From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:14 PDT
Subject: Re: LaRouchians as Fascists!
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1296500306:cdp:1296500307:000:26506
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!cberlet    Aug 25 21:14:00 1992


From: NLG Civil Liberties Committee <cberlet>
Subject: LaRouchians as Fascists!

/* Written 10:16 pm  Dec 18, 1990 by nlgclc in cdp:publiceye */
/* ---------- "LaRouchians as Fascists!" ---------- */

LAROUCHE AS FASCIST: PART TWO

------

 The Paranoid Style

   LaRouche's parlaying of personal and political 
conspiracy theories into a multi-million dollar 
financial empire is unique, but paranoid 
political movments occur cyclically in American 
history. In his widely-quoted essay "The Paranoid 
Style in American Politics," professor Richard 
Hofstadter argues that in times of economic, 
social or political crisis, small 
conspiracy-minded groups suddenly gain a mass 
following. The anti-Catholic hysteria of the 
1800's, the anti-immmigrant movement which led to 
the Palmer Raids in 1919, the Red Scare of the 
1950's and other societal convulsions, are 
examples, wrote Hofstadter.

   Such movements rise and fall periodically, 
according to Hofstadter, appealing to people 
fearful about the world political and economic 
situation, and longing for simple solutions to 
complex problems. The use of scapegoats is common 
among these movements.

   The findings of two academics who studied a 
LaRouche campaign contributor list (available 
from the Federal Election Commission) lend 
support to the thesis that LaRouche appeals to a paranoid 
constituency. In a 1986 press release, "Who 
Controls Us: A Profile of Lyndon LaRouche's 
Campaign Contributors," John C. Green and James 
L. Guth of Furman University identify LaRouche as 
"a new celebrity on the extreme right."

   "An analysis of his campaign contributors 
suggests that LaRouche should be taken seriously, 
not as a candidate, but as evidence of the 
failure--and success--American politics," wrote 
the professors.

   According to the results of the study, among 
LaRouche's contributors are a significant 
proportion of Northern neo-populist 
conservatives, "profoundly uncomfortable with 
modern America and susceptible to conspiratorial 
explanations of their distress. One seemed to 
speak for the others when he listed his major 
concern as `who really controls us?' To many of 
these alienated people, LaRouche's outlandish 
views offer a plausible answer to this question." 

According to the study:

   "Though LaRouche campaigns 
as a Democrat, most of his donors are 
independents, with the largest group `leaning' 
Republican. but ordinary people as well, 
believing that no one can be trusted `most of the 
time.' Very few say they are optimistic about 
their future or that of the country.  They are 
equally disillusioned with politics, 40% report 
having become discouraged and ceased 
participating at some point. These attitudes 
extend to current political groups as well.  
Three-quarters feel `far' from mainstream 
conservative organizations such as the Chamber of 
Commerce. Roughly equal numbers feel `close' and 
`far' from more reactionary groups like the John 
Birch Society. Uniform dislike, however, is 
reserved for liberal advocates of change; the 
ACLU, Common Cause and Ralph Nader.

   "LaRouche is most criticized for his 
political intolerance, a trait exhibited 
by his contributors. To measure 
tolerance, we asked all donors to name a group 
they regarded as `dangerous' and then asked if 
they would allow a member of that group to run 
for president, speak in a public place or teach 
in public school. Only a quarter of the 
LaRouchians would allow a member of their 
`dangerous' group to engage in all three 
activities and another quarter would allow 
none.

   "LaRouche would probably approve of their 
choice of `dangerous' groups: more than half of 
the mentions figure prominently in `conspiracy' 
theories of politics, such as communists, drug 
dealers, Jews, bankers, intellectuals and the 
mass media.  Some `conspiracies' are explicitly 
named: the `zionist-socialist movement,' the 
`international drug ring,' `cartel control of 
money' and the `post-industrial counter-culture.' 
 But other donors identify mainstream 
organizations and leaders as `dangerous,' 
including the `unilateral disarmament advocates,' 
`eco-freaks,' `Hayden and Fonda,' `socialist 
Democrats' and `big labor bosses.'

   "These kinds of attitudes occur among other 
conservative activists, but rarely to this extent. 
And the LaRouchians differ from other conservatives 
in demographic terms as well.  LaRouche's donors 
seem to be the remnant of the `small town 
America' of a generation ago. Nearly 
three-quarters were born in the Midwest or 
Northeast and more than half still live there, 
outside the major cities. Most spent their adult 
life in one or two states; the only major move 
they have ever made was to retire to the Sunbelt. 
Two-thirds are 55 or older, male, of WASP or 
German extraction, and products of [nuclear 
two-parent] families. They are not, however, 
particularly religious; most belong to mainline 
Protestant denominations and few are active 
church members. "

   The authors concluded, "it is alienated people 
who make fringe candidates possible. LaRouche 
should be taken seriously as a symptom of 
distress in a small part of the body politic.  
His limited appeal is a sign of the basic health 
of America politics."

   One historian, author George Seldes, thinks 
LaRouche has followed another seldom travelled 
but clearly recognizable historic path--the road 
from Socialism through National Socialism to 
Fascism. Seldes has authored some ten books 
concerning authoritarianism and thinks LaRouche's 
theories and style represent classic 
"Mussolini-style fascist" ideology. Seldes' 
analysis carries weight especially since he wrote 
a biography of Mussolini in 1935 titled 
<Sawdust Caesar.>

 Secret Agent LaRouche

   In a sense LaRouche is a "Silicon Caesar" 
since he has risen to power through a 
sophisticated computerized telecommunications 
network which gathers political and economic 
intelligence and then packages it for 
dissemination through newsletters, magazines, 
special reports and consulting services. Former 
Reagan advisor and National Security Council 
senior analyst, Dr. Norman Bailey, told NBC 
reporter Pat Lynch the LaRouche network was "one 
of the best private intelligence services 
in the world."

   Not everyone shares the view. When Henry 
Kissinger was told of how LaRouche operatives met 
with high Reagan Administration officials in the 
early 1980's, he told the <New Republic>, 
"If this is true, it would be outrageous, stupid, 
and nearly unforgivable." Dennis King, co-author 
of the <New Republic> article which examined 
LaRouche's influence in scientific and 
intelligence circles, says during the first 
Reagan term LaRouche aides managed to gain 
"access to an alarming array of influential 
persons in government, law enforcement, 
scientific research and private industry." These 
ties form the basis of the LaRouche "CIA defense" 
against the charges he conspired to obstruct 
justice. LaRouche claims he believed his security 
aide Roy Frankhauser, a former Ku Klux Klan 
leader and government law enforcement informant, 
was a covert conduit to the CIA.

   John Rees, an ultra-conservative whose 
<Information Digest> newsletter reports on 
political extremes on the left and right, 
says he "believes the <New Republic> 
story that LaRouche staffers had 
access to a lot of people." But he points out, 
"If you have all the electronic resources and 
information-gathering staff that LaRouche 
posesses you are bound to come up with occasional 
gems, that's what most people were interested in, 
not the LaRouche philosophy." Both King and Rees 
feel the Reagan Administration consciously began 
distancing itself from contacts with the LaRouche 
network following the <New Republic> 
and NBC stories.

   Russ Bellant, a long-time LaRouche watcher 
from Detroit, notes that in the mid-1970's 
LaRouche simultaneously turned to the right and 
tried to link up with more respectable groups, 
including, for a brief period, several state 
Republican Party organizations. "Some tactical 
political alliances with various right-wing 
groups were made on the basis of LaRouche's 
scurrilous disruption campaigns against mutual 
enemies, especially liberal Democrats," says 
Bellant. In fact, LaRouche has consistently 
targetted the American left, and done so with 
material and moral support from small but 
significant elements in law enforcement, the 
Republican Party and the American far right. 
There is also evidence to suggest that the 
LaRouche organization maintained a cozy 
relationship with certain elements in U.S. and 
foreign intelligence, military 
and police agencies.

   Bellant and other LaRouche-watchers feel the 
LaRouche network and its questionable finances 
and intelligence activities may have been 
overlooked by certain individuals in intelligence 
and law enforcement agencies. "These persons were 
focusing more on the information being churned up 
by LaRouche's intelligence-gathering apparatus," 
says Bellant.

   LaRouche-related financial operations have run 
afoul of the law before, but by adopting an 
aggressive legal strategy his groups have been 
able to fend off successful prosecution for years 
until cases were dropped or settled by exhausted 
plaintiffs and prosecutors. One Illinois case 
involving LaRouche-backed mayoral candidate 
Sheila Jones and LaRouche's Illinois Anti-Drug 
Coaliton has dragged on for over six years.

   The 1986 Illinois primary victory by two 
LaRouche followers, however, raised the ante. 
"The visibility that came to LaRouche after the 
Illinois primary lent credibility to the 
investigations into his financial operations by 
bringing forward scores of persons who claimed to 
have been defrauded by LaRouche operations over 
the years," says Bellant.  There are probably a 
variety of reasons why the ties between LaRouche 
and various government agencies and personalities 
were severed in the mid-1980's. Highly-publicized 
incidents such as the airport battle between 
LaRouchies and Henry Kissinger and his wife 
helped doom the LaRouche network's relationship 
with the Reagan Administration--their profile 
just became too visible for a continued 
relationship. 

   Principled conservatives challenged 
the Reagan Administration to justify its 
flirtation with an anti-Semitic group. 
Intelligence specialists questioned the wisdom of 
sharing thoughts with a group which historically 
worked both sides of the political fence 
separating allies from adversaries. Even Oliver 
North got into the act when his fundraisers and 
security specialists found LaRouche emissaries 
were getting underfoot.

   LaRouche security expert Jeff Steinberg, who 
used to meet with National Security Council 
staffers at the Old Executive Office Building in 
the White House compound, spent much of 1988 in a 
Boston courtroom facing criminal charges. However 
it appears the criminal investigation which led 
to the current legal problems faced by LaRouche 
and his followers began before the controversy 
over his ties to the Reagan Administration had 
reached key decision-makers in government 
agencies. While there is some evidence of 
prosecutorial misconduct and civil liberties 
violations in the course of some of the federal 
investigations and prosecutions, the claim by 
LaRouche spokespersons that the indictments are 
part of a government conspiracy to silence 
LaRouche appear to be without foundation.
 
Political Puzzle?

   Russ Bellant's articles on LaRouche have 
appeared in liberal Michigan weeklies and 
progressive publications, while John Rees tills 
the right side of the journalistic garden. But 
both agree LaRouche's ideology is now neither 
Marxist nor conservative. Rees, who for years has 
written for conservative, anti-communist, and 
New-Right publications (including several 
magazines published by the John Birch Society), 
thinks it is unfair ever to have called LaRouche 
a conservative simply because he has tried to woo 
that political block.

   "He is emphatically not a conservative," says 
Rees, "he is a totalitarian extremist with a cult of 
personality to rival Joseph Stalin's." Rees 
concedes that LaRouche's politics are distorted 
and strange, saying "he is difficult to 
categorize--in a sense LaRouche is a remedial 
Fascist. At least Mussolini could make the trains 
run on time. I doubt LaRouche is capable 
of doing that."

   Rees claims that "when LaRouche was rejected 
by the totalitarian left, he simply tried the 
other side of the totalitarian spectrum." 
According to Rees, ties between the LaRouche 
network and several racist and anti-Semitic 
groups are well-established. "Former LaRouche 
organizers report cooperation with elements of 
the Aryan Nations Network," adds Bellant who says 
the LaRouche network is a "neo-Nazi type of 
cult." 

 Racism and Anti-Jewish Rhetoric 

   LaRouche has many connections to the racist 
political right in this country. Richard 
Lobenthal, Midwest Regional Director for the 
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, observes 
that LaRouche security advisor Roy Frankhauser 
"has been identified as present with other white 
supremacists at meetings held at the farm of 
Pastor Bob Miles in Michigan." Leaders of the 
notoriously racist and anti-Semitic Aryan Nations 
have attended the same meetings.

   "Frankhauser's background and connections are 
myriad, he is obviously a LaRouchite, he is a 
professed racist and anti-Semite and was a close 
associate of neo-Nazi leader George Lincoln 
Rockwell," says Lobenthal.

   LaRouche not only works in coalitions with 
bigots, he has also propounded ideas which are 
widely perceived to represent outright racism.

   LaRouche, for instance, offended the Hispanic 
community in a November, 1973 essay (published in 
both English and Spanish) titled "The Male 
Impotence of the Puerto-Rican Socialist Party." 
An internal memo by LaRouche asked "Can we 
imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the 
Black Ghetto mother?"  He described the majority 
of the Chinese people as "approximating the lower 
animal species" by manifesting a "paranoid 
personality. . . .a parallel general form of 
fundamental distinction from actual 
human personalities."

   LaRouche's use of hysterical Jewish conspiracy 
theories for ulterior political motives has lead 
him to be branded an anti-Semite by several major 
Jewish groups. 

   One ADL spokesperson, Irwin Suall, was once 
sued for defamation by LaRouche for calling him a 
"small time Hitler." The jury ruled against 
LaRouche. According to LaRouche, only a million 
and a half Jews perished in the concentration 
camps, and they died primarily from overwork, 
disease, and starvation. This denial of the 
Holocaust is coupled with pronouncements saying 
there is nothing left of Jewish culture except 
what couldn't be sold to Gentiles, or claiming 
British Jews brought Hitler into power.

   While many of the ringleaders of the global 
conspiracy, according to the LaRouche philosophy, 
are Jewish, members of the LaRouche group rebut 
charges of anti-Semitism by pointing out that a 
number of them--including Janice Hart, former 
Democratic nominee for the Illinois Secretary of 
State--are Jewish. The Anti-Defamation League of 
B'nai B'rith, which has successfully beat back 
several costly LaRouche lawsuits, rejects this 
explanation and insists the group is a paranoid, 
anti-Semitic political cult.

   For his part, LaRouche claims to be merely 
anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. Jewish groups and 
political scientists acknowledge the important 
distinction, but LaRouche rhetoric--such as 
leaflets distributed in California bearing 
the offensive headline "Smash the Kosher 
Nostra!" and naming a number of Jewish figures as 
part of a global conspiracy, leaves little doubt.

   Since 1976, the NCLC's ties to anti-Semitic, 
ultra-right groups and individuals have been well 
documented. LaRouche associates have cultivated 
ties to Willis Carto, a notorious racist and 
anti-Semite who helped found Liberty Lobby and 
the pseudo-scholarly Institute for Historical 
Review. This latter group publishes "historical 
revisionist" literature deriding the Nazi 
Holocaust as a Jewish hoax.

   Former staffers at both the Liberty Lobby and 
LaRouche's NCLC claim the two groups cooperated 
closely on several projects. In the March 2, 1981 
issue of its newspaper <Spotlight>, Liberty 
Lobby cynically defended the relationship this 
way: "It is mystifying why so many 
anti-communists and `conservatives' oppose the 
USLP [U.S. Labor Party --the NCLC's original 
electoral arm]. No group has done so much to 
confuse, disorient, and disunify the Left as they 
have. . .the USLP should be encouraged, as should 
all similar breakaway groups from the Left, for 
this is the only way that the Left can be 
weakened and broken."

   Linda Ray, the outspoken former member of the 
LaRouche group, recently published a first-person 
account of her experiences in the Chicago-based 
national weekly <In These Times>. She 
recalls that after leaving the group, someone 
showed her a LaRouche organization pamphlet she 
had once sold on the street. "In it the Jewish 
symbol, the Star of David, was used as a 
centerpiece to point to six different aspects of 
the illegal drug trade. In this context, the Star 
of David was a symbol of evil." She was shocked 
when she realized she had not recognized this 
while still working with LaRouche.

   "Many people find it difficult 
to understand how Jews--such as 
I--could have worked for an anti-Semitic group. 
Perhaps the answer is that the members get so 
hypnotized by the simplistic `good guys and bad 
guys' approach to history that they do not hear 
what LaRouche is really saying."

   Ray recalls how LaRouche claimed the British 
were a different "subhuman species" and how his 
<Campaigner> magazine concocted the charge 
that the British created the Nazi movement."Since 
the blasts were overtly directed against the 
British, Jewish members often did not recognize 
the subliminal anti-Semitism of the attacks. 
LaRouche, like the Ku Klux Klan, Hitler and 
Goebbels, was attacking the Rothschilds and other 
British-Jewish banking interests. In the wake of 
these anti-Semitic writings, many of us were 
confused. But we continued to defend LaRouche by 
lamely saying, `We're not anti-Semitic. So many 
of our members are Jews. We always say in our 
publications that we are against the Nazis.'

   "I remember reading in detail about the `subhuman 
species' concept. Although I knew it did not make 
scientific sense, I presumed that it was a deep 
intellectual metaphor that was over my head."

   When Ray left the group and finally came to 
grips with her role as a Jew working in an 
anti-Semitic organization, she says "It was as if 
I was waking from a nightmare." 

   LaRouche's relationship with Blacks--including 
his own Black NCLC members--is similarly 
confusing and complex. While LaRouche's writings 
are replete with racialist assertions extolling 
white Northern European values at the expense of 
other ethnic values, he has in some cases 
succeeded in forging alliances with rightist or 
opportunist black politicians and civil rights 
leaders, such as Roy Innis of the Congress of 
Racial Equality (CORE) and Hulan Jack, a former 
Borough president and powerhouse in the New York 
Democratic Party. Articles from LaRouche's <Executive 
Intelligence Review> have appeared in publications
of Rev. Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

   At the same time they are recruiting Blacks, 
LaRouche publications praise the wisdom of the 
Botha government in South Africa, and attack 
those who protest the system of apartheid. 

   LaRouchian rhetoric can often offend numerous 
constituencies simultaneously. The July 7, 1986 
issue of the <Illinois Tribunal>, an insert 
tucked into LaRouche's <New Solidarity> (now 
<New Federalist>) newspaper, covered the Ku 
Klux Klan counter rally against Chicago's annual 
Gay Pride parade by charging: "The idea behind 
the KKK outburst was--amid heavy media coverage 
of a mere two dozen Klan demonstrators--to make 
citizens think anyone who wants to take serious 
measures against AIDS is a cross-burner and a 
Nazi. . . .In fact, the Klan does not 
exist--except as a special dirty-tricks operation 
of the FBI and the B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation 
League. "

   The article went on to say the founders of 
B'nai B'rith were "about as Jewish as Josef 
Goebbels."When Illinois Congressman Sidney Yates 
faced LaRouche-backed challenger Sheila Jones, 
LaRouche supporters distributed leaflets titled 
"So, What's A Nice Jewish Boy Doing Supporting 
Sodomy?" Former Chicago mayor Jane Byrne was 
targetted in one mayoral race with a LaRouche 
candidate's campaign slogan of "Byrne the Witch." 

   In attacking political enemies, LaRouche 
propoganda often utilizes racist, anti-Jewish, 
sexist or homophobic stereotypes. 

Defining the Terms

   The LaRouche cult fits the description of a 
totalitarian movement as outlined by Hanna Arendt 
in <The Origins of Totalitarianism.> 
Totalitariansim is correctly defined by its 
all-encompasing style, structure and methods, not 
by its stated or apparent ideological premises or 
goals. Arendt wrote that not all fascist groups 
were necessarily totalitarian and not all 
totalitarian groups were necessariy fascist.

   Is LaRouche a fascist? The goal of fascism is 
always raw power, and it will adopt or abandon 
any principle to obtain power. The chameleon-like 
nature of fascist theories is one of its 
hallmarks, and often leads to confusion as to 
whether it is on the political left or right as 
it opportunistically gobbles up popular slogans 
from existing movements.

   Journalist James Ridgeway notes there are real 
contradictions in LaRouche's politics: "While it 
maintains contacts with far-right groups, 
LaRouche's organization is ideologically at 
cross-purposes with many which are nativist and 
anarchist. LaRouche is an internationalist and a 
totalitarian: he believes the masses are 
`bestial' and unfit for citizenship."

   Freelance journalist Nick Gallo takes us a 
step further. In <The Seattle Weekly> he 
acknowledges that much of what LaRouche espouses 
"appears kooky, if only because his ideas 
certainly defy conventional political analysis. . 
. .However go beyond the individual positions on 
different issues and beneath the surface lurk 
echoes of sinister themes that have been 
prevalent in the 20th century: preservation of 
Western Civilization, purity of culture and 
youth, elimination of Jewish and homosexual 
influence, suspicion of international 
banking conspiracies."

   The opportunistic exploitation of 
anxiety-producing issues by LaRouchies is no 
surprise to Clara Fraser who knew LaRouche when 
he was in the Socialist Workers Party. Writing in the 
<Freedom Socialist> newspaper, she explains, 
 "The pundits are intrigued and puzzled by his 
amalgam of right and left politics, a tangled web 
of KKK, Freudian, encounter therapy, Populist, 
Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notions. They needn't 
be. His is the prototypical face of fascism, 
which is classically a hodgepodge of 
pseudo-theories crafted for mass appeal. . . ."

   Themes generally associated with fascism 
frequently recur in LaRouche's writings. In the 
aggregate, LaRouche seems to like the idea of 
society with an authoritarian governing body, 
exercising social, political, economic, and 
cultural control, using force when necessary to 
maintain order and attain desired goals. 
Traditional democracy is contemptuously dismissed 
by LaRouche, who describes himself as a 
"traditional Democrat," as the "rule of 
irrationalist episodic majorities."

   When LaRouche touts his followers as  
"neo-Platonic" theorists, most people aren't 
aware that in <The Republic,> Plato outlined 
his view of a political system in which only a 
handful of enlightened "Golden Souls" would be 
allowed to participate in societal 
desision-making. While this was certainly a step 
forward from imperial dictatorship and rule by 
fiat, it is hardly a step forward for a 
participatory democracy. LaRouche, incidently, 
has said his followers are "Golden Souls."

   Combining fascism and totalitarianism makes 
for a potent mixture, but even a totalitarian 
fascist is not necessarily a Nazi--for that you 
must include a "Master Race" theory and roots in 
an ostensibly socialist agenda for empowering the 
working class. . movement and German Nazi 
movement. In German the word itself--NAZI--was an 
acronym for the National German Workers Socialist 
Party. Most socialists now are painfully aware of 
that error. LaRouche apparently repeated the error.

   But can an organization which has Jews and 
Blacks as members be called Nazi? The LaRouche 
network's printed materials are full of 
ethnocentric, racist, and anti-Jewish rhetoric, 
but that doesn't necessarily make it Nazi. Where 
is LaRouche's theory of a master race? In fact, 
LaRouche himself has repeatedly enunciated just 
such a theory, but in his typically convoluted way.

   In the mind of Lyndon LaRouche, personal or 
political opponents are not even human, Jerry 
Brown and Tom Hayden are "creatures;" the rest of 
us are merely "beasts" or "sheep."

   According to Dennis King, it is LaRouche's 
belief that his enemies are subhuman and his 
followers superhuman which makes "LaRouche more 
than a political fascist, but a neo-Nazi." King, 
whose book on LaRouche is slated for publication 
in 1989, adds that "people afraid of that 
characterization should sit down and read his 
ideological writings. LaRouche talks about the 
existence of two parasitic species descended from 
Babylonian culture, the British-Jewish and 
Russian-Orthodox species, then there are the 
subhuman masses, then humanity represented by 
LaRouche and his followers, the Golden Souls, and 
then a new superhuman race which will evolve from 
the Golden Souls. It really is pure 
Nazism," says King.

   And if that makes no rational sense; and if 
some of his followers are Jews and Blacks? "So 
what?" retorts King "LaRouche is a totalitarian, 
he can define anyone he wants to as being a 
member of the human race, and anyone he wants to 
as being a member of an inferior race, and he can 
change the definitions from week to week--who is 
going to argue with him?"

End of Part Two