LaRouche: Disinformation Systems Redux or still Uber Alles?
February 21, 2009
In response to Project Humanbeingsfirst's question-mark on Mr. LaRouche's superbly narrated documentary “1932” and other profound matters of empire emanating from his pen, titled “LaRouche: A nuanced and expert Disinformationist or merely Uber Alles?”, November 23, 2008, the following letter was received from a LaRouche affiliated political party worker in Australia.
The letter politely informed me: “I thought that your critique of 1932 reflected what you would personally desire your own documentary of U.S history to contain,”.
I found this so fabulously burlesque a defense argument for crafty omissions, that I imagined it being every propagandist's dream team response against any indictment on the charge of 'conspiracy to deceive through clever omissions' in every court in Wonderland. For the moment however, Alice has been wide awake for a while, hasn't partaken at the Mad Hatter's tea party, and notes:
“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations.”
That short statement of Aldous Huxley is the briefest possible, entirely self-evident, and quite complete reply to the letter. Since it was obviously not already entirely self-evident to the earnest LaRouche follower, and having nothing more exciting to do this fine Saturday morning, I thought I might as well share my two-bit profound discovery with all “followers” of any 'ubermensch': that it is perhaps better to be led to hell on one's own sense of direction, than in the footsteps of “mullahs” of any stripe who promise the ethereal panacea, heaven, nirvana, holy-maidens, and everlasting ecstasy. It has been my most disturbing discovery of adulthood that these are, almost always, manufactured in the devil's own workshop, who, for reasons altogether obvious, neglects to inform the enticed, stoned, gullible followers of that fact.
Omission is the cardinal modus operandi of the 'ubermensch'. I refuse to lay down under its knife – but others are obviously free to make their own choices in life. So here is 'to life' – which in my dream world order, is without 'ubermensch' – lachaim!
The following is the full text of the nicely written letter, followed by Project Humanbeingsfirst's longer than necessary but pertinent response:
From: Glen Isherwood
To: humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com
Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:52 AM
Greetings Zahir,
I have just a brief comment to pass on to you, after reading through your critique of the 1932 Documentary produced by the LaRouchePAC.
I noted your comments about what was omitted by the producers of that documentary, and thought that I would respond.
I am a member of a political party, here in Australia, who associate and follow closely the political work and ideas of Lyndon LaRouche in the United States. I agree with his call for a New Bretton Woods economic system, which is made up of Sovereign Nation States, to rebuild the global economy. Such a policy will necessarily include fixed exchange rates, national (Government) banking and rational protectionist policies to improve national industry, agriculture and manufacturing. It is also absolutely unavoidable that in order to save the 6.7 billion people on this planetfrom a Dark Age, the huge levels of financial speculation eating up the world's credit, must not be paid, and must be written off, as soon as possible. Part of that process will require a serious reorganization in bankruptcy of the global banking system by National Governments.
I thought that your critique of 1932 reflected what you would personally desire your own documentary of U.S history to contain, with specific facts and elaborations on certain points, more so than what the LaRouchePAC research team intended to convey, as a single idea of history. The overwhelming sense that I get from the 1932 documentary, is the historic conflict in ideology between Empire and Sovereign Nation-States. I get a real sense of the conflict between unique historical personalities, that understood that they were fighting to change the population's ideology.
I would point out, that in studying many of the volumes of literature of the LaRouche movement over the years, that all of the questions and objections you raise, relating to the issue of central banking and monetary policy, have been answered and addressed rigorously. I think that the recent three public international webcasts given by LaRouche, dated January 16th 2009, January 22nd 2009, and February 11th 2009, do so in a very clear and striking way. I hope that you have been part of the many people tuning into those.
Another good reference which you may have already looked at, is the closely related LaRouchePAC documentary, titled "Firewall", which covers the subject of economic science in more depth. I thought that it ought to be obvious that when speaking about the British Empire, you naturally are pointing to the role of the Rhodes, Milners, H.G Wellses, and British East India Company types anyway. Any competent investigation of the British Empire will lead to those individuals.
Lyndon LaRouche's close associate, the late H. Graham Lowry, published a book "How The Nation Was Won", which also clarifies a lot of the early history and activity of Ben Franklin and his circle in the Massachusetts, in their fight for a Republic during the 17th Century..
Anyway, that is what I wanted to briefly say, and please don't hesitate to reply with any comments. What I have said here may be something you are already aware of.
Regards,
Glen Isherwood
Melbourne, Australia
Project Humanbeingsfirst Responds:
Dear Mr. Glen Isherwood,
Thank you for your comments. And greetings to you as well. I hope you will not mind if I respond rather straightforwardly and without any syntactic sugaring. I use this opportunity to flesh out more than is minimally required to respond to your letter. Unfortunately, as Mark Twain once wrote his friend, “I would have written you a much shorter letter had I more time” than this Saturday morning available to me for this idle pursuit. I say “idle”, because the matters should be wholly self-evident from that short Aldous Huxley quote in the preamble to this letter. It would be most unfortunate were it to necessitate any lengthier exposition and therefore, I hope all which follows is redundant, and hence, “idle” pursuit on my part. The Monetary Reform Bibliography – A self-study guide for uncovering the agendas behind the economics gibberish contains all that a modern man minimally needs to know about money and reform but will likely never learn in any MBA or economics Ph.D. program.
1) LaRouche's “1932” is ostensibly a documentary for the ordinary layman, not an economics expert or historian. Therefore, it would be just as silly to presume a knowledgeable audience with a priori domain specific knowledge, as to require familiarity with LaRouche's vast body of work before watching it. At least, no such presumption, or expectation, if present, is made clear in the documentary itself. It is a wholly self-contained 'NOVA' or 'PBS' level documentary.
2) As such, it crucially masks the pivotal role of private financiers within, in their deceptively having orchestrated 'money as debt' in America, leaving no clue to the audience of the financier's very existence, or the existence of even the concept of 'money as debt' in contrast to the fiat money which existed prior to the 1776 Revolution (Colonial Scrip), or the fiat money which Abraham Lincoln employed to fight the 1860's Civil War (Lincoln's Greenbacks).
3) It masks, through expert omission and deflection, the subversive role of Bank of England banksters Morris, Hamilton, et. al, in deviously instrumenting private central banking in the new nation which had, ostensibly, just thrown off the yoke of servitude to the very Bank of England.
4) It masks, through expert omission, any reference to the struggle that was waged by the founding fathers and signatories to the Declaration of Independence, such as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, et. al., against the first Bank of the United States orchestrated by Alexander Hamilton, nor Thomas Jefferson not renewing its charter during his own presidency. It does not make a passing mention of President Andrew Jackson having “killed the bank” – in its second orchestration – either. There is little clue provided to its third calculated orchestration at Jekyll Island which constructed the Federal Reserve System, nor a passing reference made to Ben Bernanke's candid confessional to Milton Friedman in 2002 of its impact in creating the Great Depression I upon whose backs FDR built his “New Deal” and which is the culminating focus of the documentary – not even a tiny postscript that might have insightfully led into unraveling today's calamitous Great Depression II under the broad sweep of its purported continuity of a “single idea of history”:
As a personal aside, I note that I first read A Monetary History of the United States (Friedman and Schwartz, 1963) early in my graduate school years at M.I.T. I was hooked, and I have been a student of monetary economics and economic history ever since. As everyone here knows, in their Monetary History Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation's monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces [p. 300; all page references refer to Friedman and Schwartz, 1963]. ... Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again. ( Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat? )
5) It perpetuates, through clever commission and an engagingly compelling selective narrative, the same myth which the United States Treasury, in cahoots with the Federal Reserve System does. Namely, that of the laudatory savior role of Alexander Hamilton in the construction of the United States monetary system as a debt-economy: “The United States debt, foreign and domestic, was the price of liberty.” A gratuitous usurious debt to private banksters in America, for which, no common sense, nor moral sense, nor historical sense, can lend any justification. Most bizarre of all, 1932 goes so far as to glowingly speak of Alexander Hamilton as living on in FDR – the main tour de force of the documentary and for whom “1932” is so titled!
6) It speaks of Hamilton's assassination by Burr, but does not speak of the assassination of the United States peoples' freedom from servitude through Hamilton-Morris orchestrated debt-servitude to banksters. The very debt-servitude that has today created almost 11 trillion dollar unpayable debt, but more importantly, enslaved the public in paying the compound-interest on it.
7) With all these priceless omissions in a well manufactured documentary purporting to narrate the broad sweep of history of the continuity of struggle for freedom from the imperial motherland – and which is surely at least a tiny bit more than just a “personal desire” for its inclusion on my part which as you so absurdly put it in the best mold of Goebbells: “what you would personally desire your own documentary of U.S history to contain,” – 1932 becomes nothing more than vulgar propaganda that serves the interests of the banksters of remaining occulted from the mainstream public eye.
8) It primarily serves the purpose of hiding the enemy within – the devilish enemy who insidiously achieved the same imperial purpose of covertly controlling the colonies from within, even as they exerted to break-free of its overt chains held from overseas – while LaRouche continually focusses attention on the historical vague nemesis across the Atlantic.
9) The documentary craftily misleads and misdirects the uninformed audience who are also its primary audience. It manufactures a perception of history, through omissions, and selective story-telling, which crucially masks the role of private central banksters in hijacking America.
10) The financial history of the United States of America is so intimately tied to what has led to our present financial crisis at the hands of the bankster oligarchs, that deliberately misconstruing and masking the banksters' progressive subversion throughout American history with critical omissions in polished documentaries made for the gullible general public, is to criminally deflect attention from the enemy-within who is still perpetuating the same crimes against the nation. That enemy within is now finally ready to administer its coup de grace for its long planned new empire – the one-world government of the oligarchs – all seeded in the orchestration of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913! And not a hint of any of this in “1932”.
11) In reference to your comment: “I would point out, that in studying many of the volumes of literature of the LaRouche movement over the years, that all of the questions and objections you raise, relating to the issue of central banking and monetary policy, have been answered and addressed rigorously.”, I will only note with emphatic humility that its stark omission in 1932 leaves a gaping hole that changes the entire perspective of the audience of their not even learning about the real enemy within. As a standalone lengthy documentary which, as you assert, purportedly conveys “a single idea of history”, and which I have watched multiple times to study its sophisticated craftsmanship, 1932 is outright guilty of employing the tools of the trade of “totalitarian propagandists”.
Judging a tree by its fruit, the conclusion is inescapable. The penetrating words of Aldous Huxley capture its import so eloquently that I hope I may be forgiven for rehearsing them one more time:
“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations.”
12) If Mr. LaRouche has indeed addressed and countered the imperial sacred cow core-axioms of interest-bearing coining of “money as debt”, and the masterful control of any nation's destiny which results from Meyer Amschel Rothschild's famous insight: “Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws”, and his prescriptions today are indeed based upon abolishing money as debt and its expansion and contraction in private controlling hands, then I have surely been misled by the unrepresentative disinformation masterpiece 1932 produced by his PAC. If your tall claims are true, then commonsense dictates that Mr. LaRouche might outright disclaim any role or association with the production of 1932. That documentary is an insult to Mr. LaRouche and he must remove it from his websites and from circulation, and furthermore, take its producers and script writers to task for having done him such such egregious disservice. He may further issue a letter of apology to the world and his followers for having participated in it without having done his own due diligence of simply watching it before releasing it to the world. A letter of gratitude written by Mr. LaRouche to yours truly for discovering this fiasco and bringing it to the world's attention will be prominently displayed on Project Humanbeingsfirst's website.
13) In summation on the topic of 1932, I would only reiterate that you have stated nothing to enlighten me on the question mark that was raised in “LaRouche: A nuanced and expert Disinformationist or merely Uber Alles?”. While I appreciate your mentioning his phenomenal body of literature which you claim to have studied for your own due diligence as a conscientious political follower, you did not reproduce any specific passages and quotations to rebut or clarify why 1932 should not be rejected by every intelligent person as merely a propaganda shill to cleverly deflect and mask the subversion of the banksters from within.
14) As for your endorsement of Mr. LaRouche's prescriptions: “I agree with his call for a New Bretton Woods economic system ...”, Project Humanbeingsfirst's admittedly plebeian point of view for an altogether sensible process today which can most assuredly lead to a reasonably equitable prescription that is only in the best interest of the peoples of the United States and the world, rather than in the best interests of the financial ruling elite, may be gleaned in: “Why won't President Obama's 'Stimulus' work? And what will?”
Historically, Bretton Woods I only favored the rich nations of the Global North, mainly the victor of WW II, by making its currency the default reserve currency of the planet. Even a cursory examination of the import of the following George F. Kennan words from his PPS 23, uttered almost on the eve of Bretton Woods I, exposes the grotesque reality of “deal in straight power concepts” in International Relations to which, surely, Mr. LaRouche ought to be no stranger:
“We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population .... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction .... We should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.” (George F. Kennan, PPS 23, 1948)
15) In astutely recognizing that this unvarnished empirical reality of hegemonic “deal in straight power concepts” instead of the platitudes of Moses or the Biblical Golden Rule govern all international relations, the nations of the Global South must evolve their own solution-space for a monetary system appropriate to their developing economies and the surfeit of their populations.
The Global South must negotiate their interactions, trade, economics, political and security matters, from a position of collective strength with the power-block of the Global North whose hegemonic interests aren't going to disappear just because Mr. LaRouche is put in charge or his ideas are deployed for his “new Bretton Woods”. Mr. LaRouche obviously isn't a simpleton to Polyanishly think that he can prevail upon an entrenched power that owns trillions in wealth and assets, and which has already corrupted and co-opted all ruling elite of almost every nation on earth. Neither is he ignorant of history to not feel this powers' existential chill down his own spine – a chill which President Woodrow Wilson, after having being made a patsy into signing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, described as:
“Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are of afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breadth when they speak in condemnation of it.”
And which Professor Carroll Quigley, President Bill Clinton's mentor, described in his seminal work “Tragedy and Hope - A History of the World in Our Time” in the following words:
“The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”
And last but not least, a chill whose Faustian ability for corrupting and coercing many an honest man into towing the masters' line was most aptly put by W. Cleon Skousen in his prescient commentary on “Tragedy and Hope”. This unvarnished honest perspective explains more today than all the scholars' pen put to the red ink that has already flown from the jugulars of the 'untermenschen' in the Middle East, and is now about to flow in the mainstreet USA:
'The real value of Tragedy and Hope ... [is the] bold and boastful admission by Dr. Quigley that there actually exists a relatively small but powerful group which has succeeded in acquiring a choke-hold on the affairs of practically the entire human race. Of course we should be quick to recognize that no small group could wield such gigantic power unless millions of people in all walks of life were “in on the take” and were willing to knuckle down to the iron-clad regimentation of the ruthless bosses behind the scenes. As we shall see, the network has succeeded in building its power structure by using tremendous quantities of money (together with the vast influence it buys) to manipulate, intimidate, or corrupt millions of men and women and their institutions on a world-wide basis.'
I hope that this long reply has been rather unnecessary. I imagine ordinary peoples in the land down under and those far away from the epicenter of empire, will always be far less dumbed down than those living within the heart of 'Rome'.
Kind Regards,
Zahir Ebrahim.
The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org. Verbatim reproduction license at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.
LaRouche: Disinformation Systems Redux or still Uber Alles? February 21, 2009
