Lyndon LaRouche

[JMarsigli]

LaRouche PAC seems to be getting somewhat popular around Utah again. I'd like to give a word of caution for those of you who follow LaRouche. In my opinion, he is not who he acts to be. I think he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. He talks like a libertarian, but I think he's really a Marxist.

I first got a little worried when I saw a pattern of narcissism in LaRouche's writings on his PAC website. I looked into his past and didn't like what I found. LaRouche was involved with Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) until they kicked him out. SDS is the same community organizers that Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN, was associated with. LaRouche also claimed to be a Marxist, which he later denied as a front to pull Marxists his way. However, he founded the U.S. Labor Party--that's much closer to a Marxist sounding party than a libertarian sounding one. His representatives also talk Marxist code words, and discuss their own community organizing efforts.

My opinion is LaRouche is trouble. He constantly talks about how important he is, which comes across to me as narcissist, or egotistical at the least. He's been in plenty of trouble in the past, but makes up bizarre conspiracy theories to cover up his own mistakes. There have been numerous reports from past associates (followers) about his very questionable sexist, racist, and anti-Semitic language. He's ticked off that Saul Alinsky was the better community organizer, and thus is extremely jealous of the Obama administration.

Again, this is my opinion and impression. I could be wrong, but I don't trust this character.

[JMarsigli]

From another thread:

As far as I can tell LaRouche is an anti-British banking establishment Marxist.



He thinks we all need this government planned mission or we'll have nothing to work toward, so we'll degenerate as a society (fight endless war).

Point 1

His stance ever since his days in WWII has been consistently against those who stand for the re-emergence of the British Empire. For this reason he sees Putin as an ally of the USA in its fight against the now dull toothed UK Lion.

His sense and doctrine of Economics is most definitely not the London School of Economics, nor is the Chicago (Straussian) School of philosophy, nor even (Ron Paul's and my beloved) Austrian School of Economics.

Both the London School and the Austrian School are forms of Impirial Economics. Where as what LaRouche calls the American School of Economics according to him is in full line an agreement with that which the Founding Fathers had set up for the Republic.. which we have had many discussions here about. this is a form of Economics that does not treat the common man as so much property or chattle cattle, or worthless eaters, whcih is what we live under today- but some call capitalism and worship it

i think when you got your SS act, it was all over red rover



Point 2

I did Marx when I did eco at Uni (and then again when I read Ch12 of Kenyes tee hee).

I’m a strong believer in a lot of the philosophical principles he identifies.

Hegelian dialectic, theseis- synthesis-antitheses, power of the state, peoples hate for institutions, assembled masses.

Certainly disagree with his solutions, that’s for sure.

I don’t think LaRouche is a Marxist because he understands Marxism and that lots of marx wrote was correct. The Marxists are in Washington anyway. We just call them congressmen and representatives and capitalists.

As Roschild said “permit me to print the money I care not who makes its laws”, yeah, I’m a strong believer that too. And “all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”, yep, strong believer in that belief also

[JMarsigli]

Thank you very much for the comments. Obviously, LaRouche has his own agenda. Does it coincide with LDS Philosophy?

[JMarsigli]

Thank you very much for the comments. Obviously, LaRouche has his own agenda. Does it coincide with LDS Philosophy?

So you're suggesting there is an LDS philosophy on economic systems?

Would that be to take a coin from the mouth of a fish and render unto Caesar what is Caesars?

Or would that be a communal order of consecration?

Everyone has an agenda

His, I don't know. maybe he's a 1-trick pony. But can you name 1 person in the secular world who is not LDS who'se agenda coincides with LDS philosophy? We are pretty unique you know.

[p51-mustang]

I always hear his people talking on tthe local am radio and they always speak higjly of the New Deal and suggest a similar program to get the economy going again. This is nonsense. We need to produce things that can be sold locally and on the world market to produce wealth. building roads, bridges and other public works is a consumptive process. FDR and the new deal did not help America recover. The new deal delayed the recovery.

[Col. Flagg]

I've been a regular viewer of the weekly report (which can be seen on his website) for about a year now. The two fellows who do it (Jeff Steinberg and John Hoefle) are very intelligent and highly informed and they don't mince words... they are very straight forward and blunt with the delivery of their information for their viewers. LaRouche has a lot right about our current situation... he understands the need for the 'Fed' to be abolished, he knows how corrupt Washington, our banking institutions and Wall Street are and he recognizes our true threat which stems from Great Britain (home of the international banksters) which helped to establish the 'Fed'. There are some things I don't agree with though, such as his juvenile tactics in attacking Obama, his brash, foul language sometimes, his calling for a new credit system with the U.S., China, Russia and India spearheading the whole thing and this silly idea he has that we must send a manned mission to Mars ASAP.

Some on this site have said he has a God-complex and that might be an accurate representation of his persona. While I don't particularly care for Lyndon personally, I do have to give him credit for speaking the truth and standing up against the power and wealthy-elitists in Washington and abroad. I don't watch his webcasts, nor do I care to listen to him speak, but the weekly report on his website hosted by Steinberg & Hoefle is top-notch and IMHO, a must-see every week.

[pjbrownie]

I used to see commercials with him in the 80's lambasting Ronald Reagan for not doing more for the poor and the poverty-stricken. He would show videos of decaying inner cities saying we needed more money. He was unabashedly socialist.

Now, he's not? He was doing it to attract Marxists and then turn them? Right . . .

I would prefer a conversion story.

[JMarsigli]

Thanks for all of your insight and examples.

I always hear his people talking on tthe local am radio and they always speak higjly of the New Deal and suggest a similar program to get the economy going again. This is nonsense. We need to produce things that can be sold locally and on the world market to produce wealth. building roads, bridges and other public works is a consumptive process. FDR and the new deal did not help America recover. The new deal delayed the recovery.

I somewhat disagree. The New Deal included a lot of socialism, make-work programs, paid farmers to destroy crops, and added some legitimate jobs. I prefer to separate the different aspects rather than jumping on the entire New Deal as folly.

Return on equity from road and infrastructure building is very high and fast. It is the make-work projects that are pointless waste. Dig a whole here, carry the dirt over there and fill that hole with it. Building new roads could be make-work, or it could positively benefit US production for years to come.

I think the jury is still out on whether or not the new deal delayed recovery. Many agree the biggest harm from intervention is the uncertainties and distortions it creates in markets. If you don't know what the government is going to do then you do nothing. If everyone does nothing then the economy won't heal, no matter what FDR or Obama do about it.

[p51-mustang]

Return on equity from road and infrastructure building is very high and fast.

It wont matter how many roads or bridges you build if you cant create valuable things to sell on the open market. We need to return to that to jumpstart and sustain the economy.

Can you provide evididence that your statement is true?

[shadow]

New roads, highways and freeways provided better and faster transportation to move products and services for businesses/people. I'm not saying I agree with the means, but the result was increased commerce. Just don't tell that to the folks in Radiator Springs (from the movie Cars)

[p51-mustang]

New roads, highways and freeways provided better and faster transportation to move products and services for businesses/people. I'm not saying I agree with the means, but the result was increased commerce. Just don't tell that to the folks in Radiator Springs (from the movie Cars)

Yes, I get that, but building things like roads and bridges is a secondary factor in the economy. WE need primary wealth creating activities and Larouche does not talk about that so much.

[Jason]

New roads, highways and freeways provided better and faster transportation to move products and services for businesses/people. I'm not saying I agree with the means, but the result was increased commerce. Just don't tell that to the folks in Radiator Springs (from the movie Cars)

Yes, I get that, but building things like roads and bridges is a secondary factor in the economy. WE need primary wealth creating activities and Larouche does not talk about that so much.

He's a commie.....what do you expect?

[JMarsigli]

Return on equity from road and infrastructure building is very high and fast.

It wont matter how many roads or bridges you build if you cant create valuable things to sell on the open market. We need to return to that to jumpstart and sustain the economy.

I agree with you here, but think the idea is a little more complex. If roads lower production costs and/or input time then it can enhance the economy as long as displaced work hours end up creating another product or service. If not then it consumes wealth. "Valuable things" don't have to be tangible either. A service-based economy is a result of societal advancement and a sign of wealth. I think engineering and tech services are very important for America right now, as that is where society is advancing and it's important to stay on the cutting edge--if you want to remain #1 anyway.

Can you provide evididence that your statement is true?

Benefits from infrastructure aren't really economic secret. American railroads are probably the best example of the competitive advantage US industry has over the rest of the world thanks to our world leading railroad companies' infrastructure. The concept is the same for trucking companies on highways, personal travel time, and ports.

[pritchet1]

Somebody did their homework on Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Putting that into proper perspective in regards to his September 24, 2010 "New Economy" presentation;
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15860

(It would appear that he is talking to an empty room...)

I have to wonder about his "solutions"...

Is he really anti-NWO?
http://www.henrymakow.com/wary_of_lyndo ... esist.html