edit SideBar

The Humanist Mode Of World Leadership


Rooting out The "Sweep" Operation

By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

WIESBADEN Oct. 2 [1977, note] - The first signs of the operation identified as "Sweep" have been registered. Targeted members of the Labor Parties in North America and Europe are now coming under direct pressure from the British-Lazard-neofabian network to the point of pressuring those persons to attempt to either disrupt the Labor Parties internally, or, unable to affect that result, to leave the Labor Parties to join "countergangs" attacking the parties from without.
Because or the authorship of the operation, there are two principal, detectable characteristics of this activity.
Firstly, in general, like all such operations by neofabians, this one depends upon the principles of linguistical paranoia: this that the targeted individual is pressured to retreat from social to narrowly defined personal concerns as criteria of judgment and to defend those "personal concerns" by certain nominalist forms of catch-phrase arguments.
Secondly, the targetted individuals will be pressured to raise "certain objections" to Labor Party politics which will later be used as "verbal-proof evidence by disaffected former members" to buttress the countergang line of Noam Chomsky et al. The focus will be, most broadly, the charge that the Labor Parties "are no longer socialist," with, wherever feasible, the added charge that the Labor Parties are either "working with racists" or "antisemites."
Wherever both elements are present in an individual case, a counterinlelligence procedure is unquestionably applicable. In all cases, counterintelligence will show a connection leading to the circles around fascist Noam Chomsky, frequantly through parents and other family circles, and in many cases directly linked to the old NAG operation, which latter has not ceased to function in an ebb-and-flow fashion since the Spring of 1973.
Insofar as the "Sweep" operation is concerned, the pawprints of Chomsky et al. will be clearly detectable in the targetted victims' behavior, since Chomsky et al. are incapable of thinking in any but a delimited range of ways. The reflection of this particular Chomskian ideology - which could not occur spontaneously "in nature" - is critical evidence of a "Sweep" or related operation in the case considered, as distinct from cases which follow the patterns which do lawfully occur "in nature."
The model cases to keep in view for reference for current cases are those of Arthur and Alice Leaderman and Bernard Green. Arthur and Alice, who drifted later into the visible ambiance of the neofabian countergang operations, left abruptly in the wake of Nov.2, 1976 with the declaration that "only the Fabians can save us from war now." In short, fear induced infantilism, which triggered the victims into capitulation to the operation already targetting them from circles inclusively associated with Augustus Hawkins. In Bernard's case, the fear was combined with an earlier "I'm a professional" distancing of himself from political work, a self-isolation and personal depoliticization which prepared his susceptibility for the after-shock of the Nov.2, 1976 election fraud.
The exemplary implication of these cases is that they are both instances showing how lawful psychopathological processes combined with "tampering" operate to effect a specific sort of reaction-formation. In effect, it is overall a form of brainwashing, as the Tavistock Institute's studies define brainwashing. The lawful aspect is the effect of the aversive environment of fear in terrorizing the mind of the victim into a retreat from general reality into a state resembling a "battle-fatigued" individual trembling in a foxhole, a state followed, under suitable conditions, by going over to the enemy for personal security. The adoption of the enemy's point of view is the reaction-formation occurring in the latter variant.
For example, the persisting targetting of Joe and Ivy D'Urso for harassment has been meaningfully associated with a UAW motivation. However, we must also remember that Joe together with Ira Liebowitz, was a special, paranoid hate-object or Alice Weitzman, who continues to be an active part of the NAG network, and that the pattern of the attacks against Joe coincides with the hate-profile Alice had against Joe. This is not to say, with certainly, that Alice is a direct contributing cause for the targetting of Joe and Ivy, since we must also note that Chomsky-sllied agents in Buffalo also had a similar profile against Joe.

Theory of the Problem

Morally, these operations are equivalent to attempted murder. Bernard and the Leadermans were morally murdered, by the use of psychological-warfare methods in a manner equivalent to the misuse of internal medical knowledge for poisoning. As in defense against poisoning, the organization's defense of its members and supporters against psychological-warfare forms of moral homicide involves elementary procedures of hygiene and inoculation.
One of the included, required features of such inoculation is eliminiation of mystification concerning the content of our present and increasing significant direct and catalytic influences combined on important world developments. In this connection, The Case of Walter Lippmann and various published sections of the Benjamin Franklin research project are of uppermost relevance. Also of special relevance are Carol and Christopher White's treatments of the British Royal Society and my own complementary evaluation of the Newton hoax.
Carol and Chris stress, for multiple usefulness, the fact that the achievement of the Tudor neoplatonic and other such humanists mystified the circles around John Locke, to the point that Locke and his associates resorted individiously to the most pathetic superstitious rituals in an effort to magically invoke powers of scientific insight comparable to those of the hated humanists. It is notable that most of the invidious slanders against the Labor Parties by the neofabians and their dupes follow that Lockean precedent: all sorts of the most superstitious nonsense is minted and circulated by the neofabians and their dupes in the efforts to variously explain and to attempt to explain away the Labor Parties' increasing influence.

The Growing Networks

There is, indeed, considerable mystification concerning our influence, a difficulty spilling over to some degree into our own ranks. This legitimately arises because of the fact that the essential nature of our influence is relatively transfinite with respect to those kinds of influence which ignorant opinion mistakes for tangible forms of influence. Just as the transfinite conception of Cantor remained a mystery to Frege and Russell among other less-developped minds, so vulgar common sense hysterically insists that the active principle of our influence is either nonexistent or is to be explained away in some "dark" way.
All such mystification arises essentially from a failure to keep in focus the fundamental distinction between man and the beasts. That fundamental distinction is the creative-mental powers of the mind, the power to generate a secular progress in hypothesis which, expressed through its transmission of social practice, results in man's increasing power over the lawfull ordering of the universe. The essential method of humanist leadership, our method, the "secret" so to speak of our effectiveness, is a process of evoking those powers of the mind, making some impulses within the affected individuals increasingly the political or at least politically directed consciousness of broader strata. Hence, contrary to the relatively bestial world-outlook of the liberal-radical tradition of Rousseau, Bentham, Marat, et al., our power does not depend primarily on the number of individuals tangibly associated with us in an ordinary way, but on the radiated influence of our ideas as catalysts for awakening and strengthening the humanist impulses among persons and soclal strata relatively most susceptible to a humanist point of view.
This process does not result - at least in most cases - in a direct leap by affected persons and groups to a directly humanist outlook. Rather, humanism broadly expresses itself first, as it always has among larger forces, in a commitment to technological progress. It is in the generalization of the notion of technological progress that the mind later makes the leap to the humanist outlook per se. This is our current experience, and was the case in earlier humanist ferment. As in the case of Benjamin Franklin's networks, the humanists formed networks consisting of relatively few individuals, through which humanist programmatic conceptions were imparted through hundreds of intellectual outlets Into the mass forces. This involved the developing of overlapping networks through intersection with preexisting networks which joined forces on the basis of agreement with the political propositions circulated to such an effect.
That process is our essential method. We seem to be operating in a political intelligence network mode because we are in fact operating in the tradition of humanist political-intelligence networks. Not because we have set out to imitate those networks of the past, but beceause the humanist method leads lawfully into such modes of practice.
As our influence has been extended, we have come into cooperation with other existing networks on the basis of both a practical coincidence in global objectives and upon a deepening concurrence with our humanist outlook. This functions through what are termed "cut-out" arrangements, to the effect that there are networks functionning increasingly in effective and efficient alliance wlth us on a global scale, but largely out of any "direct line ot command" within our immediate network-structure itself. These networks embrace much of the OECD countries and the developing sector, and also significantly represent forces within the socialist countries. Our organisation is thus the visible, "up front" feature of a far flung set of overlapping networks, weekly growing in strength, influence and unity of purpose, in respect to which we are ourselves the proverbial "tip of the iceberg."
This network arrangement is emphasized by th nature of the aversive environment in which it exists. The forces associated with Lazard Freres have issued massive threats of reprisals against all sorts of circles they suspect to be attracted to at least some aspects of our analytical and programmatic work. Thus, those attracted to our work have resorted to establishment of "cut-out" modes for maintaining contact with us, and operate their own networks, in anumerous proportion of cases, at arms' length from ours as a tactical precaution.
This arrangement, unfortunately, limits our financial resources, since deploying funds to aid us would require cut-out methods of routing sums in important cases. (This latter situation should improve, but in the meanwhile, we are obliged to fight daily for our financial integrity chiefly by our own resources and by working to create the circumstances in which a dispersed flow of financial contributions from friendly sources can discretly reach our threadbare coffers.)
Simplistic thinking would view these network connections simply in terms of their tangible elements. The empiricist, imbecile would characterize the networks overall by means of an inductive generalization from the parts evaluated separately. The imbecile of that sort would ignore, or deprecate as "abstract" the reality of the process by which this developing configuration was set into motion, ignoring the reality of what is determining. For example, to take two cases, the imbecile would offer us empiricist evaluation of Colonel McCrary and Mitchell WerBell, ignoring the clear and empirically corroborated statements of Colonel McCrary, for example, concerning the governing process by which the alliance developed.


The question of whether the network involves a "conspiracy" is an interesting one. Viewed overall in the strictest sense. It does not. However, it does function in effect as a counter-conspiracy. The way in which that assymetricalness developed is well worth emphasis here.
It will shock some that we must now face the hypothetical possibility that Nelson A. Rockefeller may, to one degree or another, come over to our side. Essentially, numbers of Rockefeller's advisors have concluded that the proposals of neither the Lazard-centered nor TriIateral crowds could possibly succeed in reality, that reality requires an economic recovery-program centering around technological progress with emphasis on domestic and export programs of nuclear energy development as the up front approach to a solution. The Russell Long-Nelson Rockefeller exchange shows Rockefeller as shifting into the outcome of that is not certain, but the fact that the point must be taken under consideration illustrates a crucial point, it points to the fact that the nominalist conspiracy against which we struggle is essential, and that the participation of specific persons in that consipracy is of merely secondary importance.
The only consistent element in the nominalist conspiracy over seven centuries of European history is the Guelph dynasty, presently represented by the British monarchy. Every other predicate of that conspiracy-in-fact has been altered during the course of those centuries. Throughout it all, older than the Guelph feature, the nominalist-monetarist alliance has been the consistant quality, the substance-in-fact of the conspiracy.
Throughout our organization's existence, especially beginning Spring 1968, we have been engaged in a fight against the nominalist-monetarist forces of today. The issue has been essentially programmatic: the human race cannot survive successfully unless the nominalist-monetarist faction is defeated in favor of a global policy of technologically vectored extended-reproduction, centering around nuclear energy and the forced development of fusion technology. Our forces, and our intersection with other networks, have been based on a fight against an existing conspiracy, an existing thrust toward imposing a genocidal, neo-Schachtian world order. As other forces have been impelled by developments to oppose the neo-Schachtian faction on one or another issue, their independent efforts, the need of their independent efforts for allies, have impelled them into directions which sooner or later converge upon de facto alliance with us.
Thus the assymetry to which we referred. If the nominalist neo-Schachtian faction would (could) abandon its conspiracy, the network-development in which we are centrally situated because of our programmatic-analytical role would lose the central thrust for its development. The intersecting networks associated directly or indirectly with us are not a conspiracy, but a counter-conspiracy. That, for reasons we have given, is not a terminological quibble, but the most essential fact of the situation of the moment.

Our Special Role

Our special situation in these networks is determined by our intellectual role. In general, we have gained the benefit of cumulative credibility for our methods of analysis and programmatic work. What is increasingly demanded of us is new programmatic proposals or a more elaborated detailing of programmatic proposals we have already developed. The acceptance of a number of programmatic proposals and related analyses imparts to our friends a tendency for acceptance of the generating principle behind such programs and analyses.
This latter tendency has been directly enhanced by our work connecting Ibn Sina and Franklin. By accounting for the roots of our method and outlook in the three thousand-year struggle of European and Mediterranean humanism, and in terms of the driving intellectual force of the American Revolution, we have aided our friends in becoming self-conscious of their own humanist impulse as humanist impulses. That historical view is the presently dominant form or our influence, to which our specific programmatic and analytical contributions supply a cohering appropriate content.
This connection is aptly demonstrated within the organization, beginning with the publication of The Concept of the Transfinite and the work around the U.S. Labor Party Constitution, the Labor Parties have been the center of a qualitatively enhanced intellectual ferment, whose published productions to date have vastly strengthened the organization for itself and have contributed much to the strengthening of forces around us.

LaRouche Versus Karl Marx

It is the moment for me to be pitilessly hubristic. Relative to what I have contributed, as viewed in retrospect of what we have collectively accomplished, Karl Marx's contributions as a whole, while an important included foundation for my work, are significantly inferior to my own. That is not the entirety of the secret of the Labor Committees, but it is the key, central most "secret" of the Labor Committees.
How was that, beginning the Summer of 1966, a new organization emerged de novo to become today a significant catalytic force in global developments? The one-semester course on which the organization was founded and early developped further is the central feature, together with the maintenance of a hubristic assertion of our intellectual authority of judgment relative to all our opponents. In sum, as relected in the developments contributed by others, sparked by assimilation of that course and its implications, the organization has become a self-subsisting creative force, achieving successive breakthroughs in a variety of related fields. In sum, we have become professional in the application and elaboration of the original breakthrough in knowledge represented by the one-semester course.
Although "official Soviet doctrine" is itself formally a nominalistic parody of Karl Marx's work, the possibility of such a parody is derived in part from these features of error and error of emphasis in Marx's own work which render that work qualitatively inferior to the conception put forth in the one-semester course.
The distinguishable kernel of my qualitative intellectual advantage over Marx is associated with my use of the implications of Riemann-Cantor, beginning 1952, to correct the most important systematic blunders in Marx's Capital. This correction, which was most immediately the key to our superiority over Marx's economics in analysis and programmatic approach to the emerging monetary crisis, was coherent with and in part the corroborating basis for correlated surpassing of Marx in social and political theory.
At the outset of our existence as an organization, there were three distinguishing features which conspicuously divided us from all of the so-called "left:" (1) our conception of the political class-for-itself method; (2) our conception of the interdependence of class-for-itself method with technologically vectored programs of extended reproduction on a global scale, (3) our conception of the hubristic revolutionary intelligentsia.
This policy, by virtue of the manner in which it was applied, selectively determined, at least predominantly, the recruitment and development of Labor Committee initiating cadres, and excluded significant adaptations to "pluralistic" corruption the organization. By this rigourous policy, the principal basis for the development of the organization was maintained and strengthened. The paranoid element common to even well-meaning "socialist" organizations was minimized, specifically the paranoid tendencies for irrational accomodations to contrary opinions prevailing among various "peer-groups" and so forth. In this way the character of the organization was established and developed-judgments and policies governed by principled considerations rather than tactical expediencies respective to contrary opinion.
In this way, the generative principles embodied in the one-semester course became the character of the organization through an accumulation of experiences and through accumulations of coherent contributions made by members in terms of those same generative principles. Hence, the organization passed over from an initiating group based on the generative principles contributed chiefly by me into an organic development around those same generative principles.
In consequence of this, and in consequence of a new quality of emphasis upon creative-mental processes beginning 1973, a corresponding shift of emphasis occurred in the conception of leadership within the organization during the 1973-l974 period. The shift was from executive competence in the ordinary sense to the ability to fuse creativity with the organization's strategic practice in the manner groped for by Clausewitz. Willlen and Konnen as such are not adaquate qualifications of the strategic commander, until we subordinate Willen into the impulses of a scientific judgment based on developed mental-creative powers. The previously adequate standards of leadership, the ability to act upon established norms of judgment, became inadequate. The ability to generate, assimilate and transmit sound created hypotheses into social practice by the organization became the emerging new standard of leadership, especially in the aftermath of the crisis of the Winter of 1973- 1974.
Creativity became the standard of leadership-identity within the organization, superceding the schoolboyish standards of mere formal scholarship attitudes of the commander, the internalization of the personalized forces under command into the processes of self-critical judgment, became a premium consideration. This development coincided with an otherwise necessary emphasis upon political and related military strategic issues, in which the qualities needed for strategic command were required personal intellectual qualifications for competent evaluations of strategic political and military matters.
This resulted in what to some was a changed quality of the organization during 1974. We moved entirely from the standard or fixed abstractions to the moral equivalent of a war-winning outlook. It was a change in the manifest quality of the organization, but otherwise merely a realization of the thrust from the beginning. Two things must be said on this.
The purpose of founding the organization, beginning 1966, was not to create a new current within the socialist movement already existing, but to create a leadership-kernel of the sort needed to win the cause reprented by our estabblished strategic-conjunctura1 programmatic solution to the developing monetary crisis. The combat orientation in that sense was always the purpose of the organization. I could not do what bad to be done alone, like Goethe's Prometheus, it was necessary to develop a social force of men and women in my own image. However, in an important sense, we did not turn to a combat- orientation in 1974 because we had developed already to a state of readiness for such duties. We developed thus because circumstances afforded us no alternative. We were able to develop so under that imperative because we represented the physically inadequate but otherwise qualified basis for just such a result.
We are effective as the sort of catalyst we are now, because no other organized force in the world has developed yet the specific sort of intellectual capabilities we represent as a whole.

The Enemy's Problem

Exemplary of the point is the lack of success of the Neo-fabian enemy forces in their several attempts to create a credible countergang force against us. No doubt, they imagined they had the basis for such a project in capturing Bob Dillon, but Dillon proved to be nothing apart from the organization as a process, and, worse for their purposes, was morally destroyed in relevant respects by the process employed to capture him. The vital feature of the organization is not the specific learning of the individual member, but the active principle brought forward within the individual member by the coherent social process which the organization embodies. Any individual former member who has departed in that process has necessarily rejected the active principles embodied in the organlzation's currently active connection to global realities and has thus lost connection to that vital element of his or her own experience by which the specific qualities of the organization might be replicated.
The enemy attempts to reduce our world-outlook to the sort of "Belief-structure doctrines" the Chomskians outline. Every such effort at counterfeiting inevitably shows itself a contemptibly inept forgery, since the active principle of the organization cannot be replication by any mere configuration of dead bones.
The organization is the creative processes it embodies, creative processes rigorously governed by principles.
Naturally, to both good and regrettable ends, the active principle of the organization continues to be associated with my personality. Good in two senses: (1) A minimal standard of competence is thus maintained : and (2) sociologically, I serve, because of my active position in the process, as a geometric reference-point with respect to which the individual situates himself or herself to the organization as a process. Regrettable in the senses that: (1) This sometimes serves as a crutch : a substitute for facing personal self-development responsabilities : or (2)is sometimes a bit fetishistic; or (3) is fetishistically negated sometimes by a flimsy effort at "flaw-picking," hoping that by finding some real or imagined "flaw" in my conceptual overview of the current process, some vagrant impulse can thereupon be let loose (whenever the otherwise eminently creative Eric Lerner becomes depressed, he tends to fall into that sort of blunder.)
At the same time, I am a tough old bird, who tends to benefit most in self-development by developments within the organization, a condition which will probably persist until death or waning power of old age overtake me.

"Taking Over"?

The same sort of mechanical thinking blunder which sees us as being mixed up with all sorts of unfamiliar companions errs to the opposite effect, in euphorically misconceiving us as "taking over" at least half of the Republican Party and perhaps one-quarter of the Democratic Party. In the latter case, the fact that we are increasingly affording programmatic leadership to elements of other parties is being grossly over-simplified. In fact. Republicans, in particular, might fall prey to the same sort of mechanical thinking in two opposite ways, either Tearing that we are taking them over, or imagining that they are taking us over. Again, we are not "taking over" or being "taken over:" we are giving programmatic leadership to a most varied array of forces all converging upon a humanist outlook on current.
What is "taking over" is, in a sense, our programmatic ideas. However, that by itself is a paradoxical arrangement; when others sake over our ideas those ideas cease to be peculiarly ours. Our relationship to such forces is dependent upon our capacity fo continue producing programmatic ideas of the sort which will be taken over by others. In this ongoing process what lakes aver is the humanist world-outlook, which we have revived and have contributed to developing, but which is not peculiarly ours.
In a certain sense, the ostensible common denominator entire network, including its CMEA portion, is conservative. The positive feature of the network as a whole is adherer predicated features of the humanist movement of the tat* century: to the predicated cathexes of the Idea of Progress. Insofar as a credible defense of the principles of technological progress is set into motion, that motion, by activating cathexes, evokes a receptivity to becoming-aware of the ge live principle those cathexes reflect.
In the instance of the networks among trade union is among circles of the Nation of Islam in the USA, the process is exactly in conformity with the principle of the political class itself. We address the issues of technological and re progress, which are already issues of perceived urgent imprest among working people. We offer a programmatic analysis of those issues, thus offering those networks a positive universalizing consciousness of the particular issues and positive solution.
The same method is operative among industrialists, technology farmers, and among a significant proportion of pendent conservatives. We are activating, in the USA and Western Europe, a humanism-centered political alliance for ii trial capitalist progressive development around the kernel of the emergence of the labor movement as a political class itself.
In the labor movement in the USA there is a significant direct polarization around the U.S. Labor Party, such that in unions like the teamsters, steelworkers, auto workers, and others, as well as among uniformed municipal unions, there is a nation of large networks operating in parallel to us, but incorporating our programmatic analysis, plus a small fraction of those same networks in direct contact with us. In the labor movement, this process, taken as a process, follows the principles we employed during 1968-1969, in our converging-caucus approach to national organization.
With respect So other social forces, the total effect of the combined networks within the labor movement is more divisible to international trade-union leadership that to us obvious reasons. A similar process is manifest within the Republican Party and some portions of the Democratic Party well as among independent political formations.
This effect of our direct and indirect influence combined a social fad of the current process intersects our cumulative credibility on energy, financial-economic and strategic issues among leading circles in many countries. It is widely ate* that our conception of a labor-industry programmatical political alliance as the social basis for nuclear-energy-focussed high technology global economic-development efforts, is the unique approach appropriate to the current situation.
In general, therefore, as every organizer knows from persisting, cumulative experience, the initial point of favorable response to our work is located in those cathexes which represent predicated issues of technological progress. On this account initial vector of our influence is predominantly conservative. In general, this initial influence progresses toward a developping consciousness of the American Whig conception. In that way, the activation of the predicated issues in a programmatic-analytical way provides the basis for evoking understanding of and commitment to the kind of humanist political movement which made the American Revolution possible.
At that point, a further development becomes possible. As soon as the American Whig conception is established - reestablished that conception then provides the basis for positive movement toward more advanced states of outlook, toward a humanist commitment in its own right.
What is occurring globally, therefore, is a growing participating influence of leadership by the Labor Parties in generating a broad humanist movement, which we do not control which we are not in any sense "taking over" beyond the point of a key participating role. However, within that context, our immediate in- [...cut]

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on September 08, 2008, at 01:47 PM