< 3.3 Friend/Enemy Stereotypes | AnalyseIndex | 3.5 Anti-Semitic Overtones >
3.4 Conspiracy Theories
With extremist thought patterns, dogmatic one-way-streets are particularly likely to lead to deficiencies in the explanation of complex reality. Conspiracy theories and myths therefore form an indispensable support in escaping this mental dilemma. Moreover, the pressure of longstanding lack of political success demands, especially for small groups, “explanatory crutches” for their tormenting isolation. 36
The skill in creating conspiracy theories with regularly recurring anti-Semitic undertones is therefore also a further conspicuous characteristic of the LO. Embedded in the already discussed worldview of “good versus evil,” various evils of the world (terrorism, wars, AIDS, collapse of values, etc.) are controlled by a world-wide conspiratorial center. During the course of the group’s development, this center has shifted multiple times from West to East and back again: from the early to mid-1970s, it was Rockefeller and the CIA; from the end of the 1970s, it was Britain, Freemasons, Zionists and a “black international” of oligarchs; during the phase of leaning towards the Regain Administration, it was the KGB and a Russian “Third Rome”; towards the end of the 1980s, a “condominium” of Anglo-American-Soviet plans for world rule; and from the beginning of the 1990s, accompanying a tilt towards the anti-US line, it was again the CIA and a “secret parallel government of the USA”, etc.
With this type of fluctuation in the identity of the bogeyman, it can be the case that multiple sinister institutions can, at different times, be held responsible for the same crime. The different explanations offered by the LO for the murder of the banker Jürgen Ponto by the RAF are typical: first Ponto was allegedly shot at the behest of Carter, later London, then the KGB, and then, not long ago, the allegation shifted back to the “secret shadow government” of the USA. Astoundingly, there are, again and again, institutions and authors who are taken in by relevant Larouche propaganda. A telling example in the German-speaking world is the book Das RAF-Phantom (The RAF Phantom) by Gerhard Wisnewski, Wolfgang Landgraeber and Ekkehard Sieker, which, though discredited by experts, is still relatively widely disseminated. The authors, with their fixation on the idea that the RAF is a synthetic formation under the control of Western centers of power and secret services, have, to a considerable degree, been taken in by treatises of the LO. They refer to the Larouche “news agency” EIR as an “interesting news service, that demonstrates an “unusually good grasp of the latest information.” 37
An anti-British, anti-Freemason conspiracy myth, that partially expresses itself in excessive anti-British tirades (e.g. an NBC broadcast of March 4, 1984, LaRouche on Queen Elizabeth II: “Of course she pushes drugs, that is to say in the sense of being responsible: the head of a gang, that pushes drugs; she knows that it happens, and she doesn’t do anything to stop it.”) appears as a further component of the LO ideology and turns up again and again with different embellishments. 38
36. See Backes (fn.10), pp. 306-309.
37. See Gerhard Wisnewski/Wolfgang Landgraeber/Ekkehard Sieker, Das RAF Phantom: Wozu Politik und Wirtschaft Terroristen Brauchen (The RAF Phantom: Why Politics and Economics need Terrorists), Munich, 1992, pp.188-190. The three authors recommend making use of the “unusually good grasp of the latest information” of the LaRouche media, and explain their use of several EIR publications in the following pages. As it became clear (perhaps too late), what they had become involved in, Wisnewski attempted to distance himself in an embarrassingly overdrawn way in the SZ-Magazin (magazine of the Süddeutsche Zeitung) of 27 November 1992. Suddenly, it was insinuated that LaRouche – in the camp of the SDI supporters – was implicitly involved in the attack on von Braunmühl, an SDI opponent. In their follow-up book, Operation RAF (Munich, 1994), the authors finally attempted to simply deny their terrible gaffe (p 15.)
38. This obsession with conspiracies is regularly the subject of endless litanies in internal papers as well as in public announcements. So, for example, in an internal paper from May 23, 1991, LaRouche sees the following events and persons as belonging to the sphere of responsibility of these world-wide British control structures: the First and at least implicitly, the Second World War, as well as potentially a Third; the mental control exercised over the Anglo-American population through a “propaganda/control/training mechanism” embodied in “British liberal philosophy; this “anti-scientific cult” is disseminated by ideologues like “Alistair Crowley, H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell through the media of Chatham House” as well as by Henry Kissinger as an “agent of Chatham House” as well as by the Council on Foreign Relations; the politics dictated by London to British agents like Kissinger and Scowcroft controlled the Nixon and Ford Administrations.