Lyndon LaRouche Explains the Collapsing Western Economy and How the World Really Works

Exclusive Interviews

Every Sunday, here at the Bell, we bring readers exclusive interviews with leading free-market thinkers from around the world.

Here's a brief sample:

Jim Rogers

Ron Paul

Lew Rockwell

Dr. Tibor Machan

Hugo Salinas-Price

G. Edward Griffin

Peter Schiff

Dr. Antal Fekete

Who's Coming Next?

Subscribe & We'll Let You Know

Receive FREE email updates when future interviews, news and guest editorials are posted to the Daily Bell.

Click Here Now

Posted by Matt on 6/20/2010 3:55:06 AM

Even though I disagree with LaRouche on so many issues and ideas, there is something admirable about him. Perhaps it's that he marches to the beat of his own drummer. He says what he truly believes and is completely unapologetic about it. I like that. I like his anti-imperialism and anti-merchantilism. But as for the rest...well, I think his heroes (i.e. Alexander Hamilton, FDR, etc.) are agents for exactly what he claims to despise. In that sense, I actually feel a little sad for him.

Posted by Jaci on 6/20/2010 4:33:14 AM

Dear Daily Bell,
I am rather disturbed with Mr. LaRouche's Views of the world according to FDR's enslaving policies and FDR's willingness to sell and enslave the entire population of the United States of America to Foreign Interests. He literally pledged each and everyone of our citizens and their offspring as Surety for the National Debt. He accomplished this feat by hoodwinking every Sovereign Individual in the US into signing up for a Social Security Number.

By signing up for a Social Security Number the people unwittingly agreed to give up their sovereign status to be Surety for the National Debt. The Country, The Federal Government,(Independent Corporation) was bankrupt at the time and needed to secure outside money to keep things going......So in order to gain financing FDR Sold the population of the Greatest Nation on Earth to International Central Banking Cartels

For more explanation about how this happened.....
There is a Book Titled: "Dulocracy in America" and this book explains exactly what happened, how, when and where it all took place. The Author spent many years in and out of all of the Major Library's through out the Country and the Library of Congress researching the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

The Truth will set you Free........and just reading this book will answer all the questions one could possibility have about what went wrong in our Government and How it happened so quickly. The behind the scenes events that set the ball in motion. It is a mind expanding experience and after reading the historical explanations and piecing the pieces together you begin to realize how the Greatest Hoax perpetrated upon a Nation, came into existence.

We are just beginning to see a sight tip on the iceberg as we see the State of Florida and Arizona attempt to sue the Federal Government and pursue their States Rights. The States have no rights according to the Federal Gov. As long as the States benefit from the Government programs), (medicare, federal funding for roads, schools, etc they have given up their Sovereign Status

They too are slaves to the Fed's (an outside International Corp)
So here we are in a situation that is a true example of a Catch 22 if you know what I mean.......

You can obtain a copy of "Dulocracy in America" Written by J.D. Sweeney by going to Click to Email Just email them and request a copy of the book sent to you. They will send it in PDF format for FREE.....straight to your computer.....It is an eye opening read. Chapters 12,13,& 14 Cut to the Chase and get to the real nitty gritty about what FDR did to the American people and who he used to accomplish his goal.......Sold us into slavery...again just email Click to Email and request they send the free book via email to your computer.......Thanks for helping to spread the truth.

your avid reader and fan

Jaci

Posted by Jaci on 6/20/2010 4:55:03 AM

That was Click to Email So sorry I left off the .com
thanks,
j

Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 6/20/2010 6:18:07 AM

First, I compliment the Bell Team to arrange such interview, for the fact that they are open to people with a different view. This is good, because it encourages out-of-the-box thinking and having an open mind to other opinions. Different views – however contrary to my own they may be – allow me to weigh pro and con arguments more objectively, thus sharpening my own thoughts and beliefs.

Insofar this interview itself, LaRouche is a strong personality, for sure. However, he is also very full of himself; I cannot escape from the impression that he has a "I am brilliant and the rest are idiots" attitude. His answers are very short, exacerbating this stance: opinions without substantiation as if they are obvious and beyond discussion. In this respect the interview failed to educate me.

Posted by Sally Preston on 6/20/2010 6:39:42 AM

The second to last paragraph of the "Daily Bell After Thoughts" was beautiful and eloquent. I must incorporate such talking points into spirited discussions...it is, after all, about human thriving, is it not Thank you, DB, and everyone who posts here. The marketplace of ideas, as facilitated by the internet, is indeed a feast.

Posted by Bill Ross on 6/20/2010 7:33:24 AM

Much as I am tempted to do a point by point commentary / rebuttal (not enough time / energy = life to do a thorough job) on a target rich Lyndon LaRouche and his ideas, general impressions should suffice.

Lyndon LaRouche was contemptuously emotionally dismissive of many individual historical figures and ideas while providing no reasoned arguments. Lyndon LaRouche has many ideas which, to be kind, I am sure he articulately defends in his works.

The problem is more basic and profound. Lyndon LaRouche is a proponent of one (of a near infinite number of parochial viewpoints) regarding how society and individuals should be organized in a system and, how the environment (forcefully imposed artificial rules of the system) should be.

There is no shortage of competing philosophies in this area and, civilizations (such as ours) collapse when these philosophies conflict with and face the attrition costs of opposing reality (inevitable relationship between action and consequence).

The root cause of DB's (and my) misgivings with Lyndon LaRouche appears to be that Lyndon LaRouche is of the opinion that mankind and civilization can and should be controlled and the only issue is: what are the rules required to coerce mankind? DB and I appear to concur: Mankind and civilization are uncontrollable. We will be free to choose our own personal destiny or, we will die trying.

Charles Darwin PROVED: Survival EQUALS adaptation to environment EQUALS ability to choose correctly EQUALS freedom:

Click to View Link

The LaRoucheian or, in general coercers of mankind points of view are incompatible with reality. All attempts to forcefully harness mankind which neglects the survival self-interests of any individual or group are doomed to fail. This is as certain as the sun will rise tomorrow.

Our far wiser ancestors understood this when they codified the "rule of law", the very basis of any viable civilization, now rationalized away by predators on the bench:

Click to View Link

Posted by Grekko on 6/20/2010 7:55:12 AM

I tend to agree with Leonardo P above. LaRouche is full of himself. He runs his organization like the SS and his funding is almost to the point of strongarming his followers. There is no give in the man or his ideas.

I am totally at odds with him over his belief in Jefferson and Hamilton. LaRouche is firm believer in Hamilton's treatise "On the subject of Manufacturers". Especially the part about a National Bank.

Taking the power of the Fed and placing it in Government's hands is not the answer, it is just more of the same. The politically connected will benefit at the expense of the rest of the country. The free market is the only way to go. Mises was correct. As for Jefferson, the way he handled the government deficit of his time was brilliant. I wish he were here today.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

"Taking the power of the Fed and placing it in Government' hands is not the answer, it is just more of the same."

Interestingly, this is Ellen Brown's solution (generally) as well.

Posted by Victor Barney on 6/20/2010 8:21:48 AM

First, I feel that the Daily Bell gives better "insight" than any other human news organization. However, I have proven that the greatest enemy of society is "intellectualism," which to me is best described as "anti-intellectualism" because it is the foundation of "evil!" Simply said, "intellectualism" is "anti-messiah" thought and synonymous with "evil!" Finally, All "truth" is given in the Set-Apart "Hebrew" Scriptures and all "thought" must be "deductively" proven through them! I am to this deduction after going to internet site: Click to Email;

Posted by Jim Theriault on 6/20/2010 9:04:57 AM

@ Bill Ross.

Thanks for an articulate response with which I agree.

Posted by Adam on 6/20/2010 10:02:47 AM

I'm glad these 'leftfield' interviews are few and far between.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/20/2010 10:04:50 AM

@ DB

Thanks for taking a true intellectual's position and examining all ideas fearlessly.

I have read Lyndon Larouche with interest and consider several of the researchers at the Executive Intelligence Review to be very accurate, although they often don't source well, so their work has limited use for the average researcher.

However, a few things have bothered me about him. One is his evaluation of Roosevelt. Even if you are not a libertarian or on the right and thus approve of his political and economic positions, Roosevelt was a very problematic character, under the spell of associates like Harry Hopkins whom some consider a Soviet agent.

The other problem I have is LL's glorification of Hamilton and strong nationalistic governments and central banks, which shows a strange blindness to history and outright intellectual confusion that is odd in a man of such sharp intellect. How can you be against speculators, finance capital and oligarchs and then FOR Hamilton?

To that can be added his dismissal of the Austrian school and Mises, which might be due to lingering subconscious prejudice, absent from his conscious intentions.

The fact that he would describe Greenspan as a devotee of Rand as though Rand were to blame for the singularly unlibertarian interventionist policies of the ex-Fed Chairman is an example of his tendency to see what he wants to see in history. Greenspan long ago departed from any free market principles in the pursuit of power.

The conflation of interest with usury and the repeated emphasis on the Babylonian origin of the Venetian oligarchy (a reference to the Babylonian exile of the Jews) are also notions that seem to bolster a diagnosis of subconscious religious/racial prejudice.

That and the strange contradictions I referred to are what make people suspect he is a disinformation agent of some kind. But thanks for taking such a brave and intellectually sound approach.

Posted by Robert Wheeless on 6/20/2010 10:33:25 AM

Thank God that this "bird" never made it to Congress or the White House. I take offense that the Bell even provided time or space for this crap. Was this some cynical father's day present for American's, albeit I'm sure most democrats will read it with zeal. Your time would have been better served trying to catch fish in the Gulf of Mexico's oil slick.

Posted by Craig on 6/20/2010 11:01:06 AM

Dear Daily Bell,
He decries the elite(s) and yet his venue is of centralization / collectivization via the organs of central banking with of course their (electronic) fiat script. If that that is not global imperialism, which is worldwide non-voluntary servitude, then what is? Henry Clay, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln and FDR our some of America's greatest actors in extra-constitutional vagaries, such as confiscation of wealth, property, without due process of law. Mr. LaRouche has an intellectual disconnect. How can he say the Austrian school is a "fraud" when its core principle is voluntary exchange?

Thank you for your wonderful site, you and it is a beacon of light!

Sincerely,

Craig

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/20/2010 11:15:27 AM

More on Larouche's theories and their precursors in racist theories of the 19th centuries:

"LaRouche's oligarchy makes the Elders of Zion seem mild. It supposedly has dominated the world for tens of thousands of years with unremittingly evil motives. Indeed, LaRouche accuses it of periodically killing off a large portion of the human race through famines and plagues. Today it is supposedly plotting a New Dark Ages, which will include nuclear holocaust, the massive spread of AIDS, Zero Growth, and total bestial heteronomy.

Why the oligarchs should want a return to the Dark Ages when they obviously could accumulate more wealth and live more comfortably under conditions of modern capitalism is not quite clear. But LaRouche assures us that they destroyed all past societies they captured, from Atlantis through Rome. Three thousand years ago their headquarters was in Babylon. After they engineered its fall, they shifted their command post westward to Rome, then Venice, and finally to London. Again and again their poisons and daggers have defeated their valiant opponents, the "humanists," who champion productive investment, science, technology, and "citybuilding."

Unable to stop humanist networks, led by Benjamin Franklin and Friedrich Schiller, from launching the Industrial Revolution, the oligarchs struggled to slow it down through their control of Speculative Capital, which allegedly feeds like a vampire on Productive Capital. But the oligarchs today are extremely worried because Productive Capital has begun to link up with the powerful streamlined humanist conspiracy represented by the NCLC.

It is unlikely LaRouche believes all this, but it provides him with the necessary all-encompassing framework for his anti-Semitic mythology, giving it, even in a disguised form, a virulence far more intense than if he had based it on the Protocols alone. As to the true identity of the oligarchs, this is revealed in LaRouche's "Solving the Machiavellian Problem Today": They are the "anti-human bestialists" and "parasites" who "cooked up the hoax called the Old Testament."

In a subsequent article he openly calls them the "Jewish usurers"--a "continuous and often dominant element" in oligarchical rule from Babylon through the Middle Ages. (LaRouche then throws up one of his characteristic smoke screens. Some people, he writes, have misinterpreted this dominant role of the Jews in order to promote anti-Semitism. Although he does not wish to be a party to spreading such misguided views, he can't help it that the hoax is bolstered by the "fact" that "some of the worst poisonings of the Catholic Church were accomplished by converted Jews representing such families of usurers"!)

"The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites" is LaRouche's most thorough account of his version of world history. Apart from his schema of oligarchs versus humanists, this work and other NCLC pseudo-historical treatises appear to borrow heavily from the anti-Semitic "classics": Houston Stewart Chamberlain's Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899), Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West (1918-22), Hitler's Mein Kampf (1925-26), Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930), and Francis Parker Yockey's Imperium (1948), as well as assorted British and American Nazi tracts from the interwar years.

LaRouche's attacks on the evil "Babylonians," for instance, strongly resemble theories found in Chamberlain, who claimed that the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity rose to great influence over their captors, and that Babylon rather than Jerusalem was the real headquarters of the ancient Jews. Chamberlain even remarked on the "Rothschilds" of Babylon. This theory is popularized for American white supremacists in pamphlets sold by the Louisiana-based Sons of Liberty--for instance, The Merchants of Babylon by Rev. Bertrand L. Comparet, which features a photograph of four bearded rabbis on the cover. When LaRouche denounces the "Whore of Babylon," the Ku Klux Klan knows exactly what he means.

LaRouche also rails against the "Persian Empire" and "Persian agents" who supposedly destroyed the ancient world. Again this is not new. Both Spengler and Chamberlain claimed that the Jews and the Persians were linked in a common conspiracy. Spengler said the Jews actually dominated much of the Persian empire, while Chamberlain described them as Persian puppets. In LaRouche's view the chief instruments of Persian-Babylonian infiltration of the West (Greece and Rome) were the Dionysian cults and Isis worship. (One LaRouche disciple wrote that modern Israel is the "Zionist bastard" of Isis.)

Alfred Rosenberg, Hitler's "philosopher" who was executed at Nuremberg, brooded over Dionysius and Isis in a similar manner sixty years ago. The Dionysian cults, he said, were "racially and spiritually alien" to Aryanism, encouraging a frenzy based on that of the "insanely possessed" King Saul of Israel. As to Isis, Rosenberg associated her with Africa, sexual promiscuity, and race mixing.

Approaching modern times, LaRouche shows more originality. In the Middle Ages the center of power moved to Rome, whose "merchant-usurers" were Jews or converted Jews. Led by the Pierlioni family, they supposedly seized control of the papacy and squeezed Europe dry. Next the Venetian oligarchy took its pound of flesh during the Renaissance, after the decline of the Vatican oligarchy but before the rise of the "British."

Throughout these long centuries, LaRouche teaches, the humanist forerunners of the NCLC fought back continuously. Many famous thinkers and poets were secret members: Plato, Dante, Machiavelli, and Edgar Allan Poe, as well as Franklin and Schiller. But most important were the warlord humanists, the champions of the Grand Design. Not surprisingly, most of them marched their conquering armies east. The LaRouchians praise the legendary Pharaoh Sesostris, who supposedly marched east to subjugate evil Babylon; Alexander the Great, who marched east to crush evil Persia; and Timur the Great, who carried out an early version of the Final Solution against the medieval descendants of the ancient Persians and Babylonians.

LaRouche also expresses reverence for the memory of Hassan ibn Saba, the "Old Man of the Mountain," who headed a medieval cult of assassins. Hassan didn't march east, but he did live in a castle called the Eagle's Nest--the same name as Hitler's mountaintop lodge in Bavaria. LaRouche wrote in 1978 that if only the Old Man of the Mountain were alive in Germany, he'd mop up left-wing terrorists in short order. .."

Reply from the Daily Bell:

The book you quote from is Dennis King's "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism"

King writes:

"[The treatise] appears to borrow heavily from the anti-Semitic "classics": Houston Stewart Chamberlain's Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899), Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West (1918-22), Hitler's Mein Kampf (1925-26), Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930), and Francis Parker Yockey's Imperium (1948), as well as assorted British and American Nazi tracts from the interwar years."

"Appears?" ... Are LaRouche's writings OVERTLY anti-semitic? After a point, one must look to the texts - not appearances of sources - as a way to figure out his arguments.

What does it say about American sociopolitical culture then, that LaRouche consistently claims to be inspired by Hamilton, Lincoln, FDR, et. al? And many of LaRouche's arguments about nationalizing money policy are big arguments these days within the alternative press.

Here is the initial portion of Dennis King's acknowledgements:

The uncovering of the LaRouche conspiracy in America has been a collective endeavor in which many journalists and editors have made important contributions. Chip Berlet, the dean of LaRouche watchers, has tracked the NCLC in dozens of articles since 1975. Patricia Lynch of NBC-TV first cracked the story of LaRouche's White House connection. ...

Here is something on Chip Berlet from Wikipedia:

Click to View Link

Allegations by Berlet of neofascism ...

Berlet has made allegations that various public figures are tainted by Neofascism. Berlet writes that "In the United States, the 1992 presidential campaigns of David Duke, Patrick Buchanan, and H. Ross Perot echoed different elements of historic fascism... In his Republican convention speech, Buchanan eerily invoked Nazi symbols of blood, soil and honor... Perot's candidacy provided us with a contemporary model of the fascist concept of the organic leader, the "Man on a White Horse" whose strong egocentric commands are seen as reflecting the will of the people."

Berlet criticized Ralph Nader and his associates for a close working relationship with Republican textile magnate Roger Milliken, erstwhile major backer of the 1996 presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan, and anti-unionization stalwart.

Center for the Study of Popular Culture

In 2003 the Southern Poverty Law Center published "Into the Mainstream," in which Berlet named conservative activist David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) as one of an "array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable." Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on "'black Africans ... abetted by dark-skinned Arabs'" and of "attack[ing] minority 'demands for special treatment' as 'only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,' rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism."

Berlet described a worldwide network that he claims is controlled by Lyndon LaRouche, as having a long history of violence, physical assaults, intimidation, psychological manipulation, emotional blackmail, and harassment. He further asserts that the LaRouche network is "a totalitarian political organization that operates through a variety of front groups, with detailed reports from the field constantly being sent back to the worldwide headquarters in the United States."

Alleges 'Leaderless Jihad' plagiarism

In an article in Public Eye, Berlet made allegations against Leaderless Jihad: Terror Networks in the Twenty-First Century. Marc Sageman, the author of the book, argues that there is an excessive focus on al Qaeda, and that terrorism has become decentralized. Berlet stated that passages had been taken from works by Richard Hofstadter and Simson Garfinkel. The director of the University of Pennsylvania Press, publisher of the book, described Berlet's article as "hyperbolic" and called the charges overblown. The publisher promised to add citations in future editions.

In a July 2008 article in The Progressive coauthored with the Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, Berlet argued that the religious right has maintained its staying power despite predictions of its demise. Berlet predicted that, despite predictions of their demise, "On the day after the election, you will not see millions of Christian Right activists raptured off planet Earth. They will be left behind to continue more than thirty years of political activism from within the largest organized social movement in the United States today."

9/11 conspiracy theories

Berlet is a critic of the The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks book, which alleges that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are true; Berlet debated prominent conspiracy theorists such as David Ray Griffin.

Tea Party Movement

After visiting a meeting of the Idaho Liberty Agenda, Berlet wrote: "It helps to recognize that much of what steams the tea bag contingent is legitimate."[26] He sees in the tea party movement a strong strain of producerism, a belief that the productive middle class is being preyed upon by both a parasitic elite (including politicians) and other unproductive segments of society such as minorities, the poor, and immigrants.[27] Berlet writes:

In addition to producerism, Berlet sees other elements that he believes are common to right wing populism: demonization, scapegoating, and conspiracy theories of power. Berlet criticizes "the inside-the-beltway spin that dismisses the rightwing populists as a marginal lunatic fringe..." which, in his view, marginalizes genuinely engaged citizens who have some legitimate fears and thereby feeds their hatred of perceived elites. In and of itself, this centrist vs. extremist model is "toxic to democracy."

Berlet also believes that dismissing the tea partiers aids various factions, including John Birch conservatives, "Ron Paul libertarians," the Christian Right, and white supremacist groups, that have been documented trying to recruit the people who are newly moved by right wing populism.

-------snip

The Daily Bell final comments: Does Berlet believe that Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are part of a nascent move toward fascism? He is apparently dismissive of the 9/11 "truth" movement even though various members of the 9/11 Commission itself have publicly claimed they were lied to serially by the Bush administration, Pentagon, FBI, etc. '

Finally, what are the implications, generally, that many of LaRouche's themes resonate with the alternative press, including some who might be considered libertarian, and that many of the solutions he proposes are in some sense shared by more mainstream work by Ellen Brown et. al.?

There is a conversation going on, one that is getting louder and louder. LaRouche has been part of it for better or worse. Is it better not to acknowledge it, or to explore it?

Dennis King's book is dedicated to Berlet, among others.

Posted by H L Quist on 6/20/2010 11:16:59 AM

Thank you for your insight on LaRouche.Ever since I contributed to his group years ago I have never been able to determine his core philosophy which often has been well disguised.I can now knowingly evade his aggressive fundraisers.

Posted by Facundo on 6/20/2010 11:51:33 AM

The net is full of this kind of disgusting things and I don't see the point of placing it in the DB web, ok, Larouche is a good example of action driven by ideas, as everyone is, thats why ideas are so important. I hope it is not new for the readers here.

Maybe is true that the Austrian School is at least an incomplete view specially in its philosophical principles. I found this is the best start point for libertarians: Lysander Spooner's book, Natural Law.

Posted by Bill Ross on 6/20/2010 11:56:32 AM

@ Robert Wheeless

"I take offense that the Bell even provided time or space for this crap..."

Know your enemy (or perish). Thanks DB for providing a venue in which dangerous fools such as Lyndon LaRouche can hang themselves.

Posted by Finn on 6/20/2010 12:02:53 PM

"Obama is a British tool who happened to be deployed because of certain interests' fear that Hillary Clinton might succeed in winning the 2008 U.S. Presidential election."

This from King World News, Jim Rickards interview, "Obama hates the English. They tortured his grandfather in Kenya. His first official act as President was to order the packing up and return of a Churchill bronze bust which Bush had displayed in the Oval Office."

I guess that was a, "La Ruse". lol

Posted by Adrian W. on 6/20/2010 12:02:55 PM

An interesting character, indeed. Two words come to mind, atheist & collectivist. For only being concerned with getting his ideologies out to others, he seemed to expend an awfully large amount of time and resources trying to get elected President. But then again, Hitler and alot of other leaders were like that.

Posted by Walt Longyear on 6/20/2010 12:36:21 PM

Lyndon LaRouche is a Trotskyite and dangerous.

Posted by Pat Fields on 6/20/2010 1:00:30 PM

LaRouche's economics is more Mercantilist than what has crept back into America to date and his societal constructs are grossly socialistic. That he boasts of promoting Hamiltonian monetarist economic philosophy puts him quite deep in the camp of the Banksters; and too, for all of Benjamin Franklin's otherwise glowing eminence, he was a pronounced 'paper hanger' who cajoled for central banking in the BoE style.

Too few properly recognize Capitalism as a ... social ... system grounded on Private Property and Individual Determinism. Socialism is the polar opposite! So, it's quite accurate to characterize Socialists as philosophically ANTI-American. Mr. LaRouche fits that description by his own (proud) stipulation.

While President Ruse-a-veldt made a spectacle of reviling British colonialism, his centralization of empowerment in the federal body, effectively pursued that very operational goal against the sovereign rights of our States! It's quite poignant also to remember that Ruse-a-veldt held Adolph Hitler in tremendously high regard before embarking on his European campaign of conquest. Like some damnable King of America, he alone held office ... for LIFE!

I define 'fixed-value' currency, whether specie or virtual, as the 'original sin' of government against The Peoples. One may as well 'fix' the value of wheat, lumber, beef or any of the myriad goods component to economies and 'achieve' the same destructive dis-equilibrium! If we are to restore Free Markets to our planet, I contend that the most fundamental revision, besides specie trade, must be to abandon the stupid practice of 'fixed-value' money. Quantity and quality are the ONLY factors on which to draw an assessment of 'fair ratio' in exchanges. ANY diversion from those factors, proportionally compromises the proper judgment of the parties to them.

Mr' LaRouche's 'solutions' to the world's ills are nothing more than a palliative 'Newspeak' propaganda initiative that his elite promoters hope to befuddle folks with. No differently than Marxism is merely re-packaged Monarchial Feudalism; Monetarist economics (whether of the Keynesian or Friedmanite variety) is re-packaged Mercantilism.

Capitalist Free Market economics, as championed today, by the different camps among 'Austrian' classical economics, had PROVED SPECTACULARLY to be far superior in generating wealth and elevated general living conditions for its adherents when adopted. BUT ... it also relegated Politicos and Banksters to functional clerks and fiduciaries by inherent design. THAT ... could not long endure their hugely bloated egos!

Reply from the Daily Bell:

LaRouche cites Benjamin Franklin and FDR as providing economic inspirational for the solutions he suggests. These solutions are echoed by writers such as Ellen Brown and are actively being considered by various state legislatures in the US. Regardless of his antecedents, LaRouche's befuddlements are now, apparently, mainstream US political elements.

Here is his stated analysis of the difficulties with the current system. Much of it could have been written by former Federal Reserve Chairman "Tall Paul" Volcker who has been vehemently arguing for a return to Glass-Steagall.

"At the present moment, the world at large is trapped in an onrushing general breakdown-crisis whose principal pathological feature is the lunatic spread of what is generally identified as "financial derivatives." A return to a fixed exchange-rate credit system of a type consistent with a Glass-Steagall standard, combined with a return to a fixed-exchange-rate system, is the absolute requirement for evading a global breakdown-crisis during the immediate period ahead."

Paul Volcker on derivatives ...

-------------snip

Click to View Link

By Louise Armitstead, UK Telegraph
Published: 9:41PM GMT 08 Dec 2009

The former US Federal Reserve chairman told an audience that included some of the world's most senior financiers that their industry's "single most important" contribution in the last 25 years has been automatic telling machines, which he said had at least proved "useful".

Echoing FSA chairman Lord Turner's comments that banks are "socially useless", Mr Volcker told delegates who had been discussing how to rebuild the financial system to "wake up". He said credit default swaps and collateralised debt obligations had taken the economy "right to the brink of disaster" and added that the economy had grown at "greater rates of speed" during the 1960s without such products.

------------snip

Paul Volcker on Glass Steagall

------------snip

Click to View Link/

By LOUIS UCHITELLE

For the second time in less than 80 years, the nation's commercial banks are being told to stick to their knitting. Their knitting is taking deposits, handling checking accounts, lending money and managing the nation's payment system. Twice now, they have ventured beyond these standard activities, gotten into trouble and almost brought down the financial system.

The solution in the 1930s, and once again now, is this: get out of the sideline businesses that caused so much trouble. Those sidelines were different in the 1930s than they are now. And while people talk of re-enacting the Glass-Steagall act " the solution that helped resolve the 1930s crisis " what President Obama proposed this week is a somewhat different animal, worthy of its own name. ...

The president is acting on a proposal that Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, has been pushing for months. It is sometimes referred to as 'Glass-Steagall in spirit. But the behavior involved and the proposed solution are different enough for the legislation to have its own nickname " and Obama himself has suggested one: the Volcker Rule.

------------snip

LaRouche is very obviously painted as an anti-semetic loon. Yet some of his key analyses of the Western's world's economic problems are EXPLICITLY endorsed by former US Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.

Posted by MetaCynic on 6/20/2010 3:20:38 PM

This DB interview with Lyndon LaRouche further confirms my belief that the the only honest response to questions framed "what should...?" is a humble, "I don't know."

I am tempted to curl up in a fetal position and go to sleep whenever I hear someone carry on about how his complex plans will save the world.

The Austrians argue that because of the unfathomable complexity of reality and the unknowability of the future, central planning of any sort must fail in its stated objections.

This I think is the only approach to human interaction that takes into consideration the fact that all of us are totally ignorant of almost everything except that which impacts our daily lives. And even within that tiny private world many people are incompetent!

Yet so many borderline incompetents live under the delusion that their participation in the democratic process will produce visionary leaders such as Lyndon LaRouche who will appoint a brilliant bureaucratic elite who will labor mightily to push buttons, turn dials and pull levers with such skill that they, the voters, will prosper in security. Such hubristic folly is the road to slavery.

In this uncertain world, the best that we can hope for is to permit a social framework to spontaneously arise which allows each of us to take responsibility for his life. Do not search for the Buddha. The Buddha is within you.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Click to View Link

What is Buddhism? Religion Without God?

Buddhism is a major world religion with a complex history and philosophy.

It's founder, Siddhartha Gautama, lived from about 566 to about 480 B.C. The son of an Indian warrior-king, Gautama led a life of luxury in his early years, enjoying the privileges of his caste. But eventually he tired of the affluence and ease, and set out what some might call a "vision quest." After encountering an old man, an ill man, a corpse and an ascetic, Gautama became convinced that suffering lay at the heart of all existence, stemming principally from the human ego's attachment to the transitory things of this world. He renounced his princely title and became a monk, freeing himself of possessions in the hope of comprehending the truth, and finding a path toward enlightenment and liberation. The culmination of his search came while meditating beneath a tree, where he experienced a breakthrough in understanding. Following this epiphany, Gautama came to be known as the Buddha, meaning the "Enlightened One." He spent the remainder of his life journeying about India, teaching others what he had come to believe.

Basic Beliefs and Practices

The basic doctrines of early Buddhism, which remain common among Buddhists today, include the 'four noble truths: existence is suffering (dukhka); suffering has a cause, namely craving and attachment (trishna); there is a cessation of suffering, which is nirvana; and there is a path to the cessation of suffering, the 'eightfold path of right views, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

Meditation and observance of moral precepts are the foundation of Buddhist practice. The five basic moral precepts, undertaken by members of monastic orders and the laity, are to refrain from taking life, stealing, acting unchastely, speaking falsely, and drinking intoxicants.

The Relationship between Buddhism and Christianity

Note that in this brief description of Buddhism, the word "God" does not appear. Thus when thinking about the relationship between Buddhism and Christianity or other theistic religions, there tend to be two paths of inquiry. Taking Buddhism at face value as a system of ethical precepts, a philosophy of life, and a set of meditative practices, many Christians and Jews have found it quite possible to affirm major aspects of Buddhism without abandoning their own faith. For these folks, Buddhism can be seen as supplementing and enriching their own theistic faith and practice.

Posted by Weeble on 6/20/2010 3:44:36 PM

I find myself speechless, after listening to Mr Larouche. I had never heard of him, until today, and I will probably never hear of him again, after today.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Lyndon LaRouche

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to View Link

Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. born September 8, 1922) is an American self-styled economist, political activist, and the founder of several political organizations known collectively as the LaRouche movement. He has been a perennial candidate for President of the United States, having run in eight elections since 1976, once as a U.S. Labor Party candidate and seven times as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination. He is the founder and contributing editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, and has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis.

He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in 1988 for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but continued his political activities from behind bars until his release in 1994 on parole. His defenders believe the prosecution was a politically motivated conspiracy involving government officials and a mass-media brainwashing campaign. His appellate attorney, Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, argued that the case represented an unprecedented abuse of power by the U.S. government in an effort to destroy the LaRouche movement.

LaRouche's supporters see him as a political leader in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, Jr. who has been unfairly treated by the authorities. Commentators outside the movement regard him as a cult leader, a fascist, an anti-Semite, and a "left-wing extremist."

Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council, described LaRouche's staff in 1984 as one of the best private intelligence services in the world, while the Heritage Foundation has said that he leads "what may well be one of the strangest political groups in American history."

Posted by Philip Mccormack on 6/20/2010 5:18:27 PM

One thing is certain with La Rouche any discussion must have first, agreement of the terms to be used, that is defined, or we will be in the house of Babel for an eternity. I am not sure if it took guts for DB to interview him or were you being kind to an old man?

Reply from the Daily Bell:

LaRouche has had influence. He is coming to the end of his life. His writings are all over the Net. They are unavoidable and they are often incomprehensible if you do not understand his larger arguments.

But some of the points he makes have been borne out by current events and other points have been picked up by the alternative 'Net press and expanded upon. We thought it might be interesting to put LaRouche on the record and find out what he really stands for, if we could. So we did.

We thought the interview was fairly straightforward; in fact, we hoped it would reveal a good deal about him and his thinking, which is shared in part these days by many proponents of US national banks, etc.

We were careful to write that we don't endorse his anti-free-market points of view, nor do we endorse any anti-semetic statements that he or his group has made - wherever they may exist.

Posted by Doug on 6/20/2010 6:06:28 PM

Thank's so much for this insightful interview and commentary. I've been reading LaRouche's writings for years and until now was never able to get a solid feel for where he was coming from. Now I know. He comes across here as just another Elitist, only one with grander delusions.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

He can be most confusing in our opinion. We are glad to have contributed to clarity.

Posted by Jones on 6/20/2010 6:22:12 PM

You may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
You may ask yourself
Where does that highway lead to?
You may ask yourself
Am I right?... Am I wrong?
You may say to yourself
My God!... what have I done?
~ The Talking Heads ' Once in a Lifetime

This piece by Quinn pretty much sums up where we are at....

Click to View Link

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks ... From your link ...

"We are currently in the midst of a Fourth Turning. This twenty year Crisis began during the 2005"2008 timeframe with the collapse of the housing bubble and subsequent repercussions on the worldwide financial system. It is progressing as expected, with the financial crisis deepening and leading to tensions across the world. It will eventually morph into military conflict, as all prior Fourth Turnings have. The progression from High to Awakening through the Unraveling took from 1946 until 2006. The most treacherous period of the Saeculm is upon us. The intensity of a Crisis is very much dependent upon how a country and its citizens prepare for the Crisis during the final years of the Unraveling. The last Unraveling period in U.S. history from 1984 through 2005 was symbolized by Boomer greed, materialism, debt and selfishness. When Michael Lewis graduated from Princeton University in 1985 and joined Salomon Brothers, I'm sure he didn't realize that he would end up book-ending the Unraveling period in his two best-selling books about Wall Street. ..."

Posted by John C. Calhoun on 6/20/2010 6:35:05 PM

This is first interview with LaRouche I've ever read. I like the guy even if he doesn't tend to like the juice. He might be a crank but at least a crank very much in the American grain. The comparison with Ezra Pound is spot-on and LaRouche has had just as much influence, albeit in a different vein. EP might have been a bit batty but nobody has yet replicated the brilliance of 'With Usura', Canto 45.

Posted by Mpresley on 6/20/2010 7:00:07 PM

Years ago, about 1973 or 74, I was in Germany protecting the Hun, and, after them, the remainder of the Western democracies from the Soviet threat. By that time Vietnam had pretty much wound down (Saigon fell in '75, a result of Nixon's "Peace with Honor") so there really wasn't much for any of us to do on a routine, day to day basis.

As far as I could tell the Soviets were in no mood to power up heavy machinery in order to traverse the Fulda Gap, and none of us low-level GIs were really in the mood to respond in kind. So, instead of each other, we mostly killed time. One day, while walking through the streets of Darmstadt, I passed a German national hawking a newspaper sporting the engaging title: New Solidarity. Who could resist? I dropped a few marks into the can, and walked away with a copy. The headline proclaimed "Kissinger's Nazi Outlaws Menace Third World" and featured a photo of a Lebanese Falange militiaman conferring with some Israeli soldiers.

I first thought the paper was an organ of of the DKP ("Everyone's talking about inflation. We can handle it: Price Controls; Profit Controls; Wage Stabilization"), but upon closer inspection it was clear that my tabloid was not produced by German Communists, but an outfit called the International Caucus of Labor Committees. It seemed ostensibly Marxist in outlook, but with a twist.

The articles turned on one particular theme: all world problems, whether monetary or military, were the result of secret planning directed by Nelson Rockefeller along with a group of international co-conspirators working "behind the scenes" in order to manipulate politicians and, hence, world events. Members of this sub rosa cabal consisted of bankers, or were associated with bankers. Leading academics and other intellectuals, along with common politicians, were often the elite's unwitting "soldiers." My paper was, of course, published by Lyndon Larouche, the self proclaimed world's leading economist.

Larouche is a curious guy. Mentioned in a post above, one may download a 70 page essay "The Secrets Known Only to Inner Elites" (and, evidently, Lyn Larouche). The guy obviously knows a lot, or at least he knows a lot of names, both common and obscure. According to Larouche, the entire history of civilization is the result of a more or less unbroken "chain of custody" of competing ideas possessed by "elites" using either Plato or Aristotle as a starting point. The Platonists are the good guys.

Larouche believes (or at least he argues) that if the neo-Aristotelians become ascendant, the human race may die out or, at best, civilization will have to be rebuilt after the inevitable nuclear war. Larouche, not surprisingly, is the leading neo-Platonic representative of humanity. He is, however, somewhat humble. Larouche readily admits that other neo-Platonists likely have more specialized knowledge, but he himself has demonstrated the best ability to synthesize parts into a coherent whole suitable for popular understanding.

Principal among these historical neo-Aristotelian actors include the Italian Black Guelph faction (I had to look them up--yes they are/were real and, by the way, according to Larouche, still active, the faction's latest modern representative being Benedetto Croce--a man that (it says here) operated an MI-5 supported intelligence network out of Naples University). In the 17 century, corrupt Presbyterians and other Dutch elites (supported by their Amsterdam banking allies) overthrew the British Commonwealth wherein the House of Orange intermarried into the Black Guelph faction, and now their scions control the Bank of England with tentacles throughout the world.

Their "secret knowledge" is transferred from generation to generation via a network of controlled academic institutions: Cambridge, Oxford, Sussex. In America, their operatives are men like Kissinger and the late Al Haig (who planned Watergate on orders from British Intelligence), Zbigniew Brzezinski, and assorted toadies in the press. The Trilateral Commission and CFR are, of course, part of the network of conspirators.

We find that the Jewish religion was actually "created" by Babylonians and "other" non-Jews, and introduced into the West by Aristotelian Peripatetics for nefarious reasons. Interestingly, the Apostles were not, however, Aristotelian hoaxsters, as they always understood Aristotelianism as a force for organized evil.

It goes on and on, and would probably make a great book, or television mini-series. There is just enough fact to make it all seem plausible, at least to someone with a bent towards paranoia, someone with much time on their hands, or an alienated and frustrated (but intelligent) youngster--that is, a student. Evidently students are mostly the folks to whom Larouche appeals, and are unwise enough to send money. He has a pretty extensive Web presence. Can students be sending that much money?

Reply from the Daily Bell:

And then there is this (a feedback sent to us by Carl L. about the BP leak) ...

Please refer to the following links, the first of which is from an industry engineering organization:

Click to View Link
Click to View Link
Click to View Link

Also, on June 8, an article authored by Sherri Kane and Leonard G. Horowitz made the following assertions:

"Three weeks before the "natural gas leak," the George Bush/Dick Cheney 9-11-linked Halliburton company negotiated the purchase of the world's largest oil-spill cleanup firm (Boots & Coots) at the exact time keen observers on Wall Street--financial intelligence agents at Goldman Sachs (GS; often called "Government Sachs")--unloaded 44% of their stock in BP."

"GS is covertly invested in the Bush-Cheney-linked Halliburton Company according to veteran observers. GS and Halliburton both had massive financial incentives to cause the profitable explosions--the three 9-11 WTC building demolitions, and the most recent "accident" in the Gulf."

"Besides Blankfein and Government Sachs backing stock in both BP and Halliburton, another red oil-drenched herring is Peter D. Sutherland--the outgoing Chairman of BP is also the current Non-Executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International."

"The scariest part of this whole story is that Mr. Sutherland, the man standing with one foot in GS, and the other on the burning Halliburton-BP oil rig, is the Consultor of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See. In other words, Sutherland is the chief financial adviser to the Pope."

-------------

and our response ...

Peter Sutherland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Born 25 April 1946 (age 64)
Nationality Irish

Peter Denis Sutherland, Honorary KCMG (born 25 April 1946) is an international businessman and former Attorney General of Ireland, associated with the Fine Gael party (part of the Christian Democrat bloc). He is a barrister by profession, and is also Senior Counsel at the Irish Bar. He is also known for serving in a variety of business and political roles.

Son of the late William "Billy" Sutherland, an insurance broker, Peter Sutherland was educated at Gonzaga College, a Jesuit day school in Dublin and then studied law at University College Dublin. He played prop forward for the UCD rugby team and was club captain, a role he later filled at Landsdowne Football Club, before retiring from the sport in his mid-20s. He remains an active member of Lansdowne F.C.

After UCD, he studied at the King's Inns in Dublin and was called to the Bar in 1969 and practiced until 1981 when, aged 34, he was the youngest Attorney General of Ireland. He served under two Governments led by Garret FitzGerald. He also advised the FitzGerald government on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland which introduced a constitutional ban on abortion, though Sutherland opposed the wording on grounds that it was ambiguous and unclear.

He was appointed to the European Commission in 1985 and had responsibility for competition policy and, later, also for education. He has said that he was especially pleased to have helped to establish the ERASMUS programme (European Regional Action Scheme for Mobility of University Students) that allows European University students to study in other member states.
He was the youngest ever European Commissioner and served in the first Delors Commission, where he played a crucial role in opening up competition across Europe, particularly the airline, telecoms, and energy sectors. Subsequently he was Director General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now the World Trade Organisation). Later Mickey Kantor, the US Trade Minister, credited him with being the father of globalization and said that without him there would have been no WTO. [citation needed] The Uruguay round of global trade talks, concluded in 1994 with Sutherland as chair of GATT, produced the biggest trade agreement in history and established the World Trade Organisation.

He is non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International (a registered UK broker-dealer, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs). He was previously non-executive chairman of BP and was a director of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group until he was asked to leave the board when it had to be taken over by the UK government to avoid bankruptcy. He also formerly served on the board of ABB.

He is on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, a chairman of the Trilateral Commission and vice chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists.

He is a member of the Comite d'Honneur of the Institute of European Affairs, and an Honorary President of the European Movement Ireland.

He was appointed as a member of the Hong Kong Chief Executive's Council of International Advisers in the years of 1998"2005.

He is President of the Federal Trust for Education and Research, a British think tank. He is Chairman of The Ireland Fund of Great Britain, part of The Ireland Funds. He is a member of the advisory council of Business for New Europe, a British pro-European think-tank.

In 2005, he was appointed as Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. In Spring 2006 he was appointed Chair of London School of Economics Council commencing in 2008.

Peter Sutherland also serves on the International Advisory Board of IESE,[10] the eminent graduate business school of the prestigious Spanish university, the University of Navarra.
In January 2006, he was appointed by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan as his Special Representative for Migration. In this position, he was responsible for promoting the establishment of a Global Forum on Migration and Development, a state-led effort open to all UN members that is meant to help governments better understand how migration can benefit their development goals. The Global Forum was acclaimed by UN Member States at the UN High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, in September 2006, and will be launched in Brussels in July 2007.

On 5 December 2006, he was appointed as Consultor of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (a financial adviser to the Vatican). On 22 January 2010 he said while in Dublin that Ireland should have fewer universities.

Posted by Deb M on 6/20/2010 8:33:07 PM

1st I have heard of him. Just listened to his 09 webcast
Click to View Link worth viewing and making your own mind before writing any comments. definitely worth the watch and sharing.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/20/2010 8:39:43 PM

@ DB.

Your points are well taken about Berlet, who is somewhat obsessive in his desire to find racism anywhere he can and whom I have previously criticized for this tendency.

But while Larouche might share political notions with more mainstream critics, that does not make all his ideas free of bigotry, or, at least, eccentricity. Hitler was a vegetarian..so was Tolstoi. If we find Tolstoi's ideas persuasive, should we also rehabilitate Hitler? (excuse the reductio ad hitlerum in this context)

When you are making an analysis of history as sweeping as Larouche's, you must be prepared to find your intellectual roots pulled up and examined closely for noxious elements.

My problem with LL then is not that he makes broad generalizations (so does Steiner) but because his analysis is inconsistent in baffling ways...and in the middle of a lot of good stuff, discordant and apparently racialist obsessions pop up.

In other words, I think it's preferable to name names and cite facts and call people to account and if necessary do a cultural critique, however controversial. But employing mythology and sweeping cultural history, against which people cannot defend themselves, seems much more dangerous. If you were Jewish, wouldn't you find it much easier and fairer to defend myself against specific charges (i.e. as head of 'y' bank, did you pay yourself "x" amount on this date or not?) than to refute a protean characterization that assumes any shape I care to take...

Nonetheless, I do agree with you that it is necessary to bring this discourse into the mainstream.

And you deserve props for it.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Thanks ...

You write: "But while Larouche might share political notions with more mainstream critics, that does not make all his ideas free of bigotry, or, at least, eccentricity."

Ron Paul has been accused of bigotry and so has his son. These are ad hominem arguments, obviously, and in our view should not necessarily disallow an interview with a person who has been an influential fringe factor in American economics for decades.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/20/2010 8:55:36 PM

Also, the fact that his ideas, after all their grandiose structural elements, come right back to bolstering the banking system and agreeing with some one like Volcker, tends to add to my suspicion that there is disinformation involved. When people talk the talk of opposition and then uphold the exact policies their supposed opponents support, then what you have is fly-paper..
and we have to beat our wings and fly over it.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Volcker supports a third-part mercantilist central bank and has actually run the world's most powerful. Thus, there are many differences between LaRouche and Volcker as one of LaRouche's main tenets is obviously that he does not believe in such a bank.

But it is hard to deny that LaRouche's ideas, at least the difficulties he analyzes, are in many ways part of the mainstream conversation today.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/20/2010 9:30:52 PM

Between a third party (private) central bank and several nationalist central banks cowed by the stick of imperial might there may not be as much of a chasm as Larouche (or Ellen Brown) believes.

Which is perhaps why Larouche is no longer at the fringe but in the mainstream. The elites probably realize that all roads lead to Rome...even if they first have to pass through the Reserve Bank of India, the Chinese State Bank etc. etc.

But if that is his way of arguing for decentralization, I wish him well. I think the nation state might work as a buffer to the globalists but not national central banks. The reason is money is a more fluid medium and a less transparent one than most. It is the nature of transactions today, which tend to centralize, even on purely technical grounds (electronification etc.) and which operate more and more in secrecy..and more and more in mathematical terms too arcane for the layman.

I think community banks might provide the answer, or subnational, state-level banks (which Ellen Brown supports)...but as long as the power to print is left in the hands of politicians, there is nothing to stop the same cycle of printing -inflation-speculation-concentration of wealth- expropriation of savings from starting over.

And the Larouchian-Brownian business of "public infrastructure" and public works being tied to future earnings that back all this new currency is precisely what the whole business of derivatives was about " derivatives securitized future earnings of a dubious nature and led us to this whole mess in the first place.
So I wonder how they can be the solution as well..

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Agreed. But the Brownian movement is a most formidable one in our estimation, perhaps not now but in the near future.

Posted by Weeble on 6/20/2010 9:41:37 PM

Jones (no more Frank Zappa jokes), were you insinuating LaRouche was Speaking In Tongues? I need a little Eno for my upset stomach (4th churning). LaRouche should spend the rest of his life in the Bush Of Ghosts.

My personal favorite is the Tom Tom Club. (Come in F104). I ain't seen nothin' like the mighty Quinn yet, except the Armada going through the Suez last Friday.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/20/2010 9:42:43 PM

Also ... a criticism that someone's arguments are bigoted is not necessarily ad hominem. The person might not be aware of the tendency and might sincerely believe he holds his views in good faith.

Posted by Bruno Waldvogel on 6/21/2010 12:47:12 AM

I disagree with LaRouche's analysis of history. Everywhere where the reformation didn't take place, you have quite a lot of corruption. The Weber thesis about capitalism and protestantism hasn't been refuted until in our days. So I doubt, if these analysis are really to be taken seriously. The same is true with the analysis of Roosevelt. Except all the books and historians are wrong – which of course is always an argument.

Posted by Banh on 6/21/2010 12:47:40 AM

I had been curious lately about LL's political philosophy in his golden years, but after reading this so-called interview full of pompous judgments and declarations with absolutely no backup justifications, I'd say this guy is an over-educated boob.

Elitists who think their life's task is to manage a dull-headed population have caused deaths in the hundreds of millions over the last 1000 years. These are the most toxic people in any culture.

Anyone who believes it is government's role to "structure" life in the public sector with financial instruments derived from Milton Bradley's Monopoly is nothing more than a pompous thief. The "useful idiot" in society is allowed to play the game of "Life" using fiat currency created by an elitist management system- paying taxes, mortgages, electric bills, college educations, etc. and then LOSING the assets held so dearly by these hard working ignorant souls in the midst of recessions.

It seems that elitists and the governments they manipulate have a very different rule book than the working slob on the street. At the touch of a computer key, a billion transforms to a trillion in fiat "stimulus" money. It's worthless currency, and the only things being stimulated are our prostate glands by the boot of the Federal Reserve and other monetary manipulators.

Mr. LaRouche would indeed be a dangerous man if anyone were listening to him. Fortunately, his notoriety and value to society are a figment of his imagination. Ron Paul is the man who will in fact educate the average useful idiot to become more useful to his family than to his corrupt government.

Fiat/government-managed financial systems are an open wound in society, impairing and corrupting its immune system. Eventually, society's ability to evolve and prosper, both economically and socially, via its own power and energy, dissolves in a pool of ignorance. This ignorance is induced by corrupt management systems, "aka" bad governance.

Posted by IndianaJohn on 6/21/2010 8:04:54 AM

I am a LaRouche supporter in the amount of $35 per year and never experienced any pressure to contribute.

LaRouche is the only speaker who uses nouns in describing the malefactors in government and finance. He labels people with what they do, rather than how they display themselves.

Yes, there is much in the LaRouche view for us to disagree with. Though the smart and the wary had best be watching when LaRouche casts the light on those night foraging rats and roaches who are leading us into poverty and disaster. Be listening when he calls them out by name too.

Thank you, Daily Bell for interviewing LaRouche. You are in rare company.

Posted by Zenbillionaire on 6/21/2010 3:22:52 PM

@ Lila

I laughed when I read your quote, the one the DB attributes to Dennis King: "Today it is supposedly plotting a New Dark Ages, which will include nuclear holocaust, the massive spread of AIDS, Zero Growth, and total bestial heteronomy." Bestial heteronomy! I had to look it up before I got the joke! I'm not sure who to trust on this, LaRouche when he says Kant should have kept his mouth shut or King when he suggests LaRouche is predicting the devolution of society into a Kantian morass of greed. Very funny.

@Weeble, methinks you've stolen the king's lead hat and perched it over a jaundiced eye...

@DB "What is Buddhism? Religion Without God? "

You could just as easily ask if its a God without religion. And the answer would probably be just as valuable :)

I liked this piece. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the sort of Discordian tone the whole thing takes.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Discordian is right.

Posted by Shane on 6/21/2010 9:10:05 PM

I wouldn't trust LL any further than I could throw him.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

How far is that?

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/21/2010 9:56:00 PM

@Zenbillionaire -

Re Kant:

I know paleolibs who are Catholics don't like Kant..and I know left-libs probably don't like him either, for different reasons.
Since when did duty and reciprocity become such bad things?

@DB

Are you 500?
And how do 500 write a report?
There is an air of mystery about this site.
Forgive my curiosity.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

No. We are not exactly 500. We value our privacy. Hope you understand.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/21/2010 10:40:18 PM

@DB
Of course.
Had I known what I was getting into, I too would have worn a mask.

Posted by Anonymous on 6/21/2010 10:43:50 PM

In this world privacy is a good idea! Especially way things are going ... good luck, DB.

Click to View Link />
Now if OBaMa decides to label someone a terrorist, and you "help" them, you can go to prison for 15 years!

Washington ...
The US Supreme Court has put international humanitarian workers on notice that any assistance to a US-designated terrorist group could land them in an American prison.

Skip to next paragraph
Related Stories

Supreme Court: Peace activists challenge US antiterror law
Obama signs Patriot Act extension without reforms
On Monday, the high court upheld a federal law that outlaws providing "material support" to any group on a State Department list of terrorist organizations.

The prohibition extends beyond knowingly facilitating illegal operations. The law ‒ part of the USA Patriot Act ‒ makes it a federal crime to provide any help or support to a terror group ‒ even support designed to teach a violent group how to use legal and peaceful means to achieve political change.

Violators face up to 15 years in prison.

Posted by Jimi Bigbear on 6/22/2010 2:11:25 AM

Very interesting discussion around a controversial figure. What I'm NOT liking here is the linking of Ellen Brown with LaRouche.

The Daily Bell has rightly crowned Dr. Brown with her own "brand" of economics " Brownian " and I have proclaimed her the Mother of Public Banking. She would not, as the DB commented, want to place the MONEY POWER in the hands of the present federal government.

In her many articles written after Web of Debt (WebOfDebt.com), Ellen has championed the States' Rights Movement by advocating that the States follow The PUBLIC State Bank of North Dakota and solve their economic problems sans DC " the District of Corruption (aka "Oz on the Potomac")

Lyndon LaRouche is well, Lyndon LaRouche " as your interview and comments pointed out, a very complex person with an even more complex world view. Ellen is much more focused and accessible, and I'm sure the Bell will agree, a lot more friendly and fun person. She doesn't claim to be the world's best economist " or really even an economist at all. She just understands and explains very well the concepts and necessity of PUBLIC money and banking. To watch the progress of the Public Banking movement, visit

Click to View Link/

Reply from the Daily Bell:

We thought we were careful about mentioning Ms. Brown and her perspective; she cites LaRouche herself in Web of Debt - nothing wrong with that. We just interviewed him.

Anyway, not sure which reference you are referring to. In practice, in America, Ms. Brown is obviously supporting state banks - and we believe it may well be an increasingly successful movement. We expect to continue to cover it and you are welcome to send us links or updates as events progress.

Of course, she has also spoken sympathetically of publicly owned NATIONAL central banks throughout her career. Just see this article:

Click to View Link

Posted by Justin on 6/22/2010 8:57:11 AM

Lyndon LaRouche has been forecasting an immanent slide back into the dark ages since at least 1999. So much for being the most successful forecaster on record since 1956-57.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

Because he predicted a global collapse 10 years ago, he is an unsuccessful forecaster?

Posted by Gary Johnson on 6/23/2010 6:56:54 PM

Fascinating interview. For all his faults, LaRouche is one of those fascinating characters who are increasingly rare in contemporary politics. I only wish you could get him to explicate on some of his more sweeping observations. I hope that you could follow this by interviewing LaRouche's former associate, Webster Tarpley.

Posted by A.P. on 6/26/2010 10:19:30 AM

It seems, at least by the posted comments, that Mr. LaRouche, and the principles which he stands for, confounded the readers sense certainty, for it provoked a response slandering the institution of the U.S. Federal Government and even defending, almost with conviction, the so-called free market/free trade principle--it's reminiscent of the British East India Company principle, hence, the opium wars in Asia, the looting of India, the slave trade introduced to the colonies(U.S.), etc.

Private companies, merged together to form supranational corporations, organized and interconnected, with a capability to politically control nations and their respected governments, are features of an imperial structure. Apply this business practice to a monetary system and an unregulated market; Is the famous mega speculator a friend, or an enemy(of the state)?

Should the U.S.A. give up total control over its currency to a private entity like the ECB: are we to follow the European model of entering into a treaty, with a foreign institution, not subject to the rule of Local, State, or Federal Law, and then borrow "money" from that institution we just created?

Our sovereignty, which defines our cultural identity and intention as Americans, is located within the Preamble of the U.S. Federal Constitution. It's the foundation started by the Founding Fathers for us to build upon.

So, I side with LaRouche. His intention, to take responsibility for the economic development of all nations and their respected cultures, is driven by these principles in the U.S. Federal Constitution. Only from this foundation can true wealth originate.

Posted by Slim Pickens on 7/13/2010 5:38:39 PM

@ A.P.

"So, I side with LaRouche. His intention, to take responsibility for the economic development of all nations and their respected cultures, is driven by these principles in the U.S. Federal Constitution. Only from this foundation can true wealth originate."

The 'principles' of the USC have nothing to do with the economic development of all nations and their respective cultures. They deal with individuals God given rights and the structure and restrictions placed on the US Government.

The problem with delusional do gooders like LL and FDR is they destroy the beauty of the design. Many individual free actions are far superior to one elitist or one group of elitists control over many individuals actions.

Posted by Zippythepinhead on 7/29/2010 7:10:04 PM

LaRouche is as bombastic as he has ever been, even in his old age. He is direct, explosive in force and thought lacking in civility or debating skill. Wonder why he couldn't be President? I find him overwhelmingly correct in many of his assertions yet disagreeing with his solutions. As stated earlier Webster Tarpley is also among this sect. I enjoyed reading that.

Reply from the Daily Bell:

The analysis of problems makes a lot more sense than his solutions.

Posted by David Jeremiah on 8/8/2010 4:53:06 AM

La Rouche is World Class. It is not easy to make an accurate analysis of how the World works from the scientific, political and historical point of view all at the same time. It is an excellent attempt and worth knowing so that people will not live in ignorance and political illiteracy.