1932, A True History of the United States (A LaRouchePAC film)

OK, so I get an out-of-the-blue email yesterday, from - of all places - a guy in the LaRouche Youth Movement.

Here's what he said:

LaRouchePAC has just released a full length film, which you can find on my YouTube account, going through the TRUE history of the United States. It covers the battle between humanism and oligarchy. We would love your input, and any favor you could help with getting the word out. Thanks for the help, we hope to produce over a 100,000 DVDs and distribute them freely to the population. Feel free to contact me.

The Film can be found here: www.youtube.com...

Throughout the years I have linked to a few LaRouche stories from my conspiracy site, along with all kinds from the Libertarians, the Alex Jones, the World Net Dailys, the News With Views and even a bit of Icke and compatriots. I'm not much into ideology for ideology's sake. I don't get those who tout a particular political dogma. (I link an article if what you happen to write on that particular day in that particular manner, is appealing, at that particular moment, to my own sensibilities.)

Anyway, from what I gather from the film, I now see LaRouche as the exact opposite of Libertarian philosophy/dogma/ideology, but I do not as yet apprehend all the minutiae.

LaRouche et al, in the video, put on what amounts to a Lincoln and FDR lovefest! And the Libertarians hate and detest everything that those two men stood for.

I am posting this in the hopes of getting some real concrete answers as to why.

Why do the LaRouchites fawn over Lincoln and FDR, and hate everything that Free Trade (ala Adam Smith) stands for? And why are the Libertarians in complete contradistinction and seem to be the matter to the antimatter of LaRouche?

This seems almost contrived to me; a perfect Hegelian Dialectic. If the Libertarians are the thesis, and the LaRouchites are the antithesis, what exactly would be the resulting synthesis?

[edit on 11-7-2008 by Fire_In_The_Minds_of_Men]

It certainly is possible to hold a mix of views. With children and grandchildren scattered across the USA I have heard of many mixtures of Libertarian ideas with respect to personal liberty and liberties married together with an isolationist vision that wants all foreign entanglements ended and believes that given the current situation globalism must be killed and protectionism embraced in order to restart a manufacturing base.

I think in times the synthesis you've asked about will emerge in a new political party -- that is if the USA survives the next few years.

I think in times the synthesis you've asked about will emerge in a new political party -- that is if the USA survives the next few years.

I was thinking more along the lines of a contrivance in order to direct the opposites, predict and control the outcome. Paul David Collins is adept when it comes to explaining concepts such as this. He takes a crack at it (in one of his best articles):

The Hegelian dialectic involves the engagement of two ideational entities in an ostensibly adversarial dynamic. However, neither of two ideational entities involved are dichotomously related. The conflict that ensues between the two is superficial at best and, eventually, results in their synthesis into a new ideational entity. This synthesis amalgamates the worst features of the opposing camps. ... America (thesis) clashes with Islamofascism (antithesis) which leads to the rise of an American Empire (synthesis) spoken so much about by the neoconservative faction of the elite in their Project for a New American Century (PNAC) documents.

Antony C. Sutton had some good analogies as well, and he tried to warn the world that the Skull and Bones were engaged in what amounted to a Hegelian chess game, manipulating politics and education toward their own nefarious end.

After watching the LaRouche video and realizing that their ideology is nearly exactly opposite to that of the present dogma of the Libertarians - and if both sides are to an extent, controlled opposites - then what would be the desired "resolution of conflict"?

Well I managed to watch the first third before turning off, I even saw some subliminal programming in there.

Anyway those of us who hold an unbias view of history have a better idea about the truth. I have no problem with admitting all the bad parts economic manipulation, opium wars, slavery, famine and I'm sure we intentionally commited genocide somewhere down the line.

One summation is that LaRouche attempts to sell to America the belief that Empire and free market economy is the cause for the worlds problems even today and also give them the idea of the mentality required to win an empire.

On another note LaRouchites attempt to possess the moral high ground by invoking Lincoln's fight against slavery and FDR's stand against the Nazi's, there by legitimising there position and giving their propoganda the appearance of being righteous.

I'm not sure a dialectic needs a resolution to be openly concluded, it's purpose is to lead the individual to a pre-appointed idea by limiting the arguments scope. The result is to achieve a conclusion that appears formed by your own volition when clearly it is not.

I'm having difficulty understanding what direction LaRouche approach's this from, I've looked at the content, the message(well part of it). What position does this hold within the dialectic and who presents the opposite half, the Libertarians you say, however shouldn't it be those on the right. And where are they pushing public opinion, Empire is so bad it's good?

reply to post by carslake


You did a little better than me, I managed 28 minutes before I switched off with much swearing and disgust. Though I am perfectly well aware of the 'evil' that has been committed in the name of British Imperial ambitions and privateering, dressing up the US imperial ambitions as flowery altruism only serves to widen the gulf of ignorance endemic of both our nations. Though I had not heard of him before, I cannot help but conclude that LaRouche is an idiot if he believes half of what he says and if he doesn't a disinformationist of the lowest order.

Dear Sir:
I have seen this video a few times as well as Lyndon Larouche web cast a few times with great interest because I have known for many years that it is not a far out theory. (However, I have also seen "Who killed Canada?" by Mel Hurtig (On Google) a few times and he claims it is the USA that is behind Canada's steady decline of social services and collapse. Now if the British Empire is trying to collapse USA and the USA is trying to collapse Canada, then who is the protagonist here and what do you think is happening? Or will happen if we don't wake up in both countries. Are our politicians giving our countries away on a silver platter? I know that under the free trade agreement Canada is the loser as I can understand. I would be interested in your point of view.
AGB