LaRouche

John Judge Describes the History and Methodologies of the LaRouche Organisation(s) from Spike EP on Vimeo.

Note the Army Intelligence background (DIA) - same as Mark Lane and Henry Kissinger.

The New Age LaRouchian front (Cosmic Connection) is also incredibly amusing

A Critical Commentary on Some Core Aspects of LaRouchian Dogma

"Religious and racial hatred, such as anti-Semitism, or hatred against Islam, or hatred of Christians, is, on record of known history, the most evil expression of criminality to be seen on the planet today."

"The Czarist Okhrana's Protocols of Zion include a hard kernel of truth which no mere Swiss court decision could legislate out of existence. The fallacy of the Protocols of Zion is that it attributes the alleged conspiracy to Jews generally, to Judaism. A corrected version of The Protocols would stipulate that the evil oaths cited were actually the practices of variously a Paris branch of B'nai B'rith and the evidence the Okhrana turned up in tracing the penetration of the Romanian branch of B'nai B'rith (Zion) into such Russian centres of relevance as Odessa…"

This is almost certainly true.

Although, it should be noted, that no original text (and no confirmed original LANGUAGE) for the Protocols has ever been found or established definitively established, and that may indeed be close to impossible at this historical distance - it certainly predates the Okhrana's Russian language translation in some form by at least 40 years, surfacing in the 1860s, according to Jewish scholars and historians who have looked into it, and it's a Schroedigger's Cat of Blood Libels - everyone who has translated it has used it to defame their particular preferred scapegoat, and the fact that Masonry employs the exact same Hebrew and Kabbalistic terminology (most specifically the use of "Goyim" to refer contemptuously to the uninitiated) muddies the water still further, which is part of the point of Freemasonry in the first place.

But the core contention - that it's a forgery - is simply unsupportable.

That's just a Zionist canard.

It isn't a forgery.

It's a document, it exists, and someone wrote it.

The only room for debate exists on the questions of authorship and sincerity;

Who wrote it, and why - and did they mean it?

In other words, is it what it purports to be, or it a documentary provocation?

Outside and beyond that question, I don't think it's debatable - but people have always found in the Protocols what they bring to it, and in that sense, it is the ultimate and insoluble Straw Man of polemical world history.

But saying "it's a fake", "this has long since been debunked" or "this is a classic anti-Semitic Canard" is totally unsupportable when we simply don't have the original text, we don't know who wrote it or who they were referring to when addressing these "Elders of Zion"

Zion, however, we should note, is specifically the NEW Jerusalem, not the Jerusalem of King David and the First or Second Temple period.

It isn't even the same place. It could be Utah. Or Perth. Or Paris or London.

"It is argued that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to 'Jewish survival' that any anti-Zionist is therefore not only an anti-Semite, but that any sort of criminal action is excusable against anti-Zionists in memory of the mythical 'six million Jewish victims' of the Nazi "holocaust."

This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races", a small fraction of the tens of million of others — especially Slavs — who were murdered in the same way Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn proposes today. Even on a relative scale, what the Nazis did to Jewish victims was mild compared with the virtual extermination of Gypsies and the butchery of Communists."  

- "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism", New Solidarity, December 8, 1978)

The phrase "butchery of Communists" is slightly ambiguous, so, not having the full context, I will address both potential meanings:

In the sense that "Communists were butchered" by the Third Reich, this is beyond dispute. For one thing, as in the British Israel Tradition peddled by the likes of Winston Churchill, Bolshevism and Judaism, and more specifically Zionism, were seen as inseperable concepts from the same common root, which was Jewish Freemasonry, as manifested by B'nai Brith and other similar secret Masonic orders.

And it is also true, that right to its core, National Socialism reserved a special contempt for atheistic Communism in general, and Bolshevism in particularly, which it regarded as especially contagious and subversive to the natural and social order.

In the sense that "Many of the Jews [and Slavs, Turkmen, Uzbeks, Chechens, various other European Muslims and other partisans] that died during the lifetime of the Third Reich were actually butchered by the Red Army Communists" - Not only is this known to be true, it was also, at the time, the formal position of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, and mainline Zionism itself both at the time and throughout the Cold War.

Indeed, B'nai Brith framed the Cold War struggle almost exclusively in terms of the "Rescue" of Soviet Jews, a strategic position which dramatically collapsed in 1991 during the Premiership of Yitzakh Shamir, when the waves and waves of "oppressed" ex-Soviet Jews straining at the leash for generations to leave the Soviet Union failed to materialise in anything like the expected numbers.

As I myself have previously noted - the history of the twentieth century would today have been written very differently, were Gypsies to have owned newspapers.

It's also noted that even in the ledgers of the Concentration and Death Labour Camps, Romany and Sindhi peoples were classed as an even lower grade of untermenchen than the Jewish peoples, considered unsuitable for even hard-labour and fast-tracked for death.

"The paranoid state is characteristic of the 'village commune' culture. Objectively, the model 'oriental village commune' is characterized by the fixing of the mode of production with a rigidity paralleling the behavioral stagnation of lower animal life….All the cognitive and related cultural achievements of capitalist development in music, philosophy, and so forth, are symptomatically denounced as 'in favor of the philosophical and cultural ideological relics of pre-1949 China's long barbarian past. Out of this hideous muck comes first a reactionary, actually counterrevolutionary rejection of the working class…"

LaRouche hates The Beatles.

And prefers Mao to the British East India Company, which at least contains a certain internal logic.

NB: If my analysis of this is correct, then this is no longer true - at some point, LaRouche concluded essentially that Mao was the British East India Company.

"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS — for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw! The so-called gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote!

What was the problem? The problem was the cultural paradigm shift. If someone comes up and says, "Yeah, but you can't interfere with the civil rights of an AIDS victim" — what the devil is this? 

You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax — if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword — shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscriminately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights?

Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don't want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

They're already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They'll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they're beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up-which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It's a matter of children's civil rights!"

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.

This is an ugly rant, to be sure, airing all of LaRouche's most deeply-set prejudices and reactionary attitudes towards what we might bracket together as "General Degeneracy, Debauchery and Bachanalia".

This of course extended to The Beatles. And he's not entirely wrong there, certainly insofar as McCartney is concerned.

But pre-Stonewall, and for around 20-30 years afterwards, this was not only the mainstream view of both the right and the hard left (the background LaRouche professes to adhere to), it was also the generalised feeling in even the urban, Cosmopolitain Zeitgeist as well, prior to at least 1992.

Both Fascists and Marxist-Lenninists made no distinction between male homosexuality and pederastry and regarded the one concept as essentially counter-revolutionary, subversive, socially contagious bourgeoise degeneracy, which, when you consider the level of self-indulgent consumerism within the gay community, again, is not without a certain level of truth 

Demanding a Manhatten-project style crash-program to isolate and determine the cause of AIDS made perfect sense in 1982, and was never done, as Pulitzer-winning gay writer (and AIDS victim) Randy Shultz noted at the time, right up until his tragic death - by 1986, the situation was beyond desperate.

That had not been done - it still hasn't been done, and LaRouche was operating on the basis if the consensus that the sole, or primary cause of AIDS was HTLV-III (later redesignated HIV in 1989), which it wasn't, and that the retrovirus itself had been purified and isolated by Institute Pasteur and Dr. Robert Gallo, which it hadn't, and that therefore a diagnostic and predictive test for AIDS had been developed and was in use and effective, which it wasn't.

This still has not been done.

The sense that AIDS was readily and steadily communicable within the heterosexual population is an intentionally created synthetic myth, consciously created and propagated (at least in the initial 5 year period of the epidemic from roughly 1980 - 1985 and the death of Rock Hudson) by the gay press themselves, fully conscious and aware that the Federal Government under Ronald Reagan would never authorise a dime of Federal money to be spent on a public health crisis that at that time appeared to amount to "just a few dead queers", with the hammer falling most mercilessly on those with the most intense "fast lane" urban gay community, bath-house lifestyle.

The creation of the synthetic myth that heterosexual non-injecting drug users could readily succumb to Acquired Immunodefficiecy was a political decision made by gay elites in a state of panic, desperate for outside help.

But it was never true - even if it is now Accepted Truth, manifest in the form of Public Myth.

(See my upcoming analysis of Tom Hanks' Oscar-bait performance in Philidelphia (1994) as part of my Hollywood Accredits The Memes series)

"...the refusal of governments to take credible action to stop the wildfire spread of the hideously fatal infection, is prompting the greatest rate of violence-tending qualities of fear among teenagers... The lynchers themselves are a small portion of the the total population of the social strata from which they are drawn, but see themselves as ad hoc representatives of those strata and the fears and objectives of those strata. They are a special variety of political revolutionary, and express, spontaneously, the conspiratorial and other ethical characteristics of political revolutionaries …

The impact of this pattern of developments on Britain's youth gangs of violence-prone football fans is predictable. One can read their general line of thinking in advance. Since the idea of touching the person of the carrier is abhorrent, stones and the nadiest approximation of a collection of baseball bats, come to mind. Certain individuals, of known haunts, first suggest themselves as easy targets…

The point is fast approaching, that increasing portions of these populations will focus upon the fact, that a dead AIDS carrier ceases to be a carrier. If governments were to proceed with repeated mass-screenings of the population, and isolation of carriers, the likelihood of a teenager lynch-mob phenomenon would be small. If not, then other ways of reducing the number of carriers will become increasingly popular.

In that case, the lynch-mobs might be seen by later generations’ historians, as the only political force which acted to save the human species from extinction."

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Teenage Gangs’ Lynchings of Gays is Foreseen Soon", New Solidarity, February 9, 1987, p. 8.

Emotions and homophobia aside, it's basic common sense in the face of a new and rapidly spreading contagion to practice basic quarantine procedures around every new case until you can establish the cause - and again, of course, the was never done, and still hasn't been done almost 30 years later.

The High-Profile lynching of gay teens did indeed occur and manifest in the mainstream media as a popular meme in the early 1990s, following the election of Bill Clinton and the entry of Rahm Emmanuel of the Israeli Mossad [aka, The Man Named MEGA] into the West Wing of the White House and an all-out campaign at both the State and Federal Level by the ADL and their fronts demanding "Hate Crime" Legislation, an "Assault Weapons" ban, "Cult Awareness", and sweeping anti-terrrorism legislation.