Lyndon LaRouche: Bad for “The Jews”

By way of preface I’ll admit that like other deracinated, mainstream White Americans, most everything I have ever read or heard about Lyndon LaRouche has come from people, mainly via TV or in print news, who don’t like him and take for granted that everyone should think LaRouche and the people who agree with him are insane clowns, fools, morons, losers, etc. I don’t remember any specific reasons being offered to justify this attitude, but not wanting to waste time understanding something marginal and not wanting to be considered insane was enough reason for me, until recently, to simply ignore him.

Relatively late in life however I’ve come to understand that, at least some of the time, certain people get heaped with opprobrium not because what they’re saying is wrong or insane, but because they pose a threat to people who have power. Incorrect, insane things can be said, even things that pose a threat, as long as they’re said about powerless people.

I only recently stumbled on this book about LaRouche. Once again the view is hostile, in fact extremely hostile, but unlike the vague smears I’ve encountered in the past this author explicitly details just what it is about LaRouche that he sees as a threat.

Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, by William Dennis King, published in 1989. The excerpts below are taken from the Revised online HTML edition, 2007. OCR errors have been left intact. Emphasis added.

The introduction notes:

Taken off Kings website, this is the most substantial mainstream book on the LaRouche movement. Has a definite anti-Larouche bias

From the beginning King makes it clear that he considers LaRouche not a “kook” to be dismissed but a serious threat, and refers frankly to the mechanisms by which such threats are usually contained.

Why did society’s containment system miss this “problem-case”? How did LaRouche break out of quarantine? Did powerful people know all along who and what he was, deciding simply to use him for their own purposes? Why did he remain invulnerable to prosecution for so many years? How did he inspire so much fear in those who should have led an early fight to drive him back into quarantine?

LaRouche apparently opposes “the oligarchy”, but that’s not who he really threatens.

The lynchpin of LaRouchism, as of more primitive systems of paranoia, is the fear and hatred of an evil and secretive force. Although LaRouche calls this force the oligarchy, he really means the Jews. Given the total paranoia of the system, the fear and hatred veers into neo-Nazism.

The latter is not an acceptable ideology in today’s America and so must remain partially disguised to evade the “donkey censor.” LaRouche’s conspiracy theory therefore becomes a double system: First, it extends the NCLC’s paranoia and hatred into every aspect of thought; second, it attacks the supposed forces of evil in a euphemistic manner. This dual nature of the theory should be kept in mind as we step by step “decode” the bizarre formulations in which it is couched.

If LaRouche had been a traditional anti-Semite, he might have based his conspiracy theory on the Protocols of the Elders ofZion, the infamous forgery that purports to document a nineteenth-century conspiracy to establish a Jewish world government through various diabolical intrigues. But the Protocols is too narrow in scope for the purposes of total paranoia and also is too thoroughly discredited by scholars for practical use among most educated people. LaRouche hesitated, however, to reject out of hand one of the most effective Big Lies of the first half of the twentieth century. So he compromised: The Protocols, he said, has a “hard kernel of truth” but is only of limited significance-it represents only a small piece of the real conspiracy of the “oligarchy.”

LaRouche’s oligarchy makes the Elders of Zion seem mild. It supposedly has dominated the world for tens of thousands of years with unremittingly evil motives. Indeed, LaRouche accuses it of periodically killing off a large portion of the human race through famines and plagues. Today it is supposedly plotting a New Dark Ages, which will include nuclear holocaust, the massive spread of AIDS, Zero Growth, and total bestial heteronomy.

“The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites” is LaRouche’s most thorough account of his version of world history. Apart from his schema of oligarchs versus humanists, this work and other NCLC pseudo-historical treatises appear to borrow heavily from the anti-Semitic “classics”: Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century {^ 899), Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the l/Vesf (1918-22), Hitler’s Mein Kampf {^ 925-26), Alfred Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century {^930), and Francis Parker Yockey’s Imperium (1948), as well as assorted British and American Nazi tracts from the interwar years.

LaRouche’s attacks on the evil “Babylonians,” for instance, strongly resemble theories found in Chamberlain, who claimed that the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity rose to great influence over their captors, and that Babylon rather than Jerusalem was the real headquarters of the ancient Jews. Chamberlain even remarked on the “Rothschilds” of Babylon. This theory is popularized for American white supremacists in pamphlets sold by the Louisiana-based Sons of Liberty~for instance. The l/lerchants of Babylon by Rev. Bertrand L. Comparet, which features a photograph of four bearded rabbis on the cover. When LaRouche denounces the “Whore of Babylon,” the Ku Klux Klan knows exactly what he means.

King sure knows exactly what he means.

It can be said that LaRouche’s version of history not only begins with Nazi and proto-Nazi ideas (the Atlanteans from the North) but ends with them. His theory of the contemporary struggle between parasitic bankers and productive factory owners is suspiciously similar to the views of Hitler’s early economics adviser, Gottfried Feder. The latter likewise urged the crushing and expropriation of speculative capital on behalf of industrial capital. Oswald Spengler, in a somewhat different version, hailed the “mighty contest between the two handfuls of steel-hard men of race and of immense intellect-which the simple citizen neither observes nor comprehends.” Like LaRouche, SpengJer claimed that the “battle of mere interests” between capitalists and workers is insignificant in comparison.

With all the above, it is still a long step to the conclusion that LaRouche’s historical writings are genuine neo-Nazism. He does discuss the “British” as the racial enemy of humanity that must be crushed, destroyed, eliminated. But is he clearly referring to the Jews when he uses the word “British”?

Who’s calling who paranoid here?

When LaRouche says the Queen of England pushes drugs or that Britain is the chief enemy of the United States, he is not merely indulging in eccentricity or a Freudian dislike of female authority figures. These statements have a serious meaning to anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in West Germany and the United States. They are eccentric only to those who have not studied the history of modern anti- Semitism, in which the theme of Jewish-British race mixing and Jewish domination of the British Empire looms large.

The original Nazis popularized this theory. In Mein Kampf, Hitler complained that the Jews in England exert an “almost unlimited dictatorship” through their manipulation of public opinion. Heinrich Himmler speculated in his unpublished notebooks on the “Jewish blood” of the English and Scots. Alfred Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Cen^L/ry discussed the alleged identity of the policies of “Jewish high finance” with those of Great Britain and claimed that the British government had “handed over control of all financial transactions to Jewish bankers such as Rothschild, Montague, Cassell, Lazard, etc.” Expressing a theory that the LaRouchians later would repeat in Dope, Inc., Rosenberg said that England had “allowed the opium trade to fall increasingly into Jewish hands.”

Once Nazi Germany and Britain were at war, the Nazis developed a more exaggerated version. World-Battle, an official propaganda organ, depicted “English high finance” as Judaism incarnate. England’s aggression against innocent Germany, it said, was the result of the Jews buying Churchill with piles of gold. Meanwhile Hitler’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, came to regard the Jews and the British upper classes as virtually one racial entity. He wrote in his diary in 1 942: “Rothschild. ..took the floor [of the British House of Commons] and delivered a tearjerker bemoaning the fate of the Polish Jews….AII members of Parliament rose from their seats as a silent tribute to Jewry. That was quite appropriate for the British House of Commons, which is really a sort of Jewish exchange. The English, anyway, are the Jews among the Aryans. The perfumed British Foreign Minister, Eden, cuts a good figure among these characters from the synagogue. His whole education and his entire bearing can be characterized as thoroughly Jewish.”

King concludes:

Those who would project a political role onto law enforcement, hoping it will do what political leaders are unable or unwilling to do, only prove that the moral flabbiness on which demagogues thrive is still with us. Given this fact, the lessons of LaRouche’s rise and apparent fall are important. If we study them seriously and act on them, it may turn out that the LaRouche phenomenon was a blessing in disguise — a dry run, under relatively safe conditions, that revealed our hitherto unsuspected weaknesses without our having to pay a heavy price for this knowledge. One thing seems certain: America is too violent and diverse — and too vulnerable to economic crisis — to avoid forever a major internal challenge from some form of totalitarian demagoguery. When that test comes, the story of Lyndon LaRouche may provide the key to an effective and timely response.

King’s bio, from his blog:

William Dennis King was born (1941) in Durham, N.C. and raised in Chapel Hill, N.C. He graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1965. He has lived in New York City for over 40 years.

King is the author of two books, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (Doubleday, 1989) and Get the Facts on Anyone (Third Edition, Macmillan Reference USA, 1999) (the latter book is widely used as a manual by investigative journalists). He has written scores of articles for local and national newspapers and magazines, the majority relating to the LaRouche network and other political cults and anti-Semitic groups.

I’m reminded by this subject matter of Henry Ford’s THE INTERNATIONAL JEW – THE WORLD’S FOREMOST PROBLEM, published in the 1920s, one of history’s more prominent threats to “the oligarchs” and “parasitic bankers”, which as per King, everybody ought to know really means “the jews”.

9 thoughts on “Lyndon LaRouche: Bad for “The Jews””

  1. Is it time to shun the Jew?

    The Jew as we know him today is prospering by leaps and bounds and trickery. They have always been a dark shadow nipping at the heels of world leaders. They have done nothing but complain and want since the days of the O.T. We see in the New Testament the manipulative and deceptive means they insisted Pontius Pilate put Jesus to death.

    Today’s Jews are even worse. Their punishment for killing all the prophets and God Himself was the destruction of their Sacrifice Temple and the scattering of Jews all over the world.

    They entered Khazaria, sucked the blood out of the kingdom and came out stronger than ever. They bred up using the Khazars as feed for the tribe. Breeding a ruling stock, with the deceptive stock of the Jew, we have today the Jewish Pit Bull.

    Not to say their Sephardic cousins are any less benign. They have always had the ruling gene in their DNA but lacked the power of complete control.
    The Sephardics and the Khazars have been breeding for the last 100 yrs and we now have a full fledged pit bull Jew on our hands.

    This hybird Jew has taken over by the goodness of strangers. They push their minority role and victim status as a means of sinking their teeth in the necks of good people.

    In the USA and Australia in the last century they have seen what was a democracy as an open window. Using their victim status they have created an enviroment to encrypt their Political-Religious Zionism.

    Anyone who sticks their head above the mass of sheep and speaks out against this evil regime gets their head chopped off, not unlike John the Baptist.

    They have powered themselves by using the open window of democracy to have a dictatorship in the host countries. The host countries are becoming enslaved by these brutal Jewish pit bulls cloaked in victims clothing.

    Everyone see’s it and is afraid to speak out. No need to speak out against this menace if you’re afraid. There are things you can do in silence. Actions speak louder than words.

    Is it time we shun them? They want to shut people up with their hate crime laws let those who do not want to speak shut up by shunning.

    If you happen upon a person and you realize in the coarse of conversation they are Jewish, simply say “Excuse me” and walk off.

    If in case of your employment you have to deal with a Jew, keep the conversation strictly related to business, cordial, short and sweet. If the Jew comes in and says “Nice weather….” Simply say “What can I help you with today?” Totally ignore any conversation that isn’t required. Put on a fake smile in that you both know it is fake but his complaint will be “she/he smiled at me wrong.”

    Stop immediately going to any movie that has one Jewish actor, one Jewish writer, one Jewish anything. More importantly do not watch one more Jewish holocaust story. We do not need to provide them with any more financing from their holocaust.

    If you have a Jewish doctor no matter how nice he is, find a non Jewish one. Same with an attorney, dentist etc. You do not want to be fueling the Jewish people with money any more than you are forced to do so. The money is not returned to this society but to Israel. Every dollar you give a Jew you have killed a Palestinian and have made a bullet for your future. They use the money AGAINST you. Would you pay a burglar to shoot you?
    Same thing.

    If you see a Jew on the street, turn your back to them. If one starts to shake your hand, turn your back, say nothing and turn away. That little nagging voice of guilt you feel is Satan. There is nothing wrong with turning your back on evil even if it is dressed in sweet clothes.

    If you’re in a cafe and a Jew walks in, get up and sit in the chair with your back facing them.

    It may take them awhile to notice. Sooner or later they will get the idea.
    Christians are said to turn the other cheek. This is a case where the Christian needs to turn both cheeks, turn so the only thing the Jew see’s is your back.

  2. Now the opprobrium heaped upon Larouche makes more sense. Thanks for the post,Tanstaafl.

    Also skinnylegsandall is on the right track with his background of Jewry and offers a good (partial) solution. (Admittedly I am going to have a hard time giving up my Beastie Boys and Leonard Cohen CDs though *sniffle*)

    Here is a more socio-political orientated program:

    ‘Non-violent formula for controlling the Jews’ —

  3. The laRouche organization’s The Schiller Institute posted a very good report on The Frankfurt School here:
    The Frankfurt School pioneers were entirely Jewish.
    La Rouche’s org is run like a cult. Young people are moved around the country to sell the Executive Intelligence Review, The New Federalist and the books on street corners. LaRouche himself lives in Germany these days with his German wife. He’s never been shy about naming the Jew.

  4. I just saw John Carpenter’s They Live” again for the first time since 1988.

    Today I see it as providing a willful misinterpretation of the misty, inchoate suspicions many Whites have that there’s something wrong with our nation – the same suspicions LaRouche, Rense, Jones, David Icke, or Glenn Beck tap into. The plot of They Live suggests that we’ve been sold out by our own kind to a hostile, alien elite who are using media brainwashing to deify money and consumption. Ultimately the blame gets pinned on extraterrestrials.

    It’s tempting to see They Live as a nod to the fact that our government has been subverted. It isn’t really. It’s a single B-grade grain in a larger sandstorm of bullshit that makes a mockery of that very idea. Did Carpenter intend that? I think he was simply trying to tap popular sentiment to earn a buck. But the movie got greenlighted only because it served the interests of the subverters.

    People who truly cause the subverters problems are not permitted to do so for long. Sheppard and Whittle, for example, are in prison. Their crimes are detailed here.

  5. They Live is still better than supposed ‘conservative’ fare such as Family Guy or American Dad. Framing They Live in terms of Jewish influence is highly instructive.

    I can sit back and find elements of them funny but frankly Im amazed that anyone would, for a single second, regard them as conservative.

  6. Admittedly I am going to have a hard time giving up my Beastie Boys and Leonard Cohen CDs though *sniffle*

    I think we can afford to view certain individuals on a case by case basis.

Comments are closed.