Misplaced Pages

Lyndon LaRouche

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 13 August 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:25, 13 August 2004 by Everyking (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
File:Ac.larouche.jpg
Lyndon LaRouche

Template:TotallyDisputed

Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (born September 8, 1922), American political activist, leads political organizations in the United States and other countries. Although he has no formal qualifications, he describes himself as an economist and has written extensively on economic as well as political subjects. He is a perennial candidate for the position of President of the United States having run eight times, but has never gained significant electoral support.

LaRouche is probably the best-known exponent of conspiracy theories in the United States. He is frequently described as an extremist or a cult leader, and is frequently accused of being a fascist and anti-Semite. He denies these charges, and his followers regard him as a major political figure, indeed a world leader. In 1988 LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax code violations.

Early life

LaRouche was born in Rochester, New Hampshire, where his father, an immigrant from Quebec, was a shoe salesman. He was raised as a Quaker and enrolled at Northeastern University in Boston, but dropped out in 1942. As a Quaker, he was at first a conscientious objector during World War II, but in 1944 he joined the United States Army, serving in medical units in India. During this period he read works by Karl Marx and was converted to Marxism. After leaving the Army in 1946, LaRouche attempted to resume his university education, but again dropped out of Northeastern but settled in Boston where, in 1949, he joined the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), a small Trotskyist party. In the SWP he used the pseudonym Lyn Marcus. In 1954 he moved to New York City and married a fellow SWP member, Janice Neuberger.

As a member of the SWP, LaRouche obtained work at a General Electric factory in Lynn, Massachusetts. In 1952 he suffered a nervous breakdown and was fired from his job for absenteeism. Twenty years later, LaRouche said of his breakdown that he went through a serious period of introspection:

stripping away all the layers of my persona, like an onion. If you take this far enough, you get to the point where you become terrified that there's nothing inside all the peelings-that you're a nobody. This put me in a suicidal state. It was only my tremendous ego-strength, which my parents had provided me, that saved me from suicide.

Following his recovery, LaRouche obtained work as a management consultant including, paradoxically for a Marxist, advising companies on how to use computers to maximise efficiency and speed-up production to the detriment of workers.

LaRouche remained in the SWP until 1965, making him a veteran member in a group which always had a high turnover of members. He now maintains that he was soon disillusioned with Marxism and stayed in the SWP only as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. His ex-wife and other SWP members from that time dispute this, saying that he was a loyal and zealous party member, although this is not definitive evidence that he was not an FBI informer. During these years LaRouche developed his interests in economics, cybernetics, psychoanalysis, business management and other subjects. He is undoubtedly well-read in these and other subjects. Janice left him in 1963 (they had one son, Daniel, born in 1956) and, in the late 1960s, she became a leader of the New York City branch of the National Organization of Women. In the 1990s she was a founder of Veteran Feminists of America. It is unknown if LaRouche's strident criticisms of feminism is a product of the breakdown of his first marriage.

In 1964 LaRouche, while still in the SWP (he was to be expelled the next year), became a supporter of the Revolutionary Tendency which had been expelled from the party and was under the influence of the British dissident Trotskyist leader Gerry Healy, leader of the British Socialist Labour League (ancestor of the later Workers Revolutionary Party). Those familiar with the left in this period believe that LaRouche was heavily influenced by Healy's conspiratorial world-view and his advocacy of violence and intimidation, something foreign to the intellectual tradition of mainstream Trotskyism. For six months he worked closely with American Healyite leader Tim Wohlforth who later wrote:

LaRouche had a gargantuan ego. Convinced he was a genius, he combined his strong conviction in his own abilities with an arrogance expressed in the cadences of upper-class New England. He assumed that the comment in the Communist Manifesto that "a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class..." was written specifically for him. And he believed that the working class was lucky to obtain his services.
LaRouche possessed a marvelous ability to place any world happening in a larger context, which seemed to give the event additional meaning, but his thinking was schematic, lacking factual detail and depth. It was contradictory. His explanations were a bit too pat, and his mind worked so quickly that I always suspected his bravado covered over superficiality. He had an answer for everything. Sessions with him reminded me of a parlor game: present a problem, no matter how petty, and without so much as blinking his eye, LaRouche would dream up the solution.

In 1965, LaRouche left Wohlforth's group and joined the Spartacist League, another Trotskyist group, which had also split with Wohlforth. He left the Spartacist League after a few months and then wrote a letter to the SWP declaring that all factions and sections of the Trotskyist Fourth International were dead, and announcing that he and his new common-law wife, Carol Schnitzer, were going to build the Fifth International.

After his break with Trotskyism LaRouche remained active in the left. In 1966, the LaRouches joined the New Left Committee for Independent Political Action and formed a branch in New York's West Village. He began giving classes for the New York Free School on "dialectical materialism" and attacted around him a group of graduate students from Columbia University many of whom were involved with the Maoist Progressive Labor (PL) group which was itself very prominent in the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS).

LaRouche's movement was heavily involved in the 1968 occupation of Columbia University and student strike and he was able to win control of Columbia's SDS and PL branches by putting forward a political program linking student struggles with those of Blacks in Harlem (located just off campus). His growing following allowed him to create a third tendency within the SDS competing with the two dominant tendencies, the "Action Faction" led by Mark Rudd (which soon became the Weather Underground) and the "Praxis Axis" which saw students as the vanguard of the revolution.

LaRouche organised his faction as the "SDS Labor Committee" because LaRouche criticized SDS, and the New Left in general, for being too oriented toward the counterculture, and not enough toward labor. (This was a common complaint in the New Left, which was largely composed of students and of drop-outs like LaRouche.) He held meetings in the Columbia area. Wohlforth attended one and writes:

Twenty to 30 students would gather in a large apartment and sit on the floor surrounding LaRouche, who now sported a very shaggy beard. The meeting would sometimes go on as long as seven hours. It was difficult to tell where discussions of tactics left off and educational presentation began. Encouraging the students, LaRouche gave them esoteric assignments, such as searching through the writings of Georges Sorel to discover Rudd's anarchistic origins, or studying Rosa Luxemburg's The Accumulation of Capital. Since SDS was strong on spirit and action but rather bereft of theory, the students appeared to thoroughly enjoy this work.

He was heavily involved in SDS despite not being a student, and in the PL's internal battles despite not being a member. Once again, LaRouche now maintains that he was an FBI agent during all this activism, but his closest colleagues from this period dismiss this suggestion as absurd.

LaRouche and the NCLC

In 1969 LaRouche formed the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), a grouping of ex-SDS activists and other ex-Trotskyists. Despite its name the NCLC had no significant connection with the labor movement. It soon developed the hallmarks of a cult, with a charismatic leader (LaRouche), a catastrophist and conspiratorial ideology, and an esoteric vocabulary known only to initiates. NCLC members gave up their jobs and private lives and became entirely devoted to the group and its leader. Like many cults, the LaRouche organization developed an internal discipline technique, called "ego stripping," which reinforced conformity and loyalty to LaRouche.

LaRouche's theory was influenced by what he called his "Theory of Hegemony" which was derived from Lenin's view of the role of intellectuals in being a vanguard helping workers develop their consciousness and realise their leading role in society. He was also influnced by Gramsci's concept of a hegemon as an intellectual and cultural elite which directs social thought. LaRouche's theory saw himself and his followers as being able to become such a hegemonic force.

LaRouche was also influenced by his readings of Luxemburg's The Accumulation of Capital and Karl Marx's Capital developing his own "theory of reindustralization," arguing that the west would attempt to industrialize the Third World, particularly India, and attempt to solve the economic crisis both by developing new markets in the Third World and using its cheap and surplus labor to increase profits and minimise costs. This attempt would be unsuccessful, however, and would lead to catastrophic economic collapse. To oppose this, LaRouche argued for a "reindustrialization" of the United States with himself at the vanguard of the effort allowing him to personally resolve the crisis of capitalism. Though his arguments have since been stripped of their quasi-Marxist language and citations, his core theories have remained essentially the same since the late 1960s.

Wohlforth writes:

This scheme, which shaped LaRouche writings and agitation in the late '60s and early '70s, was presented in an increasingly frenetic manner, bolstered by predictions of economic doom. LaRouche was a crisis-monger of the highest order. LaRouche and his followers became increasingly convinced that the fate of the world rested with their group and their great leader. The problem lay with the stupidity of the nation's leaders and the boorishness of the masses. If only LaRouche were in power, all the world's troubles - perhaps even the rats problem in New York City - would be resolved swiftly.

In the 1970s LaRouche developed an intense interest in fascism, and began to adopt some of its slogans and practices, while maintaining (as he still does) an outward stance of anti-fascism. He began to regard himself and his followers as "Prometheans," superior to all other people, and under his direction the NCLC adopted violent and disruptive tactics, physically attacking meetings of the Communist Party and later of the SWP and other groups, who were classed by LaRouche as "left-protofascists." "Operation Mop-Up" began with LaRouche's declaration that ""We must take hegemony from the CP-from here on in, the CP cannot hold a meeting on the East Coast. We'll mop them up in two months." NCLC members engaged in a series of well-documented beatings of members of the Communist Party . Some ex-NCLC members who left the group at this time say that LaRouche was studying the career of Adolf Hitler and consciously adopting the tactics of the early Nazi Party.

In 1972 LaRouche's second wife, Carol Schnitzer, left him for Christopher White, a younger man who was a member of the LaRouche movement in Britain. LaRouche is thought to have had a breakdown as a result and his writings became obsessively anti-feminist to the point of misogynism and obsessed with sex. In one of his articles, "The Sexual Impotency of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party", LaRouche wrote:

The classical case is the sexually athletic Macho who regards himself as a successful performer in bed, the Macho who has much to say and think respecting his capacities for various modes of penetration and frequency and cubic centimeters of ejaculations. The ugly secret of the matter is that he is almost totally sexually impotent.
Firstly, his sexual relations are not relations at all, but are essentially sexual performances before an internalized audience. He is admittedly somewhat ambivalent about inviting a large audience to witness his performance with even a prostitute, which does not inhibit his homosexual impulse to recount his fantasy of the performance in the most painstaking detail (somewhat “improved” in the telling) before the first large audience he deems suitable for this purpose. His relationship to the woman is immediately a relationship of himself, as performer in a fantasy, to an audience for this fantasy.
Secondly, the woman with whom he is psychologically mating is seldom (if ever) the woman in bed with him; he is making love to a woman of pure fantasy. The actual woman's relationship to this fantasy is predominantly negative. She must, of course, suggest the woman of his fantasy to him, either by a resemblance to the fantasy-object or by the law of reaction-formation. Her essential duty to the performer is to play her part in such a way that she re-enforces and does not unmask the fantasy.
Hence, among the Macho's favorite prostitutes and mistresses, the art of playing various fantasy-supporting roles is the quality which the poor, impotent Macho finds most endearing. She, too, is merely giving a performance, and participating in the game in terms of her own fantasies.
Sometimes—often enough—her fantasy is not specifically sexual at all, but rather one of pure female sadism. With the (typically) frigid woman, the gratification of sexual performances originates in the sense of power over the male whom she sees as essentially pathetic.

In 1974 and 1975, on the heels of Operation Mop-Up, the LaRouche organization took a further turn towards misogyny and psychological mistreatment of its members. LaRouche issued an article called "Beyond Psychoanalysis" which instituted a regime of "ego-stripping" sessions and social coercion in which individuals would be subjected to incessant group criticism.

In her resignation statement from the executive of the NCLC, Christine Berle wrote:

The psychological climate that had been engendered by Operation Mop-Up set the stage for a tendency which has since crippled the organization. Since the political content of any disagreement with the policies of the leadership during Mop-Up could be dismissed not on its own terms, but as a pathology . A situation was created in which members were intimidated by peer-group pressure from voicing their own doubts; and indeed the terror of taking such an independent position compelled them to actually begin to consider these doubts within themselves as the consequence of a neurosis. Hence, the transformation of an organization composed of creative individuals capable of collectively synthesizing new concepts by means of a dialectic into an organization of rank-and-file automatons.
...Marcus' pseudo-psychoanalytical sessions, begun in Aug. 1975 with the NEC and all people in leading positions of responsibility, provid(ing) the final link in a process that culminated in Marcus' total hegemony over the organization.
According to Marcus, the purpose of the sessions was to create a new kind of leadership based on the capacity to withstand psychological terror; but in reality the content of the sessions themselves was pure psychological terror. What the leaders were asked to withstand was described by Marcus as the stripping away of the persona before the entire group; but in actuality what was stripped away was their very identities.

Further, she wrote:

It is scarcely surprising that the participants of the sessions should have been prey, to all, sorts of deep-seated feelings of self-hatred and worthlessness. Or that Marcus could have been able to manipulate those feelings to the point that any allegation, and particularly one that diagnosed a neurosis, would have to be believed. Moreover, Marcus was extremely skillful at turning the group on an individual who had been selected on the basis of rumors that he had failed to perform politically during the week, so that, from a congress of leaders, the group was transformed into sniveling informers vying with each other for Marcus' approval.

Similarly, following his resignation from the NCLC, Fred Newman who is a pychotherapist by training, wrote in his open letter to the NCLC: "With each passing day it becomes more and more transparently obvious that the National Caucus of Labor Committees' minimal understanding of psychosis and psychotic behavior derives not from its "electrifying" theoretical breakthroughs but rather from its capacity to produce psychosis and to opportunistically manipulate it in the name of socialist politics."

LaRouche's theories of sexual dyanamics and female domination of men resulted in a breakdown of relations between the sexes and the break up of dozens of relationships as women were attacked for being "sadistic bitches" and "witches," and for "mother-dominating" men.

Berle commented:

Women were hit particularly viciously with this form of reductionism even to the point of tracing their sexuality to the proximity of the anus and the vagina with only the thin strip of the perineum distinguishing between the two. Marcus claimed that this anatomical peculiarity was the origin of women's feelings of degradation, since it gave rise to their confusion of the sexual act with the act of excretion.

LaRouche steered the NCLC away from the left and towards the extreme right, while retaining some of the slogans and attitudes of the left (as did the founder of fascism, the ex-Socialist Benito Mussolini, and many others since). The Marxist concept of the ruling class was converted by LaRouche into a gigantic conspiracy theory, in which world capitalism was controlled by a secret cabal including the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Henry Kissinger, the Council on Foreign Relations and other standard villains of the extreme right, many though not all of them Jewish. LaRouche added some novel variations on this theme. The heart of the conspiracy, according to LaRouche, was the financial elite of the City of London. LaRouche has always been violently anti-British - a trait shared by many American isolationists - and has included Queen Elizabeth II, among others, in his list of conspirators.

In the 1980s LaRouche's political rhetoric and accusations grew more detached from generally accepted reality. Hitler had been a British agent. Menachem Begin was a Nazi. The Beatles were "a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division specifications." Both Communism and Fascism were facets of the great overarching conspiracy of the "Synarchy," an oligarchical network of financiers and manipulators who rule the world. Only LaRouche and his "humanist elite" fully understand this vast conspiracy, and possess the willpower and knowledge to withstand it. LaRouche's personal egotism is a significant force driving his politics. In 1979 he wrote: "My principal accomplishment is that of being, by a large margin of advantage, the leading economist of the twentieth century to date." Some of LaRouche's conspiracy theories appear to border on self-parody, "Who is pushing the world toward war?" he asked in "An Open Letter to President Brezhnev" (June 2, 1981). "It is the forces behind the World Wildlife Fund, the Club of Rome, and the heritage of H. G. Wells and the evil Bertrand Russell."

LaRouche claims that there is also a conspiracy by the "Establishment" and the press it allegedly controls to deny him coverage and prevent his views becoming known. He cites as evidence for this a September 24, 1976 opinion piece in the Washington Post, entitled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," and written by Stephen Rosenfeld, a senior editor. Rosenfeld wrote: "We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence-prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms." In fact LaRouche has continued to receive considerable press coverage, more in fact than the real importance of his organization might seem to warrant, although most of this coverage has been hostile.

Economic views

Although he has no academic qualifications, LaRouche claims to be an economist, and has written extensively on economic subjects. Since he is not taken seriously by mainstream economists, there is no academic literature analysing his economic ideas. He claims that his economic ideas are descended from the "American System," a slogan originally associated with Alexander Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington and the main critic of the policies of Jeffersonian liberalism), and later with Henry Clay. In practice this amounts to advocating centralised, though not socialist, state control of the economy, with heavy state investment in industry and science. Economists would classify these ideas as mercantilist, some of his opponents call them reminiscent of Mussolini's corporatism.

LaRouche's theory is that the principal subject of economics is the ability of the cognitive powers of the individual human mind to make new "discoveries of universal principles." These discoveries, LaRouche says, lead to revolutions in technology, which re-define man's relationship to nature in a "non-linear way." Such revolutions, he says, are contingent on the "viability of the culture," on its capacity to absorb and transmit new ideas: LaRouche asserts that the most historically successful variety of culture is what he terms the classical culture of Ancient Greece during the time of Plato, or the culture of Europe in the centuries following the Renaissance.

LaRouche claims to draw upon the ideas of mathematicians Carl Friedrich Gauss and Bernhard Riemann to describe the "non-linear" effects of the technological revolutions he describes, and he uses the term "potential relative population density" to describe a measure of the success of a given economy or society. According to LaRouche's followers, a Russian scientist, Pobisk Kuznetsov, proposed that the unit for measuring this parameter be called the "La" (for "LaRouche").

In practical rather than theoretical terms, LaRouche's economic policies are not particularly radical or original. He opposes deregulation, free trade, NAFTA and globalization. He advocates government-issued credits for infrastructure projects, and claims to be an admirer of the New Deal economic policies of Franklin Roosevelt. He calls for greater federal investment in science and technology, particularly the space program. These are all staples of both the traditional left and the modern anti-globalization movement.

LaRouche maintains that financial institutions (such as the International Monetary Fund), which he sees as controlled by the London financiers and therefore agents of the "Synarchy," 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 claimed was 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.

Despite LaRouche's rhetorical skill in presenting them as revolutionary, LaRouche's economic ideas are hardly original: they are similar to the policies of Germany under Bismarck and the corporatism of Spain under Franco and Portugal under Salazar. What makes LaRouche's ideas distinctive is his belief that capitalism is not, as Marxists argue, the principal enemy of progress. Instead he has developed the elaborate conspiracy theory described above, in which he claims that a secret elite called the Synarchy really rules the world. This elite conspiracy, he says, predates and transcends both capitalism and socialism.

Biographical issues

Separating fact from fiction in LaRouche's biography is made difficult by the barrages of conflicting propaganda generated both by LaRouche and by the many anti-LaRouche commentaries. According to LaRouche's writings and of the material produced by his followers, LaRouche developed his present political and economic ideas in the 1950s and has advocated them consistently ever since. He is represented as a respected economist and commentator on world affairs. He is credited with pioneering such ideas as the International Development Bank, manned space flight to Mars, the Strategic Defense Initiative or "Star Wars," and the so-called Eurasian Land-Bridge. It has been claimed that he regularly meets with world leaders and that they listen respectfully to his ideas. It also claimed that he was used by the Reagan administration as a "back-channel" for negotiations with the Soviet Union.

Some of these claims are clearly untrue. LaRouche did not develop his current political and economic ideas in the 1950s or '60s: until at least 1969 he was a Trotskyist, although an increasingly unorthodox one. He would have been expelled from the SWP much earlier than he was had he advocated anything like his current ideas at that time. Some of his specific claims can be disproved. Although the expression "Eurasian Land-Bridge," for example, has been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, there is no evidence that LaRouche has ever had anything to do with this project. Other claims cannot be definitely disproved, but are highly unlikely to be true.

It is true, however, that LaRouche had some contacts with low-level officials of the Reagan Administration. Between 1981 and 1985 LaRouche met with Norman Bailey, then a member of the National Security Council (NSC), and with some other NSC and Central Intelligence Agency officials. This followed a concerted campaign by LaRouche to develop close relations with the Reagan Administration, by publishing flattering articles about administration officials in the LaRouche press. Bailey later claimed that LaRouche was able to provide him with useful information, gathered by LaRouche's network of affiliates in many countries, but other intelligence officials deny the Administration gained any useful intelligence from LaRouche. The contacts between LaRouche and the administration ended after protests from former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other prominent Republicans.

The only substantial biography of LaRouche is Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, by Dennis King (Doubleday, 1989). King is not a historian or a political scientist, and his book is avowedly hostile to LaRouche. King's thesis is that LaRouche is both a fascist and an anti-Semite (although LaRouche expresses these views in coded language), and that his organization is the spearhead of a dangerous "new American fascism."

Demonstrating this thesis lends King's book a polemical tone which in the opinion of some reviewers weakens its credibility, but King has nevertheless researched LaRouche's writings thoroughly, and the factual basis of his book (as opposed to his opinions) has not been successfully challenged. LaRouche polemicists have made much of the fact that King received funding from the conservative Smith-Richardson Foundation to write the book, but there has been no clear demonstration that this funding influenced the content of the book.

Presidential bids

From the late 1970s to the present, LaRouche has pursued a dual strategy. He has continued to promote his apocalyptic conspiracy theories and to make regular predictions of imminent economic catastrophe. These are a staple of the extreme right, although also characteristic of Trotskyism. At the same time he has sought to enter the political mainstream by contesting elections and primary elections. In 1971 he founded the U.S. Labor Party as a vehicle for electoral politics, but this achieved no success and was wound up in 1979. In 1976 he ran for President of the United States as a U.S. Labor Party candidate, polling 40,043 votes (0.05%).

Since 1979 LaRouche has concentrated on infiltrating his followers into the Democratic Party. In 1979 he formed a Political Action Committee called the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC), a name designed to convey the impression that it is part of the Democratic Party. Since 1980 LaRouche has run for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States six times. His current Political Action Committee is called "LaRouche PAC."

The Democratic Party has consistently asserted that LaRouche is not a Democrat, but the U.S. electoral system makes it impossible for the party to prevent LaRouche followers entering Democratic primaries. LaRouche himself has polled negligible vote totals, but continues to promote himself as a serious political candidate, a pretension which is sometimes accepted by elements of the media and some political figures. In 1999, however, a court ruled that the Democratic National Committee had the right to keep LaRouche from electing delegates to the Democratic National Convention, based on a party requirement that a Democratic nominee must be a registered voter. LaRouche, as a convicted felon, is not eligible to be a registered voter in the state of Virginia, where he lives.

The use of the NDPC name has, however, allowed LaRouche followers to compete seriously in Democratic primaries for lesser offices, and even occasionally to win them. The best known example was in 1986, when a LaRouche candidate, Mark Fairchild, won the Democratic primary for the post of Lieutenant-Governor of Illinois. The Democratic gubernatorial candidate, former Senator Adlai Stevenson, III, refused to run on the same ticket as Fairchild and formed a new party for the election. Fairchild's victory was attributed to low voter turnout and a poor "regular" candidate, but also to some genuine support for the LaRouche anti-establishment message. NDPC candidates have won several other Democratic primaries in various states, but LaRouche's organizations have never suceeded in entering the mainstream.

Some of the LaRouche organization's successes have come from exploiting public fears about the AIDS epidemic, which they blame on international conspirators. In 1985 LaRouche wrote: "It is in the strategic interests of Moscow to see to it that the West does nothing to stop this pandemic; within a few years, at the present rates, the spread of AIDS in Asia, Africa, Western Europe, and the Americas would permit Moscow to take over the world almost without firing a shot." This prediction, like all of LaRouche's apocalyptic warnings, has proved to be baseless.

LaRouche and the Jews

LaRouche has been regularly accused of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Jewish organisations such as the World Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith have devoted much time and energy to documenting LaRouche's various writings and speeches on these subjects. LaRouche for his part has denied these accusations.

The truth about LaRouche's attitude to the Jews is not easy to determine. Indeed it is likely that there is no single truth, since many of LaRouche's statements on this as on other subjects have been obscure and contradictory. From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse. The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is a common practice among anti-Semitic groups (see for example and ). In the 1970s also, according to his biographer Dennis King, LaRouche developed connections with the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby, a leading extreme right group, both well-known for anti-Semitism.

In NCLC publications during the 1970s the Jews were accused of running the slave trade, controlling organized crime and the drug trade. LaRouche also claimed that the "Zionist lobby" controlled the U.S. government and the United Nations: not far short of the "Zionist Occupied Government" rhetoric of neo-Nazi organisations. Any American professing "Zionist loyalties" was, he said, a "national security risk."

In The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach (1973), LaRouche (under the pen name L. Marcus) said that "Jewish culture... is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim." In an editorial in New Solidarity in 1978 he wrote: "America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry, and labor."

LaRouche has been regularly accused of Holocaust denial, widely seen as a hallmark of anti-Semitism. In 1978 LaRouche wrote (in "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism," New Solidarity, December 8, 1978) that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis.

It is argued that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to "Jewish survival" that any anti-Zionist is therefore not only an anti-Semite, but that any sort of criminal action is excusable against anti-Zionists in memory of the mythical "six million Jewish victims" of the Nazi "holocaust."
This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races," a small fraction of the tens of million of others - especially Slavs - who were murdered in the same way Jewish refugee Felix Rohaytin proposes today. Even on a relative scale, what the Nazis did to Jewish victims was mild compared with the virtual extermination of gypsies and the butchery of Communists.

These statements are sufficient to convict LaRouche beyond any reasonable doubt of Holocaust denial. Not only does he place "holocaust" in inverted commas and refer to the "the mythical six million Jewish victims", his assertion that Jews died only as a result of forced labour can only be read as a denial that the extermination camps existed, a denial of the fact that the Nazis directly and deliberately killed millions of Jews, both in these camps and by means of the einsatzgruppen.

Whether LaRouche can fairly be accused of anti-Semitism is a more complex question. Neither Dennis King nor LaRouche's other critics have cited any statements in LaRouche's writings of hostility towards or condemnation of the Jews as a race or of the Jewish religion, or any assertions that the Jews as a people are guilty of any of the crimes that classical anti-Semitism ascribes to them. LaRouche should therefore be acquitted of being an anti-Semite of the traditional or classical type.

But Anti-Semitism assumes different guises in different circumstances and at different times: thus the anti-Semitism of Hitler differed in form from that of Torquemada while being equal in intensity. LaRouche's critics say that he is a "disguised anti-Semite," in that he takes the classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and substitutes the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew", and ascribes the classical anti-Semite's caricature of the evil, scheming Jew to particular, named, Jews and groups of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole.

The 1978 article quoted above would seem to corroborate this accusation. In this article, LaRouche acknowledges that he accepts the classical anti-Semite conspiracy theory, with the caveat that he ascibes it to groups of Jews rather than to all Jews.

The Czarist Okhrana's "Protocols of Zion" include a hard kernel of truth which no mere Swiss court decision could legislate out of existence. The fallacy of the "Protocols of Zion" is that it attributes the alleged conspiracy to Jews generally, to Judaism. A corrected version of the Protocols would stipulate that the evil oaths cited were actually the practices of variously a Paris branch of B'nai B'rith and the evidence the Okhrana turned up in tracing the penetration of the Romanian branch of B'nai B'rith (Zion) into such Russian centres of relevance as Odessa..."

(B'nai B'rith is a Jewish service organisation. LaRouche's animus towards it is connected to the fact that it is the parent organisation of the Anti-Defamation League, which has been assiduous in researching and documenting LaRouche's activities since the early 1970s. "The ADL," says LaRouche in the same article, "is literally the Gestapo of the British secret intelligence in the urban centers of the United States.")

LaRouche's principal target in this article is "Zionism," to which he attributes almost every conceivable type of evil. Zionism is a Jewish political movement supporting the creation and (since 1948) defence of a Jewish state in Palestine. For LaRouche, however, it is an underground conspiracy, existing since the 16th century. "Modern Zionism was not created by Jews, but was a project developed chiefly by Oxford University," LaRouche says.

Today, LaRouche says, Zionism is controlled by the financiers of London: "Zionism is the state of collective psychosis through which London manipulates most of the international Jewry", and "Zionist cultism is among the most important of the levers through which British criminality and miscalculation is plunging the world towards ." LaRouche attributes to "Zionism" the various crimes which the classic anti-Semite attributes to Jews: conspiracy, manipulation, treason and secret control of international finance, media and government.

LaRouche denies equating "Zionism" with the Jews. "You cannot be a Zionist and also a Jew," he writes. LaRouche can be acquitted of the charge of anti-Semtitism only if this premise is accepted. But since the great majority of Jews are in fact Zionists, the statement that "You cannot be a Zionist and also a Jew" is ridiculous. When LaRouche accuses "Zionists" of treason and conspiracy, he is therefore seen by Jews, and many others, to be levelling those accusations against most Jews. When he accuses organisations such as B'nai B'rith and the ADL, and many individual Jews, of various crimes, he is seen to be attacking the great majority of Jews who support those organisations and those individuals, particularly since he attributes to them the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination.

In this sense LaRouche can fairly be described as having been an anti-Semite in 1978, when this article was published. He has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in this article.

In recent years, however, LaRouche appears to have modified his views on these subjects - without of course conceding that he has done so. In a 1999 LaRouche published an article called "A Personal Statement from Lyndon LaRouche on Music, Judaism, and Hitler." In this article he several times refers to "the Jew," a usage typical of anti-Semites and one which he must have known is offensive to Jews.

Nevertheless, in the course of a discussion of Moses Mendelssohn, LaRouche acknowledges the contribution made by Jews to European civilization. He says: "Germany can never be truly freed from the legacy of Hitler's crimes, until the contributions of German Jews, in particular, are celebrated as an integral part of the honorable history of Germany." The article contains several other statements in similar vein. There is even a word of praise for Walther Rathenau, an archetypal Jewish business figure of the kind so savagely denounced by LaRouche throughout his career.

In this article also LaRouche acknowledges that the Holocaust is not mostly mythological or a Zionist swindle. He says: "We can not allow 2,000 years of Jewish survival in Europe to be buried under the faceless stone epitaph which speaks only of a bare 13-odd years of Hitler's Holocaust." He explicity states that "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews," a direct repudiation of his 1978 statement that only 1.5 million died and those not as a result of a deliberate plan of extermination. This article can be seen as a significant (if unacknowledged) retreat by LaRouche from his statements of the 1970s and 1980s. Whether LaRouche can be fairly described as an anti-Semite today is thus an open question.

Criminal conviction

By the 1980s LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche had built a extensive political network, including the Schiller Institute in Germany, headed by Zepp-LaRouche, and branches in several other countries. The International Caucus of Labor Committees claimed to have affiliates in France, Italy, Sweden, Canada and several South American countries. In Australia LaRouche operatives took over an older extreme-right group, the Citizens Electoral Councils (CEC), and regularly contest elections. The LaRouche organisation publishes a twice-weekly newspaper, The New Federalist and a weekly newsmagazine, Executive Intelligence Review. The LaRouche publishing house, Benjamin Franklin Books, issues a steady stream of works by LaRouche and his followers. The real membership of LaRouche's organisation is not known.

The size of the LaRouche empire led to investigations of the source of its apparently extensive financial resources. The LaRouche organisation devotes much of its energy to the sale of literature and the soliciting of small donations at airports and on university campuses. It also operates more sophisticated telemarketing groups, soliciting donations by phone, usually under the guise of various patriotic front organisations to conceal the real source of the phone calls. More seriously, however, LaRouche was accused of fraudently soliciting "loans" from vulnerable elderly people, sometimes giving completely misleading explanations for the loan ("funding the Strategic Defense Initiative" or "finding a cure for AIDS"). The funds thus raised were then directed into a maze of dummy companies so as to avoid both taxation and attempts to recover the "loans."

In October 1986 the FBI and Virginia state authorities raided the LaRouche headquarters in Leesburg in search of evidence to support the persistent accusations of fraud and extortion made against LaRouche. He and six associates were charged with conspiracy and mail fraud, and LaRouche was also charged with conspiring to hide his personal income since 1979, the last year he had filed a federal tax return. In December 1988 a federal jury in Alexandria, Virginia convicted LaRouche and his associates, and LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years in prison, of which he served five.

The prosecution alleged that LaRouche and his staff solicited loans with false assurances to potential lenders and showed "reckless disregard" of the facts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson presented evidence that LaRouche's organisation had solicited US$34 million in loans since 1983. The most important evidence was the testimony of lenders, many of them elderly retirees, who had lost thousands of dollars in loans to LaRouche that were never repaid. Several witnesses were LaRouche followers who testified under immunity from prosecution.

In addition to LaRouche, his chief fund-raiser, William Wertz, was convicted on ten mail fraud counts. LaRouche's legal adviser, Edward Spannaus, and several other fundraising operatives were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. LaRouche denied all the charges, calling them "an all-out frame-up by a state and federal task force," and said that the federal government was trying to kill him. "The purpose of this frame-up is not is not to send me to prison. It's to kill me," LaRouche said. "In prison it's fairly easy to kill me... If this sentence goes through, I'm dead." This proved to be another false prediction: LaRouche was released unharmed in 1993.

One of the most striking aspects of the trial was the revelation of LaRouche's personal wealth. While lenders were told that LaRouche had no money to repay their loans, he in fact spent US$4.2 million on real estate in Virginia and on "improvements" to his 200-acre Leesburg estate. These included a swimming pool and horse riding ring.

See also

External links

Media reports

Critical sites

Recollections by former colleagues

LaRouche sponsored sites