< 3.1 Basic Definitions | AnalyseIndex | 3.3 Friend/Enemy Stereotypes >
Extremist thought structures need absolutist and exclusivist claims “like addicts need their drugs”. 12 The claim to be an exceptional elite with an intellectual and moral apparatus superior to that of others and capable of solving the world’s most urgent problems is very pronounced in the LO and forms a constant in its development. This also explains the group’s inherent inability to realize its potentials strategically in the long term because the self-appointment as savior of the world and of Western civilization sooner or later scares off even sympathetic supporters.
Whereas the LO originally felt itself to be the intellectual avant garde of the working class -- the embodiment of the “class for itself” -- it came later to see itself as essentially the sole remaining defender of the heritage of the Christian/Humanist civilization. The outside world is seen as morally degenerate and even the Vatican, to which the LO had, especially in the 1980s, felt spiritually bound, is ultimately relegated to the role of savior of mankind of only limited usefulness. 13
The claim to indisputable competence, often described in group theory jargon as “hubris”, extends to all areas of life and knowledge. This quality, designated the “LaRouche” method, comprises at the least morality, religion, scholarship (physics, psychology, philosophy, history, music, economics), politics and strategy and entitles LaRouche, according to his wife, to the status of “the most extraordinary and greatest thinker of this century”. There is “no other strategic thinker of the West” in sight who can guarantee peace the way LaRouche can. His scientific knowledge surpasses that of “most experts”. 14 Internal group reports are even more grandiose. Zepp-LaRouche once called her husband “the greatest genius in history, even more significant than Leibniz or Cusa”. 15 LaRouche not only regularly refers to himself as “the world’s leading economist”, but also lays claim to “one of the most important, if not the most important” scientific discoveries of the last centuries. 16 Despite this boundless egomania, Zepp-LaRouche described her husband elsewhere as “the most noble and selfless person that I know”. This systematic saturating of Group activists with the message of the leader’s uniqueness fulfills one of the criterion of a sect – a personality cult. 17
Another dominant trend in the Group’s worldview since its early history has been the naïve believe that it possessed the only viable program for solving all the world’s conflicts and problems of survival in short order through unlimited economic growth and the massive application of science and technology. Beyes-Corleis describe this accurately as “a fantastic mixture of grand schemes”. 18 These visions of exclusiveness have also led in their own logic to the conclusion, insisted upon by LaRouche and his leading cohorts, that it is morally perfectly legitimate to collect money from free riders for whose continued existence the world-saving LO is working itself to the bone. 19
12. See Backes (fn.10) pp. 298-300.
13. Thus LaRouche in an internal paper from August 11, 1991: “In terms of morals, the generation which has come up in the past 20 years, by and large, as a generation, as a cultural force, HAS NO MORALITY. None.”
The supposedly close ties to the Vatican during the nineteen-eighties were, despite all propagandistic and organizational efforts, essentially one-sided.
14. See here, richly: Festschrift für Lyndon LaRouche anläßlich seines 65. Gebutstages (Festschrift for Lyndon LaRouche on his 65th Birthday), (Wiesbaden, 1987). Here LaRouche’s wife puts him on the level of, among others, Friedrich Schiller and describes him as one of the few “intellectual giants” in history who have “overcome the finiteness of man”
15. Ralfs-Horeis (fn.3), p. 8.
16. For example, LaRouche in an internal communique from October 27, 1991: “Recognize that what I have done in my fundamental discovery […] is probably one of the most important if not the most important discovery of the past centuries, my refutation of Wiener”.
17. See Hugo Stamm, Sekten. Im Bann von Sucht and Macht. Ausstiegshilfen für Betroffene und Angehörige. (Sects. Under the Influence of Addiction and Power. Exit Help for Victims and Those Concerned for Them) (Zürich,1994), pp. 125-128.
18. Beyes-Corleis (fn.3), p. 23. After concepts and programs like the “International Development Bank” and the “New World Order” in the1970s, the grand scheme for solving mankind’s problems is currently being pursued through, among other things, agitation for a “Berlin—Vienna—Paris” triangle.
19. On this, see Boland (fn.7), especially pp.16-20 where a former “Fundraiser” pointedly describes the instructions to the leading cadres: “If you are talking to a little old lady and she says she is going to lose her house, ignore it. Get the money. […] Most of these people are immoral anyway. This is the most moral thing they have ever done is giving you money.” Or see how leading cadres responded to demands for repayment of a loan: “Piss on him. Fuck him. That’s what he gets for lending us money”, King, p. 305; see further the on-the-record statement of William Wertz, a one time LaRouche lieutenant in charge of fundraising: “There is no such thing as loan” . King, (fn.2), p. 311.