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 archive.org 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”.

Quick Links, 10 Dec 2009

‘White Male Privilege: A Social Construct for Political Oppression.’ by Hugh Murray, 1999, discusses how:

Liberals seek to camouflage the overrepresentation of Jews by pointing the finger at alleged “white male privilege.”

Via Invisible Victims: White Males and Affirmative Action.

– – –

Another piece from fellist’s excellent Songlight for Dawn, ‘Why Work?’ by Dorothy L. Sayers, circa 1940:

Do you realize how we have had to alter our whole scale of values, now that we are no longer being urged to consume but to conserve?

– – –

Elizabeth Warren: America Without a Middle Class:

Can you imagine an America without a strong middle class? If you can, would it still be America as we know it?

– – –

Tiger Woods alienates black community with white lovers. A window into blackness.

“Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him,” Johnson Cooper said.

Contrast with the media’s regard for Whites holding comparable views on race-mixing. Via Occidental Dissent.

– – –

El Centro holds position for highest jobless rate

El Centro, Calif., held its position of having the highest unemployment rate among the nation’s metropolitan areas, with the jobless rate at 30%, according to government figures released Wednesday.

While the figure fell from a revised 32.2% in September, it climbed from 26.8% a year ago and it is staggering even against the nation’s 10.2% unemployment rate, which is at a 26-year high.

But the jobless picture has always been inferior in southern California’s Imperial Valley.

Look at the ethnic makeup of the Schools in El Centro, CA. Don’t avert your eyes. This is where “diversity” leads. As Felipe Calderon put it: Where there are mexicans there is mexico.

– – –

The “cool jew” trend causes jews to complain about jews complaining about jews complaining about jews. Seriously.

Robert Jay Mathews

Robert Jay Mathews was killed by US government agents 25 years ago yesterday. Here’s why:

The stronger my love for my people grew, the deeper became my hatred for those who would destroy my race, my heritage, and darken the future of my children.

By the time my son had arrived, I realized that White America, indeed my entire race, was headed for oblivion unless White men rose and turned the tide. The more I came to love my son the more I realized that unless things changed radically, by the time he was my age, he would be a stranger in his own land, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Aryan in a country populated mainly by Mexicans, mulattoes, blacks and Asians. His future was growing darker by the day.

I came to learn that this was not by accident, that there is a small, cohesive alien group within this nation working day and night to make this happen. I learned that these culture distorters have an iron grip on both major political parties, on Congress, on the media, on the publishing houses, and on most of the major Christian denominations in this nation, even though these aliens subscribe to a religion which is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

These are the same people who Ex-Senator William J. Fulbright and the late General Brown tried to warn us about. Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg tried vainly to warn us also. Had we been more vigilant, my son’s future would not be so dark and dismal.

Thus I have no choice. I must stand up like a White man and do battle. A secret war has been developing for the last year between the regime in Washington and an ever growing number of White people who are determined to regain what our forefathers discovered, explored, conquered, settled, built and died for.

The FBI has been able to keep this war secret only because up until now we have been doing nothing more than growing and preparing. The government, however, seems determined to force the issue, so we have no choice left but to stand and fight back. Hail Victory!

In A Call to Arms – Part 1, recorded in 1991, William Pierce recounts his memories of Mathews in the introduction to a talk given by Mathews in 1981. Links to parts 1-13 are here at the bottom of the page.

Switzerland Minus Minarets

Power to the Swiss people and the Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP). The image caption reads, “Swiss quality, the middle class’ party”.

Swiss Ban Building of Minarets on Mosques – NYTimes.com:

The government must now draft a supporting law on the ban, a process that could take at least a year and could put Switzerland in breach of international conventions on human rights.

Apparently even the mildest, most indirect attempts to resist genocidal levels of immigration can put Whites in breach of “international conventions on human rights”.

Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned. None conduct the call to prayer. There are about 400,000 Muslims in a population of some 7.5 million people. Close to 90 percent of Muslims in Switzerland are from Kosovo and Turkey, and most do not adhere to the codes of dress and conduct associated with conservative Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, said Manon Schick, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International in Switzerland.

Nothing to see here. Only 5 percent of Switzerland’s population is muslim, close to 100 percent of them cultural and genetic aliens.

“Most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote,” said Farhad Afshar, who runs the Coordination of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland. “Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community.”

The kosovars, turks, and other muslims can go home, feel accepted, and build as many minarets as they like. Most painful for the Swiss is that if “international human rights” prevail it’s only a matter of time before the Swiss will be entirely dispossessed of their one and only homeland.

To the consternation of anti-White internationalists resistance is beginning to come not just from the “nativist”, “xenophobic”, “racist”, “nazi” SVP – but also from leftist feminists.

Women lead Swiss in vote to ban minarets – Times Online:

A right-wing campaign to outlaw minarets on mosques in a referendum being held in Switzerland today has received an unlikely boost from radical feminists arguing that the tower-like structures are “male power symbols” and reminders of Islam’s oppression of women.

A “stop the minarets” campaign has provoked ferment in the land of Heidi, where women are more likely than men to vote for the ban after warnings from prominent feminists that Islam threatens their rights.

This resistance is “right-wing” with “an unlikely boost” only if seen from an anti-White internationalist cheerleading point of view. Media bias isn’t “liberal”, it’s anti-White.

Socialist politicians have been furious to see icons of the left joining what is regarded as an anti-immigrant campaign by the populist Swiss People’s party, the biggest group in parliament.

One of them, Julia Onken, warned that failure to ban minarets would be “a signal of the state’s acceptance of the oppression of women”. She has sent out 4,000 emails attacking Muslims who condone forced marriage, honour killings and beating women.

Normal, healthy people don’t like being replaced by aliens who look, think, and act alien, obliterating their precious homeland and traditions before their very eyes, forever. Apparently, neither do radical feminists.

Swiss business is horrified. There are fears of a reaction against Swiss products similar to the one suffered by Denmark over the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad in 2005.

“The brand ‘Swiss’ must continue to represent values such as openness, pluralism and freedom of religion,” said Hanspeter Rentsch, a member of the board of Swatch, the watchmaker.

It’s more horrorifying that Swiss businessmen feel free to favor “brand ‘Swiss'” over people Swiss. The irony is that openness and pluralism will eventually destroy the Swiss and all their “brands”, and the freedom to build minarets will ultimately be very, very bad for business.

Can you guess who else thinks openness, pluralism and freedom of religion are more important than Swiss self-determination?

Push to ban minarets in Switzerland a ‘threat’:

Switzerland’s biggest Jewish groups said Wednesday that a far-right push to ban the construction of minarets here was a “threat” to religious harmony and hindered the integration of Muslims.

– The referendum infringes religious freedom, a concept enshrined in the constitution – said the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities and the Platform of Liberal Jews in Switzerland in a statement.

It – also poses a threat to peaceful relations between the religions and inhibits the integration endeavours of Muslims in Switzerland – they added.

This is pure double-talk. Immigration brings the threat to harmony. The Swiss citizenry, who to the extent they’ve been informed and consulted have expressed their disfavor for immigration, muslim or otherwise, and should not be forced to suffer it, whether the immigrants wish to “integrate” with them or not. It is their very existence which is being infringed. What gives “jewish communities”, who have not integrated after more than two millenia among Europeans, any standing to lecture anyone about immigration or integration? They consider themselves jews first, not Swiss, so they can STFU or move to israel and lecture their own tribe about immigration and integration.

The two Jewish groups said they – take seriously the fears of the population that extremist ideas could be disseminated in Switzerland. –

– But banning minarets is no solution — it only creates in Muslims in Switzerland a sense of alienation and discrimination – they said.

If creating a sense of alienation is the concern then surely the alienation the native Swiss feel at the sight of minarets in their homeland trumps the senses of migrant muslims and jews, who after all are only guests. What the Swiss and all other Whites should take seriously is how jews and muslims do not hesitate to “discriminate”, i.e. identify with and advocate in favor of their own groups, even as they pathologize Whites for any attempt to do so.

It’s true that banning minarets is no solution. Deporting aliens would be better, but even that wouldn’t solve the problem. The problem is “international human rights”. What horrifies Swiss business is the precedent for internationalist punishment that has already been set by organized jewry. See The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany: The Economic Boycott of 1933.

Why would any normal, healthy people want to see the dysfunctional middle east recreated inside their country’s borders? In part because we’re constantly told, as we’re reminded here in this case, that it harms peaceful relations, harmony, and integration to see it this way. And in part because if we set that concern aside and persist then we’re threatened – all the double-talk about peaceful relations, harmony, and integration aside – with open war.

Some pundits characterize what’s happening to every White country, and only White countries, as “suicide”, or “self-destruction” caused by “liberalism”. This story of resistance from Switzerland, among others, puts the lie to that poisonous, blame-shifting meme.

UPDATE 2 Dec 2009: In a comment on Interview: Arthur Kemp, Hunter Wallace writes:

Banning minarets is treating symptoms, not the disease.

I disagree.

The disease is the idea, which produced its most fateful results during the Enlightenment in the service of emancipating jews, that Whites, and only Whites, must not “discriminate” against “minorities”. Since this meme took root it has been fed and twisted to genocidal proportions. Whites everywhere now live under a regime which subsidizes, supports, and even directly imposes “discrimination” against Whites, defending the interests of interloping aliens over the interests of the native-born citizenry.

The banning of minarets by popular vote strikes only obliquely at this idea, but it is a blow against the disease itself. Organized jewry roundly condemns it for exactly this reason. “Liberal” feminists played a prominent part in the minaret ban, putting the lie to the corollary meme, pimped constantly by faux-White pro-jews and others, that “suicidal” White “liberalism” is to blame for all that ills us. Even “liberals”, it turns out, resist when their “suicide” becomes too blatant. The genocide is inflicted in the name of “liberal” “non-discrimination” in name but not in fact, and it is inflicted by “the international community” – which means the plutocrats, their media, their jet-setting cosmopolitan courtiers, jewish groups, muslim groups, and the treaonous costume clowns who serve their interests in their governments.

“Treating symptoms” is more fairly applied to much of what conservatives do here in the US – for example, to their focus on the transfer of wealth via taxes or healthcare, never identifying who the wealth is transferred from or to; or to the “culture war”, never identifying who’s at war with whom.

Planet of the Michelle Obama Defenders

Google apologizes for results of ‘Michelle Obama’ image search – CNN.com:

For most of the past week, when someone typed “Michelle Obama” in the popular search engine Google, one of the first images that came up was a picture of the American first lady altered to resemble a monkey.

On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for “Michelle Obama.”

Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Google faced a firestorm of criticism over the episode. First, it banned the Web site that posted the photo, saying it could spread a malware virus. Then, when the image appeared on another Web site, Google let the photo stand. When a Google image search brought up the photo, an apologetic Google ad occasionally appeared above it.

The Michelle Obama ape photo can be found at FlyStyleLife » WTF IS THIS? MICHELLE OBAMA AS AN APE HUH?

Google: An explanation of our search results:

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.

Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

Insincerely, actually. In truth, hit rank for almost every search engine, and certainly for google, is based almost entirely on the popularity of the hit, which in most cases reflects its popularity with the general public. Google is lying to the public even while apologizing to the hypersensitive people offended by popular opinion.

Google returns lots of insulting, defamatory search results. See for example (with SafeSearch off):

george bush
laura bush
bush twins
michele bachmann
ann coulter
glenn beck

Why does google protect Michelle Obama from ridicule? Who else does it protect? Hypersensitive people offended by impious use of the word jew, of course.

Politics + Technology = Nonsense at the Speed of Light