Lyndon Larouche Comments Topic 1 of 3: anti-semitism
There are a number of aspects in carrying on about Lyndon Larouche that are a bit of a challenge. For instance, most people do not take him seriously and will never delve terribly deeply into widespread beliefs about him. I refer here particularly to the matter of anti-semitism — in the rare circumstances where an average person encounters a Larouchite diatribe and gives it any brain-span, they will tend to think of it as anti-semitic, what with its references to the Bankers and its odd element of Anglo-phobia– rather vaguely unable to pin-point or quantify why they think so. Something just sort of rings awful with the terminology.
This is more or less all right. But I myself, by dent of rambling on about Larouche (and let it be said that for this blog, due to external events, the year 2007 is sort of the Year of Larouche) — have a bit of a responsibility to delve a tad deeper and quantify it somewhat. Mind you, it’s not very much deeper, but it is more nonetheless.
Another challenge. Something I keep encountering with Larouche supporters, the challenge of which is for me to keep a straight face. Here’s the line: “People have been calling Larouche anti-semitic for 30 years now!” The answer to that, after a bit of a puzzlement is simply “Yes.” I opted for a revision of that matter of fact answer, “35 years, within an inkling before hand.” (The “inkling beforehand” a reference to Tim Wohlsforth looking squinty-eyed at Larouche’s cold Marxist economic interpretation of the Holocaust.)
With that I am charged with believing lies that have been told to me. An invisible question is thus placed before me: “Who are you going to believe: Me or your own lying eyes?” (Just as I do not need Dennis King to tell me about Operation Mop-Up, I do not need Dennis King to tell me that Lyndon Larouche is anti-semitic.)
So, here is that shallow delving into the matter, the one thin example of the flowering anti-semitism, and one example is all I really feel I need for my purposes. I tend to go back to this example because it just sort of slapped at me like a salamandar (and atthe same time the implications of the dual diatribes agaisnt the baby-boomers and the praising of he LYMers struck me) — slimy and smelly.
Synarchist. Felix Royatin.
A conspicuous word choice. A conspicuous figure to cite. Why, in the panoply of words in the English language, would you possibly pluck out “synarchist”? Why, of all the figures with the same ideological position and the same position in the world, would you possibly determine Felix Royatin as the great Evil in the world, pulling strings like a marionette?
Synarchist is a synonym for “International(ist) Cabalist”. Really. Felix Royatin is an investment banker, and Holocaust Survivor. Really. It’s the Jewish International Bankers’ Cabal Conspiracy. That is all. After this, it does not really matter if Larouche himself were Jewish.
This is just sort of second nature for Larouche Inc., and you can take it for whatever its worth — forgive the LYMers, for they know not what they are saying with this.
Without even delving further into this issue, I’ll quote Dianne Bettag back in February or March: “Good game”. I’ll ramble further to the my interpretation of her quote and say “CHECK MATE!” Just as my guess is Dianne Bettag didn’t believe for a moment I was convinced by her comment (“Your source, Dennis King” [WRONG] “High Times Magazine” [Um. He wrote an article.]), I do not believe for a moment a Larouche supporter will let him/herself see this. Nonetheless, I believe I throw my pronouncement of “Check Mate!” out there (tongue firmly held in cheek) with more intelligent backing than Bettag’s “Good Game”.
A while ago, there was a fascinating debate on the FACTNet board amongst those ex-Larouchites regarding Larouche (and Inc)’s anti-semitism. At first it seemed like the gulf of difference was rather large, but as it moved forward it became clear that the gulf was rather slim, and something of a consensus came through. Larouche clearly uses anti-semitic language, it was clearly more pronounced at a time when it was useful in raising funds [in seeking support from the Liberty Lobby] — which suggests a level of cynicism in the anti-semitism — but he is not solely or primarily anti-semitic. All of which falls short of where Dennis King stands on the matter, but that is his preogative, and it suggests somebody else needs to write a book.
With that I am charged with believing lies that have been told to me. An invisible question is thus placed before me: “Who are you going to believe: Me or your own lying eyes?” (Just as I do not need Dennis King to tell me about Operation Mop-Up, I do not need Dennis King to tell me that Lyndon Larouche is anti-semitic.)
So, here is that shallow delving into the matter, the one thin example of the flowering anti-semitism, and one example is all I really feel I need for my purposes. I tend to go back to this example because it just sort of slapped at me like a salamandar (and at the same time the implications of the dual diatribes agaisnt the baby-boomers and the praising of he LYMers struck me) — slimy and smelly.
Synarchist. Felix Rohatyn.
A conspicuous word choice. A conspicuous figure to cite. Why, in the panoply of words in the English language, would you possibly pluck out “synarchist”? Why, of all the figures with the same ideological position and the same position in the world, would you possibly determine Felix Rohatyn as the great Evil in the world, pulling strings like a marionette?
Synarchist is a synonym for “International(ist) Cabalist”. Really. Felix Royatin is an investment banker, and Holocaust Survivor. Really. It’s the Jewish International Bankers’ Cabal Conspiracy.
This is just sort of second nature for Larouche Inc., and you can take it for whatever its worth — forgive the LYMers, for they know not what they are saying with this.
Without even delving further into this issue, I’ll quote Dianne Bettag back in February or March: “Good game”. I’ll ramble further to the my interpretation of her quote and say “CHECK MATE!” Just as my guess is Dianne Bettag didn’t believe for a moment I was convinced by her comment (“Your source, Dennis King” [WRONG] “High Times Magazine” [Um. He wrote an article.]), I do not believe for a moment a Larouche supporter will let him/herself see this. Nonetheless, I believe I throw my pronouncement of “Check Mate!” out there (tongue firmly held in cheek) with more intelligent backing than Bettag’s “Good Game”.
A while ago, there was a fascinating debate on the FACTNet board amongst those ex-Larouchites regarding Larouche (and Inc)’s anti-semitism. At first it seemed like the gulf of difference was rather large, but as it moved forward it became clear that the gulf was rather slim, and something of a consensus came through. Larouche clearly uses anti-semitic language, it was clearly more pronounced at a time when it was useful in raising funds [in seeking support from the Liberty Lobby] — which suggests a level of cynicism in the anti-semitism — but he is not solely or primarily anti-semitic. All of which falls short of where Dennis King stands on the matter, but that is his prerogative, and it suggests somebody else needs to write a book.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
The thing is, LaRouche has no judgment at all, no self-restraint, virtually no control over his tongue, and above all, nothing but hatred for his fellow-man.
He is a creature of his time and place–smalltown New Hampshire in the mid-1920s, born to two crazy small-town folks–and presumably he imbibed what must have been endemic anti-Semitism there–not so much a hatred for individual Jews, whcih there’s not much evidence of (first two wives being Jewish, followers Jewish, etc.), but a hatred of Judaism as a religion and later a hatred of Israel as a state.
He has a small-town, small-minded, insular personality’s hatred of Jewish history, the Jewish religion, the Old Testament, etc.
Later, after his “Marxian” phase, he went through his “anti-Semitic” phase in association with Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby–pretty amazing for a guy who “fought” in WWII (he didn’t actually fight, he was a medical orderly, even though he later spoke as if he ran the war in the Pacific)–but amazing for a guy who was in the Army during the war–he began his Holocaust revisionist phase, which was absolutely odious and totally inexcusable.
Eventually (years later), he figured out that that wasn’t helping him any, including with his own appalled followers, so he dumped that and claimed he was the Jews’ best friend. That’s the phase he’s in now.
Do the Jews in the org believe it? Who knows. Jews outside the organization, not at all.
Even with his efforts to join the “Workmen’s Circle” and “Sholem Aleichemheit,” after Ken Kronberg’s death. Tough luck, Lyn. Paul Goldstein may still have a soft spot for you, Tony Papert may still think you’re God, and Jeff Steinberg may still think you’re a meal ticket, or at least the org is, but frankly, most Jews think you’re Goyischekop.
October 10th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
God, you’re an idiot Rachel (take that personally please).
Nobert Brainin, of Amadeus Quartet fame, was Jewish and outside the “organization” and Brainin loved LaRouche. Brainin was driven out of Vienna by Hitler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Brainin
Maxim Ghilan was another Jewish friend of LaRouche who was not in the “organization”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Ghilan
I can go on but it is stupid. Your canard of anti-Semitism is ridiculous. Only idiots believe it. Rachel you should write a book on LaRouche. Considering the number of people who voted for Bush you might just sell enough copies to make some gruel for LaRouche’s hungry youths. That way your life won’t have been wasted! Make it real juicy with all these personal observations and anecdotes — they’re fun to read.
The whole anti-Semite LaRouche is just another lie and you know it.
You’re just a liar or an idiot — probably both. Your post proves it.
LaRouche is anti-fascist and he doesn’t flinch if the fascist happens to be Jewish. Big deal.
At least Dennis King came up with a secret LaRouche dictionary and said each time LaRouche said the word “British” is actually meant “Jewish” and that was his delusion. Your delusions is that anyone takes you seriously except the 3-4 people that post on this blog. Go have a drink, see a movie, get married, enjoy life — forget LaRouche. He’s forgotten you. The agape is all gone now…
🙂
October 11th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Sounds like Hugo Chavez on a bad day. “Go have a drink, see a movie, get married, enjoy life”–I guess that’s what you’re doing, huddled over your keyboard, calling your interlocutors fascists, idiots, and whatnot.
Especially the whatnot….
But when you write “He’s forgotten you,” you prove how LITTLE you know LaRouche, really and truly. Whoever you may actually be, and however close to him.
If you knew Lindy like I know Lindy, to paraphrase the old song, you’d know that Lindy never forgets ANYONE. Hence those mind-numbing rants at late-night meetings (or in the odd document, here and there), against everyone from Gus to Andy to Dalto to Khushro to Uwe Friesecke to Fernando Quijano…. They’re all present, crowding into his head, and he can’t get over a single one of them.
Maybe you haven’t had the advantage of attending those late-night rants at NEC meetings or NC meetings…. If you had, you’d know. (And if you did have the advantage, then you’re lying about Lindy, and I guess you’re also lying about being a Midwestern “supporter” rather than a venomous homme de main.)
On the anti-Semitism front–go on over to FactNet–or the new laroucheplanet site–and read up on the quotes. The “Brainin loved LaRouche” line is so depressing–I mean, you actually said it! “Some of my/his best friends are Jews.”
If you were a little brighter, you’d do the Jewish-member-count routine. It’s superficially more convincing. But not by much.
As for the agape being all gone–my dear fellow, the agape was all gone before it ever got there.
October 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Sounds like Hugo Chavez on a bad day. “Go have a drink, see a movie, get married, enjoy life”–I guess that’s what you’re doing, huddled over your keyboard, calling your interlocutors fascists, idiots, and whatnot.
————-
Rachel my furry friend… you are quite liberal with insults and accusations, backed by nothing but your fevered imagination.
Do you have facts? FACTnet? Is that where all the hard-core drop outs hang out? Give me a link to the action. I love this stuff.
Is it like 10 people? 20? 50? 100? Or is it just the same ones that are here with the same tired slanders that have been going around for 30+ years.
I’d love to hear about Chris White’s brainwashing session again but this time from some nut who could chew a nail they’re so bitter. You sound like a good candidate for that.
You do a head count of the Jewish members for me. Do you have a list?
Oh, the NEC or NC meetings… Rachel you’re a name-dropper. You nailed me with that one! Damn you blew me right out of the water. I shall have to stand in the corner with a NDPC pamphlet all night to get over your fusion-powered (or was it cold fusion, powered by Carol) taunts.
You’ve reduced me to tears and if any bridges were standing in my flat community I might go walk my dog over it while I contemplate Kepler or just the Moon. I never understood Kepler — I just pretended. Shhh. This is all top secret — after all it is Skull and Bones!
October 14th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Hey Revenire,
Do you work for Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, his “wife”, his PAC, and/or one of his many front groups?
By work I mean cash money income (or their direct equivalents).
Are you a paid agent?
If so (and tell the truth now, Rev — the Good Lord is watching) it would be reasonable (i.e. decent) to disclose this, directly and regularly.
For example, your standard disclaimer might read:
“This comment was paid for by Lyndon LaRouche, my boss. I work for LaRouche and serve as his paid agent.”
October 14th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Alert:
The post by Earnest_one, above (now awaiting moderation), was written by Earnest One. It is the genuine article, truly.
But the (slight) name change is simply a mistake: Earnest_one is my screen name over at FactNet.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Hey Revenire,
Do you work for Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, his “wife”, his PAC, and/or one of his many front groups?
By work I mean cash money income (or their direct equivalents).
Are you a paid agent?
If so (and tell the truth now, Rev — the Good Lord is watching) it would be reasonable (i.e. decent) to disclose this, directly and regularly.
For example, your standard disclaimer might read:
“This comment was paid for by Lyndon LaRouche, my boss. I work for LaRouche and serve as his paid agent.”
—————-
Sorry, the answer is no I don’t and never have. I never joined LaRouche’s organization. He’s never paid me a nickel.
So “Earnest” you know what you can do with your accusations right?
I don’t expect you to believe me and I don’t care. You’re just a joke with the standard slander that has been discredited decades ago.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
The record shows that it was a question, NOT an accusation.
Were you slandered decades ago by someone who accused you of being a LaRouchie. Ouch. That probably hurt.
It is amazing, truly, at least to me, that someone SO close to the org (e.g. an owner of all hard-copies of Fusion Magazine and 21st Century Science and Technology — a guy with extensive experience, sufficient to comment on thirty-years of world-historical LC meetings in Leesburg and Wiesbaden) isn’t actually a member.
Here’s a good question:
What then, do you do for a living? What’s your specialty? Do you have a trade (work with your hands) or are you a pure intellectual (work with your mind)?
Are you a Fusion physicist? Perhaps you are independently wealthy?
October 15th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Sorry I didn’t respond earlier to your latest philippic here, Revenire. I genuinely couldn’t figure out what you were talking about, and I imagine you couldn’t either.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I’ve done a lot of things for money but being a whore is not one of them.
I won’t bore you with my biography but here’s a short answer to the above questions.
I am not a fusion physicist nor wealthy. I am just a working Joe, like lots of people. I work in a technical job directly on national infrastructure. I work with my mind. I also work with a specific machine — directing those that work on it from afar. I have done that for 15+ years. My wife doesn’t work — due to illness (I have pretty good health insurance but the company is always trying to chip away at it like lots of them are) but I make enough to support the crew: Two kids, my wife and I take care of my sick mother.
My children are searching for answers in life… my son has been contacted by the LYM and he’s looking for answers to 9/11, the war, the economy, etc. as any young man would be. He doesn’t buy the official 9/11 story but many Americans don’t. My son is asking what the Constitution means if they can torture people, hold them without trial, go to war against a nation that hasn’t attacked the US? I’d say those were pretty healthy concerns for any American and any American who doesn’t question the government, this government, is not doing his/her duty as a citizen.
My daughter is mainly concerned about men (she’s 22 and wants to find someone to love and marry, raise a family) and fashion (she wants a career in fashion). Things a lot of 22 year olds are “into to” right?
I’ve been fortunate that neither of them have had any serious problems growing up like drugs or gangs. I lived in Los Angeles for 25 years and got out of there when my daughter’s math class had 44 people in it — due to a collapsing tax base due to a collapsing economy. Her school had a riot (and this was in a middle class neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley) that the LAPD couldn’t put down for three hours. I didn’t want my children to be standing on the wrong corner and get shot and that happens a lot in all sorts of neighborhoods there, as it does all over our cities. Drugs are the cause. The banks launder the drug money or the whole thing wouldn’t function. The Senate has produced reports on money laundering. It didn’t take LaRouche to print Dope Inc. to add to the proof although Dope Inc. named names. I diverge.
No, no one has accused me of being a LaRouchie and I’ve never hidden the fact I support his policies on the economy etc. I am proud to do so. That doesn’t mean I support every single thing the man proposes or agree with every action he takes. That would be indeed be a cult. Blind obedience to anything he wants or states. He’s not right all the time (no jokes about the 99th forecast of world collapse please). If we look at the standard of living of the average American it has gotten worse over the years, much worse. My dad worked one job for five children and my mom didn’t have to work and we were middle class folks: two cars, college, nice home, etc. I’ve never subscribed to exact date forecasts — if LaRouche could do that we’d go to the “evil” racetrack (joke). He could send his whole 20 remaining member to various racetracks instead of organizing deployments. The reason “exact date” forecasts don’t work is we are dealing with people, not computers (although we’re also dealing with economic forecasters who use computer models), and people make decisions that can play with numbers ~ ala Enron ~ and LaRouche doesn’t control monetary policy anyplace.
Why is it amazing I have copies of magazines?
I have a huge library at home and most of the books aren’t written by LaRouche or his pals. I’ve always been interested in politics and since I was a youngster I’ve been a voracious reader. LaRouche stood out as a bit different than the average do-nothing politician. He has workable plans for the economy. These economic plans would also upset the apple cart and that is the reason for the slanders. He wants to shut down the drug trade and that goes directly at the off-shore banking etc. Remember Ollie North and his cocaine cowboys? Well, Nancy Spannaus ran a successful campaign against North and you must have either seen or remember the billboards and the song “Goodbye Ollie” — right? North was hounded, at all public appearances, about his drug dealing. North’s controllers had to keep him out of the public eye because Ollie was becoming unhinged. The arming of the Contras by cocaine sales is documented in other places than LaRouche’s periodicals. If I am not mistaken, John Kerry and the Senate had a report issued on this. LaRouche exposing Ollie and his cohorts as drug pushers didn’t win LaRouche any friends with the drug dealers (by that I don’t mean the guy on the corner selling crack I mean the banks that launder the money and the people that allow opium to be grown in Afghanistan today). This was something LaRouche had the guts to do and it stopped North from winning a Senate seat. North won’t be running for dogcatcher now.
I met LaRouche’s organization in the Midwest — saw the signs “More Nukes, Less Kooks” and “Nuclear Plants, Not Marijuana Plants” and so on and thought they were communists or just nuts. I thought they were crazy. One didn’t hear pro-nuclear energy people very often in the late 1970s. I read their material — this was when War On Drugs, Fusion, Campaigner, New Solidarity, and a couple of others were being published. Benjamin Franklin House was the publisher if I remember. I saw LaRouche in the Midwest speak in 1979 — some military man in the audience asked him about the beam weapons and LaRouche laid it out. Uwe Henke was around then. He has been gone for years. Goldman was around then. Juan Torres I knew. Dave Hoffman. A lot of the guys that went out with Dalto. I went to sunny California because I kept getting laid off from work — this was when the prime hit double digits (I think it was 18-21%) and that flattened the Midwest. I had an uncle who was in Los Angeles and I went out there for greener pastures career wise. I started a couple of conerns and did okay, nothing earth-shattering. I always maintained involvement in the LC but never full time. Believe it or not.
I’ve organized outside Post Offices, grocery stores and know the population when it comes to LaRouche. You hear it all — from rabid responses to support to people who have no idea who he is. I’ve done it enough to know responses run the gamut. That was volunteer work. My choice. If there were any other presidential candidates with the policies LaRouche has for the economy, foreign policy, etc. I’d support them too. I haven’t found any.
That’s my story. I think you will still accuse me of being a Nazi, of working for LaRouche full time, etc. You are suspicious. I don’t know why. You do.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Good heavens, you need to say whom you’re addressing. Can’t be me–none of this seems apposite to anything I said.