portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government

How Come Nobody Mentions Lyndon Larouche as one of the Democratic Presidential candidates?

Yes, I know Larouche as been maligned as "anti-semitic," as a conspiracy theorist, and even as an "extreme right winger", but...
If you look at what Larouche talks about on his website, he was exposing all the lies about WMDs used to justify the attack on Iraq long before the mainstream media 'discovered' this issue. In fact, Larouche was "outing" the Neoconservatives and their connections to Leo Strauss again long before the mainstream media picked up on this issue. In terms of 9-11, Larouche has suggested that these "terrorist attacks" were orchestrated by elements of the US intelligence and military establishment--much like many Portland Indymedia readers believe. Larouche opposes globalization and has opposed most of the Democratic Party and its leadership under the DLC as being nothing more than a political trojan horse for the Republican Right. Hell, if "antiwar" candidate Howard Dean can get support from people, why not Larouche? On every issue, Larouche is more of a progressive than Dean and most likely than Dennis Kucinich.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESS RELEASE

LAROUCHE REMAINS AMONG LEADERS
IN DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL FUNDRAISING


This statement was issued on July 18 by the LaRouche in 2004 political campaign committee.

Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche continues to hold a leading position among the current field running for the Democratic Presidential nomination, according to the results of the July 2003 Quarterly filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). LaRouche ranks second in the total number of individual contributions, and sixth in total money raised.

LaRouche's campaign sent shockwaves through the U.S. political establishment after the April 2003 Quarterly filings, which showed the FDR Democrat to be the frontrunner in terms of parameters of mass support, including the number of individual contributions to his campaign,* and the total money raised from individuals giving less than $200. These results correspond to the fact that LaRouche has the most active, on-the-ground campaign of any of the Democratic candidates.

With the results of the latest quarter, LaRouche has dropped to number two in total number of individual contributions, with a total of 12,464 to his campaign, according to the FEC. Only Howard Dean, whose campaign was based on Internet fundraising, ranks higher, with 14,424 individual contributions. Both top candidates John Kerry and John Edwards, who have 11,622 and 10,001 respectively, and far surpass the others, according to the FEC figures.

LaRouche's total amount of money raised during the campaign currently stands at $4,564,654—which places him sixth among the ten declared major candidates, according to FEC figures. Despite a coordinated press blackout against him, LaRouche's monies raised are substantially larger than those raised by Bob Graham, Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley-Braun, and Al Sharpton.

For more information on the LaRouche campaign, and the activities of the candidate and his youth movement, see  http://www.larouchein2004.net, or call 800-929-7566.

* Individual contributions are defined by the FEC as transactions by individuals giving $200 or more in total.

homepage: homepage: http://www.larouchepub.com

good question 22.Jul.2003 01:19

x

Did you notice that they note in their PR that he's a "Democratic Presidential pre-candidate"? Pre-candidate? What's that? <grin>

I haven't bothered to try to verify the Federal Election Commission data noted above, but I guess he's a formal candidate. But any public relations professional with half a brain would tell them to dump that "pre-candidate" modifier -- and the Larouche folks didn't put that in by accident.

Larouche should be taken with skepticism. I don't think those that slam him are fair at all. His dealing with conspiracy research is worthwhile, but like most that go in that direction, he comes up with some really strange ideas from time to time, and some ideas that are clearly not in keeping with a reasonable interpretation of facts.

Need info 22.Jul.2003 01:44

gork

Who is Lyndon Larouche? What does he stand for? What will he do as president? Why can't you find this out from his website or his campaign website?

All we learn is that he's raised lots of campaign money. I suppose that makes him quaified to run for president. Maybe I'll get some tapes of his old infomercials from the '80s and study this a bit more.

who is lyndon larouche? 22.Jul.2003 02:35

a random progressive

A good overview of who Larouche is and how he operates can be found in Dennis King's out-of -print book, "Lyndon Larouche and the New American Fascism." [Note: it's an old book, published prior to Larouche's prison sentence, so don't depend on it for up-to-date info, but just to get a feel for the character of the man.] Also review the writings -- some of which I believe can be found online -- of Chip Berlet on American political cults.

The long and short of it is that Lyndon Larouche belongs in a very strange political galaxy of strange political bedfellows, that includes other such cultic figures as Lenora Fulani and her "New Alliance Party." Larouche has no clearly definable politics, no simple "ism," other than a strange hodge-podge of more or less goofy theories which have more or less plausibility or resemblance to other more widely shared theories. The main upshot of all his theories is ultimately the conclusion that only his own divinely inspired benign dictatorship can save us and all humanity from destruction. Larouche's entire career consists in building up wildly fluctuating alliances and allegiances with every shade of political opinion, from ultraleft Marxist-Leninist to ultraright Reaganist and beyond, in a convoluted attempt to propel his own political apotheosis on the world stage. For this purpose he has relied on the assistance of a gaggle of idolatrous followers whom he has subjected to classical cult-style servitude-and-humiliation conditioning in the service of his own political ambitions, including requiring them to commit elaborate financial frauds (with credit cards and conning elders out of their pensions), for which he was sentenced in the eighties to a long prison term.

In recent years, Larouche and his followers have launched several publications which have attempted to not-so-carefully hide their formal relationship to him and his in-group. These include most notably a glossy magazine, "Twenty First Century Science and Technology," and a newsletter, "Executive Intelligence Report," the former of which seems to be most notable for a welter of over-the-top rhetoric and theories condemning environmentalists and ascribing an endless array of dark satanic conspiracies to them, the likes of which would do the "Wise Use" movement proud. The latter, the newsletter, Executive Intelligence Report, has occasionally printed some interesting and plausible material on various goverment leaks and possible conspiracies.

Libertarian? 22.Jul.2003 04:23

anonymous

I thought Larouche was a Libertarian in the '80's.

Lyndon LaRouche does not deserve most of the smears against him. 22.Jul.2003 04:48

Anarchist

I am not a LaRouche supporter. I do find him to be very authoritarian. However, LaRouche is NOT an anti-Semite. Much of his analysis is right on. While I would not want to have him as president, he adds a useful dimension to the debate.

Boy are you all misguided... 22.Jul.2003 07:23

Tatyana

This is like reading fair and balanced comments on the early Hitler. You all need to read and investigate a whole lot more. L.L. is a deeply racist individual that just happens to hold some positions you like...but then again, so does Joe Liberman, and I would not care to see him praised here anymore than I would LaRouche. Wake up! Your just dreaming.

Didn't LL advocate concentration camps for HIV? 22.Jul.2003 09:19

alex

Didn't LL advocate concentration camps for HIV? I can't remember exactly, but I thought back in the 80s, he wanted HIV quarantine. That and the credit card fraud pretty much makes me wary of the guy. And, to anonymous, he's always been a Dem to my knowledge.

get the scoop on Lyndon LaRouche 22.Jul.2003 10:09

t

Get the scoop on Lyndon LaRouche from anti-fascism.org:
 http://www.anti-fascism.org/page-cults-af.html

I see two quesions in the poster's title 22.Jul.2003 19:30

Dance

"How Come Nobody Mentions Lyndon Larouche as one of the Democratic Presidential candidates?" Your question suggests two questions:
1) What about "the system" allows or causes Lyndon LaRouche to be excluded in campaign coverage by the media and others (eg., the MoveOn.org on-line "primary" in June didn't include him on their ballot) and is it, as his press release says, "a coordinated press blackout"?
2) What about LaRouche and his campaign lacks credibility, arouses fear, or just plain fails to inspire both electorally-active Americans and the media?

I don't have answers to either question, but I do have some ideas about them.
.
As for question #1, the only reasons - legitimate or not - that I'm aware of or imagine are that candidates who have never held elective office are not generally taken seriously unless they're popular generals such as Dwight Eisenhower or Colin Powell. In addition, "perennial presidential candidates" who have had little success in the past are usually ignored by the media. Examples are:

Harold E. Stassen (Governor of Minnesota, 1939-43) who, according to  http://politicalgraveyard.com ,was a candidate for the Republican nomination in 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992. (By 1952, Stassen had moved to Pennsylvania.) I believe he was regarded as a credible candidate at least the first time he ran, but was an amusement by the sixties and almost totally ignored in the 80s and 90s.

Eugene J. McCarthy (U.S. Senator form Minnesota, 1959-71) also ran for President a few times after his famous run for the Democratic nomination in 1968. (He, too, left the state where he'd built a political base - moving to New York at some point after he divorced his wife.) He was included in a few primary campaign debates the first time he ran in the 70s (probably 1972). Later I heard of him running again once or twice, but he was not included in reporting on the presidential campaign.

LaRouche has run many times, usually for the Democratic nomination, but once in the general election as the candidate of the U.S. Labor Party. To the best of my knowledge he has never held any public office, demonstrated leadership, achieved public acclaim - other than his conviction on conspiracy charges by the federal government, nor gained any credibility (i.e., won delegates or primary elections) in any of his numerous campaigns for the presidency.

I think question #2 is addressed by many of the above comments. I would add I that I've heard of LaRouche for years and never understood him. I've seen him on TV a few times and he appeared to be (1) over my head in his knowledge of economics, (2) so myopic intellectually that he couldn't communicate to the normal listener, or (3) just too crazy to make sense; I haven't ever heard or read enough of him to be sure, but I'm inclined to think it's mostly #(3). No one of any credibility has ever told me I should take him seriously, so I've followed my own inclinations to disregard him.

I'm generally concerned about what the overt and covert rationale and standards are for anointing a candidate as "serious", "credible", "electable", or worthy of having their campaign covered by the media. However in LaRouche's case, my main question is, "Why does he run?" Also, I'm a bit curious as to the circumstance of his conviction, including his claim that it was actually accomplished by a conspiracy against him, but like most things about him, it seems too complicated to bother trying to learn about and decipher.

Well, he's sure got a snazzy science magazine. 30.Jul.2003 14:46

that guy we all know skyjason1@earthlink.net

All of LaRouche's political stances, including what he's doing now, can be found pretty easily in his online intelligence magazine, EIW. (  http://www.larouchepub.com )

It's almost as cool as his science magazine, 21st Century Science and Technology (  http://21stcenturysciencetech.com )

All in all, as far as "political viability" goes, I think this guy has about as much chance of being what most people think of as president as Lenin had of becoming Czar in 1917, or Benjamin Franklin had of becoming king in 1776. Political analysts are political apologists.

If you want to speak with him in person, he'll be having conferences in LA and DC at the end of August.

Call
Los Angeles (323) 259-1860
Washington DC (202) 543-8002
for more info.

Also, check out  http://www.theacademy2004.com after you're done with that snazzy science magazine of his!


Cultural Degeneration 01.Aug.2003 22:58

Philip

The anti-fascist web-page was very amusing. Any serious investigation of LaRouche or the various organizations he is affiliated with in the U.S. and internationally tend to produce quite a significant contradiction. Even a casual investigation, for that matter. He is the only serious contender for U.S. President, since he is the only person running for President who has a clue what is happening to the U.S. economically. He is not an anti-semite, otherwise I suspect not quite so many Jewish-Americans or Israeli's would be working with him, neither did he endorse consentration camps for AIDS victims, as that particular spear-campaign would have the more gullable members of the public beleive. For those wanting to pin down LaRocuhe for themselves, rather than reading the most brazenly in-your-face character-assasination/propoganda orientated articles and books sponsored by his establishment rivals, you might consider reading his own material - and see if you can detect any hint of "authoritarianism" or "fascism" there, or, for that matter, within any of the U.S. or international wings of the Schiller Institute, or EIR & Fideleo, among other publications. Or perhaps send an email to the various and numerous international Heads of State with whom he is in communication?

Lastly, it is tragically no surprise to learn that the American public has lost touch with it's own history, and the history and means of civilization it's self, to the point where the embodiment in Lyndon LaRouche of the great traditions of Plato and Socrates from the ancient world, and Schiller, Hamilton, Carey, Lincoln, Roosevelt and others in the modern world, is so totally unrecognizable.

Larouche did sponsor an AIDS proposition in CA 15.Aug.2003 18:38

Sue

Seven years later, the AIDS epidemic was in full swing. The civil rights gains made by the homosexual community were being erased by a disease that seemed to have no limits.

Even as late as 1986, public health officials couldn't figure out how to contain the disease.

Political outsider and frequent presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche offered an answer. His supporters, calling themselves the Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee (PANIC) quickly gathered the signatures necessary to put an initiative on the November 1986 ballot.

Panic, indeed, proved to be a useful commodity during signature gathering. The idea of rampant AIDS spread by homosexuals was enough to incite the religious right of southern California to throw their support behind the measure. Gloom-and-doom predictions from the Centers for Disease Control of AIDS spreading through the heterosexual population didn't help much either.

LaRouche's plan, Proposition 64, was simple enough. It would have required doctors to report the names of any infected persons, or persons believed to be infected, to a central agency. People with AIDS would be immediately fired from any job in which they would come in contact with a large number of people -- jobs like teaching, food handling, or holding public office.

But the most controversial aspect of Proposition 64 was something LaRouche still has trouble shaking: It would have added AIDS to a short list of highly communicable diseases and allowed for quarantines of AIDS patients and suspected AIDS patients.

Proposition 64 got lots of support from southern California conservatives, like former U.S. Rep. William E. Dannemeyer from Fullerton and former state senator John Doolittle from Citrus Heights.

Bruce B. Decker, a California philanthropist and AIDS activist who died of the disease in 1995, headed the opposition against Proposition 64. A majority of politicians and health officials came out against the measure, including then governor George Deukmejian.

Early polls showed strong public support for Proposition 64. But once the opposition movement was able to re-characterize the debate as being about civil rights, public support dropped off significantly.

Just as the No on Knight campaign is making every attempt to tie Proposition 22 to sponsor state Sen. William J. "Pete" Knight (R-Palmdale), the opposition to Prop 64 succeeded by associating the initiative with LaRouche, whom most voters viewed as an out-of-control extremist.

The No on 64 campaign spent nearly $2.7 million against the initiative, most of which was donated by gay rights organizations.

At the polls in November 1986, Proposition 64 was defeated by a 4-1 margin.

-----

From website  http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/chavez/runkleb.html

"That Guy" 11.Sep.2003 11:59

Mariel Kroq_dahlia_br@yahoo.com

Look, there are a few things you have to ask yourselves before you start condemning anybody like I've seen here. When we think of ourselves as fair and balanced, I certainly hope we're not looking to FoxNews for guidance. First of all:have you read any of what he himself has written, or have you only listened to hearsay? I've read a few of his parers, and yeah, they're REALLY hard to read at times. Ask yourself whether it's worth it to pull out your dictionary to actually find out what a guy's like, before making a random judgement. I mean, take another example. Read Frederick Douglass...I promise you'll need a dictionary for that too. Does that make him a crackpot whose vagueries are designed to confuse? And, as well as finding out what people who dislike Lyndon LaRouche say, ask him yourself. I think the email address I use is  asklarouche@larouchein2004.com. If that's not it, I know I found it on the website larouchein2004.com

And besides, I've done a lot of research on the Youth Movement gathered around him, and I know that on their website, theacademy2004.com, there's a lot of really cool intellectual stuff. So, as an 18-year old, who has known for years that I have no future, I close with the statement that although Lyndon LaRouche may be a little out-there at times, I know that he, and the Youth Movement have been politically active and effective all over the world. None of the other nine candidates(though after this debacle of a debate last night at Morgan State University in Baltimore, I doubt there will be that many contenders for long) have done a thing to attract my attention, and I think that some of them , including Leiberman, Kerry, and Dean, are really dangerous. I'm keeping my options open, but I'm really interested in what LaRouche is actually saying about the economy and the dangerous political situation we're in now.

LaRouche's history and character 24.Mar.2004 00:52

Roy

Interesting discussion -- stumbled across it while doing a Google on a related matter. Thought I'd share my personal knowlege of Lyndon TheRoach with the list, since obviously many people only know what they've seen on the Web. (Of course, we all know that if it's published on the Web it MUST be true, right?)

I first became aware of TheRoach around '67 or '69, when he was the leader of one more quasi-socialist group advocating drastic reform and/or overthrow of the US government. At that time they called themselves the US Labor Party, I believe. Even then, he claimed to be the only person who could save the country.

The USLP found their own solution to the question that troubled many of the opposition groups: who will lead the people after we overthrow the current system? Their solution was to attempt to physically eliminate the other opposition groups; they implemented it by attacking many other groups, with clubs and ball bats. Fortunately, in Richmond Virginia and in many other locales, it turned out that many of those groups included Vietnam veterans, who were not amused -- nor impressed -- by TheRoach's wannabe thugs.

Later, his cult garnered support from very sincere, very frightened, very ignorant parents by claiming to be fighting illegal drugs. They claimed, among other things, that the Queen of England was behind the world-wide drug conspiracy. Incidentally, during this period they also personally attacked me for advocating reform of marijuana laws in Virginia, and claimed that "the drug trade" was paying not only me but several members of the Virginia General Assembly.

TheRoach kept running for president, and STILL is doing so. The story is always the same: we face disaster, and only by electing him can this be staved off. Only the details change.

He and his cult have been convicted for stealing money from frightened old people by lying to them and extortion. I'd suggest that he's unworthy of serious consideration by anyone other than students of abnormal psychology.

I'll grant that he advocates a couple of good ideas relating to technology -- but, as the saying goes, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again. This is in no way a reason to support him.

TheRoach is -- IMHO, of course -- scum.

Sorry supporters, it's just a cult... 30.Mar.2004 11:31

scottmo7776@yahoo.com scottmo7776@yahoo.com

There are many questions as to who Lyndon Larouche is that can be answered in one simple statement: Lyndon Larouche is the leader of a cult. The memebers coerce students at colleges and protesters form rallies to come back to their office for a "class" which is about 95% Larouchies, and then they go to work on that person. For weeks afterward they will be harassed by phone to come to more meetings and give money, and eventually to "organize" with them, which means to raise more money and recruit more people. Once you have agreed they will move you into housing of their choosing, and give you a weekly stipened (mine started at $200 a week--pretty decent actually), and have you work form 8 in the morning to 10 at night, recruiting, raising money, recruiting, attend "class", raise money, recruit, attend "retreat", raise money. All the while they are pressuring you harder and harder to believe EVERYTHING that they believe (which means believing what Larouche believes--or at least says he believes). Every Sunday you will have a meeting where people confess their digressions from Larouche, talk about how good Larouche is, and discuss "problems"--which usually means someone is not taking their programming well. That person (and it was me a few times) will end up in a small closed room with a "leader" and a Larouche Security Squad member (several Larouchies in each office have weapons and fighting training and spend a few weeks a year at Lyndon's estate in Leesburg, VA to act as guards, or on the road when he travels). In that room someone will
ten have a "Beyond Pschoanalysis" session

[NOTE: "Beyond Psyche" was a series of articles published by Larouche in the 70s that he claims is a method far more powerful than any psychoanalysis in helping people attain their maximum potential. It's core is to unnerve and unsettle people emotionally through personal attacks concerning sexuality or real or perceived shortcomings, along with personal information obtained earlier in confidence. Then the person is questioned about contradictions between their thinking and actions (ex "You care about the starving people of the world? Then why can you only organize ten hours a day?). This is done until a full emotional collapse is achieved, which generally means crying hysterically--no one ever made me cry hysterically though I saw it happen to a few other people, and maybe I did cry a little;-). Then the person is supposed to admit their shortcoming (confess), and ask the leader how to be a better person. The leader then redefines the mission for them. This is the bare bones of "Beyond Psychoanalysis" found in the "Beyond Psyche PSP 2" essay. Here are a few quotes from one essay of BP, though there are half a dozen or so I can only find two online:

"The dialectical method is immediately, empirically, a change in the state of mind, in which control by "sincerity of feeling" is ended"

"It is as if the group-leader had each participant's mind inside his own"

"In individual psychoanalysis, or the more powerful processes of competently-led group analysis, this impotence of self-consciousness is overcome, to a varying, greater or lesser, extent, by the substitution of social love" (social love being the Larouche campaign, mind you!)"

Oddly enough the lessons taught on how to properly "psychoanalize" someone, paraell the same methods outlined in books written in the 50s and 60s but they called it "brainwashing". Funny little accident I guess.]

After a session, one would begin to accept things they couldn't before, people work harder, and start using the in-group words properly. Then pay will start to decrease--slowly--until it is down to 50 or 60 bucks a week for 90 to 100 hours of work. Hunger and constant activity, fighting to save the planet from mass chaos of the oncoming financial collapse, however, nothing seems to be happening...hmm we're running President...but we cant win...YES! but we CAN get matching funds from the FEC, and maybe next year I'll get to wait on Larouche hand and foot, or maybe one of the regional leaders will choose me to sleep with until a new fresher recruit comes along! Recruit, raise funds, recruit, raise funds....decide you want to challenge the leadership, boom! closed door meeting, yelling, crying, "I'm sorry I'm weak", Leader redefines the mission..I think I want to have children...boom! closed door meeting, yelling, crying, "I'm sorry I'm weak", Leader redefines the mission...I want to go on a vacation and visit my parents...boom! closed door meeting, yelling, crying, "I'm sorry I'm weak", Leader redefines the mission..

That's life as a Larouchie.

That's life in a CULT.

I know it seems like some of the ideas are interesting, widen the political debate, yada yada---but I have watched a 50 year old woman, Marcia, be yelled at until broken down in tears in front of a group of 15 people. She tried to leave the room and Debbie Freeman, Larouche's spokeswoman and regional leader in Baltimore, yelled,"Don't let her leave!"--when no one else in the room stopped her, Debbie ran and grabbed her (Debbie is a big woman, slightly Amazonish) and forced her back to her chair then forced her down into it. As Marcia cried hysterically, in a low voice saying over and over "that's not what happened", and Debbie quietly told her "That IS what happened..."and then spoke something for a while quietly that no one could hear.

It looked like an abusive mother talking to a bad child, and when it was over Marcia sat there and cried some more, and everyone else left to get on the phone, and raise more money.

Ahh, life in the cult.

It's not a movement its a cult, beware, pass it on, tell your friends, these people are scary.

If you are a defector, or just have questions, e-mail me  scottmo7776@yahoo.com