Friday, March 27, 2009

FAQ. Is LaRouche, and LYM, democratic or fascist?

1)  I heard that Lyndon LaRouche called Obama a monkey and he recently called George Soros a murderer, and his affiliated political parties are known for slandering their opponents, like how EAP in Germany and Sweden ran campaigns against Olof Palme and Willy Brandt and called them nazis and satan, etc... It does not sound democratic at all! Is LaRouche really for democracy, or not, I mean,  he calls himself a Democrat and his youthmovement claims to be for human rights and democracy!?

Answer: Lyndon LaRouche is NOT democratic, even if he has been running for president in the USA in the Democratic party. 

What I, as an ex. member of his organization, would call a totalitarian figure, a fascist, but also a guru-like figure that runs a cult. That is why the  members would not say that they belong to a fascist group. 

The members can spread vile lies and slanders and bully its political opponents, while believing that they are democratic. The members can quote LaRouche and say that democracy is something dangerous, while still believing that they are democratic. The members can say that something they dislike, The Beatles, computer games, Facebook, liberals, hedonists, Obama, Kissinger should be treated as a "dangerous disease" and should be stopped and banned, while the members still thing they are acting in a democratic way! 

That is how cults work!

I wrote this on my blog earlier: "The movement... has the public aim to promote certain kinds of thinking, behavior and cultures, while SURPRESSING other kinds of thinking, behavior and cultures. Liberalism, democracy and so called hedonism, as well as so called "newtonian" science, would be BANNED if he ever got to power! The bullying namecalling methods against political opponents and OPPOSITION within his movement, and outside his movement, gives a hint how he would run a nation, if he ever got power":  . !"

The top-down, AUTHORITHARIAN way he runs the movement he has created, the way he treats the members within the organization, shows how he would treat the citizens of the nation, if he ever became leader of one. This is not only authoritharian or totalitarian or cultlike, this is FASCIST in the strictest sense the word is used

And Lyndon would agree. Lyndon has had many strange friends over the years. Willis Carto from the holocaust denyers at the late Liberty Lobby. President Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Nigerian and Latinamerican dictators. Colonel Seneildin in Argentina, etc. Today he is defending the Sudanese leader Bashir, that the ICC wants to put on trial for crimes against humanity.

Look at what LaRouche said when visiting Sudan in 2001, invited by the same Bashir:

"In these days, it is fashionable to exaggerate the importance of democracy. Because the idea of democracy, as it is taught by international institutions, which use it as a way of manipulating governments, and manipulating people, is the idea of democracy that comes from where? In European civilization this usage comes directly from the Roman Empire.

Now, how did the Roman Empire control its people? It controlled its people through vox populi, popular opinion. It controlled its people through bread and circuses, by shaping popular opinion. It shaped its opinions by putting the people as spectators to watch Romans kill other Romans as gladiators, and the passions were involved with these kinds of violent spectator sports. And by these mechanisms, the Roman rulers manipulated the people in the name of democracy, into a mob of popular opinion.

Now, we see a lot of that in politics in various forms. The question is, not whether a government is democratic or not. The question is, whether the government is fit to exist or not. That's the issue; whether it's democratically chosen or not is not the question. Is it fit to exist? Are people capable of selecting government which is fit to exist?"

LaRouche talks about saving the democracy one moment, the other he attacks it like in the above mentioned speech in Sudan.

In reality LaRouche would do as he said in his proposal for a CANADIAN CONSTITUTION in 1981. He would make sure that his opponents are not even allowed to vote, and that they have no right to free speech! ( )


1 comment:

  1. Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!

    Best Dissertations