Since my earliest awareness of him, starting in the early eighties, I’ve always thought of Lyndon LaRouche as a shining example–if not THE shining example–of the fring wacko. (Didn’t he advocate building camps on the moon to warehouse AIDS patients?)
Suddenly I’m seeing all these clear-eyed kids manning these Youth for LaRouche booths. I stopped at one and talked to this young guy–mostly because he was really cute–and asked him if he’d looked very far into LaRouche, or if he just knew him from his own literature. He said he’d read a lot of his stuff, and I asked him if he was aware that LaRouche was insane. He blinked, and said, “He’s not insane. His policies are based on the Truth.” I said, “Don’t take my word for it; just dig a little deeper.”
He kind of rolled his eyes and started to turn away. I said, “Dude, he’s been running for president longer than you’ve been on the planet. He’s left quite a paper trail. Don’t take my word for it, but don’t take his word for it either. Just dig a little deeper.”
He wasn’t having it.
But it left me wondering what’s going on? Has Larouche reformed to any degree, or has he perfected some new brainwashing techniques, or has he just waited long enough for a new generation to spring up, blissfully unaware that he’s barking mad?
I’ve never been able to figure out what Lynnie’s draw is. Even when he was loudly accusing QE II of being the world’s biggest drug dealer he was able to attract people to his cause. (I knew a woman who was a very good computer security analyst who simply quit her job to go support one of his campaigns–and he had already been indicted on one of his scams.)
Well, the indictment was just a vindication apparently–not to mention the conviction and jail time. The current word is that it only proved how dangerous he was to the status quo, and to what extreme lengths the government is willing to go to silence him. Made him a political martyr in his followers’ eyes.
He wrote a pamphlet titled “Kissinger: The Politics of Faggotry.”
Some quotes:
“The first United States-grown rock group of that type, the Grateful Dead, was generated as a British intelligence operation by the Occult Bureau . . .”
“The Nazis were operating in the 1930s out of Hollywood and elsewhere with an occult astrology racket kind of intelligence operation.”
“How do you brainwash somebody? Well, first of all, you generally pull a psychological profile or develop one in a preliminary period. You find every vulnerability of that person from a psychoanalytic standpoint. Now the next thing you do is you build them up for fear in males and females of homsexuality, aim them for an anal identification with anal sex, their mouth is identified with fellacio. Their mouth is identified only with the penis—that kind of sex, and with woman. Womanhood is the fellacio of the male mouth in a man who has been brainwashed by the KGB; that is sucking penises. . . .”
“First they say your father was nothing, your father was a queer, your father was a woman. They play very strongly on homosexual fears. It doesn’t work on women. . . .Most women are to a large degree homosexual in this society. The relationship between daughter and mother is homosexual, so the thing is not much of a threat.”
“But to young men it is generally a grave threat. . fears about masturbation. . . .They say, `See that sheep. Wouldn’t you like to do that to a sheep?’” “It’s not the pain that brainwashes, it’s forcing the victim to run away from the pain by taking the bait of degrading himself. This persistant pattern of self-degradation, selfhumiliation, is what essentially accomplishes the brainwashing.”
“Any of you who say this is a hoax–you’re cruds! You’re subhuman! You’re not serious. The human race is at stake. Either we win or there is no humanity. That’s the way she’s cut.”
I first encountered LL when I was attending Georgetown University in the early '80s and came across some flyers about the “unspeakable evil” of Aristotle, Ruholla Khomeini, and Henry Kissinger. I did some research on LaRouche. It appears he was a left-wing radical in the 60s, writing his first book under the name “Lyn Marcus” (from Lenin and Marx). He also tried to start something called the U.S. Labor Party, which didn’t last long. Somehow his thinking underwent a sea change and he became . . . well, to begin with, in broad terms, a Manichean, viewing human history as an endless struggle between good and evil forces. In his system, the evil side is characterized by agrarianism, rural aristocracy, slavery; the good side by science, industry, technology, and “humanism.” Most important figures of history fall on one side or the other. Good: Plato, Schiller, Beethoven. Bad: Aristotle, Bertrand Russell (and practically all British philosophers), William Buckley. He also accuses the British crown of running the world drug trade (which it once did, more or less, but that was in the time of the Opium Wars). Some critics assert that LaRouche is really an anti-semite and when he says “British” it’s a euphemism for “Jewish.” This was the position of Dennis King in his book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (Doubleday, 1990). At any rate, his organization definitely is a cult with a single charismatic leader whose position is unrivalled.
One important part of LaRouche’s message is that technology is the answer to everything, that enough R&D can feed all the world’s hungry and solve all our problems. His organizations include, or included, something called the Fusion Energy Foundation. I saw LaRouchies handing out leaflets in favor of a space-based missle defense system at least a year before Reagan announced his SDI proposal. However, for some reason, the LaRouchies regarded the administration’s SDI proponents as enemies and accused Lt.Gen. Daniel Graham of being insane.
One thing I’ve always wondered about LaRouche’s organization is where it gets its money. A lot of its publications have been slickly done enough to have required some substantial funding. It is a cult-like organization of fanatically dedicated followers, but how much can they bring in? It might be conspiracy-theorizing of a LaRouchian bent – but I wonder if some rich, powerful types have given LL some help over the years for reasons of their own.
If you want to know the LaRouchies’ positions in their own words, check out the following websites:
LaRouche in 2004 (campaign website – he’s once again running for the Democratic presidential nomination): http://larouchein2004.net/
QEII a drug dealer? not surprised being married to a shape- shifting Greek who is head of the Illuminati…David Icke ex- Coventry City Goalkeeper and Saturday afternoon commentator for any number of obscure sports on The BBC’s ‘Grandstand’ knows the score…
Well, it is hot over here…
Dude set up a small booth last year near the Academic Center at George Washington University, where I go.
The guys in the room next to mine used to decorate their door with tracts that the folks handed out. Apparently, Jerry Falwell is in a conspiracy with the Moonninites. :rolleyes:
Larouche was referring to the Opium Wars. At that time, the British Empire was the world’s biggest drug dealer. A number of American fortunes were made as well. It was politely referred to as the “China trade.” Elihu Yale was one of them, thus Yale University’s large endowment.
the LaRouche Space-based Missile Defense was majorly high-tech relying on a lot of future inventions while Lt. Daniel O. Graham’s High Frontier plan was relatively low-tech utilizing weaponry already on the shelf. The LaR plan’s high-tech investments were to cause a major economic boom (this was part of his 1980 campaign to get out of the Carter malaise). Another plan at the time was to create a common gold-based currency between the US & the USSR so we would be economically interdependent & have zero incentive for nuclear war.
But the damn Trilateral agents of Albert Pike foiled him!
Elihu Yale died in 1721, a full century before the Opium Wars in China. He made his pile with the East India Co. in India; doesn’t appear to have had any connexion with China or opium.
I dabbled with Larouchies briefly in the early nineties. I thought some of their technological goals were intertesting, but the rest of the time they were just nuts.
I used to see them all the time when I went to George Mason University. The LaRouche’s were a bit scary in how dedicated they were. They reminded me of religious zealots, to tell the truth.