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