SEARCH

edit SideBar

Conclusions

< The Theory of Totalism | BEYOND COMMON SENSE | Footnotes >

  • The Danger In LaRouche Psycho-Politics
  • Does The LaRouche Movement Ever Do Anything?
  • A “Stink-Bomb” Led Renaissance?
  • END OF THE LAROUCHE MOVEMENT IN AUSTRALIA?
  • MacRouche?

The Danger In LaRouche Psycho-Politics Lifton’s words are appropriate:

“Rather than stimulating greater receptivity and ‘openness to the world,’they encourage a backward step into some form of ‘embededness’- a retreat into doctrinal and organisational exclusiveness, and into all-or-nothing emotional pattems more characteristic... of the child than the individual adult “ (page 436)
“And if no peak experience occurs, ideological totalism does even greater violence to the human potential, it evokes destructive emotion, produces intellectual and psychological constriction and deprives man of all that is most ... and imaginative - under the false promise of eliminating these very imperfections and ambivalence which help to define the human condition. This combination of personal closure, self destructiveness, and hostility towards outsiders leads to the dangerous group excesses so characteristic of ideological totalism in any form. It also mobilises extremist tendencies in those outsiders under attack, thus creating a vicious circle of totalism.

Does The LaRouche Movement Ever Do Anything?
Early editions of The Campaigner, show that the ego-centred LaRouche-cult was not a feature. The cult of the LaRouche personality has only grown in later days.
The LaRouche movement and its offshoot in the Australian CEC movement exists, primarily to promote the name of LaRouche, and perpetuate and safeguard its own existence. This they do regardless of the truth. In a recent publication of the Citizens Electoral Councils titled Sovereign Australia part 2, the claim was made that the economic program therein presented was based on Lyndon LaRouche’s Christian principles stating:

“in the legislation which follows, we begin our long-overdue revolution to establish an ordering of our nation’s affairs derived from the Christian notion of natural law Before examining that legislation, we will hear first, briefly, from the greatest living exponent of the American System as derived from Christianity, the American statesman, Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.” (52)

Such a claim will help fund-raising efforts in the bible belts of rural Australia. But it is basically a fraudulent statement. LaRouche’s economics far from having a Christian source, actually derive from the “atheistic” Marxist concept of the rate of surplus value. The bills were based on the work of the former CEC member, John Simpson and LaRouche principles had nothing to do with the bills.
LaRouche’s idea on the stages of history which are now genatural law” and “Christian” are merely a rejigged notion of the Hegelian-Marxist dialectical process. Like LaRouche’s psycho-political approach, his economics are Marxist in inspiration.
CEC political activity is now narrow focused and restricted to publication of provocative articles attacking the designated enemy, invariably British-Venetian oligarchies and their freemasonicintelligence agents. Most organisational time is taken up in psychological training and making contacts for fundraising, new candidates for “unblocking.” The LaRouche-CEC has shunned money making opportunities that might be politically beneficial,’but fail to provide opportunities for cadre training.

A “Stink-Bomb” Led Renaissance?
The techniques employed of political action in the community rarely rise beyond a “stink-bomb” approach: releasing a pig at a Kissinger meeting; disrupting a Conrad Black dinner, distributing a thousand provocative pamphlets.
Like individual psychotherapy where an immediate goal is to provoke an angry response, LaRouche forces attempt to provoke an angry response in the wider community.
The stink-bomb approach to politics means that the LaRouche-CEC targets designated enemies (the B’nai B’rith is a favourite) and invokes a nuisance campaign, like a foolhardy boy poking a stick into an ant nest. Naturally, this draws a hostile response from the target: a hostile media campaign, a demonstration, counter-disruption, counter stink-bomb. LaRouche hurls stink-bombs, and the other side hurls them back.
This has the danger of escalating to violence. At one CEC-LaRouche conference in May 1993, 250 police were organised to prevent violence from the Socialist International Organisation, student and Jewish networks organised to disrupt the Conference. The mere mention of the name LaRouche is enough to draw such forces out on to the streets.
The CEC-LaRouche organisation, far from enervating the political process in America and Australia, as it first promised the potential recruit with ideas of economic reform and a cultural renaissance, has degenerated into an impotent troublemaking counter-gang.

END OF THE LAROUCHE MOVEMENT IN ‘AUSTRALIA?
Firstly, is there such a thing as a LaRouche “organisation”? It is doubtful if an “organisation” exists. LaRouche comments on his “organisation” in his autobiography as follows:

“By ordinary standards, ‘membership’ in the Labor Committees has always been difficult to define, especially so during the early years. 1 have been a contributing factor in this loose arrangement, but it developed and continued as a reflection of the way we came together, the way loosely organised forms developed more by happenstance than plan, and the distaste for excessive organisation among the group of graduate students who dominated the core of members during the late 1960s and early 1970s. We were, and remain essentially, a collection Of exceptionally intelligent and very individualistic individuals. It was an association characterised by a certain mood and style, and by tendency to agree on a few basic ideas held in common.

The self-elected “senior cadre” staff on whatever executive bodies exist in America, are really a self-perpetuating, introspective oligarchy of middle-ageing University postgraduates. There appears to have been no new, blood for some decades and the organisation has become ossified, authoritarian, impatient, bordering on hysterical, suspicious, paranoid. It is this degenerated body which now proposes to “change” Australia.
But after two years of stink-bomb politics, and squandering of over a million dollars, what remains is an isolated, introspective and essentially impotent “organisation.” The mind experiments f LaRou( he from the 1970s has demonstrably failed in the 1990s. Disruption of “leftist” forces in the 1970s in the USA by LaRouche, has been repeated in the form of disruption of rural “rightist” forces in Australia in the 1990s.
Any worthwhile scholarly work from the Schiller Institute is negated by the “psycho-politics” of Douglas-Isherwood. Firstly, it must be remembered that there is no such thing as the LaRouche Movement. Since student activist days the ICLC members have “shunned” formal organisational structures. Possibly because any organisation is vulnerable to a hostile takeover, but it also ensures that there is no accountability on financial, political, doctrinal or strategic matters. An ICLC member, contrary to what is retailed in early recruitment days, is politically impotent. There is no justice in the organisation, no redress for problems or for creative input. ICLC “membership” is a fraud.
“Labor Committees” are promoted as an organisation to belong to and, if passing the initial tests, one becomes a cadre in the International Caucus of Labor Committees. The establishment of the Labor Committees as a national organisation occurred during January 1969. This was chiefly a defensive measure as LaRouche was concerned with the possibility that the loose association might be seen as a target for provocateurs. Thus in the late 1960s it was better to have an organisation for defensive reasons. A formal general organisation was established in 1974, however, the Labor Committees ceased to function as a formal membership organisation by about 1978 (no one seems to know when precisely) and then became a “loose international philosophical association.” (52) Political activity was conducted more or less ad hoc through formation of politicalaction or electoral-support bodies.
According to LaRouche, writing in his 1986 autobiography, his political organisation, the ICLC, was set up in 1969 and abolished in 1979. Somewhere between 1986 and 1991 ICLC meetings were again being held.
Within Australia, people are still asked to join the ICLC. No membership fees, no filling out of forms, no meetings, no office-bearers, no elections. All that is asked for is immense personal sacrifices and submission. Membership is granted on a whim and taken away just as arbitrarily, as the trial of John Simpson shows.
This amorphous, vague and undefined structure is useful. Without a formal structure there can be no accountability, no need to give explanations or argue a case. The entire organisation is thus under the thumb.
In the LaRouche movement in Australia, and in its captive the CEC, there has never been a lawful general meeting, an executive meeting, shareholders meetings or directors meeting of the associated “structures.” The entire business is conducted on a daily phone conversation with orders given from Leesburg. The authoritarian nature of the “organisation” has led to massive and cruel abuses, as has been documented in the events known as “Mad Monday.”
Far from building an Australian political movement, as fund raisers tell people when the CEC calls in, the CEC organisation in Australia has a colonial status. Leesburg is like the British Empire’s former Colonial Office.
In the two years that the “ICLC” non-structure has operated in Australia, there has been only one meeting of a wider membership. This was called in Sydney in June 1994. The only substantive item on the agenda was the expulsion of half a dozen or so members. In late 1994 the CEC constitution was rewritten at a closed meeting where only a few invited, seiected,members were allowed to attend. In the ICLC, democracy, it seems, is only worthwhile when it can be used to destroy perceived opponents within the organisation. The show trials, kangaroo courts, rumour mill, psychological manipulation are the chosen “tools” in the CEC, all for a “higher” good. The process is cruel, the claims fraudulent and the outcomes are impotent. Nothing short of a renaissance of attitude and organisation within what has been known up to this time as the “LaRouche movement,” will save the network from further moral ignominy.
This current “rubbery” form of non-organisation is not by accident, it is a device to consolidate oligarchic control of the organisation.
This process of course allows massive abuse. Expulsions are arbitrary, financial expenditure is unsupervised and is directed from Leesburg. There is no new policy input, no creative ideas.

MacRouche?
The “freedom” or input that adherents of LaRouche in Australia might have is the freedom and input of a MacDonald’s Franchisee. When joining up you accept the corporate design, logo and product. There must be no changing of the ingredients or the hamburger promotions and franchisors must in some way. In fact the Australian operation could quite readily be called “MacRouche’s”.
One wit has claimed that the LaRouche movement is a combination of a McDonald’s corporate structure, Christ and his disciples, the tub-thumping and marital rules of the Salvation Army, the missionary zeal of the Mormons, and the zealotry of the Communist International (the “Comintern”).
In all these you will find the essential “herbs and spices” of the LaRouche political operation.
The organisation has not grown since the mid 1970s. It appears that the same “Discipleship” from the campus of 20 years ago still control the movement. The ‘march to world power’, dramatically announced in the 1970s is now substantially behind schedule.
This incestuousness has reeked havoc on the quality (and “potency”) of the organisation. It is now a self-perpetuating, self congratulating, inbred, inward looking oligarchy. Its techniques and technology are out of date. The brain has ossified. Little has been achieved. The leadership is made up of ageing increasingly disillusioned misfits, still waiting. Members are, at all times, made subservient, unquestioning and regimented. For those deemed to be “backsliders,” a campaign of psychological terrorism and abuse is directed against them until they either conform or leave. LaRouche, in Australia, now presides over an increasingly ineffective, but deluded group of people.
In the initial tilt for world power, the message was a Marxist one, in the second long march to world victory, the organisation has crawled into a Catholic-ecumenical mould - in much the same way as a hermit crab occupies a new home. This strange mixture has created irreconcilable “contradictions” within the LaRouche structure. This accounts for some of its bizarre behaviour. LaRouche still retains the solid allegiance of his earlier recruits, who now, well into middle age, run a business operation (MacRouche’s), now with a profitable venture opened up in Australia. Over one million dollars has been raised (and The “organisation” reaching to Australia has singularly failed to make any worthwhile impact, beyond the impact of an occasional “stink-bomb.” A very expensive stink-bomb, having cost over one million dollars to prepare!
This then is the story of how a promising start was made to a new political organisation capable of challenging existing structures and orthodoxy, but was destroyed by a compliant party secretary, conniving to hand a promising structure over to a foreign organisation espousing suspect psychological theories ustralia based on highly discredited Marxist dogma. The CEC is a “swamp”.
That such a process should be allowed to occuris beyond psychoanalysis, beyond common sense, and well into the realm of self-destruction. It is impossible to start a renaissance of the mind through a vicious thought control program.

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on June 01, 2012, at 01:14 AM