Oh no, Lyndon LaRouche was right!

 

Behold the true Patriarch of the Third Rome! 

Kalle Anka större än EAP...igen

Drottning Elizabeth skrattar åt EAP

Kalle Anka-partiet fick 131 röster, EAP fick 15. Same old story, med andra ord. Walt Disney besegrar Lyndon LaRouche! 

Flopp för småpartier, kollaps för Feministiskt Initiativ

Without comment

 

Åh nej, Lyndon LaRouche hade rätt

Vem hade egentligen rätt? EAP eller Greta Thunberg? Den frågan har äntligen besvarats. Lägg märke till det ryska *flytande* kärnkraftverket, detta efter att jag i ett tidigare inlägg ironiserat över just sådana...

Ooookay.


Framtidens kärnkraftverk byggs i fabrik

Lyn Marcus raves on

Not as good as I expected, but here goes. LaRouche PAC has admitted that this was one of their activists trolling leftist Congresswoman AOC. In other words, not "Trump supporters", but the crankiest cult in America. Lyndon LaRouche is dead, but it seems the show continues...

Lyndon LaRouche on the attack

"Against violence in the workers movement" is a pamphlet published by the Educational Department of the U.S. Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in April 1974. It contains articles from SWP's publications "The Militant" and "Intercontinental Press" dealing with intra-mural violence on the American left. To their credit, the SWP opposed all forms of goon tactics on the left and in the labour movement. Many other leftist groups didn't. The pamphlet contains articles about physical attacks on the SWP or SWP-dominated meetings by the Communist Party, the Progressive Labor Party and the NCLC. Some of it is pretty scary reading!

Of particular interest are the reprinted articles about NCLC's "Operation Mop-Up". The National Caucus of Labor Committees, led by Lyndon LaRouche (then known as Lyn Marcus) was a direct forerunner to the LaRouche Movement. Today generally regarded as right-wing extremist or fascist, in 1974 the NCLC still claimed to be "leftist". In 1974, this bizarre cult decided to physically attack both the Communist Party and the SWP in full force, and even bragged about it. The purported goal was to completely "mop up" and destroy the two groups, which would supposedly give the NCLC hegemony on the left and leadership of a revolution which was expected to happen within five years. One of the NCLC leaflets had the absurd headline "Operation Mop-Up: The class struggle is for keeps!". Interestingly, when the NCLC thugs were arrested, two of them turned out to be police officers. Another NCLC goon was a CIA agent in Vietnam before joining the LaRouchians! The "class struggle" is for keeps? Right.

I recommend "Against violence in the workers movement" mostly due to the LaRouche-related material. For a more extensive comment on Lyn and his erratic cult, see my review of Dennis King's "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism".

At least they beat Donald Duck

"Executive Intelligence Review" or EIR is the publication of the LaRouche Movement, a U.S.-based international organization headed by Lyndon LaRouche. The LaRouchians are notoriously difficult to pin down politically, but most critics regard them as neo-Nazi or fascist. For an extended criticism of this movement from such a perspective, see Dennis King's classical book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism", reviewed by me elsewhere. Personally, I would rather argue that the LaRouche Movement is a strange cult with an erratic practice and an equally eclectic message, based on various conspiracy theories (some of which are derived from the far right, while others seem to be unique).

This issue of EIR, part of which is available free on the web, is surprisingly bland, as LaRouchian publications go. The conspiracy theories have been carefully hidden away, with the exception of a few jabs at "the British Empire" and "Londonistan". Otherwise, the publishers have worked hard to sound as reasonable as possible. Instead of the usual warnings about an impending World War III or military coups in Washington, we get some serious arguments concerning possible Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti complicity in creating ISIS. The magazine supports a campaign to release the classified pages of the official 9/11 report, suspecting that the truth of Saudi involvement might be hidden away therein. While calling for the destruction of ISIS, the EIR wants the United States to ally itself with Iran and the Baathist regime in Syria, rather than with the Muslim Brotherhood or Londonistan. The political orientation of the LaRouche Movement is clearly pro-Russian and pro-Chinese, to the point of supporting the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Another typical trait of this peculiar group is its super-cornucopianism, which borders the fantastic. LaRouche envisages a global economy based on both regular nuclear power and fusion power, including floating nuclear power plants off the African coast! Apparently, fusion power can destroy all harmful waste, turning it into energy. It can turn base rocks into fuel, and so on. (This is from earlier publications of this movement.) This issue of "Executive Intelligence Review" contains an article titled "New Paradigm for Mankind: Mankind Is Now Moving to an Earth-Sun-Moon Economy", calling on China to establish bases on the Moon to mine helium-3 for, you guessed it, thermonuclear fusion power. In the happy world of LaRouchianism, peak oil is no problem (neither, I suppose, are commercial fish farms) and the Club of Rome are simply a bunch of Londonistan conspirators.

Finally, I couldn't help noting that Lyn sounds a bit distracted in the podcast transcripts, but perhaps he has the right to be, I mean he's 92 years old! Finally some good news (not mentioned in this issue of EIR): the Swedish LaRouche branch, the EAP, got 140 votes in the recent national elections and hence beat the fictitious Donald Duck Party by 37 votes. During the 1980's, the EAP were always smaller than Donald Duck's local faithful, so I suppose this *is* a positive sign, LOL. If it will make the world safe for fusion energy (or smash Londonistan any time soon), is perhaps another issue entirely...

No match for Bach and Socrates

Posted on Amazon as a "review" of a supposed Spetsnaz sticker. 

I'm not sure if this is an authentic symbol of the Soviet Special Forces (spetsnaz). However, I recall a bizarre discussion on a LaRouchian radio broadcast about 30 years ago. The LaRouchian faithful in Sweden, the EAP, claimed that the spetsnaz were planning attacks on Swedish territory, presumably from mini-submarines sneaked into the Stockholm Archipelago. Not to worry, though! Lyndon LaRouche had apparently explained that NATO soldiers with “a classical education” could defeat the spetsnaz, who were just “robots”. I'm not sure how they were supposed to defeat the spetsnaz? By singing Bach's arias? By reciting Plato's Symposium? By trying to sell them New Solidarity? Well, I never got that mystery cleared up. These days, of course, the LaRouche Movement, ahem, *supports* Russia, so presumably they no longer have to worry about confronting their special forces… If Lyn has given the spetsnaz opera lessons, is perhaps another matter entirely.

The Voice of Revolutionary Feminism versus Lyndon LaRouche

A review of "Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled For the New Millennium"

This is a pamphlet published by the Freedom Socialist Party (FSP), a Trotskyist-feminist group based in Seattle. Its magazine Freedom Socialist carries the subtitle "Voice of Revolutionary Feminism". The pamphlet attacks notorious conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, arguing that his movement is fascist. While I disagree with FSP's dogmatic Trotskyism, I do consider the pamphlet to be somewhat useful, if read together with more lengthy critical treatments of LaRouche. The classical study is still Dennis King's “Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism”. King is, I think, a conservative Democrat.

Since the FSP are feminists, they place special emphasis on LaRouche's bizarre misogyny and homophobia, claiming that his embrace of fascism may have been connected to a deep-seated fear of the feminist movement. I admit that this is an interesting angle on the problem. Another possibility, of course, is that LaRouche really is nuts! His misogynist and homophobic statements go way beyond the political. Some of his statements must be read to be believed. But then, the personal and the political might be difficult to disentangle in this case.

FSP also emphasize LaRouche's attempts to build alliances with union leaders, most notably in the Teamsters. The LaRouchians supported the Mafia-infested union bureaucracy, while attempting to disrupt the anti-corruption opposition around Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). The LaRouchians are also trying to build alliances with Black leaders, including persistent attempts to woo the Nation of Islam. While most of the pamphlet deal with LaRouchian activities in the United States, some material on Australia have been included, too. The FSP are worried that the LaRouche Movement might recruit progressively-inclined youth, due to its seemingly “leftist” opposition to free trade, Wall Street, Israel or the Iraqi War. One aspect not mentioned is the pro-Russian stance of LaRouche, perhaps because it wasn't all that interesting when the pamphlet was published. Today, of course, it is.

Personally, I don't think the label “fascist” on the LaRouche Movement is particularly useful (although I admit that it's not impossible either – after all, “fascism” can be defined in different ways). Since the LaRouchians support mass immigration and international cooperation, recruit Blacks and Hispanics, and keep aloof of popular fascist demagogues such as Buchanan or Duke, I don't think they can create a fascist-style mass movement. They are better seen as a bizarre cult, a kind of pseudo-political version of Scientology. I also suspect that the FSP overstate the influence of LaRouche. The fact that his movement so quickly fell out of favor with the Reagan administration shows that LaRouche wasn't seen as a particularly close or valuable asset by the Republican top brass or the intelligence community.

Finally, FSP's analysis of fascism is problematic, fascism having nothing to do with “free enterprise”. Nor is it true that the Nazis super-exploited the German working class – on the contrary, they attempted to incorporate it into the Nazi project by creating a welfare state (Jewish and foreign workers were, of course, super-exploited but not German ones). To the FSP, LaRouche's eclectic and confused philosophy proves his fascism, since no true fascist ideology supposedly exists, fascism being above all an attempt by the bourgeoisie to smash the labor movement. While fascist ideology frequently *is* contradictory, it simply isn't true that fascism doesn’t have any ideology at all. For instance, classical fascism was nationalist, protectionist and opposed to “free enterprise”, while promoting modernization through the state and (usually) imperialist expansion abroad. It also attempted to incorporate the people, including sections of the peasantry and the workers, into its project. Ironically, LaRouche's quasi-socialist view of the economy is closer to classical fascism than to contemporary U.S. conservatism (which is usually libertarian on economic issues), but the FSP doesn't see this, since to them, all “fascists” simply must be for “free enterprise”.

That being said, I nevertheless regard FSP's pamphlet as an interesting addition to my private anti-LaRouchian library, and therefore give it three stars.

The vanguard is tired

“Vanguard Newsletter” was a small mimeographed magazine published by the Vanguard Newsletter Committee in New York City, a small Trotskyist group lead by Harry Turner. I never met Turner, but I know that he eventually joined the “Morenoite” current within Trotskyism. As a defector from the super-sectarian and increasingly cultish Spartacist League, Turner and his activities were constantly heckled and attacked in the pages of “Workers Vanguard”, the Spartacist bi-weekly. Apparently, Spartacist caudillo James Robertson regarded Turner as some kind of very personal adversary.

I admit that I don't really understand the rationale behind “Vanguard Newsletter”. Its politics seems to have been a rather indistinct version of classical Trotskyism, a bit like the later British group Workers Power. While less sectarian than the Spartacist League (Turner called for Black caucuses and a rank-and-file movement in the unions), the Turnerites were nevertheless more dogmatic than the Socialist Workers Party and the Fourth International, which they never joined.

This issue of the newsletter contains long-winding polemics against other Trotskyist groups, an article attacking Israel, and various protests against thuggery on the left. A campaign headed by Turner's group had apparently been physically attacked by members of the infamous Workers League, and later by goons from the Communist Party (CP). Methods of this kind were not uncommon on the U.S. left at the time. Ironically, the supporters of “Vanguard Newsletter” cooperated with Lyndon LaRouche's NCLC in protesting CP violence. At the time, the NCLC were still seen as a leftist group, albeit a highly aberrant one. Just two year later, the NCLC itself would go on the rampage, physically assaulting members of both the CP and the SWP!

To be honest, I don't think this little publication is particularly interesting or useful, unless you collect old Trotskyist memorabilia just for the sheer fun of it!

My reviews of “Healy's Big Lie”, “The Gelfand Case” and “Against Violence in the Workers Movement” contain some background information relevant to this posting.

Lyndon LaRouche: Dangerous fascist or harmless crank?

Platonic philosopher-kings at work 

The LaRouche Movement is probably the strangest (and most well known) political fringe group in America. They have even been mentioned on "The Simpsons"! But what are they, what are they *really*?

Essentially, there are two alternative analyses of LaRouche and his movement. Some believe he is a crazy cult leader, or just crazy. This is probably the majority opinion. Others regard LaRouche as a quite serious agent provocateur, either a covert neo-Nazi and anti-Semite, or (in some versions) a covert Communist. The author of "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism", Dennis King, supports the second idea: LaRouche knows what he's doing, he's a Nazi and anti-Semite, a right-wing extremist who changes his public political colours depending on who he is addressing this week. Dennis King is a long time LaRouche watcher, and has a website devoted to exposing both the LaRouchians and a strangely similar movement around one Fred Newman.

I knew about the LaRouche Movement already as a teenager. The reason is simple: we have them in Sweden as well! The Swedish branch of the LaRouchites, known as EAP, was very active about 30 years ago. They constantly slandered Olof Palme, an important and high profile Swedish politician who was prime minister 1969-76 and 1982-1986. He was assassinated in 1986. Palme was a Social Democrat, and it's interesting to note that the EAP went after him both during their "Communist" phase and their "far right wing" phase. And yes, they really did went after him! On several occasions, EAP agitators ran after Palme in the streets of Stockholm after political meetings, asked him slanderous questions at press conferences, or attempted to come as close as possible to him at May Day rallies, carrying placards with Palme depicted in full Nazi regalia. At least once, a massive fight erupted between the EAP and Social Democrats at a May Day rally. EAP's accusations against Palme were bizarre and noxious: they claimed he was descended from Nazis, that he had been a patient at a mental asylum, that he was a substance abuser, and so on. When Palme was assassinated, the police arrested a former EAP member as a suspect. He was later found to be innocent - and crazier than even the LaRouchians! My point is that although the LaRouchians were very small (they never got more than circa 300 votes in an national election), they were *very* notorious. Everyone knew about them. Strangely, the EAP have been quietly forgotten for the past twenty years or so, although they still have literature tables, pass out leaflets, stand in elections, etc.

As a teenager, me and my buddies actually discussed the EAP, and wondered what on earth they were. Most considered them right wing extremists (this was their "Star Wars" period). However, students active in the Young Conservatives believed that they were a Communist sect pretending to be right-wing. The same debate goes on in America, I believe.

Whatever the LaRouche movement may be today, they certainly used to be a kind of left wing group. LaRouche formed his organization in 1969, under the long and unwieldy name National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC). Its political opinions and practices were weird and cultish from the start, but they were generally regarded as left wing, and (as King points out), they were probably not stranger than many of the Maoist groups! King believes that LaRouche turned fascist in 1973, during "Operation Mop Up", when NCLC thugs physically attacked and seriously injured members of the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party. These tactics effectively isolated the NCLC from the rest of the left, making it easier for LaRouche to complete the transformation into a fully fledged fascist group. King further believes that LaRouche developed his coded anti-Semitic conspiracy theories after contacts with the neo-Nazi Liberty Lobby. This was around 1974-75. However, LaRouche and his followers still claimed to be Communists. I've read back issues of EAP's newspaper, and they supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and Jaruzelski's military coup in Poland in 1981. Bizarrely, they also supported Reagan! In 1984, LaRouche changed his political line and became an outspoken supporter of Reagan's Cold War II *against* the Soviet Union, claiming that the Orthodox Church had taken power in Moscow. Thus began his openly "right wing" phase. It's precisely this strange and contradictory message that make many people regard LaRouche as clinically insane, and his movement as harmless cranks. The more or less incomprehensible theoretical articles in LaRouchian publications add to this impression.

King believes otherwise, and argues at length that the seemingly confused message of LaRouche is perfectly intelligible, being a coded anti-Semitic conspiracy theory with Nazi affinities. He also details LaRouchian contacts with circles in the Reagan administration, Soviet officials, Klansmen and the Iraqi embassy. Since the book was written, LaRouche has flip flopped politically again: he opposed Bush Senior, supported Bill Clinton, and opposed both Gore, Bush Junior and Obama. Although Obama's foreign policy is identical to the one LaRouche ostensibly called for during the Bush years, LaRouche nevertheless denounces Obama as a "new Hitler" and a "genocidal Nazi". Agent provocateur?

Although I despise Lyndon H. LaRouche jr. (and don't doubt that he really doesn't like Jews), I nevertheless find King's analysis unconvincing. I might be wrong, of course. I haven't spent most of my life chasing Lyn! Still, the most likely explanation of the LaRouche phenomenon is nevertheless that he is an unserious cult leader, incapable and probably uninterested in *real* political influence. I base this on the following considerations. While anti-Semitism does indeed exist all across the political spectrum, it has nevertheless been mostly associated with right-wing political movements, and these have combined anti-Semitism with nationalism and White supremacism. It's hard to imagine that a multi-racial cult such as the NCLC, which recruits Blacks, Hispanics and even secularized Jews, while demanding free immigration, can really become the core of a fascist movement. King himself points out that the NCLC often refrained from taking over Democratic party branches, even when they could easily have done so, or that LaRouche blew his major TV appearance by babbling on about a mission to Mars, when right-wing populism would have suited him better. King believes that this was some kind of master move. A more sober interpretation is the opposite: LaRouche is either politically very inept, or a cynical cult leader who knows very well that his operation can only succeed in relative political isolation. The NCLC simply cannot become a mass movement, nor will LaRouche let it become one! The constant political gyrations back and forth, or the incomprehensible message, has a certain obedience cult logic, but it makes absolutely no sense politically speaking. True, fascists often combine ideas from both the left and the right, but only if it makes sense! Combining Greater Russian chauvinism with Stalinist Communism makes excellent sense in today's Russia, just as combining German nationalism with quasi-socialist appeals to the unemployed workers made sense in the Weimar republic. Claiming to support both the USSR and Reagan in 1980 makes absolutely no sense at all, not to mention LaRouche's most bizarre article (I think it was published the year before) in which he *both* supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, *and* denies the Holocaust. Now, what kind of political movement can possibly be built around *that*? Note also LaRouche's recent attacks on Obama, whose foreign policy he logically should support (judging by his message during the eight years of Bush's presidency).

Despite this, I nevertheless recommend "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism". It's the only really comprehensive survey of the LaRouche movement to be published. People interested in this particular group, or political extremism at large, must start with this book.

Eric J Lerner = Agent of Gaddafi

A fake review I posted on Amazon of Eric Lerner´s book "The Big Bang Never Happened". Reviews of this kind were accepted for over a decade! 

Eric J. Lerner has been a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche. He is still a supporter of fusion energy.

Therefore, obviously, he is a cultist.

Lerner's book is heavily promoted by the International Marxist Tendency. They infiltrated the British Labour Party during the 1980's, using the front name "Militant Tendency". Today, they support Hugo Chavez.

Chavez is a friend of Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi (a.k.a. the Brother Leader of the Revolution).

Therefore, Eric J. Lerner is a friend of Gaddafi, too.

:O

Kidding...

OK, sorry, but I couldn't help myself...

No matter who is right or wrong concerning the big one, life on planet Earth will go on pretty much as usual. For instance, LaRouche will probably stand in the presidential elections this year as well.

So what on earth is the problem?