Lyndon LaRouche: The Conspiracies

Continuing onward with my discussion on the Lyndon LaRouche movement, and my first meeting with Tim from Leesburg, VA, a member of the LaRouche movement since the 1970's.

Unite the World, This includes the famous LandBridge across the Bering Strait, another LaRouche Plan.

A Reprint from my original post on LaRouche:
Does Lyndon LaRouche hate the Jews? 

During our discussion, I also had the opportunity to bring up certain popular challenges to the LaRouche movement.

One of the first things I ever asked Tim was about a famous conspiracy promulgated by Dennis King. When Lyndon LaRouche uses the word "British" it is a actually a code word for "Jewish."
I told Tim, I just have to ask because you know first hand....what is going on with that? Tim's response was simple. He stated that it was ridiculous, and it was just the result of throwing mud at teh wall. If you do it enough, some of it will stick. Many people who work with LaRouche are Jewish, and Tim even mentioned that his father is Jewish. He states with certainty that there is no ounce of anti-Jewish presence in the LaRouche movement.

Instead, when LaRouche uses the word "British" it not only refers to Great Britain, but also the financial and banking powers that are behind the British government and the former remnants of the British Empire. This statement was concurred by Daniel Pipes in an independent study.

New Material:

Are LaRouche's Economic Plans Real?
I decided to press Tim about another topic of criticism that LaRouche has received.

A book by Hamilton with an appendix by LaRouche

LaRouche writes extensively about economics, but one critic online, whose name I have not been able to relocate stated that LaRouche's economic plan was a scam, and he followed a method.
1. Restructure 2. Repackage 3. Reshape. It is the equivalent of taking an apple. Cutting it into slices. Moving the pieces around, and them placing them back in their original order.

Tim was not impressed, and he stated clearly that he does not entertain such silly ideas. I confess, I use that line in defense when people make similar challenges to me in the past, so I respectfully withdrew.

As far as LaRouche's economic plans being real, I would say his second law of economic recovery has deep roots in the traditions of Alexander Hamilton, and the nationalization of the Federal Reserve or a central bank in the tradition of the 1st National Bank of the United States deserves a serious conversation.

I have started reading"The Vision of Alexander Hamilton," a book provided to me by Tim. All I can say is I am working on it, but the writing of Alexander Hamilton is dense. Believe it or not, I enjoyed the appendix section written by Lyndon LaRouche much more.

The Popularity of LaRouche Ideas: 
Now at this time I asked an original question of my own, not from the internet.
If the Lyndon LaRouche ideas have so much value in them, why are they not more popular? 

Tim's response was that the media and culture have been slanted away from this type of thinking. He stated that during the 1960's the famous counterculture movement pushed people toward a way of thinking that was centered on the individual in a me,me,me fashion.

I replied, "but what about academia?" Tim assured me it was the same concept.
I would still propose that academics should have a responsibility to always try their best to be accurate. On a reddit page, someone wrote of Webster Tarpley's lecture for the LaRouche Movement and the Schiller Institute, "The Venetian Conspiracy" or "Betrand Russell: The Golem of Venice," stating that he knew Tarpley personally in Ph.D school, and that Tarpley had written his dissertation on a lot of the material mentioned in that lecture, but that a lot of additional material had been added for the LaRouche presentation. The commentator continued by saying "you can't make stuff up when you're dealing with people who know what they are talking about." Tarpley and LaRouche have different minds though, and those are some very specific historical details that they are disputing. It is difficult for the audience to tell.

Tim furthered by saying that there are intentional sabotage attempts made against LaRouche. After a meeting between LaRouche and the president of Mexico, Henry Kissinger was sent to Mexico delivering a message that if LaRouche ever had anymore contact with the Mexican government there would be consequences. Even in LaRouche's authobiography "The Power of Reason," it is mentioned that Henry Kissinger is a strong nemesis of LaRouche because Kissinger worked for the global elites, and LaRouche worked to bring new ideas to serve mankind.

This is compounded by something Tim told me, and it has also been printed in the LaRouchePAC materials that Kissinger stated in a speech in London that while he was working for the Nixon and Ford administrations, he kept the British more informed than he did the Americans. Henry Kissinger has been the result of many different conspiracy theories, but many of them relate to his involvement with the Rockefeller family, and his attempts to do the work for the powerful oligarchs and showing an indifference for human life. Kissinger disputes these allegations.

This video is part of a documentary where Henry Kissinger discusses Machiavelli and "The Prince." He does not discuss LaRouche in it. I just wanted to share something where Kissinger can give his side on why he is the way he is.

Sadly, I did not have time to ask Tim about some of the other conspiracies regarding the LaRouche movement,

Other Lyndon LaRouche Conspiracies:

1. such as the accusations that Lyndon LaRouche called the Queen of England a drug dealer.
2. that the Lyndon LaRouche movement operates as a cult.
3. that Lyndon LaRouche does not want to help mankind, but instead involved himself in a plot to take over the entire world.

I am sure that the response to all of these would be the same. There is intentional sabotage against LaRouche for wanting to bring about change in the world, the kind of change that would not benefit the financial elites but the ordinary and average citizens....the kind of change that would not benefit oligarchy and the banking cartels with their enormous reserves of power, but the individuals and the communities trying to live their day to day life.