SEARCH

edit SideBar

3.3 Friend/Enemy Stereotypes

< 3.2 Absolutist Claims | AnalyseIndex | 3.4 Conspiracy Theories >

3.3 Friend/Enemy Stereotypes

Another distinguishing characteristic of extremist thinking is the simplistic division of the word into opposing camps of absolute good and absolute evil, with the accompanying self-image of missionaries with a unique world-historic mission and a systematically exaggerated portrait of an ever-present enemy. The LO evinces all these traits in particularly crude form. In the LaRouche worldview the monolithic bloc of the Good is embodied first of all by himself, and to a lesser degree by the Pope. As LaRouche put it in an internal communiqué from March 2, 1991: “We, together with the Pope, are perhaps the last bastions of morality in this stinking world.” The bloc of Evil is comprised of British-Freemason-oligarchic circles.
Firmly embedded in this thought structure is the necessity of ruthless action ( in LO jargon this is called “killer instinct”) against the ideological or political “enemy” identified by the LaRouche worldview. Concepts like “enemy of the human race” to describe an opponent belong to the Group’s basic vocabulary. Aggressive propaganda aimed at provoking and creating confrontation with “enemies” is regularly publicized; the German affiliate’s development has occasionally been accompanied by criminally prosecutable outbursts. The spectrum of confrontational tactics runs from verbal injuries to “irregular” activities near the persons or property of the purported enemy. Even in its early phase the US Group occasionally used violence. 20 In Europe things remained on the level of a series of skirmishes, limited to provocative and denunciatory propaganda, with Communist groups (1975/1976), militant anti-nuclear activists (1977-1979) and anti-fascist groups (from the middle of the 1980s).
The Group gained notice in Europe through a number of defamation campaigns organized by LaRouche against “enemies of mankind”. At the beginning of 1975 the German affiliate launched a campaign against Willy Brandt, depicting him on a poster in a SS uniform and in writings calling him a “CIA-bootlicker”, “Nürnberg criminal” or “perpetrator of genocide”. 21 The Swedish prime minister Olof Palme suffered a similar fate, being portrayed on a poster as an axe murderer. An extremely aggressive campaign against Henry Kissinger reached its peak in the early 1980s. Kissinger had been a steady target of the LO since the mid 1970s. Even according to official evaluation the “Get Kissinger” campaign as well as a series of irregular methods against the controversial and influential New York lawyer Roy Cohn met the criteria of professional “dirty trick” expertise. 22 \\
This category also includes an international harassment campaign against Petra Kelly which has been ongoing since 1982. Tactics applied against Kelly have included insults (the title of one article in the US Group’s newspaper was “Did you see this whore on television?”), systematic disruption of events, threats, obscenities, anonymous calls and visits near her house. 23 LaRouche repeatedly praised the German activists who coordinated this campaign and held it up as exemplary.
LaRouche and his leading cadres react with anger to any media reports they don’t like. Regular functions of the LO “security staff” include gathering media-related “enemy information”, creating and maintaining a database, lists and graphs of “the peculiar enemies of the Schiller Institute”, and campaigns against disfavored persons. A typical recent example is the actions taken against the particularly hated Mira Boland, the American expert on extremism with the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith (ADL). 24 Even official investigators are occasionally the object of such “enemy education”.25
Lapsed LaRouche followers can be assured of being classified in the worst category of “traitors of mankind”, especially if they had wide experience in or knowledge of the Group and share this information either within or outside the Group. In order to head off any doubts among the activists, LaRouche used malicious internal papers to attack a former Group leader who had enjoyed respect among the membership but had left the Group in 1980. 26 In 1984 LaRouche told his security staff to call the former American Group leader Gus Kalimtgis and threaten him with violence. 27 After an expert published an accurate report about the LO, the group distributed malicious fliers in front of the church in that person’s hometown. In an article in the Group newspaper, New Solidarity, EEC leading cadre Anno Hellenbroich, leader of the “security staff” responsible for such special operations, attempted to defame author Aglaja Beyes-Corleis by using the Group’s familiar formula of labeling her as mentally unstable.
Further elements of the Friend/Enemy stereotype are a pronounced paranoia and obsession with security. Numerous imaginary enemy camps are used within the Group to highlight its own importance. This obsession with security is congruent with the persecution complex typical of cults. 28 Since the early 1970s LaRouche has intensively indoctrinated members about assassinations plotted against him and other such threats, using this indoctrination to create the above-mentioned “security staff” for continuous identification of and combat with internal and external “enemies”. 29
In 1973/1974 the “security staff” carried out its first paramilitary exercises; in the USA these included assassination scenarios in case the Group should need this option to avenge an attack against LaRouche. At that time the use of code names was usual. In 1977 the “security” detail underwent another phase in its conditioning: it was suddenly announced that LaRouche was on the same “assassination list” as the banker Jürgen Ponto who had just been killed by the Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF)(Red Army Faction). This hot tip came from the American extreme right-winger (Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan) Roy Everett Frankhouser, who was one of LaRouche’s highly-paid “security consultants” until the mid-1980s. 30\\
In 1979 some members of the LO enrolled in “anti-terrorist” courses offered by the weapons dealer, mercenary and alcoholic Mitchell WerBell III, who died in December 1983. 31 These lucrative courses, couched in paramilitary mumbo-jumbo, brought WerBell a lot of liquid income but actually offered participants little beyond basic handgun and security detail raining. In 1980 there was a multi-day refresher program in Germany with a former first-generation GSG (German border guard) trainer. At the same time a number of security firms were established in the USA and Germany and applied for weapons permits. Since then the LaRouches have surrounded themselves with armed guards from their own and external forces. 32
The egomania of the Group leader LaRouche is evident in this obsession with security, which is driven to the level of a superstition. LaRouche has repeatedly insisted that he himself is qualified to lead the commandos, even in operations in the field. The repeated “security mobilizations” have led to ridiculous episodes. LaRouche has greeted guests at his estate wearing a sidearm. In 1982 he instructed his security people to put NATO barbed wire around the property and the roofs of the estate he then had in the Rhine-Hessian town of Stadecken-Elsheim, which irritated the inhabitants of the quiet wine-producing town. At the same time LaRouche claimed to have seen a hit man of the “dirty thirteen” in Wiesbaden. The “dirty thirteen”, supposedly a group plotting assassinations, actually existed only in the reports of LaRouche’s “security consultants” and “sources”. LaRouche insisted upon the production and Germany-wide distribution of a flier with dramatic pictures showing “three assassination attempts” on Zepp-LaRouche. This bunker mentality cultivated by LaRouche evoked potentially dangerous behavior. 33 During a mobilization in 1982 LaRouche demanded that his convoy of four cars be accompanied by at least eight armed guards. In case an enemy vehicle tried to infiltrate the convoy, the guards were to train their weapons on LaRouche’s head. Any contradiction of these orders sufficed for dismissal from the security team.
Attempts to analyze threats objectively and to train soberly the security personnel were of secondary importance, since LaRouche and his deputy for security Hellenbroich were constantly stressing “mental preparedness for battle” and considered “police security thinking” to be defensive. For example, the proposal to keep firearms unloaded due to inadequate control was dismissed as undermining the security efforts. LaRouche’s own stated determination to use these weapons even against police if need be played into this John Wayne mentality. In the wake of a heavily armed police raid on the LO’s properties in October 1986 in Leesburg Virginia LaRouche even put these intentions into writing, whereas previously he had only spoken of them in endless nighttime meetings. In a telegram to President Reagan LaRouche threatened to view any move to arrest him as an “attempt to kill me”. He would not “give up passively” but would “defend himself”. The situation did not escalate thanks only to the more reasonable security people (who shortly thereafter turned their backs on this wild scene with curses).
The psychological dependence on LaRouche and his wife, and the corresponding submissiveness, of some activists in the “security staff” have led to some absurd and humiliating measures, which no one in the Group spoke out against. 34 Illustrative of this ardor to serve is a situation from 1990: one night a group of German troops on maneuver passed by the guarded LaRouche estate in Hunsrück and sent the LaRouche security team into “condition red”. One of the activists on the night security detail said the next morning that if the troops had passed not by the door, but on the other side, he would have opened fire immediately. At the end of the 1980s the authorities in Hessen refused to renew the weapons permit of a long-time associate and security guard of LaRouche, due to lack of an established threat. Similar attempts to obtain weapons permits had previously been made in the USA, and thereafter also in the new German (former East German) states. 35


Notes

20. Already during the Group’s building phase in the US in 1973 there were violent confrontations arising from controversies between the Communist Party of the USA and LaRouche supporters. The LaRouche Group called this “Operation Mop-up”, which included attacks on Communist Party meetings using nunchucks.
21. During the peak of the Guillaume Affair, in spring 1974, a Group flier had still called for support of Willy Brandt; shortly thereafter came his designation of “Nürnberg criminal” and in 1990/1991 he was reinstated as a hero due to his opposition to the Gulf War. Such curious fluctuations between friend and enemy are not rare in LO thought.
22. See for details King (fn.2), pp. 145-155 (Kissinger) and pp. 252-266 (Cohn). The occasional extreme intensity of these campaigns also serves to advertise the LO’s value as an economical provider of propaganda and smear jobs. These services have benefited the Reagan campaigns and related constellations in the USA as well a number of collapsing governments and dubious regimes under international pressure. Among others, the South African apartheid regime, Marcos, Noriega and Saddam Hussein have enjoyed extensive propaganda support from the LO. More limited episodes involved the Polish Gierek government (1980), the Ceausescu regime (1983), the military government of Guatemala (1985/1986) as well as Argentine and Brazilian,
Taiwanese and Thai military governments and regimes. See, among others, King (fn.2) pp. 172-186; Boland (fn.7) pp. 8-12.
23. Müller/Lorscheid (fn.6), pp. 93-100.
24. Boland is the author of regularly appearing background reports on extremist American groups (including the LO) and is therefore in demand by investigative agencies. In the winter of 1993 a number of pamphlets were circulated in Boland’s neighborhood, which is populated by many exiled Ukrainians, with a messaged tailored for this audience (relating to the controversial case of the suspected Nazi war criminal and exiled Ukrainian John Demjanjuk). The pamphlets said, among other things: “Did Mira Boland try to “kill” John Demjanjuk?” and “Wanted: for the planning and directing of kidnapping, espionage, theft at the behest of drug dealers, terrorists and murderers.” In Germany in the summer of 1994 LaRouche activists launched a campaign directed toward security agencies and others to smear Boland by claiming that she had links to a number of secret services and criminal organizations.
25. See King (fn.2), p. 233.
26. In two internal papers from June 1981 this person was labeled, among other things, as an “agent for pro-genocide political interests”, a “brainwashed person”, part of the “same fascist networks with ties to the Italian P2 freemason lodge”, “morally degenerate” and “morally dead”, “enemy of mankind”, “controlled by the transatlantic porno/drug lobby network that wants to kill LaRouche”, an anarchist who had become a “fascist gangster”, “mentally degenerate”, “insane” and “paranoid”. People like this are “corpses” that should be left to rot at a place of their choosing.
27. See King (fn.2), p. 231
28. See Stamm (fn.17), pp. 125-128.
29. On the early period in the USA, see King (fn.2), pp. 25-31.
30. King (fn.2), pp.197-207, offers a detailed and accurate characterization of Frankhouser as a gifted conman. The profile of LaRouche as a tough but ready-to-pay security fetishist quickly got around among former members of US security and military forces, so that LaRouche could soon surround himself in the USA with a whole team of highly-paid “consultants”. See King (fn.2), p 195.
31. On WerBell see King (fn.2), pp. 188-194 and pp. 327-331.
32. At the end of the 1970s this included a number of former German Intelligence and German Federal Criminal Office officials.
33. For the statement in a 1984 NBC report that LaRouche called for the murder of Carter and other people, see King (fn.2), pp. 231-232. At that time Carter was labeled in Group jargon as a planner of “genocide” and “nuclear blitzkrieg”.
34. Some branches in a public forest (Soonwald), which bothered Zepp while she was out riding, were cut down at her instruction. In the pedestrian zone of a town in Baden-Würrttemberg a security guard ordered pedestrians to make way for Zepp and her two dogs (both of which dogs were unpredictable and a constant source of trouble).
35. Curiously, from the early to mid-1980s the LaRouches were able to get official permission to travel in Paris, Rome, Madrid, Ankara, New Delhi, Bangkok and Brazil. On a trip to Paris in 1982 the LaRouche’s were met at the border by a car from the Renseignements Generaux, which smoothed their trip and even allowed them to bring in about 10 pistols and several pump-action rifles.

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on June 07, 2012, at 06:27 AM