Monday, March 2, 2009

Why does everyone have to "change?"

One of the people I met through ACL work years ago is a wonderful gal down in Oregon who's been studying as much, if not more, than I have all these years. She's a mother who shares my deepest concerns for the world we are leaving for our children. Her path took her in a different direction than mine, but we still share things from time to time. One of the things we do not agree on is the politics of Lyndon LaRouche. I think LaRouche very skillfully balances the original American (Hamilton) system with an international communitarian system (FDR), which he promotes as the only solution.

Part I of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto went online in January 2003. In the fall of 2003 we were contacted by Anton Chaitkin, author of Treason in America (cited in our ACL thesis) and the Historical Editor for LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. Chaitkin found us by doing a search for his own name. His email asked if he could call me. And I said yeah. I was honored to talk to someone whose writings had played such a a major role in opening my eyes to the scam.

From the first call onward I listened politely to his pitch for my financial support of the LaRouche campaign, (which was a total waste of his time because I was totally broke, and I told him that right up front the first time he asked how much I could contribute). When he was finished, I assumed every time I'd get to ask a few questions I had about LaRouche's political theory. I wanted to know why LaRouche never mentions communitarianism. And I really wanted to know why LaRouche suggests we strengthen the UN as part of his "solution."

Amazingly, after several phone calls I never got one answer from Chaitkin. Every answer he gave me was a long convoluted explanation of synarchism. He pooh poohed communitarianism as unimportant, and said I just needed to trust LaRouche when it came to his ideas on the UN. He refused to believe I could not afford to send one DIME to the LaRouche campaign, and it is a testament to my poverty status and almost an entire lifetime of lower class scrambling that I did not cave in to his demands. Had I been more easily convinced by Chaitkin's arm twisting, I would have been a LaRouchie ever since, I'd still be broke, and ACL research would not exist.

Interestingly, LaRouche labeled Thomas Jefferson the first communist in U.S. history.

The LaRouche message is still that we all have to "change." And I'll need to spend a lot more time on this, but I can almost see it clearly now. Communitarianism brings the idea of the Creator back into the system.

One thing that people like to ignore is the fact that communitarianism is supposed to be the ultimate Third Way; it's the perfect synthesis of all ideas and beliefs. It's rarely mentioned in front of the general public as anything but "change," so most of my countrymen remain completely ignorant of its existence. Under a global 3rd way, all men must reach for their highest potential as co-creators with the state God. Religion and government are in a perfect evolutionary stage of becoming as One. In communitarian theology, the State is the representative of God on Earth. It wouldn't make sense for brilliant global government theologian planners to have their perfect God inspired synthesis be as easily made imperfect as it was for us two little nobodies here at the ACL.

No, it has to be a lot more perfect than Etzioni could make it sound, and in my humble opinion, the LaRouche camp makes it sound fantastic. They are experts on the economic crisis and as my friend Nancy Rising told me in 2000, they have the best global intelligence out there. They have a firm grasp of what List defined as the American system and manage to combine it with FDR's New Deal policies! (This co-incides well with Obama's New Deal.) There is much to be learned from LaRouche, and in all honesty, I wish I could endorse him the same way I wished I could endorse Ron Paul. Maybe I secretly wish I could be a communitarian too... do you? Sure would make my life a lot easier if I just stopped talking about communitarianism altogether.
"Man is not a creature of avoiding pain and increasing lust. It's not a being of maximization of the maximum fun in the here and now, but it's not the idea of having more, possessing more — money, money, money, profit, profit, profit, and have fun at the expense of others. But if we do not come to an image of man as the center of politics and the economy, where man is living up to the idea of being in the image of the Creator. Now, what does it mean? It means that man is replicating the most noble aspect of the Creator, and that is creative activity. Man is capable, according to Nicolaus of Cusa, who, after all, is the founder of the modern nation-state, he's the founder of modern science, man is capable of capax Dei. Now, that means that man is able to participate in God: Now, that means that you can only be your fullest potential as a human being, if you unleash that in you, which is that divine quality, and it expresses itself in creative activities. " Transcript of Helga-Zepp LaRouche's closing address titled "Europe's Role in the Coming Renaissance" at the Schiller Institute Conference "Rebuilding the World Economy after a Systemic Crisis," Feb. 21-22
Here's a possibly relevant conversation about LaRouche at Jim Marr's Above Top Secret Forum.

And I haven't found time to get back to the Ponerology book yet, so I have nothing new to add on that. But I have been thinking about how to define someone like me who is at the opposite extreme of the non-feeling inhuman personality. Is total and complete devotion to the well being of others just as much a disease as having none?


Anonymous said...

LaRouche has always been a puzzle to me. Back in the late 6o's he was known by the name "Lyn Marcus" and I first met him at SeaTac airport with his groupies pushing nuclear power (or do we now call it nucular power?).
Later, at a environmentalist conference, where David Brower was speaking, he crashed the conference with his goons and tried to shout down the speaker. They had to be forcibly ejected.

In 2001, Jeff Rense was allowing one of his shills to push their publication "Executive Intelligence Review" on his show, and they gave a phone number to call to receive a free issue. After that I was blasted by evening phone calls trying to get me to donate money. This started with a guy and graduated to a sweet-talking woman. Finally, I was double-teamed by both at once, and when I called them "Hamiltonian democrats", they went ballistic! I had to call Jeff Rense and tell him what was happening before they left me alone.

I really dislike the stentorian, Roosevelt-like affectation that LaRouche has adopted. I don't know what to think of him. I don't like him.


LynMarcus said...

Tony Chaitkin has been licking larouche's boots and making money to keep his millionaire lifestyle going for decades. Tony does this for basically nothing as all of the cult members do.

If Larouche snaps his fingers, tony changes his tune in a split second. Before the Obama victory, TChaitkin did most of the research to "prove" that Obama was eeeevil. To keep the cult going, Larouche then changed his tune and deluionally makes Obama FDR reincarnate and he and the cult are there to protect Obama from a British assasination attempt (Maybe the Queen of England).

It is all a farce of delusions of Larouche where Tony has spent all of his adult life worshipping and needs to generate money to keep his place before he gets booted out like most of the older members who cost more to keep around then the new dwindling supply of college drop out recruits.

Larouche is not an economist but a convicted criminal and cult leader who was sent to prison in the 1980s for hijacking over 30 million doloars from people who thought that he was a legitimate person. In this regards, Larouche is more of a Bernie Madoff with his cult's promissory note schemes and credit card fraud. Like Madoff, hardly anyone who lost a total of nearly 34 million dollars in this madmans delusions and fraud will ever see a dime.

Larouche has been a socialist, communist, Christian, left/right winger, pro Russian, anti Russian and anything else you can imagine to sucker people to his delusions.For over 40 years he has been running a cult of endless economic collapse, New Dark Ages and Nuclear war to recruit enough naive colege kids to drop out of school and support him. His cult skips many labor laws as he has them called "volunteers" and has them running like hamsters 18 hours a day, 6 1/2 to 7 days a week with one crisis after another for about 20 to 40 dollars a week.

This cult circus has been going on for over 40 years by Larouche who has to recruit new blood to replace the worn out and broken down cult members who are discarded or those who have figured out how this farce works. Several hundred people have left the cult and in the last dying days of the elderly Larouche, he needs a few naive people to keep him and his wife living that millionaire lifestyle.

You can read about how this charade is run on sites like: under discussions where there are over 6K posts from former members about this lunacy.

This is a bum who had the anti semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion placed in his propaganda.

If you want to see what the real Larouche has to say about Obama, check out what he told his cult privately last year .

" I mean: Obama is a racist. I mean, with an African father--he wasn't much of an African father, but was an African father of Kenya. He was part of a British operation, which took over Kenya, through MI5's operation. But this guy was away from Kenya, and he married a Margaret Mead type, a woman who had a number of successive husbands, like Margaret Mead did. Went out to the poor, brown people, in Asia, and had sex with them! It was called "Coming in Samoa." [groans, laughter] And she wore through a number of successive husbands, and by them, had various children. And therefore, you'll find Obama's ancestry, if you chase his family tree, everybody's climbing and swinging from the branches there--from all over the world! All parts of the world! This guy is the universal man. Every monkey in every tree, from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime--which is a branch of British intelligence. "

the tent lady said...

Thanks for that insight Pete, it helps me to understand why I don't like him either. Pretty slick way to trap people, offering free copies of your in house magazine and then hounding you to death for accepting. So Rense was able to stop it? wow.

Lyn, you obviously took LaRouche's first name for a reason. I appreciate all the links and info about "Tony." You sound as if you know him quite well.

And it's almost funny that he used the Protocols, since his opinion of the British intelligence is so low and they were the ones who published it and kept it alive.

Looks like he's been influenced by Eugenics too, another lovely British invention. Nice to see calling a man's mother a whore hasn't gone out of style. :(

Bobby Garner said...

In my opinion, LaRouche is fair game as a socialist, but using his arrest and conviction against him is purely a political argument. He was arrested during a Presidential campaign in which he was proving to be a danger to the major party favorites. His conviction failed to stick and was over turned on appeal.

The renaissance from which LaRouche derives his philosophy I've learned, was a Masonic production, and directly related to Sir Francis Bacon's vision about the Masonic Christ. All of the major players like De Vinci were Mason's and homosexuals.

LynMarcus said...

"He was arrested during a Presidential campaign in which he was proving to be a danger to the major party favorites. His conviction failed to stick and was over turned on appeal."

Not even remotely correct. We were under investigation in several states for fruad by issuing "promissory notes" to our supporters. In other words, after we cleaned you out and you have no more disposable money to give us, we thought of a great idea where we would ask you to cash in your retirement savings, sell stocks and bonds and even mortgage your home for us. What we did instead of you giving the money to us is that we convinced you to lend us the money at interest rates approaching 22 % at times in the 1980s. You gace us the cash, we gave you a piece of paper which had the terms of the note filled in the blank spaces.

AFter we got your money we may have made a few payments, but part of thwt we did was to spend so much money on TV shows and Larouche's lifestyle that hardly any money was being devoted to repaying this debt which was nearly 34 MILLION!

Several states had complaints filed by our supporters who were not getting paid . We told people that we could not pay them back becuase of whatever was the end of the world story we had back then. WHen people complained , we called them back and tried to have them forgive or rewrite their loans and then we still did not repay these loans.

A lot of the details of thses scams came via law suits we filed AGAINST NBC and a NJ Bank where our finances were now open to investigation by people and this was then cross bred with other investigators who saw how this whole scam worked.

You can read the actual testminoy of several of the victims and also read how we were spending hundreds of thousands of dolars on a 124 acre or so estate we bought Larouche called "Ibykus".

YOu can read the transcripts here for yourself

As for us bneing a threat to the parties. this is a joke as we were both a nuisance and did dirty tricks for them. For the GOP we ran numerous dirty tricks of disinformation and printed up and distributed millions of pices of lit about how Mondal was a KGB agent and how Dukakis was in a mental hospital. We did all sorts of dirty tricks for the GOP when Reagan was in office. We ran disinformation about AIDS and slandered just about everyone we hated as being homo.

In local races, we would do more dirty tricks by spreading slanders and dirt since the damge could be done by us being crazy instead of a legitamate pewrson who would get sued . There is a tactical advantage in using a cult for this.

What you should know abut this era is that Laroucehh was so deranged that he had over 13 million dollars raised by the cult handed over over time to several con artists who used ot feed him daily stories about how the whole world elites were deabting him back and forth and how there were many assasination plots against him. He was such a sucker since these con artists had him profiled so well that he believed all of this nonsense and to this day has had small time operators being paid weekly who feed him endless tales.

It is all a crock, laughable when you know the real story and very cultic and dangerous to many people who have been bankrupted or mentally/physally abused in this.

What you should always understand is that by running this a sa cult, and many oter people do this as well, you can evade a hell of a lot of labor laws, tax laws , minimum wages, health insurance payments and when people catch on and leave, you have their money and the money that they raised.