What's the deal with LaRouchism?

moonies with american aesthetics. if you're looking for a coherent political philosophy look elsewhere.

When I was an undergrad in the Bay Area in the early 2000s, these fucks were everywhere in leftist spaces. They would show up to regular socialist meetings and try to derail things into discussions about Jews and the Illuminati. Real-life wreckers.

Imagine patsoc wreckers, but as an actual real life cult instead of 20 weirdos and their sock puppets on twitter.

Idk...

The more I think about it, as a political movement, both the U.S feds and the Larouchites probably rely on each other, in some sort of unintentional, positive feedback loop...

La-Rouche---look at the name!

His paternal grandfather's family emigrated to the United States from Rimouski, Quebec

His parents became Quakers after his father converted from Catholicism.

La-Rouche-isme is a Quaker-Quebecois infiltration, creating a fifth column for the inevitable Quebec-led Canadien invasion, they seek to make the yankee pacifist through quaker quack ideology, they seek to lull the yankee into an acceptance of Quebec names and ways.

this is all done under a thin communistic coat of paint, because as we all know Charles Marc & Frédéric Angle were secret sons of Quebec

Modern sects seem to butt heads with each other over God knows what, but at least from my observations I'm hypothesizing that maupin's CPI larouchite sect were actually filled with Lyndon's wife's followers who took the opportunity to implode maupin's sect. And those same infiltraitors went on to infiltrate a handful of different groups with the intent of hijacking or destroying them, and it culminated in the creation of the magacom party with many of its known members being either dumbass internet patsocs or larouchite "cpi refugees".

I've heard some talk here and there that the larouche sect is basically a HUMIT operation, therefore i think the Schiller sect is trying create a unified controlled opposition in the u.s Communist movement. As to the why, you'd have to dig for more info as to why they'd want to create a house of third directionists

The Dollop did a podcast episode about LaRouche. From what I remember, he was a weirdo crank who went from nazi to Trotskyist, and then ended up with his own brand of political thought that was mostly based on conspiracy theories, and gathered a cult around himself. Sort of like if you combined the Strasser brothers, Trotsky, Wilhelm Reich, and L. Ron Hubbard. One of his major beliefs was that musical instruments were tuned to the wrong frequency.

https://podcasts.apple.com/ee/podcast/387-lyndon-larouche/id643055307

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=depIIGcvUoA

TrueAnon have a few episodes about the topic if I recall.

Opportunism too aside from the weird cult vibe, LaRouchites (and their billionaire leader) would get money from everyone they could and found agencies happened to pay pretty well for the effort are seen as yet another form of threat reduction to serve reactionaries via misdirection and wrecking.

SNL LaRouche bit sums it up pretty well.

You can find his actual campaign and speeches on youtube as well.

So close on critiquing US foriegn policy, but too queerphobic, bigoted and conspiracy pilled to be a decent human being. He spread wild conspiracy theories about gays and actively campaigned against them during the AIDS crisis.

Think a well speaking Alex Jones running a political party.

Here's a good piece on LaRouchites.

It is true that LaRouchites do not fit into the typical archetype we usually associate with a far-right wingers: someone who is very socially conservative, ultrareligious, ultranationalist, anti-science, and is highly neoliberal and pro-free market capitalism. But in reality LaRouchites fit into all of these boxes, except for one: they are not neoliberals. This might seem like a minor distinction, but it puts them pretty heavily at odds with most right-wingers, and has been the bridge that has allowed them to build some left-wing support as well.

Liberals tend to place vague “principles” above real-world material development, and care very little about real economic growth. In fact, they often praise the destruction of entire countries if it means these vague principles can be met. Take, for example, the dissolution of the USSR, or the destruction of Libya — both were humanitarian disasters that led to a complete collapse in living standards and the economy, but are praised by liberals as necessities because these countries were violating sacred laws of “individual freedom” and liberal “democracy.”

LaRouchites, on the other hand, drastically differ from the typical liberal in that they actually place economic development first-and-foremost. (Kind of… We will get into more detail on this in a second.) But the point is, the fact they reject neoliberal principles of “individual freedom” and support state intervention for the purpose of material development has put them at odds with typical liberals and, at times, even aligned them with Marxists.

...

Sometimes, on some issues, LaRouchites might be allies of Marxists. But I must make it very clear that LaRouchites are incredibly reactionary. In many ways, I would compare LaRouchites to the Strasserites in Nazi Germany. The Strasserites were part of the Nazi party, and they were just as anti-Semitic as all the other Nazis, but differed on economic issues, with Otto Strasser proposing democratizing the economy directly to Hitler.

Does this mean that the Strassersites were allies of Marxists? No. Their ideology was incredibly contradictory. They allied with fascists on pretty much every issue but the nationalization of industry, and so they worked with the fascists to get the fascists into power. The moment the fascists got into power, they purged them in the Night of the Long Knives. Gregor Strasser was killed, Otto Strasser fled the country.