From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Subject: Dennis King is NOT a credible source on LaRouche
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 05:42:50 GMT


On 5 different threads replying to 5 different documents from 
LaRouche's organization Brad Pierce recommends Dennis King's
book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" as a good
reference. The following is a statement originally posted by me on 
alt.conspiracy in response to a similar King reference from a 
poster there. As somebody who has been following LaRouche's
work since 1974 I'm in a position to speak from my own knowledge
about how LaRouche thinks and what he stands for. I hope the following
will be useful to anybody who wants to seriously evaluate Dennis 
King's credibility.

Shortly after King's book came out I read about half of it, while sitting
in our local "comfortable" book store. The hardcover price was a little
beyond my budget, in addition to which I felt a natural reluctance to
financially support a writer whose views were substantially opposed to my
own. The part of the book I was able to finish before the single local copy
was sold was interesting, and to "give the Devil his due" I have to admit
that King is an accomplished writer and appeared to have a wealth of
factual detail at his disposal. Indeed, I learned things about the
organization I had not known, and I have followed it closely for over 15
years. 

However impressive King's book is however, my overall impression was
negative. I cannot attempt a detailed rebuttal, since I read the book over
a year ago, do not have a copy at hand, and although my personal collection
of LaRouche literature is extensive, it is not indexed and the burden of
searching through it for specific rebuttal quotes would be prohibitive.
What I CAN do, however, is to point out a specific example in which King
misrepresents LaRouche's thinking on a point which is fundamental to
LaRouche's philosophical perspective. This misrepresentation is
sufficiently blatant and concerns such a fundamental point, that taken by
itself it was sufficient to convince me that King's work is either
incompetent or intellectually dishonest - in my opinion more likely the
latter.

The point at issue is LaRouche's concept of the "golden soul", and King's
contention that this represents some sort of "master race" theory. King
quotes LaRouche violently out of context to the effect that to understand
the mental difference between a golden soul and a member of the oligarchy
one should employ "methods appropriate to the distinction among biological
species." (I am quoting here from memory. I would appreciate it if anyone
with a copy of King's book will confirm that the quote is essentially
accurate). From this King adduces the notion that LaRouche is promoting the
concept of a new superior species. I will address this by first describing
what LaRouche ACTUALLY means by golden souls, and then explaining his views
on the biological determination of human behavior (NOT!). 

The "golden soul" concept originates in Plato's "Republic", which to my
embarrassment I must admit I have never read. LaRouche's discussions of the
idea are clear, however, and are roughly as follows. The "bronze soul" is
the individual essentially motivated by irrational hedonism. They seek
pleasure and avoid pain. I would describe bronze souls as "moral
juveniles", whose aim in life is to "do what I want to do". The "silver
soul" is the ordinary civilized individual who tempers their hedonistic
impulses with the demands of duty. They may WISH to behave irresponsibly,
but turn aside from temptation in order to do what is necessary. If this
sounds just a trifle grim to anybody, you are getting the point. (I
sometimes think of the silver soul as the person who parties on the weekend
but is rigorously careful not to let this interfere with their work, etc).
The "golden soul" is the person who does good not out of some grim sense
of "duty" but rather simply because it IS good. Their fundamental
motivation is neither pain/pleasure nor duty but rather Joy. Such people
are motivated by the love of Truth, Beauty and Reason. The genuinely
creative individual in any field of human endeavor is almost certainly
acting as a golden soul.

For anybody who has read Dante's divine comedy, it is interesting to note
that the bronze souls correspond to Dante's depiction of Hell, the silver
souls to those found in Purgatory, and the golden souls to the experience
of Paradise. 

In LaRouche's view, a golden soul is most definitely NOT a product of
biology or genetics. The viewpoint which values "breeding" as a measure of
social worth is ironically precisely the outlook which LaRouche attributes
to his opponents among the "oligarchy". These are the same people who
listed their serfs alongside the cattle in the medieval Domesday book, who
practiced animal breeding practices on slaves during slavery, and fostered
the "science" of eugenics in the early twentieth century. They are also the
Malthusians who are oh so concerned about the problem of "overpopulation"
- especially among races and classes "beneath" their own. LaRouche's notion
of the golden soul is quite alien to any such sick concepts. A golden soul
quite simply is something one may aspire to BECOME. The process is
analogous to the maturation from infant through adolescent to creative
adult. It also metaphorically corresponds to the moral awakening Dante
experiences as he journeys from Hell through Purgatory and finally passes
through a "wall of fire" to enter Paradise. LaRouche believes that the
proper role of the State is to provide the conditions in which ALL citizens
may develop into golden souls. Indeed, many of his conservative social
views are aimed against trends and forces which he believes encourage
hedonism and irrationality. Thus his criticism of rock music, his
opposition to drugs, etc.

We already have a first hint of LaRouche's attitude toward genetic
determinism precisely from the fact that it is a viewpoint he attributes
most forcefully to his opponents. But wait - there's more. LaRouche
repeatedly emphasizes the distinction between human and animal species. It
is a core philosophical point with him that humans actually are
intrinsically more valuable than pigs, cows, snail darters, etc. This is
a major part of his philosophical opposition to radical environmentalism.
If someone accused him of being "specieist" (sp?) he would probably think
the term silly but certainly would not deny the substance of the
characterization. So where does this value come from? What is it about
humans that makes them better than other species? The answer is a complex
of attributes which might appear to be many but in LaRouche's view are all
part and parcel of one another. A theologian would refer to the "soul". An
educator would say humans are uniquely "creative". A philosopher would
point to our ability to reflect upon our own thinking and actually learn
to think better - recognizing this self-reflecting principle as fundamental
to the mystery of consciousness. An anthropologist might point to our
history of tool-making. LaRouche, wearing his economist hat, points out
that the human species is the only species that can willfully expand the
range of its species specific behavior. In particular, only the human
species can willfully extend its behavior in such a way as to increase its
own POTENTIAL POPULATION DENSITY. This, he holds, is the fundamental
difference between humans and animals. THEY are eternally limited by their
genetic endowment to a prescribed range of behaviors. WE, because of our
consciousness, our ability to reflect and create, our "soul" if you will,
are not. 

Well, what have I accomplished here? Convinced anybody that LaRouche's
ideas all make really good sense? Not unless people here are more credulous
than I think. (The exception, of course, is anybody who already views such
ideas as reasonable but was not aware that LaRouche held them). What I
tried to do in the first instance was to cast some doubt on Dennis King's
credibility by showing that his interpretation of golden soul=master race
is blatantly insupportable. It is not impossible or even extraordinarily
difficult to find out what LaRouche actually thinks about such things. I
think it is reasonable to expect an investigative journalist to report
ACCURATELY on the beliefs and views of his subject, even when that subject
is a political and philosophical opponent of the writer - assuming of
course that he really wants to do so. In the course of trying to set the
record straight, my secondary agenda was to throw a little light on some
of the hitherto underreported depths of LaRouche's philosophy. And always,
throughout it all, to cause people to THINK, to challenge assumptions about
who and what this individual actually is, and to confront anybody who cares
enough to consider the question with the issue of whether or not his views
are actually correct.

Hope this helps :)
Steve

(Serious discussion welcome - quibbles, nitpicks, insincere arguments and
mindless flames to alt.dev.null)

"Its not what you don't know that hurts you - its what you know that 
isn't so" -Attributed to Mark Twain
Newsgroups: alt.activism