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 http://www.larouchepac.com/node/8032

Here's a possibly relevant conversation about LaRouche at Jim Marr's Above Top Secret Forum.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread396813/pg1

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?