Followers of Lyndon LaRouche have attracted a great deal of attention in recent years for provocative statements like posters featuring President Obama with an Adolf Hitler-style Nazi mustache aimed at building pressure for impeachment. LaRouche himself describes Obama as a “British tool” – part of a complex plot that seeks to dominate the world.
Even with a cadre of extraordinarily dedicated followers, however, LaRouche, his views, and his movement have attracted a barrage of criticism from all angles. Opponents have accused him of leading a “cult,” making extreme demands on his supporters, spreading anti-Semitism and disinformation, being variously either a right- or left-wing extremist, using unsavory tactics to push his agenda, and much more.
Though often overlooked in the media and the world of politics, LaRouche also wields some influence, though just how much remains unclear. He controls, for instance, a vast network of entities ranging from publications and cultural initiatives to “intelligence”-gathering operations and even political parties on the other side of the Atlantic.
There is also a “Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement” and a “LaRouche Political Action Committee.” And LaRouche himself has run for President of the United States on more than a few occasions — first on the U.S. Labor Party ticket but more often by seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination.
But who is LaRouche and what does he really believe? Over a period of decades, LaRouche’s self-described political agenda has varied. And it is without a doubt extraordinarily complicated, drawing from an array of philosophers and even controversial political figures like former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Apparently LaRouche is a big fan of the dubious New Deal, which ushered in an era of unprecedented government power in the U.S. that expanded far outside the bounds of the Constitution. And much of his efforts in the political sphere are dedicated to reforming the American government in a way that would grant politicians broad authority to intervene in the economy.
“At the present moment, the world at large is trapped in an onrushing general breakdown-crisis whose principal pathological feature is the lunatic spread of what is generally identified as ‘financial derivatives,’ ” LaRouche told the free market-oriented Daily Bell in a 2010 interview when asked about the most pressing issue facing the world. Stopping a looming third World War between the East and West that LaRouche believes is currently being orchestrated is also a high priority on his agenda.
Blasting the Austrian school of economics as a “fraud” and the legendary Adam “Invisible Hand” Smith as “disgusting,” LaRouche said government power was needed to fix the problem. “A return to a fixed exchange-rate credit system of a type consistent with a Glass-Steagall standard, combined with a return to a fixed-exchange-rate system, is the absolute requirement for evading a global breakdown-crisis during the immediate period ahead,” he explained in the Daily Bell interview.
LaRouche began his surge to prominence decades ago as a radical Marxist, organizing the National Caucus of Labor Committees on the backs of extreme far-left student groups. Today he blasts neo-cons like George W. Bush as well as President Obama, but has largely moved away from overt calls to abolish capitalism entirely — though his political outlook still seeks to erect vast government powers over much of the economy.
LaRouche describes himself as the world’s “leading economist” and the “most successful forecaster on record” since the mid- to late-1950s.
He formed a variety of enterprises including a computer firm, but the vast majority of his wealth apparently comes from his following. And as with most leaders and their followers, analysts say LaRouche and his supporters believe that if they were in power, the world’s problems could largely be solved.
One of the LaRouche apparatus’s main targets is still the ruling British elite — from the monarchy on down. LaRouche has always been opposed to what he describes as “imperialism” and “colonialism,” but in his world view, one of the key power centers resides in the United Kingdom. According to LaRouche, the Queen is even engaged in international drug trafficking, and the British Empire’s tentacles still hold much of the globe in an iron grip.
Of course, LaRouche also criticizes wealthy banking dynasties like the unimaginably powerful Rothschild family, which play a large role in world affairs even if it is mostly hidden from public view. And the money cartel created by wealthy bankers is another one of the issues LaRouche focuses on to draw in followers.
But while LaRouche’s views on the monetary system sometimes resonate with advocates of sound money — at least initially — his statements hardly outline a plan to move toward a free market-based system. Like honest-money activists, LaRouche supports ending the privately owned Federal Reserve monopoly. He has also expressed support for a gold standard.
However, instead of abolishing the U.S. central bank and replacing it with nothing, LaRouche and his supporters want to erect a national bank controlled by government instead. Apparently the views of Alexander Hamilton, a strong proponent of a government-run monetary authority in early America, represent a key influence behind LaRouche’s views on money.
Beyond currency centralization, LaRouche also pushes tight government control over the broader economic system. He supports, for example, state power over financial capital and intervention in the economy to keep interest rates artificially low if needed. The goal, supposedly, is to increase “production.”
Aside from economic and monetary matters, many of LaRouche’s supporters are initially attracted to the movement by an array of positions that match their own. LaRouche is generally anti-war, for example. His opposition to radical United Nations “solutions” to address supposed “climate change” — formerly known as “global warming” and still based on largely discredited UN theories about humanity’s role in the process — have won him some supporters, too.
Cultural elements play a big part in his recruitment efforts as well, with LaRouche supporters organizing all manner of conferences and talks supposedly related to classical music or similar fields. According to people who have attended such events, however, they tend to end up being used to push LaRouche’s views and collect more followers.
Of course, the vast apparatus created by LaRouche — “Making men in my own image was the conscious articulation of my central purpose from approximately 1946,” he reportedly wrote in his 1979 autobiography — has been the subject of numerous controversies over the years. In 1989, for instance, LaRouche was sentenced to 15 years in prison for mail fraud and tax evasion supposedly linked to his fundraising. He got out early.
LaRouche’s alliances have also been controversial, including his associations with the Nation of Islam. All sorts of allegations about LaRouche continue to surface, too, and although some may be realistic, others are probably not. He often characterizes his opponents as “agents” of the British elite seeking to destroy him and stymie his efforts to save the world.
But some former members and employees of the LaRouche machine also maintain that their ex-leader should indeed be scrutinized far more closely — especially because of the intense financial and time commitments expected from followers. One group of former LaRouche backers even set up a website to expose what they say is his duplicity and the sinister nature of his organization, even describing LaRouche’s personality and behavior as that of a “psychopath.”
LaRouche, his supporters, and his critics all claim that it is impossible to neatly classify his views using modern political labels or ideas. That is probably true — indeed, some of his statements often seem contradictory. LaRouche critics sometimes even say that to try to understand him politically is to miss the point. According to opponents and analysts, the whole operation has been about controlling his followers, at least since the mid-1970s — certainly not making any sort of political statement.
Decades ago, writing under the pseudonym L. Marcus, LaRouche published a treatise entitled “Beyond Psychoanalysis” about how to turn recruits into dedicated agents. According to a report in the Washington Post, he wrote in the paper that “organizers should strip recruits of their egos and reduce them to a state called ‘little me,’ in order to rebuild their personalities around a new socialist identity.”
Essentially, though, the overriding theme appears to be that if LaRouche were in power, the world would be a much better place. But while he does correctly identify at least a few widely agreed upon problems facing the U.S. and the planet, his proposed “solutions” should almost certainly be taken with a grain of salt at the very least.
