiah to bring goodness to the world, in the form of building a glorious land bridge across the planet. The publications of Mr. L are filled doomsday sayings of the approaching economic collapse. In fact they have been for many years. 

    People nice enough to talk to the Mr. L's activists sometimes give them their phone numbers without thinking. These are unfortunate people. They will be called again and again non stopped. If you happen to meet these people please don't give them your phone number of email address. 

        Finally like every other cult, there are apostates with horror stories about the larouche people. The stories range from intimidation, sexual exploitation, money, ect. All those things happen in most cults. There was one prominent Larouche activist who later became an  apostate  whom I tried contacting.  I wont give his name here but I wanted to get his side of the story. He acted very cautious and sent me a harsh warning about the Larouchites. I could tell by his tone that he was worried I was really a Larouche person trying to harass him. I tried contacting him again but he didn't respond. Well I can't blame him. If you are the person Im talking about I would love to hear from you man. I feel your pain!

                              The Young Larouchies

    Yes, it's true. Lyndon Larouche has his 'Young Republican' type following. But they are not republicans obviously. They are followers of Lyndon Larouche. If you thought the aging Larouchie activists were bad, their younger counter parts are 10 times worse.  These guys and gals love being scene. At public rallies they would be heard taking the mike and calling someone a fascist and also say something alone the lines, "There is a man that can change things, his name is Lyndon Larouche and he is running for president....help Larocuhe fight the ongoing conspiracy against him." There are more extreme examples of this bad behavior at college campuses. They have been known to walk in uninvited and interrupt class room lectures. During the 2004 democratic primary debates, the young larouchies managed to interrupt the debates by screaming out "Where's larouche?" before being removed by the police. 

                                        World View 

According to the Larouche paradigm the world has always been in a battle between good and evil. The good is what promoted reason, progress, and industrial development as he defines them. The bad is what promotes irrationality, backwardness, and de-industrialization as he defines them.  History is a struggle between those opposing forces. The struggle manifests itself through philosophical ideas, economics, entertainment, music, and personalities. Most of human history was marked by small oligarchies that ruled over the masses of people like cattle.  The evil men of the world kept the masses down by instilling false ideas about human nature, philosophy, and bad economic policies into the people’s minds.  The heroes of this world were the ones who installed rational thought in the masses and built huge works of industry and economic growth. It is through that paradigm that the Larouchites make their opinions about different things. As we shall see, that paradigm creates a twisted interpretation of things leaving many paradoxes and I should say rather humorous ones at that.

 

            History begins with oligarchies that keep their people down as we said earlier. The common feature of these societies is that they are fatalistic. Because they don’t promote progress in the form of industrial development they are all inherently bad. The people who promote progress in that form are good. Then while this progress is going on these banks come into spoil it. The banks that charge usurious rates do so purposely in order to hinder the development of society and turn back the clock. The Venetian bankers of the 12th century are blamed for the first famine and economic bust in history. Later those bankers somehow move to London where they create a new evil empire. 

                                          The Evil British

            Larouche has a very bizarre attitude about the British. They are the main center of evil in his propaganda. All evil stems from them. Larouche believes that the British, in particular the bankers out of London were always set on conquering the world. They are responsible for the brutality of imperialism in India and around the world. They are also responsible for the opium wars in China, and are still said to be drug dealers today.

                          Adam Smith and the American Revolution

            Adam Smith is said to have written his book “Wealth of Nations” in 1776 in  response to the American Revolution. He was supposedly told by the British Oligarchy to write the book in order to show that Free Trade was a good thing. In reality, Larouche claims, that the book was written to undermind the American revolution by undermining industry. It was supposed to be (again according to Larouche) part of the Oligarchy’s secret plan to keep the only industry center in London. However Adam Smith started writing the book long before the American Revolution. Also never mind the fact that the "Wealth of Nations" itself says that the free trade policies have negative effects and names places like colonial India as an example.

                                  The Civil War

            Even during the Civil War the British are said to have tried to undermine the U.S.A. Larouche claims that the British sided with the Confederacy. The Confederacy was of course an oligarchial slave country and the Union was the Mecca of modern industry. What evidence does Larouche  give for this theory? The purchase of cotton from the Confederate states. A proper use of historical sources will show different conclusions. Remember that Larouche claims England is ruled by an oligarchy-banker-monarchy. The first thing the historical record shows us is that the financial elites in England were working with financial elites in the Union states for many years. The British had huge investments in American industry. Why would the former support a war that will undermine their own economy?

 

At this point a Larouchie might ask, “what about the confederate cotton that England brought?” The above paragraph already refutes the absurd idea that England would support the Confederacy. Also when asking questions like these, a historian always asks “who,where, what and why?” The sell of cotton to the U.K. can be traced back to a single individual by the name of James Stillman. Stillman was a big time capitalist who lived in Brownsville Texas. He was from a blue blood family that got wealthy in the Carribean merchant business. Stillman had all the connections with the Morgans, Rockfellers, and all the rest of the titans of American capitalism. James Stillman brought cotton from the other parts of the Confederacy, shipped it down to port Bagdad on the Mexican coast, and under a Mexican flag, shipped the cotton to England. Stillman made tremendous profits and after the war still remained in the elite category.

                          Iranian Revolution

Larouche’s logic falls in the Iranian revolution in the same way as it did in the American Civil War. Larouche claims that the Ayatollah Khoemenia was supported by the British to undermine the Shah who was trying to turn Iran into a modern industrialized nation. Yet the British owned capital in Iran. In fact that is the reason why the Anglo-American alliance supported the coup against the nationalist Mossadegh government. In 1953 Mossagedh nationalized the British oil industry there. The anglo Americans didn’t like that so they had to overthrow him and support the Shah.

  Revolutions cannot be explained by conspiracies. They are movements of change that cause everyone to wake up and try to take fate into their own hands. The Islamic revolution cannot be explained by a secret conspiracy to overthrow the Shah. A real historian looks at all the changes taking place before the event. It is true that the Shah wanted to build a modern industrial state. That was in fact his down fall. He only saw things in economic terms. He did not consider the actual people who live and work. During the process of industrialization, many of the old classes were thrown into chaos. The people who were one time elites became the status of the masses. The religious class of scholars (ulama) had their power threatened by the Shah’s economic policies. This is what explains the process of revolution in Iran.

Larouche also believes that the British bankers were responsible for putting the Bolsheviks in power during the Russian revolution. Also his followers believe that Hitler was brought to power by a British banker. There is no reason go into further detail here.

 

                   Changing opinions of history?

A comprehensive study of Larouche material would show that the official opinions of the Larouchite movement changes. The best example of this is the fact that they once called themselves socialists but now subscribe to the "American Intellectual Tradition."  I wont name every example of this but one interesting change that comes to mind is the Larouchite opinion on China. 

After the death of Mao Tse Tung, the revolutionary leader, China took a new course. Under the leadership of Deng Xio Ping, the Chinese communist party decided to introduce capitalist methods in running their country.  Larouche is no communist supporter but his hatred of the "free market" runs deep. As late as 1992 The EIR wrote:

"The current regime in Beijing is clinging to power through terror, while ``opening up'' to the West by adopting the same failed form of free trade policies which Hamilton attacked 200 years ago. Under the tutelage of Henry Kissinger and associates, Deng Xiaoping and the reformers have created free trade zones for unregulated exploitation of cheap labor and speculation, while the basic industry and agriculture of the nation slides into collapse."

  In 1998 Helga Zepp Larouche (Lyndon's wife) presented a much different view of the new regime in China. She said in a speech concerning Deng Xioping:

"China, when it was able to break with the evil tradition of the Cultural Revolution and started the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping about 20 years ago, could unleash--especially in the last 10 to 15 years--the most unprecedented economic transformation of any country in the world....

...When Deng Xiaoping replaced this period with his reforms, he started to put China back on the track of the old Confucian tradition, and the country could maintain an annual growth rate of about 12% in the last years."

In the beginning we hear talk of the evil Deng Xiopingists using "Malthusian" policies to depopulate China. Now we hear about the glory of Chinese economic development. What caused Larouche make a 180 degree turn in his attitude to China? My theory is that it has to do with the Catholic Church. In the mid 1990s the Pope John Paul 2 reached out to China and called for a dialogue of civilizations. Larouche is a big fan of the Catholic Church and praises them in his magazines and newspapers. Sometimes works of the clergy are included. Larouhe changed his opinion on China right when the Vatican did. 

                           After the 2000 election I remember the Larouche people didn't have anything bad to say about Dick Cheney. Most of their antagonism was against President Bush. They didn't attack him for his policies as much as his family background (being the 16th cousin to the Queen of England and a grandpa who invested money Nazi Germany's steel industry.) In fact, one of the spokemen to Larouche remarked that maybe Mr. Cheney can set Bush on the right path.  Then all of a sudden you hear about the evil Neo-Cons in the Bush administration. You also hear a lot of name calling such as "new beast men." Also Bush becomes a puppet of Cheney and all these different ties Cheney has to corporations are stated. 

                                    Neo-Cons and Hypocrisy

    Most of the hate in Larouche's papers are spit at the Neo-Conservatives. In one speech Larouche denounced the Neo-Cons as "ex Trotskyites."  When I first heard this I was confused if he was complementing them or criticzing them. The reason is obviously because Larouche him self is an ex-Trotskyite. 

                                               Slopping things together

        Another noticeable anomaly in Larouche's writings is the slopping together of people and ideas that have nothing to do with each other. The so called "American Tradition" is a classic example of this. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy are said to be apart of this tradition. There is no common thread between those individuals. In order to put them together in this absurd abstraction it is necessary to first cut them up, twist them around, and put then in different places. 

                         The   Roosevelt's: Family divided in 2

            Not included in the American Tradition is Teddy Roosevelt. Why isn't he? His cousin Frankie was. Also Larouche mentioned that Frankie was descended from a prominent banker who helped finance the American revolution. But Teddy Roosevelt was evil, he was responsible for bringing down the Republican administration and installing Woodrow Wilson in the White House. Also Teddy had an ancestor that helped the Confederacy during the Civil War. But wait a minute, aren't all these people in the same family? 

                                                 Philosophy

     The philosophy of Larouche is founded on Plato, Liebnitz and the Rennaisance. Reason is put above all else. Humans must live by reason to discover truth. The whole world is manifest with different laws and principals that man must discover. There is of course a force of evil that struggles against this world view. 

    The struggle of ideas was first manifest according to LaRouche with the ideas of Plato and Aristotle. Plato with his inductive method of philosophy was good. Aristotle however was somehow in a struggle with Plato and propagated evil ideas. Aristotle according to Larouche made man into an animal moved by forces beyond his control, thus turning man into a slave. He was also responsible for philosophical materialism. That is the idea that everything that exist is matter that can be perceived by our senses and nothing else.  Their struggle would be manifest again through future philosophers. People like Liebnitz, St. Thomas, and Gauss were good while many more like Newton, Locke, Pascal, Marx, Freud, Russell, Jung, and Adam Smith were all bad. The great philosophers are usually those that regurgitate Plato in different forms (no pun intended.) 

    Some of the philosophers Larouche hates is merely because of their associations. Carl Jung for example made speeches at Tavistock,  A British secret service center.  Many of the philosophers Larouche hates is also  because he doesn't like their ideas. If you were to go into academia and write a paper that is disagreeable to Larouche you will be branded to. Since when did thinking become a crime? 

                                    More materialist then Aristotle? 

     Despite the fact Larouche has a favorable attitude towards religion and hates materialism , he  hates mysticism. The Larouche writings show no understanding of mysticism. One larouchite article said that mysticism and materialism were basically 2 sides of the same coin. The Mystics are usually people who work for the oligarchy to try to undermined Reason. The cabbalists in Europe were secret Satanists  working for the Venetian and British financial oligarchy. the Taoists and Buddhists  came about to destroy the Confucian tradition of China, and the Sufis were created by the Caliphate to destroy Reason in the Islamic world. 

          The mystics have taught that in every person there exists a force that is above everything else. From this force man can make the ultimate discernment of truth from falsehood. Intuition is recognized universally as this force. Even reason itself, which is above the empirical senses, is subordinate to reason. Plato recognized this fact by referring to reason as the  "bastard discernment."  Even his supposed foe, who Larouche thinks is the root of all evil, Aristotle said in his Ethics that intuition is above all else. Yet Larouche places the discernment of truth on reason. This makes Larouche more materialistic then Aristotle! Mr. Larouche, Just who are the real conspirators trying to destroy man's capabilities by limiting his knowledge?

                                Economics

    Larouche's economic policies can be described as very socialistic. He believes in nationalizing all the major banks in order to generate cheap loans to industry in order to build stuff. The emphasis is on building infrastructure.  I have no problem with most of his economic policies. However there are some problems the Larouchies fail to address. The Larouche people are not anti-capitalist and believe in the glories of entrepreneurship. Problems can develop when government and private entities work together that can create huge imbalances. During the period of rapid industrialization, late 19 early 20th century, government entities worked together with the big titans of capitalism to build the railroads. The government helped stopped competition by favoring those titans. Unsurprisingly there is no mention of them in Larouches publications.

 

Well I there is just to many errors Larouche made to be pointed out here. Just writing this is excruciating enough. Ill probably add more stuff later. I’m sure you get the point that Larouche is an idiot.