A world in which LaRouche or LaRouchian methods can influence politics, is a world run as a dictatorship... A fascist world!
If you as member in the LaRouchemovement (or LYM) doubt this, you should take a closer look at the ideas of the founder, Lyndon LaRouche, and at the way the organization spreads its ideas.
Lym members might be impressed that LaRouche has "cleaned up" his organization and gotten rid of people that supposedly, according to the legend, were against the foundation of a youthmovement. Lym members might also be impressed about how LaRouche has given orders to the older members to support them by rasing funds seven days a week. Lym members might also be impressed how research is directed from the top... But how democratic was this done? Was it decided at a democratic membership conference? No! LaRouche decided himself. That is what we call dictatorship, or fascism!
The organization is run in a specific way, that LAROUCHE HIMSELF has instituted!
* LABORINTENSIVE WORK. The boomers are working seven days or six and a half days with fundrasining and deployments and get almost NOTHING as payment and NO sparetime!
* No dialogue of ideas, no discussion NO OPPOSITION to LaRouche. LaRouche has the ABSOLUTE TRUTH, as can be seen in all his speeches in which one almost NEVER can find a single hypothesis, just pure "absolute, not questionable facts"!
* DOUBLE STANDARDS!
The important thing to understand is that LAROUCHE WOULD RUN SOCIETY AS HE RUNS THE ORGANIZATION TODAY!
Sometimes the faults of the organization, like the seven days workweek and the enforced abortions made in the 70s and 80s against women, are excused by members with thoughts like "after we have gotten power, things will change"... Some members lived with the illusion that once in power the members would work less, get higher (normal) salaries, days off, holiday, family, etc... And the organization could have democracy when everybody are not blocked and when all think as Lyn does! I know, I thought like that too sometimes when I was a member!
:o)
This is wrong. Once in power he would have led the world as he has led the organization.The organization is run as an army today, an army led by an incompetent tyrant as general and which is in war, fighting in the trenches, and the world would be run in the same way, with slanders, laborintensive work, purges, no democracy and no opposition...
The draft for the Canadian constitution from 1981 is one of the evidences that this would be the case. The LaRouche proposal for a Canadian constitution is available online. It is. Look here: http://www.wlym.com/~montreal/en/doc...f%20Canada.php
From the proposal for a Canadian Constitution...
1)
The free press would face censorship.
§5.4 Rights of Persons and Associations
"The development and propagation of ideas other than irrational-hedonistic incitements is the subsumed purpose of society's activity from day to day, together with the freedom to practice attempted contributions to the improvement of society and individual condition according to moral forms of ideas. The principle governing this is efficiently illustrated by the proper view of the meaning of "free press." Freedom to communicate ideas is constrained by the law's abhorrence of irrational hedonistic incitements and by the authority of truth. Any statement or interpretation of fact which is publicised orally after being contrived in good faith and promulgated to some morally acceptable purpose must be a privileged ' statement under the law, unless it be clearly defined as irrationalist-hedonistic incitement. This must be the only standard for proceedings in libel and slander under statute and civil law. Association is governed by the same principle of privilege as public communication, on condition that the practice of that association is not criminal under law, nor a violation of constitutional law."
2)
Hedonism would be prohibited and banned in his society.
(Whatever that is. Read the definition. It is so general that almost anything could be termed "hedonistic" and banned. Liberalism is most propably hedonistic as well as homosexuality and normal heterosexuality!)!
§5.3 Morality & Law
"The criminal mind and insanity are both expressions of "infantile regression." The criminal is the irrational hedonist who asserts actions against the law in defiance of the lawful requirement that the person order behaviour by intent to submit to dictate of a rational conscience. The insane person is one who has disassociated his or her consciousness from significant aspects of rationally ordered reality in order to assert in practice the impulses of an infantile irrational hedonism. Both expressions of irrational hedonism are to be denounced as immorality, and their effects to be contained efficiently with aid of humane efforts to rid the person afflicted with infantile regressions of domination by infantile, or by irrational hedonistic impulses and beliefs.
(...)
There is no right to expression of or cultivation of irrationalist hedonism in a constitutional republic."
Read also this: §5.4 Rights of Persons and Associations
"The development and propagation of ideas other than irrational-hedonistic incitements is the subsumed purpose of society's activity from day to day, together with the freedom to practice attempted contributions to the improvement of society and individual condition according to moral forms of ideas."
ANYTHING, I say ANYTHING could be banned by this statement. This is a constitution that would make it possible for the president to prohibit anything he/she wants to prohibit, since the worldview of the leader is equal with "lawful truth" in the constitution, i.e fascism!
Etc...
3)
Criminal minds, hedonists, would loose the right to vote
Now, look at this statement from the constitution. It is interesting. All opposition to him in the movement is judged as a conspiracy against him by "criminal minds" and the opponents are silenced or forced away. (Ever heard him speak of Gideons army?) Would he, if he ever had become a president, have treated citizens in the same way? Well, study the proposal for a constitution:
§1.4 The Democratic Republic Defined
"Every adult national of the Commonwealth has the right to be registered as a member of the electorate in such locality within the Commonwealth as he or she establishes and maintains lawful personal residence. This right shall not be denied except for cause, and shall not be denied for cause except through due process of law as the Federal Legislature of the Commonwealth shall prescribe. The sole causes for disqualification of any adult national shall be these: (1) Treason or sedition; (2) Adoption of citizenship in another nation; (3) Complicity in perpetrating attempted or actual fraud in any Federal or local election; (4) A legal condition of criminal mind; (5) A condition of legal insanity; (6) A legal condition of such degree of functional illiteracy that the person is adjudged incompetent to comprehend the implications of policies and candidacies for election to office presented for votes by the electorate. The Federal Legislature shall enact legislation providing determination by due process for each and all of these causes for disqualification of a person from the roster of citizens of the electorate."
What does he mean by criminal mind? Well, read the constitution again:
§5.3 Morality & Law
"The criminal mind and insanity are both expressions of "infantile regression." The criminal is the irrational hedonist who asserts actions against the law in defiance of the lawful requirement that the person order behaviour by intent to submit to dictate of a rational conscience. The insane person is one who has disassociated his or her consciousness from significant aspects of rationally ordered reality in order to assert in practice the impulses of an infantile irrational hedonism. Both expressions of irrational hedonism are to be denounced as immorality, and their effects to be contained efficiently with aid of humane efforts to rid the person afflicted with infantile regressions of domination by infantile, or by irrational hedonistic impulses and beliefs.
(...)
There is no right to expression of or cultivation of irrationalist hedonism in a constitutional republic."
"Hedonists" would be prohibited from writing in the papers, etc, in his "republic" of "golden souls". They would not be allowed to vote!
CONCLUSION
Ask yourself, based on these statements: Would LaRouche censor the internet too? And Tv? Would he allow free speech? What do you think? 1) The constitution he wrote allows it. 2) LaRouche and the leadership of the organization are very strict against any published articles, etc, that is not coherent with the worldview of laRouche himself! 3) Liberalism and hedonism is in fact BANNED in the organization today!
REMEMBER NOW WHAT LAROUCHE DEFINES TO BE HEDONISTS AND CRIMINAL MINDS. You can google larouchepub.com if you dont remember it. Liberals are hedonists, you remember?! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...arouchepub.com Look at some of the old Campaigners too, there are much here about hedonists: http://www.wlym.com/drupal/campaigners This EIR article about hedonists were written at the same time as laRouche was thinking about his proposal for a constitution for canada: http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=AquarianConspiracy.
This constitution would allow the leaders of canada prohibit all liberals to vote, and all that like sensous pleasures (whatever that is, sex?)! And that is the crucial thing with a fascist constitution: that it is flexible enough to ban ANYTHING that the rulers views as a treath against its power.
That is how LaRouche would have ruled if he had become president of the USA. that is how the world will be run if the LaRouchian movement ever gets REAL power!
Nice? Democratic?
Hardly!
/T
PS
read this on the LaRoucheplanet and think about the above mentioned. Would LaRouche censor the internet if he could? http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.Internet
