Up until a few days ago, I paid no attention to LaRouche. I was vaguely aware that "LaRouchies" attended some of the same meetings I attended, and were passionate about nuclear power, but that was about it. Then a friend asked if I would look at the LaRouche movement and provide recommendations on how to address their positions and their participants.
This will hardly be a definitive analysis, but it should provide basis for further communication.
Start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
This is a disputed entry, with claims of bias. So see also the discussion of the controversy. We'll use it for basic biographical context. Here is the Introduction from the wiki entry, but you should read the whole entry, and the dispute material.
Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922 in Rochester, New Hampshire) is an American political activist and founder of several political organizations in the United States and elsewhere, jointly referred to as the LaRouche movement. He is known as a perennial candidate for President of the United States, having run for the Democratic nomination for President in every election cycle since 1980 and having contested the 1976 election as the candidate of the now-defunct U.S. Labor Party--a total of eight attempts.
From the same piece is a quote from Tim Wohlforth:
This strikes me as dead-on. From the little I'd read of LaRouche's writings before seeing the Wikipedia article, I was struck by his:
EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) is the main publication channel: http://www.larouchepub.com/
Drawing specifically from the Feb 9, 2007 hardcopy issue, we find key themes repeated. The opening article by LaRouche gives 7 "delusions" of contemporary politics:
These are apparently the basis for pretty much everything the LaRouche Movement addresses today. I'll assume that anything published in EIR is approved by LaRouche personally, because the message and style are quite consistent across the authors.
In its clearest form:
From some reason LaRouche calls the bad guys Anglo-Dutch Liberalism. The term "synarchy" shows up too. He specifically mentions Felix Rohaten, George Shultz and a few others. He specifically references Perkins's book ("The Confessions of an Economic Hitman").
Is this vision or opportunism? The WTO Seattle 1999 uprising was 50,000 people already well-aware of the issue. Others have told the story with much more attention to detail (e.g., Korten, "When Corporations Rule the World"). LaRouche may be a good early adopter or publicist.
What is sure is that if this analysis is true, then those powerful parties being exposed will fight long, hard, and dirty to crush the tellers-of-tales.
One could expect LaRouche to be personally vilified as a "conspiracy theorist" and nut case. Perhaps a bit of jail time as well. Utter failure by the (corporate-funded) mainstream political parties to grapple with the implications of the analysis. Marginalization of anyone within those parties who speaks out.
Under this analysis WTO/NAFTA/CAFTA/IMF/GATT is a scam and free-trade/fair-trade is code for plutocracy-vs-nation-state. Whether or not LaRouche is personally a nut case, the issue is not going away.
I could sarcastically note that it is a bit unclear what the questions might be, but the LaRouche answer is nuclear power, esp. breeder reactors.
However, the LaRouche position deserves a more thoughtful response. First, the global power brokers (in both senses) really believe the oil game will end within their lifetimes, and they are planning ahead. They really believe nuclear power, esp fast breeders, are the way forward. It generates electricity, and it keeps political power in a very few hands.
Many people are aware of the power consolidation issue. Instead of just vaguely worrying it might happen, LaRouche names names and provides citations:
In other words, whatever you think of nuclear power, you can appreciate LaRouche for pointing out that specific players are planning to run it as a worldwide cartel. That gives context for understanding Russia and the US vieing to help India do nuclear power reactors. And for the Bush/Carlyle intention to bomb Iran out of the nuclear business whether or not it is actually making nuclear weapons.
[Non-LaRouche aside: Notice that this is NOT about nuclear weapons. This is about controlling domestic power in the Post-Oil age. If your lights turn on, or your electric car runs, or your computer accesses the Internet, it will be because George Shultz approves of your political opinions.]
The odd thing is that even without the GNEP gambit, nuclear power plays into the hands of the global financiers LaRouche rails against. This is the kind of LaRouchian inconsistency that brings "poisoned well" and "nut case" to mind.
As a side-note, LaRouche sees nuclear power as the way to water desalinization and thus adequate water for everyone. I don't think the math works out that neatly, but I do applaud the attention to water. Of course soil scientists have been pointing out the crisis for decades. Again, visionary or early adopter?
It appears Mr. LaRouche is not a scientist. Or even a fan of the Roger Bacon's scientific method or Occam's Razor.
I get the impression that he tangles the problem of global warming with the leftie-greenie solution to use solar et al (and to avoid nuclear power). Something like: The solution is wrong and therefore the problem is a hoax.
Apparently the main scorn is for ethanol, where scorn is well deserved. There is little question (to me at any rate) that it is a scam perpetrated of/for/by agribusiness.
No mention of bio-diesel, though that too has some drawbacks. Even less mention of
From what I see, the criticisms re anti-semitism are based on innuendo and inference (see the wikipedia article and its references). Given LaRouche's self-study in philosophy, and his concerns over international financiers, I can well imagine he does have hatred for certain specific Jews, or maybe even Judaism in general. But I also can imagine that the ferocious claims of anti-semitism are part of a deliberate smear campaign to isolate LaRouchies from their natural compatriots on subjects such as corporate rule or fair-trade.
Basically, I consider this a non-issue. Anyone reading LaRouche material should already have a well-formed understanding of the roles of Judaism, Zionism, Israeli government, Mossad, international financial transactions, etc. They should understand that "Never Again" includes willingness to do psyops on the American public. They should understand that wealthy Anglo (non-Jewish) power players are also willing to do psyops on the American public, and to use the label "anti-semitism" to those ends.
If a mild-mannered guy like Jimmy Carter can be excoriated for anti-semitism, maybe there is something amiss with the name-callers.
We need to distinguish fascism from anti-semitism. German fascists used Jews (and gypsies) as scapegoats. These days American fascists sometimes use Hispanic immigrants. Fascism is not about the scapegoats but about the agenda, which is best summed up by Calvin Coolidge: "The business of America is business". http://www.bartleby.com/59/12/businessofam.html
Fascism is often associated with the Big Lie technique of propaganda, and it appears LaRouche uses that: http://dennisking.org/fager.htm
I wasn't able to find specific comments or phrases symbolic for fascism, but here are some anti-LaRouchians on the subject
Anyone reading LaRouche material should already have a solid grasp of global politics and understand that
LaRouche personally is vastly amazed by his own brilliance. At least some followers are dazzled by him as well. The egotism is not warranted and gets in the way of otherwise useful analyses.
The LaRouche material is a mixture of what appears to be deep insight and utter nut case. The "deep insight" is never truly original, and may instead be early adopter or opportunism.
The juxtaposition of solid geopolitical analyses with nut case stuff brings to mind "poisoned well". Who benefits from a ready-made excuse to dismiss all anti-globalization analyses as lunacy?
Setting aside questions of motive, LaRouche provides links, citations and memes useful for understanding the world. Consider it an intelligence source akin to a stock market advisory newsletter. As such, you take nothing at face value, but you do appreciate the insights provided.
LaRouche claims to be a visionary -- every new idea was his and usurpers took credit. Some suggest he is selling the same Marxism over and over, but changes the sales package with the changing years. My impression is that his movement is on target about the role of wealthy families in conquering nation states (including the US), but the rest of it is dicey.
A true power player sees LaRouche as a way to pin the label "conspiracy nut case" on all anti-globalization efforts. This is done through shells and shills. True power players never ever appear in politics or in the tabloids. They hire senators, representatives, judges, and presidents to do their bidding. ("Hiring" is done by revolving doors where a promising political newcomer is shipped off to a corporate position at a bloated salary and even more bloated severance package; then back to politics to do the bidding of the masters).
A card-carrying Republican can safely call all LaRouchies nut cases and refuse to listen to anything they have to say. Reality has little impact on Republicans.
A card-carrying Democrat has a tougher time of it.
If you are the type who lives inside the two-party system, and believes in large campaign donations used to drive TV spots, then a LaRouchie is your enemy. Call them nut cases and kick them out of the temple. You can't afford to be contaminated by association. Republicans will play up every LaRouche/Democrat encounter.
If you are the type of Democrat who believes the Democratic Party is rotten at the top due to campaign financing, but can be salvaged from the bottom via grassroots, then invite the LaRouchie to participate in local discussion. But insist on informed, coherent dialog (from all parties).
A LaRouchie who just recites the EIR message-of-the-month and cannot explain WHY these positions are true and relevant is a disrupter who should be shown the door. On the internet they'd be called trolls.
A LaRouchie who actually understand the EIR message can provide:
You don't have to be a nut case yourself to appreciate and use the nuggets of information buried in the message. And the individual people who arrive bearing LaRouche literature may turn out to be interesting and valued associates.
On the other hand, I wouldn't go out of my way to pay attention to LaRouchies. Life is too short. There are far more efficient ways to find useful information.
Creator: Harry George