By 1983, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., with his third campaign for the U.S. Presidency well underway, had become an obsession of various treasonous intelligence assets and arms dealers, as well as former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. They wanted him silenced and removed from the American and international political scene.
Through various Freedom of Information Act releases, it is known that Henry Kissinger had written to then-FBI-Director William Webster in 1982 about LaRouche, and by 1983 “Get LaRouche Taskforce” meetings were being hosted by notorious Iran-Contra enabler and Paris Review founding editor John Train at his Manhattan residence. These gatherings included newscasters from NBC, writers from the Washington Post, Reader’s Digest, and Wall Street Journal, National Security Council elements like Roy Godson andPFIAB’s Leo Cherne, as well as wealthy Pittsburgh businessman Richard Mellon Scaife; Mira Lansky Boland, head of Fact Finding at the Washington, D.C. offices of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith; and editors of High Times magazine.
Why did this motley crew of millionaires, cultural degenerates, and intelligence assets perceive Lyndon LaRouche to be such a threat?
It wasn’t merely about policy. It wasn’t only that he was the most accurate economic forecaster on Earth. It was about method and the future of mankind.
Those individuals, a few among many similarly minded elitists who gathered at the “Train Salon,” represented a frontal assault against the principles of the founding of the American republic, in favor of a British imperial dystopian state, as revealed in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, or today, in the more sophistical musings of Palantir’s Peter Thiel and others, now exposed as members of what is coming to be known as the“Epstein Class.”
The basis and necessity for the establishment of the United States flowed from scientific and philosophical breakthroughs of the Italian Renaissance, particularly the work of Nicholas of Cusa, and later Gottfried Leibniz, which irrefutably established that human beings are created equal, in the image of God, therefore worthy and capable of self-government based onscientific principles ofnatural law, and not arbitrary whims of a self-declared emperor.
Lyndon LaRouche was very conscious of the difference between his approach to profound scientific questions related to the development and prosperity of the human race, and the approach of these degenerate would-be elites, and he was determined to build a movement of educated world-citizens, who were also patriots of their respective nations, in order to defeat the efforts of this new colonial class that intended to plunge the entire planet into the bestiality of perpetual war and dictatorship.
In 1983, in the “Author’s Foreword” to his paper, “The Science of the Human Mind,” LaRouche wrote:
” …It is abhorrent to the author that there should be anything secret about the method he employs.
“There are growing numbers who have the wish and right to know. This method, which is that of Plato, of St. Augustine, of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and others, has two cohering facets. In one aspect, it can be outlined as a scientific method, a method of creative discovery. Yet, mere knowledge of the formalities of the method does not suffice. There is an ‘emotional’ facet to the method, an indispensable ‘emotional’ facet. Without the driving energy supplied by the latter, the former is inert knowledge. To present the two facets as one is to describe a scientific psychology, a science of the human mind. It were perhapsthe most effective choice to present the method as such a scientific psychology.
“This ‘psychological’ aspect of the method is in no sense accidental. The author’s formal work to this effect began thirty-five years ago. It began in response to the central flaw of Professor Norbert Wiener’s celebrated Cybernetics, the so-called Wiener-Shannon ‘information theory’ dogma, which purported to confine the definition of human intelligence to the methods of the Clausius-Helmholtz-Maxwell-Boltzmann statistical theory of heat. This work led rather directly, through five years of intensive researches, into the author’s original discoveries in economic science—what is called today the LaRouche-Riemann method. At the same time,1952, it led into the author’s first formal treatment of fundamental questions of psychology, a refutation of Nietzsche which defined three classical archetypes—the Dionysian, Apollonian, and Promethean—in respect to the subjects of poetry and music.
“Later, the same line of attack was resumed in composing a refutation of the fallacy that it were possible to simulate human intelligence with a digital computer….”
LaRouche was right. A computer will never be able to replicate human creativity. Contrary to the Aristotelian axiom that the human mind is “a blank slate” filled only by experience, it is evident that, despite two generations of attempted cultural dark-age indoctrination, most human beings abhor the murder of innocent children. The genocidal war waged by Israel with American weapons, broadcast into every younger person’s view through their smartphone, has backfired on the perpetrators. The Epstein-affiliated AIPAC donors have lost control of the American electoral process, and,just as Henry Kissinger feared, LaRouche’s name is coming to the fore.
Typical, but by no means the only such case, was the interview of LaRouche Congressional candidate Jose Vega by Young Turks founder Cenk Uygur on Monday night, February 16. Vega brought up his 10-year association with the LaRouche movement and the Schiller Institute, including the work of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s International Peace Coalition, which provoked Uygur to comment, “Yeah. Well, I’m rethinking everything. So, I remember thinking Lyndon LaRouche was absolutely crazy. And I don’t remember any of the specifics. I’m not saying he’s not crazy. I’m not saying anything about him, okay? ‘Cause I got to go back and look to see what he said. But I did notice that his name was on a list—some Israeli leader said, ‘Oh yeah, we knocked out anyone who was against us. Pat Buchanan, Lyndon Larouche.’ And he named a bunch of people. And I was like, uh-oh, do I have to go back and read Lyndon LaRouche to see if he was right or not?”
Yes, Cenk, that would be a very good idea. (This interview has 50,000 views.)
From a slightly different perspective, a Russian-American former military officer, now based in Russia, interviewed LaRouche Presidential candidate Diane Sare, and he put it this way on his X post: “The legacy of LaRouche lives on in his protégé, Presidential candidate Diane Sare.”
Henry Kissinger was right: It’s LaRouche’s time.
