|
|
Cult /
LaRouche's "Fascism with a Humanist face"
 This picture is inspired from a 1973 LaRouche's Campaigner pamphlet against RockeFeller, calling him a “fascist with a democratic face”. Note: there was an orchestra of Classical music playing in Auschwitz LaRouche's ideological journey seems puzzling, bizarre; from "far Left" to "far Right", self-labelled a "Democrat" but waging anti-Democrat campaigns within the Democratic party, defending policies often (not always) close to the Republicans... LaRouche started his political career as a Marxist-Leninist (and Trotskyist). He then called himself "Lyn Marcus", after Marx and Lenin (although he will deny this later). He dropped the "Marcus" bit and his adepts still call him "Lyn". As a Marxist and inspired by Lenin's "Imperialism, Highest Stage Of Capitalism", he wrote in 1971 "Fascism: Final Stage Of Capitalism" where he said: "From the standpoint of theoretical economics, the predicament of the entire advanced
In 1974 he equated Capitalism/Fascism to "zero-growth": "Fascism is a product of two mutually-dependent agencies. At the bottom, from underneath as seen by the ordinary fascist dupe, it is a social movement based on enraged petit-bourgeois and lumpenproletarian forces. From the topside, as seen by its capitalist sponsors, it is a form of government in which, profits are maintained for zero-growth conditions by cannibalizing the consumption of the population generally." (4)
And to make it sure nobody had the silly idea to check him out, LaRouche warns it is not worth reading fascist theories: "Although fascist movements, especially those of Mussolini and Hitler, did develop what are sometimes called "theories of fascism," such documents are useful for understanding the problem only in the same sense that the ravings of a madman are studied by a psychiatrist. They are merely part of the clinical record." (4)
People may have read studies like this one The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932–1938 
It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist.It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist.It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one! In “Solving the Machiavellian Problem Today,” (New Solidarity, July 7, 1978).
By relating "zero-growth" ("cannibalization", "genocide") to Capitalism/Fascism, LaRouche dramatically widens up the number of candidates and agencies that could be labeled as "fascist": Conservatives, Liberals and... Rockefeller: "The most conspicuous, widespread element of fascist ideology rampant in the U.S. today is the radical-conservative impetus toward a "final solution" for the "welfare question." The same philosophy is also wide-spread in a liberal-radical guise as a movement not-accidentally partly initiated by John D. Rockefeller III, the "Zero Population-Growth" cult, whose "rational goals" could be attained only by genocide on a world scale." (2)
the "radical ecologists": "A related fascist ideology is found in another branch of the "radical" "ecology movement," the "People Pollute" madmen, whose filth is subsidized by corporations, foundations and advertising agencies. These wretches insist that "people," not capitalism, cause the "ecology crisis" by "over-consumption." " (2)
the "rock drug counter-culture" movement: "In addition, we already have in the U.S. (and Western Europe) a cancerous ferment called the "rock drug counter-culture" movement, a mass of alienated potheads identical in every essential feature with the German Youth Movement from which ex-bohemian Adolf Hitler recruited the worst scum for his Nazi S.S." (2)
Maoïsts, Trotskyists, Anarchists, terrorists and environmentalists: "The supporters of such new "Hitlers" will be backed as Hitler was in significant part, by a "Youth Movement" of the sort best typified by today's Maoists, Trotskyists, anarchists, and hard-core "environmentalists". " "In short, the hard-core fascists of today are the Maoists, the terrorists, and the hard-core "environmentalists" who support "zero growth". " (10)
The World Bank, the IMF: "The avowedly Schacht-modeled doctrines of Chicago's Milton Friedman, the policies of the World Bank's Robert McNamara and the notorious philosophy of the so-called "International Monetary Fund conditions" are the essence of contemporary fascism in the Nazi model. " (10)
In fact, all LaRouche's efforts to redefine "Fascism" serve one single purpose: to accuse everyone else but himself a "Fascist". For the Larouchies, everyone outside of LaRouche's movement (or not supporting it) is either a "Fascist" (without knowing it), or a self-avowed "Fascist". In 1977-78, LaRouche initiated an ideological change, an evolution from "socialism" to "nationalism", well documented by Dennis King and Chip Berlet. This "evolution" was marked by a radical re-definition of "Fascism". To this purpose he wrote in 1977 "What Actually Is Fascism?" where he said: "The Nazi propaganda emphasis on "Krupp steel" and other symbols of industrial development points up the fact that to rule Germany the Nazis were obliged to play upon the deep desire for industrial and technological progress within even the ranks of numerous layers of nominal Nazi supporters and party members. There was a profound discrepancy between the systematic destruction of industry and the labor force under Schacht and the nationalist impulses of important varieties of German citizens who went over to support of the Nazis largely on the basis of hatred of Versailles and a commitment to restoration of Germany's industrial progress." "In short, all of those features of Nazi Germany's policy which are generally attributed to fascism are not the ideological excretion of a fascist "sociological phenomenon" but are properly termed Schachtianism in its natural course and consequences. The essence of fascism, if we mean by fascism the deprecated features of the Nazi order, is Schachtian economics." (6)
In other words there are "good" and "bad" Nazis: "The majority of Nazi supporters were not fascists, but nationalists." (6)
and consequentially: "What is to be stressed most emphatically in this connection is the fallacy of the "conservatism tends to fascism" argument." (6)
To confirm his ideological move from "socialism" to "nationalism", he wrote that year: "I never had the conception of founding a "true Marxist" association. […] We have never been Marxists, except as regarding Marx as the highest preceding advancement of essential human knowledge. [...] More profoundly, as we change we do not change." (7)
contradicting himself from what he wrote a year earlier: "Labor Committee and allied Communist forces within the capitalist sector generally are working overnight, constantly, to bring into being a new Marxist International throughout the capitalist sector." (11)
when he wanted to establish "socialism" world-wide: "The important point to be added to that, is that such a form of society is within reach during this century. We have before us the immediate need and possibility to establish an intermediate form of society known as workers' government, out of which in approximately a generation' s time, an actual socialist form of human existence can emerge." (4)
LaRouche redefined Marxism from a "higher", philosophical standpoint; "higher" Marxism meant "good" industrial Capitalism, Marx and Benjamin Franklin were said to share the same, common ancestry and philosophical outlook: Plato's Republic, trying to combine "socialism" (Soviet Republics) and... the Republican party! ({"republican" in LaRouche's code-words, meaning Plato's "Republic"). This is taken straight from George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four": In his "Creating a Republican Labor Party" pamphlet, LaRouche wrote: "The republican party is thousands of years old. It is traced in terms of formal historical knowledge available to us today to the writings of Plato and Plato's Academy at Athens, and to Alexander the Great's city-building policies."
The "new" Karl Marx was redefined in "The Karl Marx Karl Marx Did Not Know" (Fall 1977). In this 1977 revisionist document "What Actually Is Fascism?" he explained that "Fascism" was in fact synonymous with... "financial austerity" imposed by Hjalmar Schacht, a "cannibalization" of the German economy which led to Hitler's war! Capitalism therefore still leads to Fascism/Imperialism... But who was Schacht? What really happened to the German economy under his influence? Why does LaRouche focuses exclusively on somebody who was a German financial expert and Minister of Economics from 1935 until 1937 only (and who began to lose power after the implementation of the Four Year Plan in 1936 by Hermann Göring which put Germany on the brink of bankruptcy)? During that time, the ideological redefinition of his organization will be a fusion between "socialism" and "nationalism" (or some would say a "confusion"), in collaboration with far-rightists from the Liberty Lobby, neo-Nazis or KKK. This fusion of both "socialism" and "nationalism" was a sort of "socialism-nationalism" concoction. In his "Creating a Republican Labor Party" 1980 pamphlet, LaRouche also wrote: "By creating a republican labor party of such trade unionists and ethnic minorities, we shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of ‘democracy.’ "
 Israeli historian Zeev Sternhell, an expert on Fascist ideology and author of Neither Right nor Left : Fascist Ideology in France (Princeton University Press 1996) explained: "Nationalist socialism, properly understood, appeared in Europe in the last years of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth as an alternative to both Marxism and liberalism. In contrast with social democracy, this ideology of national unity par excellence was the product of an encounter between anti-Marxist and antireformist tendencies in socialism on one hand and ethnic, cultural, and religious nationalism on the other." (Ibidem, Introduction, Nationalism, Socialism, and Nationalist Socialism, p.7)
This ''Neither Right nor Left" definition of Fascism applies to LaRouche. In 1978 LaRouche could write : "It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist…It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist… It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one!" (8)
This LaRouche's definition of fascism could be applied to himself... In order to secure a move towards "fascism", LaRouche had to re-define "fascism" itself.
LaRouche's answer (program) was his concept of economy. Similar to Marx who privileged the "real" economy (production, working class) against "capitalism". For LaRouche the "real economy" of production became soon that of scientific/technological progress (not working class anymore) against the usurers, financiers who impose "financial austerity", fascism to loot and destroy the world. Fascism, in LaRouche's view, is therefore NOT what historians would define as "fascism" or what is often associated with fascism: authoritarianism, dictatorship, racism etc. Before Lyndon LaRouche there was Lyn Marcus, somebody who identified himself with Lenin and in particular with his view on capitalism. BUT the difference between Marcus and Lenin, is that Lenin considered that "imperialism" was intrinsic to the capitalist system, whereas for Marcus; "imperialism" or "fascism" were imposed by "capitalist forces" like the "Rockefellers" or "Jewish Financiers". It was also during the same 1977-78 period that LaRouche became more openly antisemitic, a fanatical anti-Zionist, anti-Judaic and revisionnist on the question of the Jewish Holocaust (but denied he ever was an anti-semite...) To illustrate this change of line, he wrote in 1974 the traditional Marxist view that Hitler was an agent of the German Army and major industrialists: "Hitler was created as an agent of the German Army' s "covert" operations, and his control of the fascist movement in that country was made possible only by a combination of major industrialists and German army agencies." (4)
But in 1978, he blamed the Jewish financiers for putting Hitler into power: "The point is that Adolf Hitler was put into power largely on, the initiative of the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and Oppenheimers, among other Jewish and non-Jewish financial interests centered in the City of London." (1)
According to LaRouche, these Jewish financiers (and Schacht) have imposed Nazism on the good German Nationalists (the German industrialists and the Army, the Wehrmacht) There is therefore no reasons for German "collective guilt". Lyndon's German wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche wrote: "Today it would have a liberating effect on the German population if more knew these facts, and if they could experience rage that the same political circles which helped Hitler to power, later had the arrogance to impose upon the Germans their own queer idea of democracy." (9) "Everyone who lived through the years following World War II knew that the thesis of German collective guilt was designed to break the back of the German people once and for all. " (9)
Reading Helga's whole preface, you end with a starling feeling that Nazis weren't... German, that "they" and the "German people" were like two completely different things... Instead LaRouche will Blame the Zionists... "The relevant point today is that conferences, seminars, and scholarly studies on the Holocaust, and popular presentation of Nazi war crimes such as the famous U.S. television program, "Holocaust," are trumpeted by the Zionists to capitalize on the supposed collective guilt of the West and the Germans for the crimes of Adolf Hitler and to stir up the pervasive fear of extermination among Jews. " (1)
Yes, in LaRouche's mind, the Jews/Zionists/British Financiers (Schacht) imposed Hitler and Nazism on the Germans.  To "prove" the alleged connections between Jews/Economists/Schacht/Nazis, LaRouche keeps reminding his "legendary" 1971 debate with (Jewish) Keynesian economist Abba Lerner This "line" hasn't change to this day with his more recent campaign against the "Synarchists": different "label", same targets. THIS IS LAROUCHE'S IDEOLOGY TO THIS DAY. And indeed, we can conclude with him that as we change we do not change... LaRouche confirmed recently what he wrote 30 years ago: The Real Nazis Now, Nazism was not people wearing swastikas in brown shirts or black shirts. Nazism was a creation of a group of international bankers, like Felix Rohatyn today, and his co-thinkers today; like the co-thinkers of the Bush Administration in economic policy today. Notably like George Shultz, who qualifies, really, as a kind of Schacht of the United States: a real Nazi, a real banker behind Nazism, as Schacht was a banker behind Nazism in Europe."
This is LaRouche's "logic" ("Capitalism leads to Fascism...") for portraying Barak Obama with a Hitler mustache! 
Parallels are striking...  (Picture, left) Weekly 1938 NSDAP (Nazi) slogan. Poster Text: RASTLOS VORWARTS / MUSST DU STREBEN, / NIE ERMUDET STILLE STEHN, / WILLST DU DIE VOLLENI DUNG SEHN; MUSST INS / BREITE DICH ENTFALTEN / SOLL SICH DIR DIE WELT / GESTALTEN; IN DIE TIEFE / MUSST DU STEIGEN, SOLL / SICH DIR DAS WESEN ZEIGEN / FRIEDRICH VON SCHILLER [You must strive relentlessly forward, never stand still, exhausted, if you wish to see your task completed; you must grow steadily in order to shape the world; you must descend into the depths if the essence of reality is to show itself in you. Friedrich von Schiller]. Source: marshallfoundation.org The facts are:
 First Day of Issue / Erstausgabetag: 5. November 1934 - Michel-Katalog-Nr: 555 (Deutsches Reich) So, and contrary to what LaRouche's propaganda says, Schiller was celebrated in Hitler's Germany, not because of his ideas but because he was German! More:
STRANGE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN LYNDON LAROUCHE'S AND NAZI IDEOLOGUE ALFRED ROSENBERG'S WORLD OUTLOOKS
LaRouche's "anti-Fascism" Fascism: |
.
at lyndonlarouche.org (D. King)