Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Homosexuality and LaRouchian thinking.

To show how Lyndon LaRouche views homosexuals I want to quote EIR May 8, 1987:

Lets take a closer look at LaRouchian rhethoric. I think his words prove enough what his thoughts and deeds are!


"Are homosexuals a security risk?

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. - EIR May 8, 1987

(...)The phenomenon of homosexuality must be divided into two admittedly interrelated, but very distinct clinical problems.

The first is that aspect of intimacies with either animals or one's own sex, intimacies described, for what are, biologically curiously inappropriate reasons, as "sexual acts." (...) What is distinctive about the state of mind of the person impelled to perpetrate such practices, and what might be the consequences, of relevance to security policies, of a person's being subject to such state of mind? (...)

Homosexuality as the intent to do evil

The clinical essence of the homosexual pathology, is destructive rage, a Nietzschean, dionysiac quality of rage. In the pre-1970s psychiatric literature, this was frankly and extensively documented. The pleasure of the homosexual deed is the pleasure of doing evil, in that clinical sense. It is not the desire for the act in itself, but the pleasure of the destructive character of the act as an affirmation of the diabolical, which is controlling. This is a form of the mens rea; it is an evilly grimacing Eros with horns and hooves, an Osiris, a Siva, a Dionysos.

We should recall from the relevant authorities of a more honest past, that the etiology of the homosexual syndrome has two distinct elements. The first is the potentially homosexual disposition, as commonly the case of the boy victimized psychologically by a certain sort of mother. The second is the indoctrination into homosexual practices.

uring the late 1960s and 1970s, the endemic incidence of homosexuality in the United States was greatly, and intentionally magnified, by systematic indoctrination in homosexuality as a cult, with a significant role by culpable circles within certain divinity and theological schools, as in the case of the role of Berkeley to this effect in the San Francisco Bay Area.

This cult-form of indoctrination into homosexuality demonstrated, that although the relevant mother syndrome is the typical history of endemic homosexuality, that incidences way beyond such endemic potential can be cultivated with a well-designed approach, under the circumstances appropriate for this. The rock-drug-sex counterculture's spread in the U.S.A. during the 1960s, had created such an exceptional, expanded potential by the end of the 1960s, especially in areas in which "New Left" political radicalism overlapped the influence of the rock-drug-sex counterculture in a concentrated way.

Such extraordinary success in creating large numbers of homosexuals from otherwise improbable cases, forced the attention of observers to the fact that the Cybelene cult of Dionysos was no mere scholar's curiosity, but embodied very efficient means for destroying the youth of society, and turning them into assassins of their parents, the elite of the urban centers. This was Nietzschean stuff, and produced with well-informed calculation by "New Age" followers of Crowley and others. So, the methods of the ancient cult of Dionysos were replicated before our eyes.

The observation of this development, through aid of "sensitivity group" methods, and the evolution of the homosexual movements among men and women since, forced our attention back to the intrinsic psychopathological nature of homosexuality more generally. Granted, the behavior of the organized homosexual cults of California and elsewhere was mass behavior, akin to the effect of concentrating a pack of hungry locusts; the nature of the locust is embodied in the relatively more benign state of the same species. In the relatively more quiet homosexual, distinct from self-styled "Nazis in Leather" parading on California streets, the same potential is endemic.

The homosexual's sense of deep guilt about his homosexuality is a necessary part of his condition. He is wrong, but as long as he experiences a sense that this is indeed contemptible behavior, he can tend to function as a useful, reliable person in society, apart from the immediate impact of his affliction. The one grip on sanity available to the deranged person, is his inner awareness that his mind is not only an unhealthy one, but a threat to his chance of social identity. His hope of sanity, is his sense that his condition is a degenerate one, and his accompanying desire to overcome this flaw. Remove that painful sense of guilt, and his becomes unmitigated depravity.

Once the homosexual loses that sense of guilt about his degenerate condition, and thus gives up the idea of recovery, he is lost. Worse, if he becomes persuaded that he has a right to choose to be self-righteously a homosexual, his becomes a criminal mind in the strictest sense of the term. He becomes Nietzschean, and is ripe for acts of treason, simply because treason per se may afford him exquisite pleasure.

In such a state of mind, he might not become a traitor in fact: For example, if he is able to release his propensity for evil in other ways. He innermost character is that of an erotic egoist in the worst sense, a sadist and pathological liar by disposition, all the traits most intolerable in an agency as sensitive as an intelligence service.

In this, as it bears upon the case of "Smiley," I have some expert experience. For years, my own principal function has been primus inter pares among a private circle of friends. One of our principal functions is in the mode of a private intelligence service. Considering our very modest resources, we are among the best in the world at what we do, right enough to give pain to relevant organs of those regular and private agencies who might often prefer to conceal what we reveal. This private occupation brings us athwart various intelligence services, and has brought us into that indescribable but very distinct demi-monde called the "intelligence community."

The fault in most major intelligence services today, is that they are more pragmatic tribes of Manicheans, than being dedicated to some clear purpose. They practice the slogan: "Neither actually win, nor actually lose, and never lose badly enough not to stay within the game to play another day." Some national intelligence services are technically proficient, in one or more aspects, and some are such pathetic bunglers in political intelligence such that even we, with our modest resources, are obliged to ridicule their habitual ignorance and clumsiness. Really good political intelligence, attuned to coherent and sound long-range strategies, generally does not exist. The Manichean pragmatism is the general flaw. Really rigorous political intelligence is lacking.

Good intelligence functioning requires moral qualities of judgment, and unbreakable loyalties to the welfare of one's collaborators. Otherwise, the free play of original thought essential to discovering the unexpected or overlooked, is not possible. The collaborators must he true collaborators, assembled to no purpose but a common devotion to search for useful truths, especially those extraordinarily important truths which are never the generally accepted ones. For such, a "Smiley," as novelist LeCarre portrays him, is intolerable; Le Carre's "Smiley" is recognizably a homosexual, without need of vettings, polygraphs, or other such diversions.

In brief, it is the dionysiac quality of defect in the psychopathology of the homosexual, which is the source of his attractions to the pleasure of the act of betrayal. It is this flaw, more or less developed, which renders the homosexual intrinsically a security risk in corresponding degree, not merely because he is potentially blackmailable, but merely because he is a victim of a homosexual's psychopathology.

To be a homosexual, is a terrible affliction; if we cared for the human rights of such persons, we should direct our efforts to curing them of that which makes them so unpleasantly distinctive."


  1. Disgusting. Did he write this crap?

  2. Unfortunately, yes! Please look at this article that he wrote too on Henry Kissinger: http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/ugliest-larouche-rant.htm

  3. Unfortunately, Lyndon Larouche is a homophobe. His ignorance, hatred and outright lies regarding people who are gay is a sad commentary from those from a prehistoric generation. Fortunately, Mr. Larouche is of a certain age, and when such myopic evil individuals pass, so too shall this nonsensical rhetoric.