LYNDON LaROUCHE: MYSTERY MAN
I received the following e-mail message from a reader of CN:
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
By way of information, I have been a regular subscriber to
LaRouche's publications for 12 years now, and am occasionally
privy to "briefings" from the home office. But I am not a
"brainwashed LaRouchie" in any way. In fact, I disagree strongly
with LaRouche on many major issues (drug policy and nuclear power
among them). My loose if lengthy association with the movement
stems from my opinion that LaRouche is pretty much correct in his
views on the economy, the dangers of "fascism with a human face"
that come from both "sides" of the political spectrum, and the
view that elite oligarchs rarely if ever have the interests of
normal humans at heart.
I agree that LaRouche is in league with the Vatican, or at least
with the leadership of the Vatican around Pope JP II and Joaquin
Navarro Valls. Lyn dutifully reflects the opposition to
"liberation theology" that emanates from the Pope, even though
the LT branch of the Church in Central America is the only
organized force against IMF conditionalities in that region.
(You are of course aware that opposition to the IMF/World Bank
regime is a major tenet of LaRouche's political stance).
To call LaRouche a "stooge" may perhaps be too strong a word,
implying that he is an unwitting tool of a greater force. I
suspect LaRouche is not a "stooge" of anyone, but is willing to
put his massive public relations and intelligence network at the
service of any entity that can afford him. This would help
explain his opposition to Henry Kissinger and the CSIS crowd who,
aside from being "British agents" (probably true enough), are
also doing the same thing for their clients. In fact, Kissinger
and LaRouche even shared clients in at least one case, the brutal
regime in Haiti that overthrew Aristide (also backed by the
CIA...what a grand coalition of skilled propagandists that had
Emmanuel Constant in common! And yet the official line is that
Haiti is of no use or importance to anyone).
Going back to the late 70's-early 80's, it seems likely that
LaRouche was being financed in part by elements within the
Brezhnev regime in the USSR. When Brezhnev was replaced by Yuri
Andropov, and then by Gorbachev, was when LaRouche abandoned his
mildly pro-Soviet line, and became for several years a virulent
Russophobe. Perhaps the money was cut off suddenly?
So, are Clinton or the Dems paying LaRouche to do dirty tricks on
their behalf? Possibly, though I really do not think so. It
appears from the info I am given that LaRouche is really trying
to do within the Democrat Party what the Pat Robertson fascists
have done successfully within large parts of the Republican
Party...that is, take it over from within. Frankly, considering
the Democrats abject refusal to take on our own brand of
home-grown theocratic fascism (Oliver North, Robertson, etc.) and
LaRouche's actual intermittent success in challenging these guys,
the Democrats could do a lot worse than be taken over by
LaRouche. Then we could indeed have a British vs. Vatican fight
divided up by party affiliation. (grin).