The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/larouche.lyndon/larouche.018

Archive/File: larouche larouche.018
Last-modified: 1993/05/08
XRef: index larouche, larouche larouche.ihr

   LaRouche's racialism, like Hitler's, doesn't just target the British.
   In a softer form it applies to most of the human race, whom LaRouche
   accuses of being mired in sheeplike beastiality and thus requiring
   close surveillance by LaRouchian shepheds. He professes great
   compassion for the sheep. Their subhuman state is the fault of the
   British. Once the latter are removed from the scene, the sheep's
   heredity can be changed, raising future generations to the level of
   true humanity.

   LaRouche describes this process using terms from Plato's 'Republic,'
   in which society is composed of an ascending scale of bronze, silver,
   and golden souls. But his ideas are very different from Plato's. To
   LaRouche the bronze soul is a sensuous donkeylike wretch (or worse).
   To Plato the bronze soul was an upright moral citizen whose role was
   to build the weath of society through craftsmanship and commerce. To
   LaRouche the silver soul is someone who has begun to accept political
   leadership from LaRouche or at least has developed an "organic"
   humanism parallel to LaRouche's (e.g. South Africa's white rulers).
   To Plato the silver soul was not defined by his ideology but by his
   specific function and talents - he was a member of the warrior class.
   To LaRouche the golden souls are himself and those few lieutenants of
   his who have fully assimilated his intellectual method - the
   so-called "hyposethis of the higher hypothesis." To Plato the golden
   souls were the philosopher-statesmen who took care of government
   affairs and studied higher ethical and metaphysical principles to
   guide them in their work. These principles, as expressed by Socrates
   in Plato's dialogues, have little in common with LaRouche's ideology.
   Plato never theorized about a hypothesis of the higher hypothesis.
   Nor did he regard his philosopher-kings as a biologically superior

   LaRouche's misappropriation of Platonism as a buttress for modern
   fascism is not unique to LaRouche. In 1939, Dr. Otto Dietrich, the
   head of Hitler's press bureau, announced that Hitler's views on
   leadership were "in entire conformity" with Plato's "immortal Laws"
   which teach the "voluntary subordination of the masses, whilst at the
   same time bringing the 'wise men from within them to leadership.'"
   Platonic jargon was also adopted by Oswald Mosley, fu"hrer of the
   British Union of Fascists, and by members of South Africa's
   Broederbond during their rise to power after World War II.

   When LaRouche begins to talk about specific ethnic groups, his humanist
   devotion to raising bronze souls out of ther bestial mire suddenly
   disappears - apparently because they so stubbornly resist the values
   of his would-be golden souls. He adopts instead a relentless racism
   fit more for a master race than idealistic shepherds. For instance,
   the Chinese are a "paranoid" people who share, with "lower forms of
   animal life," a "fundamental distinction from actually human
   personalities." American blacks who insist on equal rights are
   obsessed with distinctions that "would be proper to the
   classification of varieties of monkeys and baboons." Puerto Ricans
   are intellectually impotent representatives of a culture based on
   "'macho' pathology" and crazed blood oaths. Italians, also impotent,
   are obsessed with churches, whorehouses, and "images of the Virgin
   Mary" (whose "goddam smile" LaRouche would like to remove from public
   view by closing Italy's churches). Irish-Americans are
   representatives of a backward Catholic "ethnic piggishness" and are
   responsible for a "hideous mind-and-body-eroding orgy of fertility."
   Tribal peoples, as in Brazil's Amazon Basin, have a "likeness to a
   lower beast."

   These attitudes have definite implications for LaRouche's doctrine of
   world conquest. In discussion U.S. treatment of American Indians in
   the nineteenth century and the conquest of Mexican territories in
   1848 by General Winfield Scott, LaRouche asked: "Was it ... correct
   for the American branch of European humanist culture to absorb the
   territories occupied by a miserable, relatively bestial culture of
   indigenous Americans? _Absolutely_. Was it correct to absorb ... the
   areas taken in the Mexican-American War? Historically, yes - for the
   same reason." And the underlying principle? "We do not regard all
   cultures and nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or
   survival." (King, 289-290)
                             Work Cited

King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York:
Doubleday, 1989

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.