Archive/File: larouche larouche.018 Last-modified: 1993/05/08 XRef: index larouche, larouche larouche.ihr LaRouche's racialism, like Hitler's, doesn't just target the British. In a softer form it applies to most of the human race, whom LaRouche accuses of being mired in sheeplike beastiality and thus requiring close surveillance by LaRouchian shepheds. He professes great compassion for the sheep. Their subhuman state is the fault of the British. Once the latter are removed from the scene, the sheep's heredity can be changed, raising future generations to the level of true humanity. LaRouche describes this process using terms from Plato's 'Republic,' in which society is composed of an ascending scale of bronze, silver, and golden souls. But his ideas are very different from Plato's. To LaRouche the bronze soul is a sensuous donkeylike wretch (or worse). To Plato the bronze soul was an upright moral citizen whose role was to build the weath of society through craftsmanship and commerce. To LaRouche the silver soul is someone who has begun to accept political leadership from LaRouche or at least has developed an "organic" humanism parallel to LaRouche's (e.g. South Africa's white rulers). To Plato the silver soul was not defined by his ideology but by his specific function and talents - he was a member of the warrior class. To LaRouche the golden souls are himself and those few lieutenants of his who have fully assimilated his intellectual method - the so-called "hyposethis of the higher hypothesis." To Plato the golden souls were the philosopher-statesmen who took care of government affairs and studied higher ethical and metaphysical principles to guide them in their work. These principles, as expressed by Socrates in Plato's dialogues, have little in common with LaRouche's ideology. Plato never theorized about a hypothesis of the higher hypothesis. Nor did he regard his philosopher-kings as a biologically superior race. LaRouche's misappropriation of Platonism as a buttress for modern fascism is not unique to LaRouche. In 1939, Dr. Otto Dietrich, the head of Hitler's press bureau, announced that Hitler's views on leadership were "in entire conformity" with Plato's "immortal Laws" which teach the "voluntary subordination of the masses, whilst at the same time bringing the 'wise men from within them to leadership.'" Platonic jargon was also adopted by Oswald Mosley, fu"hrer of the British Union of Fascists, and by members of South Africa's Broederbond during their rise to power after World War II. When LaRouche begins to talk about specific ethnic groups, his humanist devotion to raising bronze souls out of ther bestial mire suddenly disappears - apparently because they so stubbornly resist the values of his would-be golden souls. He adopts instead a relentless racism fit more for a master race than idealistic shepherds. For instance, the Chinese are a "paranoid" people who share, with "lower forms of animal life," a "fundamental distinction from actually human personalities." American blacks who insist on equal rights are obsessed with distinctions that "would be proper to the classification of varieties of monkeys and baboons." Puerto Ricans are intellectually impotent representatives of a culture based on "'macho' pathology" and crazed blood oaths. Italians, also impotent, are obsessed with churches, whorehouses, and "images of the Virgin Mary" (whose "goddam smile" LaRouche would like to remove from public view by closing Italy's churches). Irish-Americans are representatives of a backward Catholic "ethnic piggishness" and are responsible for a "hideous mind-and-body-eroding orgy of fertility." Tribal peoples, as in Brazil's Amazon Basin, have a "likeness to a lower beast." These attitudes have definite implications for LaRouche's doctrine of world conquest. In discussion U.S. treatment of American Indians in the nineteenth century and the conquest of Mexican territories in 1848 by General Winfield Scott, LaRouche asked: "Was it ... correct for the American branch of European humanist culture to absorb the territories occupied by a miserable, relatively bestial culture of indigenous Americans? _Absolutely_. Was it correct to absorb ... the areas taken in the Mexican-American War? Historically, yes - for the same reason." And the underlying principle? "We do not regard all cultures and nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or survival." (King, 289-290) Work Cited King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York: Doubleday, 1989