Context of Selected Quotes
Democracy (longer quote)
" ‘Democracy’ is like a farm without a farmer, in which the
chickens, sheep, cows, horses and pigs form ‘constituencies’ according
to Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau or John Stuart Mill. Each constituency is but a
collection
of beasts, each with special ‘self-interests’ defined as animals
might define self interests. The highest level of law in such a democratic
animal farm is the ‘social contracts’ among these bestial constituencies.
"The human species is not a collection of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and
so forth. Therefore, ‘pluralism’ and other British notions
of ‘democracy’ are
fit only for British aristocrats, not for self-respecting human beings
such as the citizens of the United States.
"The essence of republican organization, including republican parties, is
the mobilization of a majority of the citizens as a conscious force engaged
in
direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation, of discovering which
policies are in fact currently in the interest of the nation and its posterity.
By creating a republican labor party of such trade unionists and ethnic
minorities, we shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities,
of British liberal
notions of ‘democracy.’ "
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “Creating a Republican Labor Party.” Citizens
for LaRouche, undated, circa 1980, p. 10.
See cover image
See Page 10 image
Read pages 6-10 as text
Bigotry toward gays
LaRouche has a history of making statements that reveal great animosity toward
gay people, and generally links AIDS to the gay community in ways that are
seen as bigoted. He has called for draconian measures against persons with
AIDS, and scoffed at civil liberties and civil rights concerns, writing that
people who physically attack gay people are merely exercising their civil rights:
[first full sentence on left column]"... But if you could pass a law,
pass a reform and so forth, it would mean nothing, absolutely nothing. If the
cultural paradigm which currently prevails in Washington, in the political
process, existed, youcould pass any law in name; the implementation will be
conducted by the State Department and other agencies, according to the existing
cultural paradigm. If you cannot change the cultural paradigm which presently
prevails in the United States, if you cannot change the philosophical outlook
among the majority of Americans; you can't do anything very good; and everything
you accomplish is worthless-your life will be worthless, as the life of all
others. Yours will be a little better than worthless because you tried.
"But we must have a change in the cultural paradigms, in the United States.
There is a function I have laid out in the case of the AIDS problem: Yes,
we must destroy AIDS. It's . going to destroy everybody otherwise; we've got
to
contain it, we can't find a miracle cure that fast; we're going to have
to use methods of public health, which means we're going to have to put away
every carrier until they can no longer carry; and if you won't do that, you
don't
care about your neighbor or your children. If you do that with tuberculosis,
how much more must you do it with this, which is a disease which is 100%
fatal
to all infected? No cure--you die like a poor Iceland sheep. You die in
5 years-maybe earlier-you die in 5 years of pneumonia; or you die in about
10 years
or so,
as your central nervous system just turns into a pile of garbage. You die
because your central nervous system has totally broken down. We have to fight
this
disease. You have to go to public-health measures, if we have to bum the
GayCLU to do it!
"But: What is it worth to fight AIDS, if there are no human beings to
survive that victory? What if the human race is turned into a pile of moral
garbage,
unfit to be saved? What's the advantage of fighting AIDS then? It's sort
of God's mercy-killing, or Soviet agents' mercy-killing, who think they're
God.
"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS--for
our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking
a word.
Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But
government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because
of a cultural paradigm
shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch
of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called
in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay," they're
the most miserable creatures I ever saw!) The socalled gay lobby, 8%
of the
population,
the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers
in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it
affects the way they vote! It also, I think, affects their employability.
They ought
to be taxed 100% of their income, on the basis of not having earned
it, and on the basis of the fact that we need the money to fight the effects
of their habit.
"But the issue, the deeper issue, is that the government and the people,
the general electorate, in terms of the political machines of this country,
have no morality. Here is a question, which was settled in the middle of the
14th century and afterward -- the question of public sanitation on issues of
epidemic and pandemic disease. Every government in the world is well-informed
of that and the penalties of not invoking that policy. We have statutes on
the books of the federal government, on the state and local level throughout
the country, on this matter. The decision to be made on AIDS should have been
automatic. Anybody who did not make that decision acted in defiance of the
law, and should be accountable for any person infected! That is, if you're
infected, if a member of your family dies of AIDS or is infected with AIDS,
you should be able to sue members of the federal government, personally, for
millions of dollars in each case -- damages! Because it was their negligence,
willful negligence, in defiance of statutes, which caused this; not the law
-- the law was fine! If they had followed the law, your friend wouldn't have
been infected with AIDS.
"Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don’t want to
offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to
discrimination against gays!
"They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around
the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats,
and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children,
and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll
kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are
hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats
and beat them up—which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right
to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!"
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The End of the Age of Aquarius?"
EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.
LaRouche has written that history might not judge harshly those who joined
lynch-mobs and beat gay people to death with baseball bats to stop the spread
of AIDS:
"The lynchers…are a special variety of political revolutionary,
and express, spontaneously, the conspiratorial and other ethical characteristics
of political revolutionaries….
"Since the idea of touching the person
of the carrier is abhorrent, stones and the nadiest approximation of a
collection of baseball bats, come
to mind. Certain individuals, of known haunts, first suggest themselves as
easy targets.
"The point is fast approaching, that increasing portions of
these populations will focus upon the fact, that a dead AIDS carrier ceases
to be a carrier. If governments were to proceed with repeated mass-screenings
of the population, and isolation of carriers, the likelihood of a teenager
lynch-mob phenomenon would be small. If not, then other ways of reducing the
number of carriers will become increasingly popular.
"In that case, the lynch-mobs might be seen by later generations’ historians,
as the only political force which acted to save the human species from
extinction."
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Teenage Gangs’ Lynchings
of Gays is Foreseen Soon,” New Solidarity, February 9, 1987, p. 8.
See page images: Part 1, Part
2, Part 3.
"...as a category, gays and lesbians do not represent a valid voting
consituency, and neither do prostitutes, drug pushers, child molesters, warlocks,
witches, pornographers, or others who are morally equivalent."
"End Harold Washington's Consistently Disgusting Career," Illinois
Tribunal, July 7, 1986, editorial page).
See page image
See page top for Illinois
Tribunal
See Illinois Tribunal is
LaRouchite
See flag of Illinois Tribunal
Racism
"Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto
mother?"
Internal memo - Lyndon H. LaRouche, NCLC 1973.
Misrepresenting the existence of a quote revealing anti-Chinese bigotry.
Here is an example of LaRouche simply misrepresenting the facts about his early
(and frequently embarrassing) writing. Some corrections have been made
to the transcript, and are indicated by [brackets].
http://larouchein2004.net/pages/speeches/2003/031114middleburytr.htm
LaRouche's Remarks at Middlebury College
November 13, 2003
Here is [the] transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's remarks
to Middlebury College in Middlebury, Vermont, on Nov. 14, 2003.
LaRouche was invited to speak by the Middlebury College Democrats.
<Snipped to last question>
Question: It's just a quick question. I was [reading the website
of Political Research Associates], and they quoted this internal memo,
written by you, personally. And you were quoted as saying, and I quote--this
was about the majority of the Chinese people, and you said, quote: "They
are [approximating] the lower animal species."
LaRouche: No, they're treated by many, as a lower animal species.
Question: Then, how can anyone, in any regard, read that, and
not regard you as a blatant racist?
LaRouche: I think it's a little bit of misquoting going on there.
I don't know where you got it from, but it's misquoted.
Question: It's Chip Berlet.
LaRouche: What?
Brand: It's Chip Berlet. It's Political Research Associates.
LaRouche: Oh it's Chip Berlet! Oh, from him! That explains it
all! [laughter] He made it up himself.
Question: So you never said it?
LaRouche: No! He made it up.
Question: Okay.
LaRouche: That's the kind of garbage, I
think some of you have been afflicted with. [laughter]
This guy could never tell the truth.
Here
is the text of the section of the article by LaRouche where the quote
appears:
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
“What Happened to Integration?”
The Campaigner, (Journal of the National Caucus of Labor Committees),
Vol. 8, No. 8, August 1975, pp. 5-40.
“The Maoism Parallel” (pages 26-27)
The, same psychopolitical principles embodied
within the special cases just cited are demonstrated on a mass scale
by the case of Peking’s hideous racism-motivated alliance
with Rockefeller.
It is Maoist racism—”Great Han Chauvinism”—which has increasingly determined
Peking’s international strategy through two major evolutions over the
period of the past decade. The first of these two phases is highlighted
by the Lin Piao pronouncement of early 1965, in which
Peking officially wrote off the working-class movement in the advanced
sector as a whole and projected a tidal wave of colonial revolutions
which would ultimately engulf the industrialized “cities” of the northern
hemisphere. In the second emerging clearly since approximately 1971,
Peking’s international perspective has been the provocation of a general
thermonuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact forces, with the perspective
of subsequent Maoist hegemony over the partially radioactive planet.
Both policies, ranged in sequence as successive phases of moral degeneration,
are crucial reflected evidence of the sweep of racist “Great Han Chauvinism” throughout China.
There is no mystery concerning the causes for this hideous spectacle.
Broadly, the cruel backwardness of China-with its virtually 80-85 per
cent rural population chiefly dependent upon brutal forms of labor-intensive
production-perpetuates those notorious forms of peasant commune life
which have been the basis for “oriental” attitudes of intensive racism
and of viewing human life itself as “cheap.” This is an essential objective
background part of the clinical problem, but is not decisive in itself. It is the reactionary practices and policies of the
Peking regime which are; directly and ultimately principally responsible for
actualizing the potential dangers of those objective conditions into
the form of prevailing conscious political tendencies.
The key analytical point to be made in this connection immediately
implies the appropriate basis for socialist policies concerning the sickness
of racist attitudes and practices.
[bold added to help locate related ideas]
The paranoid personality and lower forms of animal life share a parallel
general form of fundamental distinction from actually human personalities.
The distinctive feature of lower life, when such animal species are
contrasted with humanity, is that the range
of behaviourisms of the animal is essentially
fixed in correlation with its genetic heritage (even though many of the
specific behaviours themselves are not directly genetically determined).
Man, by creative discoveries realized as progressive development of
his behavior, produces dominant sequences of social evolution for which
successive forms of society are qualitatively analogous to the evolution
of higher species among lower animal forms.
Hence, that creative mental process which produces such willful evolution
is the distinguishing essence of humanity, and the person who focuses
upon that feature of his mental life and its practical consequences
has a human sense of identity (ego), on which sense of self it is possible
for him to develop an appropriate guiding moral structure for his social
behavior.
The paranoid, so approximating the lower animal species, is relatively
lacking in such sense of human identity and is, to a corresponding degree,
incapable of sustaining a stable guiding moral structure for his behavior.
The paranoid state is characteristic of the “village commune’,’ culture.
Objectively, the model “oriental village commune” is characterized by
the fixing of the mode of production with a rigidity paralleling the
behavioral stagnation of lower animal life. Worse, the culture evolved
in reconciling the victims of such a dead-end culture to that animal-like
state. of “Zero Growth” existence and the paranoid form of the “chains of illusion”-a
reaction formation-in which the hideous, dehumanizing oppressiveness
of the culture is apotheosized as a virtue. As Karl Marx emphasizes
in his denunciation of this hideous village commune form, the victim
expresses his sense of self-degradation by worshipping “Hanuman the monkey
and Sabbala the cow.”
The relevant anti-human feature of Maoist doctrine is precisely of that
form. The moral crisis of China today
is not that a predominantly rural population suffers harsh objective
circumstances of life. The moral crisis of China is
precisely that the reactionary anti-socialist Maoist regime has emulated
the most reactionary of pre-capitalist oriental philosophers in professing
the regime’s economic failures to be a convergence upon almost an ideal
condition. The objective economic failures of the regime are bad enough,
but these in themselves would not have produced the counterrevolutionary
horrors predominant in today’s China: if the regime admitted those failures
and related problems, if it called things by their right name-and did
not lie flagrantly-and committed itself to a perspective of capital-intensive,
technologically-oriented emergence from the muck of labor-intensive
rural backwardness, and if Chinese political cadres fought for the Chinese
working-class’ outlook and perspective throughout rural China, the present
animal-like world outlook of Peking could not have developed.
What has happened in China during
recent years is efficiently understood from the vantage point of the
worst horrors which might have occurred to the imaginations of Soviet
leaders during the 1924-1930 period, during
which a peasant-based counterrevolution remained a grave internal danger.
In effect, the Peking regime has embraced such a peasant counterrevolution.
All the cognitive and related cultural achievements of capitalist
development in music, philosophy, and so forth, are symptomatically denounced
as “Western” in
favor of the philosophical and cultural ideological relics of pre-1949 China’s
long barbarian past. Out of this hideous muck comes first a reactionary,
actually counterrevolutionary rejection of the working class of
both the Soviet sector and the advanced capitalist sector in the guise
of
the Lin Piao 1965 theses. Then—since 1971—there appears the bestial risus sardonicus of
the brutalized oriental rural peasant village-commune, dripping with
the ideological slime of old oriental despotism’s recurring manic-depressive
cycles of brief dynastic rises followed by awful decline and decay.
This oriental despotic infrastructure, of course, was the Old China up
through the time of the Chinese Communists themselves gave the unspeakable
Kuomintang the boot—the China of Confucianism, Taoism, “cheap human life,” rural
labor-intensive agonies, and hideous chauvinisms. That hideous old crap
is now revived and embodied within Peking’s policy...
See cover image
See page
26 image
 |
For more quotes, see:
Back to Main LaRouche/NCLC Page
|
|
