Barack Hussein Obama and Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Two Men who Lyndon Larouche has Called “Hitler”.

You thought you knew what riding in a motorcycle club was all about….but you’ve never met Douche LaRouche.
No, but… Maybe you —
have repeatedly harrassed Lyndon Larouchies at card table setups in airports and public spaces. Does that mean I know the heart of darkness when I see it?

“Frankly, (reporters) are a distraction to us,” one of the sign holders said. The guy also refused to answer any questions about the LaRouche organization.
“Well, you know, I’ve noticed over the years that the media lies,” the man said. […]
This encounter with the LaRouche minions mirrors what happened the last time we tried to learn more about the LaRouche protestors and their stance.
Rather than stand behind their free speech, they scurry into the proverbial shadows, like cockroaches, when questioned.

And Counterpoint: Actually, this isn’t all that interesting, really.  In the end it fills its “Life’s passing parade of Just background images” fuction.  I do sympathize with the “another politician” guys — and jump to 12:34 for the Larouchies explaining Larouche’s prison sentence.  That’s kind of interesting, maybe?  Skip to 24:54, for the reaction to the ultimate question, “anyway you can donate a few dollars?”

This is better:
“Military of Ideas” was sitting at the table, taking a break from the action. Feeling feisty, I put the stroller in park, pulled down the canopy to block the boy’s view—just in case things got nasty—and smiled, hoping to elicit another catchy slogan. Thinking she had a live one, she blurted out in a pissy voice, “What are you doing to stop the war?” Prepared for a question like this, I responded in an affected voice, “Well, what are you doing to stop the war?” I could have easily said, “I know you are but what am I?” “Voting for LaRouche!” she sassed back. Without missing a beat, I responded, “Voting is stupid.” My old anarchist days were resurfacing and I was ready for a fight. Circle the “A” motherfuckers, I’m back!

Though, the youtube video has a man complaining about all the self-described Anarchists swayed by the Cult of Personality of Obama. So, point / counterpoint there.

Thinking back to his conversation with Alex Jones, slipping out his story — he was an FDR Democrat, saw things change under Truman.  A fuller story is told in LPAC’s documentary of 2008 — “1932:  Speak Not of Parties But of Universal Principles” — to this effect:

The 1932 USA Presidential election was a crucial turning point in USA and world history.  London and Wall Street were prepared to implement a version of the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini in the United States itself, and they were making great efforts to control the Democratic Party and stop Roosevelt’s nomination.  Obviously, against tremendous odds, Roosevelt succeeded, but out of what tradition did such a man as FDR emerge?

We’ve got this guy.  The “official LaRouche arm of the California Democratic Party” is called the “Franklin Delano Roosevelt Legacy Democratic Club”.  And it goes on and on for this org.
According to a book I read, the tradition that such a man FDR emerged from was the Hitler tradition.  Um…
Roosevelt’s fascist-flavored monetist approach to the “bank holiday” and other features of his administration are clear instances of evil motivations serving special interests at the expense of the vital interests of the United States.  Otherwise, especially in respect to Roosevelt’s persistence with an economic recovery program whose pre-ordained failure would be ABC to any competent economist, the Roosevelt administration was predominantly, sincerely stupid.

The US electorate never understood the Roosevelt administration in any actually relevant detail; rather, they blindly trusted it, as a child trusts the fact of his particular parents, as more or less ‘the way things are decreed to be.’  Nothing yet had developed to disturb the controlling self-delusions of more than a relative handful.

The breakdown of the monetary order during 1929-1931, and the immediate economic sequence of the monetary failure broke the will of America to continue to resist the fascist impulse.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt, beginning in 1933, attempted to exploit the shock-effects of the social crisis to attempt to introduce consciously fascist policies and obtained instead a compromise, a thinly disguised corporatism politely termed the “New Deal”.

It must be emphasized that the Wall Street backing of Roosevelt’s first election and the installation of Hitler were complementary efforts.  Hitler could have been pulled down — possibly without war — by the United States at any time prior to the 1938 Munich agreements.  The US could have sent the French army — two or three divisions would have sufficed — into the Rhineland in 1936, and Hitler would have collapsed.  The economic and monetary power of the United States respecting Britain and France would have sufficed to prevent the 1938 Munich agreement and could have induced the Tukachevsky Plan if we had wished.  Although the US capacity for political and related action was admittedly deliminited by the internal political situation inside the US, it is obscenely false to profess that a Roosevelt administration did not consciously refrain from employing those preventative measures within the existing discretionary capabilities of the government.  Shattered as the US was by the Depression, we had the power to determine, marginally by crucially, the policies of England and France in such respects.

Nor can Roosevelt defenders argue that he was either uninformed of the implications of the Nazi regime, or profess that public opinion prevented him from taking preventative actions otherwise within the means.  The 1934-1945 period — refining the use of the press as a “brainwashing” tool against the US population and Roosevelt himself was the “confidence man’s confidence man.”

Not only was Roosevelt’s administration pro-fascist in foreign policy, but also in domestic policy.  General Hugh Johnson and the National Recovery Act left no doubt of that.  With the defeat of the NRA and Congressional and Supreme Court resistance and foot-dragging on other legislation, executive actions, and labor struggles to the same effect, Roosevelt’s administration was compelled politically to a compromise, semi-fascist policy, called the “New Deal.”  Such direct imitations of the Hitler regime’s labor-intensive Arbeitsdienst measures and BdM institutions as the Works Project Administration (WPA), Public Works Administration (WPA), and the Civilian Conservation Corp were not only imitations of the Nazi regime, but consciously so.  The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) was another fascist “zero growth” oriented atrocity of the same genre.  On the inevitable re-organization after the Bank Holiday, his approach paralleled Schacht’s reorganization of the Nazi economy in method if not in detailed form.

Roosevelt by using corporatist methods — eg, the NRA — and by emulating the Hitler regime’s Arbeitsdienst in forms such as the WPA, CCC, and so forth, took credit for the autocannibalistic process of modest recovery of 1933-1937, and called the whole unwholesome mass the “New Deal.”  It is a wretched delusion to imagine that Roosevelt’s policies in any significant way contributed to an economic recovery during the middle of the 1930s.

Since Gerald Ford backed down in face of a monstrous election fraud on the morning of November 3, 1976, amid blackmailing rumors from Rockefellar circles concerning Ford’s alleged “KCIA taint,” and since others predominantly, wishfully refused to believe up through December 13, 1976 US Labor Party warnings of what a Carter administration in a chain of horror-stories going back through Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson, Buchanan, Van Buren, and Andrew Jackson — with Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and Taft properly thrown into the collection.  Unless forces are mustered adequate to change US nominal policy now, the result may well the physical extinction of our nation this year or next.

The same consistent expressions of American Toryism run through Beard, Arnold, Williams, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and the Carter administration.  These people are not Americans, but the grotesque reflections of an alien social disease of heteronomy which has poisoned the body politic.  It is within the same context that the philosophically fascist film Roots is to be appreciated.

After the events of the Kennedy administration, and the increasingly savage assault upon those institutions and principles which were our nation’s heritage and conscience, the Rockefeller – linked and other financier elites represented in the Kennedy administration project stripped much of our nation’s youth — and most of all themselves — of the last shards of a credible self-image of intellectual integrity.

The Kennedy administration represents a first attempt to launch the kind of intentionally-decisive successive confrontations with the Soviet leadership, along lines outlined in Henry Kissinger’s earlier brinkmanship doctrinal piece, for which the present Carter Administration is an inflated parody, down to Jimmy Carter’s cultivation of a “Kennedy coiffure”.

Hitler Mustaches on both of them! (go to MISCELLANEOUS, 2:46 pm)


Y’know.  dumping these passages and paragraphs and smashing them together (if you want to set them apart, feel free to just go to the index page under “Roosevelt”), from The Case of Walter Lippmann, I am surprised.  I somehow imagined that the org evaded this in the jump from “Beyond Marxism” (no need to discuss Roosevelt except in terms of continuity) to — “Beyond Skousenism” (who’d trash Roosevelt).  A couple more lines of import:

To make this point clear, we should briefly consider how the writer, as President of the United States would regard revenues of production and personal income.
Long paragraph follows–
Roosevelt, monstrously compounding Colonel House’s offenses, did the exact opposite.

Skip to page 152.
We repudiate the Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt doctrines respecting the notion of conditional sovereignty as exemplified in their practice for the cases of Mexico and the Soviet Union.
Wasn’t Henry Wallace going to continue the Roosevelt legacy, but Truman got in the way?

“The Case of Walter Lippman” endorses retroactively, an Austerity “Shock Doctrine” for Great Britain.  Just to make the British suffer, I suppose as punishment for World War II.  Rothschild is blamed for assassinating Lincoln — wait a few years and they’ll get around to blaming him for Kennedy.  On page 45-46, does that old deed of having Felix Rohatyn endorse the Holocaust.  The book ends by coming out for the destruction of representative democracy by having the electoral college break away from the vote the states’ popular vote gave to Carter.

Hm… US Labor Party warnings of what a Carter administration in a chain of horror-stories going back through Kennedy, Roosevelt, Wilson, Buchanan, Van Buren, and Andrew Jackson — with Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and Taft properly thrown into the collection — Where’s Truman?  And Grover Cleveland isn’t even in the index page!

Tracing the evolution on FDR to just a few years’ forward, in 1980 they fail to mention Roosevelt in their diatribes against Carter, as they’re letting loose a forward like this one:

There are two different species among those Americans who accept the label of “conservative.”  The two are as different from one another as people differ from radialarian ooze.  The one variety is an unwholesome breed of pot-puffing fops, thugs, and faggots, of the sort one might expect to find at any convening of New York’s East Side Conservative Club.  From William Buckley, Roy Cohn, William Safire on, a nastier, more debase lot of loyal scoundrels for Her Majesty the Queen would be hard to discover.
The more numerous, opposing species of “conservative” is a continuation of what was formerly hated by the British Aristocracy, and named “American Nationalists”.  General Douglas MacArthur is usually prominent on the list of heroes for such talk.  The more literate among them are distinguished by fairly detailed knowledge of the treasonous character of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, “Bilderbergers” and the Trilateral Commission.  Most of the inner kernal among the second set of patriotic conservatives reads the Spotlight, and a fair proportion have also read W Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Capitalist, as well as despising the pot-puffing Yale fop William F Buckley.  This kernal is, so to speak, the “Gideon’s Army” of American nationalism today, up to a quarter-million more influential persons who are the opinion leaders for a similarly inclined population, more than a scorefold larger.

Someone will have to point me to the first lionization of Franklin Roosevelt, around the turn of the 1980s I suppose.  I guess this works out okay — Ronald Reagan made good use of FDR rhetorically, and besides, in a world where Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith were Communists — well, the Liberty Lobbyists and the Skousenites (Hey!  Everything old is new again!) needed to be educated on what’s what. If a few years previously, Larouche was “Beyond Marxism”, he is now “Beyond Skousenism”, and so the oddness Regardless of what one may think of Mr. Jones’ or Mr. LaRouche’s unabashedly libertarian political rhetoric. — it’s — wait, he warned against the Cult of Libertarian Jefferson?  Had the book been published today, the Hitler mustache would have been affixed to that cover of Jefferson.

In a sense, Farah and his WorldNet(Nut)Daily seem to be filling a role once played by Lyndon LaRouche and his National Caucus of Labor Committees organization, later known as the U.S. Labor Party, back in the ’70′s and ’80′s.  LaRouche made strong rhetorical appeals to the extreme populist right and extolled views that on the surface appeared to coincided with Conservatives, all the while highly critical of the Reagan Administration.  Often described in the media as a hard right winger, he was actually a Stalinist.

This is the relative document to understand what was going on, and how the org manuevered around political movements.  I have another idea: define Roosevelt as Fascist.  Lay out the characteristics that make Roosevelt Fascist.  Then declare yourself an FDR Democrat.  (Besides, you need a storyline of some sort to sell your ‘Democratic bonafides” in skipping from the third party apparatus of the “Labor Party” to the Democratic Party primaries.  The only wikipedia edit of note this week is  NCdave says that “not recognized by Party leaders” is weasel words, this sort of caveat is never applied in Wikipedia to embarrassing Republicans.“  Do what you must, but I suppose we’ll get lost in the fog of examples — the David Duke article is full of examples, and I would hesitate in making the Larouche article longer.)

Was this guy in the org bashing Roosevelt?

And so it goes:  they tried to crash the TEA party I organized
After seeing that, made me think of the Lyndon LaRouche supporters that have their little converted Hot Dog stands outside the Post Office to sell LaRouche literature.  Though they only have Hitler mustaches on Barry, nothing about UFOs.

has made a career out of  inexplicable politics (he feels everyone’s personality should be stripped away so they can think like him)
Anyone go to see Diane Sare’s Emergency Meeting?

really?  He became rich and famous and big under Bush?
To associate the skeptics of climate change with the repudiators of the link between AIDS and the HIV virus and the conspiracy theories of 9/11 and the “Larouche delusions,” shows clearly that professor Clive Hamilton rests his case on an intellectually very weak reed.

I suppose the Tonkin Gulf Incident was real, and anyone who suggests otherwise is in the same category as David Ickes and Lyndon LaRouche. I suppose Woodrow Wilson was right to lock up all those deluded conspiracists who said WWI was a“rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.”
I think Lyndon LaRouche is a screaming nutjob, thank you very much, BUT he used to harp about something he called “hysterical flight forward” which really seems appropriate much of the time in discussing leadership issues in the US.
I see it [British Royal Family] as a political cult (like the LaRouchies) with it own unique set of doctrines that bear only a casual or incidental relationship to anything from the conventional right.
Let’s help those people. All of them. Even the ones still writing in the name of Lyndon LaRouche on their ballots.
I’m a total cult junkie. I went to school near DC where there’s a big Moonie presence and Lyndon Larouche (a leader of a political cult) has a lot of his base in the Maryland area. I will definitely see this movie. There is something so fascinating them. They’re horrid and scary, but still fascinating.
Like Ayn Rand
This is at least as distasteful as the Tea Party’s marking of the Royal Wedding by repeating Lyndon LaRouche’s claims about the Queen and the Royal Family. Except that the Tea Party and Lyndon LaRouche do not constitute the only electoral options in the United States.
just read the latest IAM flyer regarding the gutting of scope and I thought at first this was meant to be a satirical piece. As I read further however I realized this is the typical blather and misdirection that this group uses to communicate its political message. When reading these missives lately I always half expect an ad from Lyndon LaRouche screaming “Let’s colonize Mars because it’s good for the economy!”

Tipster, did you really just post an article from the Lyndon LaRouche Intelligence Review?  LOL… you are nuttier than I thought. […] Sorry tipster, anyone who associates in any way with Lyndon larouche is a supreme ass@hole. This is the guy who has his followers walk around with posters of Obama as hitler […]
Every Democratic president since 1940 has been challenged in the primaries, except for possibly 1996. It depends if Lyndon LaRouche can be considered a credible challenger to Bill Clinton.

This will also be a good chance to explain to them some of the facts of political life, such as “those loud people with the sign of Obama as the Joker are called LaRouchies, and if you ever join up with them you will be deprogrammed” and “those people are political consultants — don’t look directly into their eyes!”

Perhaps a few members of the basically irrelevant Communist Party USA attached themselves to the event, just as Lyndon La Rouche followers do to Tea Party gatherings. Virtually no one cares about these historical relics
Enough of the LaRouche movement has always been raving mad, but now when I was on their website this evening, I found a new record high in bisarrism.  It has even cut up an image in which Paul has a bridal veil on its next president
I, like Webster, am a former labor committee member. I must say it is refreshing that he was not co-opted by the oligarchy, as so many others have been. Bravo. (Uwe Parpart, Criton Zoakis, David Goldman, to name but a few…)
No Compromise with —
What do the anonymous comments signify?
Which candidate do you support for President in 2012?
Obama, a slew of Republican hopefuls, Lyndon Larouche candidate, Green Party candidate.

Get me off this mailing list. Sheesh — I join up on one cause, and the next thing you know…


The Larouche Cryonics Movement has a head of its own.

I’ve been emailing him questions and comments since November 2010, astonished at how he has found holes in Larouche’s choice projects, like NAWAPA and fusion.

But waiting for the Apocalypse:

I’ve been reading about the coming ice on Rolf Witzsche’s site. He makes a good argument that the coming ice age is going to wipe us out if we don’t act now.

Is the Lyndon Larouche Cryonics Movement about to become — the Rolf Witzsche Cryonics Movement?

Witzsche takes Larouche a few steps farther into deep reality by pointing out the failure of fusion (Larouche’s favorite idea) and the oncoming ice age (which Laoruche is pretty much ignoring). Witzsche is my new Larouche but we haven’t thrown Larouche economics out.

But… if the earth is going to be wiped out — what’s the point of —

[+] In my quest to live forever, physically and literally, I try a lot of different types of supplements to retard and reverse aging, make me smarter and faster thinking etc. Nothing has worked so far, but you never know what might turn up next. Today it’s QHdrate. I’ll report on results back here once I’ve drunk the whole bottle.


You will be excited to see the Larouchies wade into the Osama tank.  He knew what happened just minutes after 9/11, you will remember.  Join with us — Israel’s CIA.  Or… something — Dutch something or others.

This seems relevant to — what was that about falling hair somewhere?

Are we supposed to believe that a devil worshipper can serve at the highest levels of the military industrial security complex? Can such claims be credible?
View the video Michael Aquino, Satanic Mind-Control Cults and the Aquino NSA connection to enrich your confidence in the work of the intelligence communities.
Bizarre at the least, but Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review sheds light on From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory in How Military PsyOps Plan to Control your Mind.

It’s only a matter of time before Princess Kate learns about the Drug Running operation.   Will she be Di-ed?  Perhaps this can help fill brush you up on House of Windsor. (Good work by “One of LaRouche’s trusted analysts, Mr. Tannenbaum”, correlating Princess Di Conspiracy theories.)

Wrap up a few birther things — the LYM made a joke about nobody showing “who released the sperm”.   I guess someone from the contingent of “PUMA”s is still about theres

La Rouche: “if Barack Obama Sr. was the real father it was purely a coincidence.” (The birth certificate tells us who the mother was. But if the mother was playing the field, then the assertion that Barack Sr. was the father is at best

Funny thing.  In the videos we see the Larouchies still selling their Hillary.  It’s amused me that larouchepub is listed off of the “PUMA” directory.   Does Hillary know that they didn’t catch the “REAL” masterminds behind 9/11?  Is that why she has her hand over her mouth?

Hm.  Ron Paul gets a huge crowd reaction in coming out for the legalization of Heroin.  I don’t stand for that, but — is he a dupe of the Queen of England?


Iran’s Press TV has had on Lawrence Freeman,   Bill Jones, twice, Jeff Steinberg, twice.  But that’s the “Executive Intelligence Review Watch”, not the Lyndon Larouche Watch — I shouldn’t have even mentioned it.

2 Responses to “Barack Hussein Obama and Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Two Men who Lyndon Larouche has Called “Hitler”.”

  1. chator Says:


    Have you read the book: Three New Deals by Wolfgang Shivelbush? He compares the Roosevelt administration to the Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin regime’s policies and comes to the conclusion that Roosevelt was influenced by them. I wonder what’s going on when LaRouche calls his enemies fascist, even though they aren’t, then invokes F.D.R., who was at least sympathetic, and consciously imitating the fascist regimes in Europe, and labels him non-fascist. Is he consciously duping his supporters to support his brand of fascism by another name? If so, why give the term fascism a bad wrap? Once you learn to see beyond the surface name-calling, and take a step outside of Wonderland, looking back in sends your head spinning.

  2. Howie Says:

    Here’s 100 pages of your book:

    I know that historians favorable to Roosevelt consider the NRA Fascist. (Stricken by the Supreme Court.) I don’t quite know — while not throwing away the claims of Roosevelt as Fascist (and certainly as “Cult of Personality), I am more of that mind that the org adopted FDR with a new audience. You go from Consolidate this “Liberty Lobby”ers, than claim in some “strata” of Democratic voters — and you move to the Smedley Butler “Fascist Conspiracy against FDR” and the early wrangling against Truman.

    The same sort of mechanical thinking blunder which sees us as being mixed up with all sorts of unfamiliar companions errs to the opposite effect, in euphorically misconceiving us as “taking over” at least half of the Republican Party and perhaps one-quarter of the Democratic Party. In the latter case, the fact that we are increasingly affording programmatic leadership to elements of other parties is being grossly over-simplified. In fact. Republicans, in particular, might fall prey to the same sort of mechanical thinking in two opposite ways, either Tearing that we are taking them over, or imagining that they are taking us over. Again, we are not “taking over” or being “taken over:” we are giving programmatic leadership to a most varied array of forces all converging upon a humanist outlook on current.

Leave a Reply