Monday, April 6, 2009

Lyndon LaRouche and Africa: development AND dictatorship!

This is a thing I have written for all members of the LaRouche Youthmovement (LYM) and for all those that might still believe that LaRouche is democratic, or even perhaps a "Democrat"!

We who were recruited as youngsters to the movement of Lyndon LaRouche were often impressed by all the nice ideas about "saving Africa". The first thing I read, in 1988, were an article taken from a conference "Development is the name for peace", on "The development of Africa"...

Food aid for Africa. Development projects to make the deserts green. Trans-African railroads. Industries. Calling starvation a "holocaust"... Wonderful ideas, I believed! Especially for me that had read Martin Luther Kings last book where King says that one day the 20th century, when people were starving and living in poverty, would be viewed as we in the 20th century views cannibalism and slavery or the nazi holocaust. As madness!

I still share this idea of Martin Luther King. I must confess. Starvation in a world of plenty is so barbaric that I without any doubt say that it is as barbaric as cannibalism and the holocaust! INSANE!

The LaRouchian views of Africa was very much one of the reasons why I joined the organization 
In the 90s and early 2000s I worked with the organization in many things that had to do with Africa. The "genocide in Rwanda", Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo/Zaire, Kenya, etc... In Sweden we held a lot of conferences on the subject of African development, and we did much work on Africa. We had many friends in the African exile community, and among the embassies of African countries, in Sweden, like the Zimbabwian embassy.

It is still like this.  The  organization gains much credit from its work with African issues...

The LYM in Sweden and globally are involved in much work that has to do with Africa. One recent speech by one of them about nuclear power in Africa, Portia Strid, is gaining much credibility all over the globe: .

Double standards

But when looking at my years in the organization in 2003, just before I left the organization, I started to see a lot of really scary stuff. 

I began to ask myself... "Yes, the organization was for the development of Africa. Yes, it was opposing racism in every way... But... What about freedom and democracy? And who  are the friends of the organization in Africa! Who would construct all these nice things?"

The truth is that LaRouche is for development and dictatorship!

Mugabe - Zimbabwe

The dictator Robert Mugabe is one of the people LaRouche hope would "develop Africa".!

In the early 1990s Mugabe was no friend of Lyndon LaRouches. It was about this time that the EIR published a book on Tiny Rowland, that was financed by some of Tinys enemies in London. How much money that came from Mohamed 'Al' Fayed and the "friends" of fayed,  and was "invested" in this book, I dont know. Perhaps all, perhaps only a part of the cost.

Those who does not know who Tiny is can read Wikipedia:
Let me just say that all Afriocans I have met who has known him has HATED him. Perhaps not without reason, his Lonhro company were not exactly known for its "humanistic" methods...

In this book Mugabe in Zimbabwe is described as one of the persons that Tiny, on behalf of Brittish intelligence and the ever omnipresent "oligarchs" has funded and created. We used this example in the 90s. We used to organize Africans by pointing out how Tiny financed the Rhodhesian racists, and both rebel groups that were opposing the racists, among them Mugabe.

But this was at the time when all liberals and democrats globally LOVED Mugabe. Mugabe and Zimbabwe was loved by almost all internationally (exept Lyndon LaRouche and his movement) until he in the end of the 90s turned against the white farmers (and IMF) then the global media and all global "experts" on democracy and liberalism suddenly turned around and decladed that they always had seen Mugabe as a vile dictator! (sic! Double standards is certainly no LaRouchian method only!)

LaRouche and the ICLC did a similar turn and all of a sudden everything that had been written about Zimbabwe earlier was forgotten and Mugabe was described as a "hero" by the movement. And the cooperation between the Zimbabwian dictator and the LaRouchies started. It started when Uwe and Dean (I think it was them) visited Zimbabwe around 2001 - 2002.

It was basicly like this. Mugabe okayed the cooperation with LaRouche in his egoistic propagandistic efforts. (No leader, not even Mugabe, can survive without friends abroad.)

When all people were worried about the lack of democracy in Zimbabwe and the way Mugabe treated his opponent, Tsvangirai, LaRouche instead called Tsvangirai a "british agent and agent of soros". ( , ) When the world was horrified with food disaster in Zimbabwe, due to the expulsion of the farmers, the LaRouchies let the zimbawian embassador in Washington speak at their conferences as some kind of "hero": "Tsvangirai is steered and paid for by the British. This is no secret, Mapuranga said...

To the youngsters in the LaRouchemovement I say today: I still think much was wrong with the system before in Zimbabwe, the system you call the time when the "white farmers" ran everything. Cash-crops like flowers and cotton cannot be eaten. To grow cash-crop on the irrigated soil and food on the irrigated soil created a disaster in 1993 when there was a drought. BUT. ..

1) What would happen if we in Sweden kicked out all our educated farmers and replaced them with people that know less about farming? It would be a disaster. In a similar way it was disaster when this was done in Zimbabwe. THIS IS ABC in the science of agriculture!!! That Mugabe did not want to bring in food from countries above did not help the poor in the country either. Thus poverty and famine spread! And this was the fault of MUGABE, the ally of LaRouche!

2) That Mugabe is a dictator that trows people in jail just because they are opposing him should be looked at. (Isnt this by the way a continuation of the colonial practises of the Brits, Rhodesians and of Tiny, that once upon a time the movement claimed funded and created Mugabe?) Ask yourself why this helps Africans. Is this the right thing to do? Why has LaRouche not opposed the undemocratic methods of Mugabe? Is it the right thing to do to beat opponents that is funded by people like Soros and to throw them in jail without trial? WOULD LAROUCHE DO THE SAME IF HE GOT POWER? (Read the proposal for a Canadian constitution and ask yourself that: )

3) Why the hell is Larry Freeman upheld as the "Africa expert" in the USA? If anyone would be a worse dictator than Mugabe, it is Larry! And hey, you Swedes! Ask Stephen Brawer what he knows about Larry since the time he was in the USA. Let him tell you about the methods of Larry and why Stephen left the USA. Ask some of the older members what the youngsters we sent to USA experienced in the 1990 when in Baltimore. Anyone that has seen one of the "shouting sessions" of Larry; with Larry yelling, bullying and insulting organizers!

And dont be fooled by the ordinary LaRouchian trick, to say that "if only" the global attacks against Zimbabwe is stopped it will be more democratic. It wont! It is in a crisis that one sees the true nature of a political leader! What Mugabe is doing, is what he is like!

Sudan - Bashir!

Another "friend" of LaRouche is the dictator in Sudan: Bashir! LaRouche is making a big thing about him nowadays. he should not be brought to the International Court, he says: 

"March 20, 2009 (LPAC) -- In discussions yesterday, Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir should not be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC), a court created by the drug pusher George Soros, and his British Commonwealth ally Lord Mark Malloch Brown. LaRouche pointed to those responsible for the creation of the ICC, a fake court, and asked: "Are you going to allow the head of a nation, Bashir, to be taken before the court of a drug pusher? Do you see the criminality of that?" LaRouche warned any country that goes along with such a decision: "you will be the next to go, by tolerating it.""

LaRouche has supported Sudan ever since the sudanese government in the 80s okayed the cooperation with LaRouche.

Once again one have to ask oneself if it really is necessary to have disctatoship and to trow people in jail without trial, just because you believe you are a country under attack?

Or could it be that LaRouche thinks that the lack of democracy in Sudan is a positivie thing? I know some of you might have problems believing it is so, but look at what LaRouche himself said: in 2001 when he visited Sudan:

"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! ( )

Nigeria - the freakshow

Around 1997 to 1998 the Nigerian government had a "dialogue" with LaRouche. This was a freakshow! It was at the time when General Abacha ran the country. I can still remember a magazine that was published in Nigeria with a long article about LaRouche. The magazine a magazine of a typical totalitarian regime. There was a photo of the general on basicly every page, and the same photo (!) on almost all pages. Dictators like to see their picture (and their statues) on all pages, you know! And the name of this dictator was on every page, the "great leader Abacha" was even quoted by the people writing about how "soap operas" and cooking recipies in the magazine!...

I remember that this created a bit of a crisis for me, because I looked at some copies of New Federalist and the EIR and... (big surprise!) LYNDON LAROUCHES PICTURE WAS EVERYWHERE AND HIS NAME MENTIONED IN EVERY ARTICLE!

This is how an article in the New federalist described a visit by Helga to Nigeria in 1997:

"Mrs. Helga Zepp LaRouche, representing EIR, delivered a presentation on ``The Success of the Chinese Economic Reform and Its Significance for Nigeria: Africa's Secret Weapon for Peace!'' to the Fourth Nigerian Economic Summit on Nov. 19, in the capital, Abuja. Mrs. LaRouche was introduced immediately following the formal seating of Nigeria's Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha. The speaker following her was Prof. Paul Collier, the director of Oxford University's Center for the Study of African Economics, who departed from his text, to warn the gathering that ``they should be very careful about those who peddle prosperity.'' He went on to present his view of the world's ``model'' economies for the developing world: Indonesia, and Britain's puppet regime of Uganda. 
Sani Abacha spoke next, emphasizing that Nigeria was making progress in her drive for stability."

ANC -South Africa

When I joined the movement, in 1988 to 1990, ANC was agents of both the British and the communists in Soviet Union.

Officially the South African Aparthaid regime was supported by the movement because its industries were needed in the future "industrialization of Africa", that we talked much about. But inofficially the only reason was that the South African racists had initiated a cooperation with Lyndon LaRouche.

We did not ask ourselves then, the question why LaRouche did not oppose the racism and TOTALITARIAN method of the Soith African aparthaid regime, but you should do so! We critizised the ANC for murdering people, why did we not critizise the aparthaid regime when they did the same? Ask LaRouche why!

Rwanda and Uganda

In 1997 the Rwandan crisis and holocaust started.

The LaRouchies immediately blamed the tutsies and the Ugandan regime (Museveni) for the genocide, despite the fact that it was the tutsies that mainly was murdered (one million killed). And yes, tutsies were certainly no angles and hutus were murdered too, and yes, there were large groups of tutsies that were preparing an invasion of Rwanda in Uganda, and that were funded by Museveni... But...

Why has the organization never once admitted that actually one million tutsies were killed by the hutu regime?

And, once again... Is it necessary to hide part of a truth, parts of a genocide, in order to work politically? Why was it not possible to show the bad things both sides did?

Or were only parts of the truth told, just because the LaRouchies did not want to insult their new allies, the former rulers of Rwanda, the hutus?

The organization published this report in 1997:

"Never Again! London's Genocide Against Africans. . An EIR Special Report. June, 1997Part I: London's Gameplan Leads to Nazi Genocide in Central Africa -- Introduction; London's Coordinated Military Fronts in East Africa 1990-1997, The Death Count So Far; The Chain Reactions of Catastrophe; From Their Own Evil Mouths -- British Press Outlets Advertize Plans to Recolonize Africa; The LaRouche Movement Led The Fight To Stop African Genocide. Part 2: Genocide in Africa -- Some of the Truth Comes Out -- A Holocaust is reported in the World's Press; Documentation of the Holocaust - - Reports From Around the World. Part 3: London's Raw Materials Cartel Runs the Africa Genocide -- How the British Raw Materials Cartel Put Kabila Into Power. Part 4: Who Sabotaged the Multilateral Aid Force? Why There was No Rescue Mission for Rwandan Refugees in 1996. Part 5: Nyerere's 'Kindergarten': Dar Es Salaam University. The Training of the KKK - Kabila, Kagame, and Kabuta Museveni; Bankers Radicals Protect Bush, Abet African Genocide, 'Revolution 101' at Dar Es Salaam; Museveni Embraces Fanon's Doctrine of Violence; 'Black Handlers' Jean-Paul Sartre and Jean Genet -- Nostalgia For the Mud; Sartre's Ideas on Violence; Fanon's Economic False Consciousness"

Ok. Museveni might not be an angle either. But LaRouche organizers has visited Uganda privately without being thrown in jail. Would it have been possible for a a Museveni sympathizer, one that perhaps also likes george Soros, to visit a country run by a LaRouchian president? I dont think so!

Why those fighting for freedom needs to uphold the importance of democracy and freedom of speech!

There are more examples of this double standard!

If you are a young sympathizer of LaRouche, i would recommend you to look in an old archive with copies of the EIR, NEUE SOLIDARITÄT and NEW federalist/New Solidarity. This small list of LaRouches friends in Africa can be expanded! 


MAKE AN EXPERIMENT. Ask LaRouche why he does not critizise the lack of democracy in Zimbabwe and Sudan. I already know the answer. LaRouche would say that you have been fooled by a slander campaign run by Soros. If you are really "lucky" you would here LaRouche explain the philosophical background to "british democracy" and why it has been used to destablize nations. You would not hear anythin g negative about the LACK of democracy, but a lot of bad things told about democracy as such.

NOW MAKE ANOTHER EXPERIMENT: Ask LaRouche what would have happened if the Brittish in 1775 to 1776 had treated the American revolutionaries like Bejamin Franklin and Thomas jefferson and the Adams brothers, like Mugabe treats his opponents...

Or perhaps that was what the Brittish did? Oh, and perhaps that is WHY such a revoloytion was made?!

Lyndon LaRouche has always critizised the early American founding fathers and their allies for being to soft on the allies of Great Britain (the former Colonial masters) after the war of independence was won (Aaron Burr and co...). But perhaps it was so that the founding fathers knew that democracy was so important that they let the sympathizers of the former colonial regime, those that were pro-British, talk freely! Perhaps they knew that the opposite to democracy is dictatorship? Perhaps they knew that their ideals, and USA, would die if democracy was not allowed?

Read the founding fathers for yourself, the Federalist papers is good reading, I enjoyed reading it some years ago, while I was a member.

But I asked myself the question: WHAT WOULD LYNDON LAROUCHE HAVE DONE IF HE HAD BEEN A PRESIDENT AFTER THE AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE? Would he have imprisoned and stopped all opponents, inluding those that likes Britain, or not? And what would he have done if Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Samuel Adams would have rised up to say that even the opponents of the revolution have the right to speak?

Would he have thrown Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Samuel Adams in jail too?

Look at who the friends of LaRouche is in Africa. Look at what LaRouche says about democracy and look at the proposal he made for a Canadian Constitution.Look to at the way he runs the organization... ARE OPPONENTS TO LAROUCHE ENCOURAGED OR BANNED AND VILIFIED INSIDE THE ORGANIZATION? 

Then look at the US constitution and compare LaRouche to the "American system" and the founding fathers and ask yourself why Lyndon H. LaRouche hates democracy and freedom of speech!



  1. Fantastic, my brother! I met Steven Brawer and Ulf Sandmark, whom you certainly know, many years ago. They told me that Africa needs dictatorship and espacially economic dictatorship. I think I know who you are my brother Thor. We met in Uppsala many years ago.

  2. Yes, the organization is often soft on dictatorship.