Full text of "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism"

LYNDON LAROUCHE AND THE NEW 
AMERICAN FASCISM 

Revised online HTML edition, 2007. 
Copyriglit © by William Dennis King, 
1989. Revisions copyright © by William 
Dennis King, 2007. This is the entire book 
in HTML, including chapter references. 




"It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a 
fascist.. ..It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a 
fascist.. ..It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to 
be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one! 

--Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "Solving the 
Machiavellian Problem Today," New 
So//c/ar/Yy, July 7, 1978 



INTRODUCTION 

PART ONE: The Vanguard 

ONE: Makings of an Ideologue 

TWO: Do You Believe in Marxist Magic? 

THREE: Operation Mop Up 

FOUR: The Great Manchurian Candidate Scare 

FIVE: The Beethoven Gang 

SIX: The Jewish Question 

PART TWO: What LaRouche Wants 

SEVEN: The Grand Design 

PART THREE: LaRouche and Star Wars 

EIGHT: The Greatest Invention Since Fire 
NINE: The "Higher" Peace Movement 
TEN: Old Nazis and New Dreams 

PART FOUR: Building a Movement 

ELEVEN: More American Than Apple Pie 
TWELVE: The Gotterdammercrats 
THIRTEEN: Tanks Down State Street 
FOURTEEN: After Illinois 

FIFTEEN: LaRouche and the Reagan Revolution 
SIXTEEN: The Art of Scapegoating 
SEVENTEEN: Get Kissinger! 



PART FIVE: LaRouche's Private CIA 

EIGHTEEN: The Billion-Dollar Brain 
NINETEEN: Intrigue on Five Continents 
TWENTY: The Wooing of Lanqlev 
TWENTY-ONE: Night Riders to the Rescue 
TWENTY-TWO: Join the Spooks and Stay Out of Jail 

PART SIX: The Security Staff 

TWENTY-THREE: The School of Dirty Tricks 
TWENTY-FOUR: Law and Order, LaRouche Style 
TWENTY-FIVE: An Agent of Chaos 
TWENTY-SIX: To Roy Cohn, with Love 

PART SEVEN: Conspiracies and Code Words 

TWENTY-SEVEN: LaRouche's Purloined Letter 
TWENTY-EIGHT: Babylonians Under Every Bed 
TWENTY-NINE: Elizabeth, Queen of the Jews 
THIRTY: The War Between the Species 

PART EIGHT: LaRouche, Inc.: The Tycoon 

THIRTY-ONE: The Root of All Evil 

THIRTY-TWO: The Shell Game 

THIRTY-THREE: The World's Most Expensive Glass of Sherry 

PART NINE: LaRouche, Inc.: The Underworld 
Connection 



THIRTY-FOUR: The War on Drugs, So Called 

THIRTY-FIVE: Las Vegas in the Sky 

THIRTY-SIX: Fishing for Piranhas 

THIRTY-SEVEN: How to Win Friends and Influence Hoodlums 

THIRTY-EIGHT: Senators, Cabinet Members, and Dictators 

AFTERWORD: Why LaRouche Was Not Fought 
Dedication and Acknowledgements 
Ciiapter References 



Introduction 



In the mid-1970s a former Trotskyist named Lyndon LaRouche emerged from the 
wreckage of the New Left with a few hundred young followers in tow. Claiming to 
have "subsumed" Marxism, he announced that henceforth he and his associates 
would champion the industrial capitalists rather than the proletariat. Organizers 
for his National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) began contacting everyone 
they and their fellow radicals of the anti-Vietnam War movement had reviled — the 
CIA and FBI, the Pentagon, local police red squads, wealthy conservatives, GOP 
strategists, and even the Ku Klux Klan. Their announced objective was to build a 
grand coalition to rid American politics of the Enemy Within — the evil leftists, 
liberals, environmentalists, and Zionists. 

Over the next decade the LaRouchians made extraordinary inroads into 
American politics, surpassing the achievements of any other extremist movement 
in recent American history. Their success was all the more impressive 
considering that it was achieved during a period of economic prosperity and 
political stability. 

They built a nationwide election machine that fielded thousands of candidates in 
Democratic primaries in the mid-1980s, frequently picking up 20 percent or more 
of the vote and winning dozens of nominations for public office. In 1986 
LaRouchians won the Democratic nominations for lieutenant governor and 
secretary of state in Illinois. Although this triggered attacks from the media and 
Democratic Party regulars, so-called LaRouche Democrats continued to win 
nominations and garner high vote percentages through 1988. In addition, their 
movement raised over $200 million in loans and donations from the American 
public during the 1980s, a sum far in excess of what any other extremist group 
had ever collected in this country. LaRouche, who was a perennial presidential 
candidate, used much of this money to purchase frequent half-hour network 
television spots. In effect, he became the televangelist of secular extremism, with 
each TV appearance helping him raise money to pay for the next one. 

LaRouche also set up an international political intelligence "news service," a kind 
of parallel CIA, which gained him the ear not just of CIA officials but also of top 
National Security Council aides. He and his followers became valued, although 
unofficial, consultants to the Reagan administration during its first term. With 
NSC and Pentagon approval — and a little boost from the Department of State — 
they helped to promote the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") throughout 
the United States and overseas. They also served the interests of the 
administration and the GOP through various forms of snooping, smear 
campaigns, dirty tricks, and propaganda. This included things the Republicans 
could not directly carry out, such as the rumor campaign in 1988 about Michael 



Dukakis's mental health. Over the years the beneficiaries of LaRouche's 
snooping and trickery (whether solicited or not) included Ronald Reagan during 
his 1980 New Hampshire primary race, Labor Secretary Ray Donovan, U.S. 
Senator Jesse Helms, Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, New Orleans crime 
lord Carlos Marcello, auto magnate John DeLorean, and the South African 
Bureau of State Security. The LaRouchians also helped out the late Teamsters 
boss Jackie Presser. Indeed, they made themselves useful in the late 1970s and 
early 1980s to officials on every level of the nation's most powerful union, 
providing "truth squads" that helped hoodlum elements maintain control of restive 
locals. 

The media consistently avoided dealing with the fact that LaRouche had become 
a significant player in American politics. He was often described (by people who 
had not bothered to read his writings) as an eccentric whose ideas were too 
bizarre to worry about. The truth was that LaRouche was a man with a coherent 
program, subtle tactics, and — what is usually lacking in American politics — a 
long-range plan of how to get from here to there. Both in word and in deed, he 
was a serious ideologue in the classic European fascist mold. His pendulum 
swing from left to right in the 1970s had followed the pattern of Benito Mussolini, 
who was a socialist newspaper editor before founding Italy's Fascist Party. 
Likewise, LaRouche's occasional reversion to left-wing rhetoric when useful fit 
the pattern of the early Nazi brownshirts, who, after all, fancied themselves as 
"National Socialists." 

LaRouche's classic fascist tactics included making demagogic appeals to 
mutually opposed constituencies (for instance, white supremacists and black 
nationalists) to unite them around a supposedly higher program. His synthetic 
ideology combined anti-Semitism with extreme militarism and the need for an 
authoritarian regime to rescue the industrial capitalist system from what he 
believed was an impending crisis. In the late 1970s, his followers began 
cultivating conservative businessmen with the message that LaRouche was the 
man to save the nation. Meanwhile, they set in motion their plan for a populist 
mass movement of farmers, small businessmen, and blue-collar workers, whose 
anger over drugs, unemployment, and high interest rates was to be channeled 
against the "Zionists." The political theory at work evidently was that 
simultaneous pressure from above and below, as in Germany in 1933, would put 
LaRouche into power at the propitious moment. 

The American public had encountered few authentic homegrown fascists since 
the days of the German-American Bund and the Silver Shirts in the 1930s. 
Fascism had become, in the eyes of most, a relic of Europe's past with little 
relevance to politics today, and especially not to American politics. Before 
LaRouche, the closest approximations to a fascist movement in postwar America 
were the so-called hate groups — cross-burning Klansmen in bed sheets and 
goose-stepping neo-Nazi misfits in homemade uniforms. LaRouche for his part, 
being an educated man seriously committed to gaining power, avoided the 



simple-minded tactics and self-isolating symbols of these groups. When he 
wanted to signal his ultimate goals, he did so with finesse. For instance, during a 
1988 presidential campaign ad on network television he urged in a low-key genial 
manner the rebuilding of Germany's Reichstag and the uniting of Europe from the 
Atlantic to the Urals. This was to be accomplished through an alliance of 
Germany and America to save the West, as LaRouche had repeatedly urged. 
Clearly, any display of a swastika banner would have been redundant. 

LaRouche's relative urbanity made him more dangerous than the traditional hate- 
group leaders. Although the economic crisis and 1930s-style mass movement 
that he dreamed of did not arrive in the 1980s, he developed ties with many 
influential Americans in odd places, from Oklahoma oilmen through Detroit 
racketeers through conservative think-tankers in Washington. He tapped into 
their willingness to listen, although as yet only half-seriously, to the seemingly 
unthinkable. He made the fascist option a subject of legitimate debate by calling 
it something else (such as "humanism") or simply leaving it unnamed. 

The sophistication that LaRouche brought to the American ultraright included his 
use of recruitment and control tactics borrowed from religious cults. Some 
observers, after encountering an especially cultish LaRouche follower, would 
define the group as being more like the Hari Krishnas than a political organization 
(and hence as less of a problem than the traditional hate groups). But the 
LaRouche organization's brainwashing methods deepened the commitment of its 
members to an extraordinary degree. The few hundred LaRouche cadres often 
performed organizational and fund-raising feats that an ordinary sect or a 
mainstream political organization would require many thousands of volunteers to 
carry out. Yet the NCLC ultimately was a political vanguard organization more 
than a cult, although it used cult methods in an intensive manner. (In this it was 
far from unique: Hitler's SS merged cultism and politics, as did Mao's Communist 
Party. Cult-style brainwashing was employed in the 1980s not only by the NCLC 
but also by PLO terrorists, Peruvian guerrillas. Central American death squads, 
and Christian fundamentalist political cadres in the Republican Party — to cite but 
a few examples. None of these groups were dismissed simply as a "cult" by the 
media.) 

LaRouche avoided serious opposition for many years not just because of the cult 
label, but also because the media chose to portray him as a kook. Curiously, he 
delighted in encouraging this viewpoint by confirming to all and sundry that 
indeed he did believe the Queen of England pushes drugs. Yet underneath this 
useful pose of eccentricity (which cost him little yet sidetracked so much potential 
trouble for him), LaRouche strove to tap into something quite serious: the 
undercurrents of collective irrationalism in American politics. As he well knew, a 
significant portion of the American public had proven susceptible in the past, 
under conditions of economic distress or rapid social change, to ideas not unlike 
what he was espousing. During the Great Depression, this paranoid style in 
American politics had developed briefly into a large-scale pro-fascist movement. 



with millions of citizens listening to the radio priest Father Coughlin and joining 
the America First Committee. Even in the prosperous conditions after World War 
II, periodic eruptions continued: McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, the 1968 
George Wallace campaign, the anti-busing movement of the 1970s. 

To be sure, none of these postwar movements were really fascist. They lacked a 
truly fascist ideology, as well as a vanguard to provide the will to fascism. But 
what they had lacked LaRouche attempted in the 1980s to provide. He created in 
his voluminous writings an ideology that embodied the essence of fascism in an 
updated, Americanized form. He recruited a vanguard to organize around his 
program, while pioneering in slick new tactics to inject his ideas into strata of our 
society that traditionally had shown themselves susceptible to paranoid populism. 
Many of his counterparts in the Ku Klux Klan and other traditional white 
supremacist circles had so little self-confidence that they rarely tried to organize 
outside their own rural or blue-collar strata. But LaRouche reached out boldly to 
people of wealth and power, as well as to the forgotten and disinherited, striving 
to develop both a public and a private dialogue on any terms, no matter how 
opportunistic. 

The NCLC chairman also built an organizational structure of extraordinary 
complexity to support his multileveled political organizing. In its mid-1980s form, 
this structure was dominated by the NCLC National Executive Committee, a 
dozen stalwarts operating under LaRouche's daily instructions. The NCLC had 
regional or local units in over twenty cities, each with its own steering committee. 
It also had a national office staff in Leesburg, Virginia, divided into "sectors" — 
legal, finance, operations, intelligence, and security. This central bureaucracy ran 
the "entities" — a network of political action committees, publishing ventures, 
educational and fund-raising arms, and business fronts. 

The public directly encountered only the entities, not the shadowy NCLC. The 
National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC) was the chief vehicle for 
LaRouchian electoral activity. The Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF) was its 
scientific think tank and an important lobbying tool. The NCLC also sponsored 
the Schiller Institute, an international propaganda arm headed by LaRouche's 
German wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. 

Much of the NCLC's financial resources were poured into a propaganda machine 
that disseminated anti-Semitic literature nationwide in artfully disguised forms. 
The most important publication was the NCLC's twice-weekly newspaper. New 
Solidarity (called The New Federalist after 1986). The Campaigner, a monthly, 
was the theoretical journal. Persons who stopped at LaRouchian airport literature 
tables were most likely to see the weekly newsmagazine Executive Intelligence 
Review (EIR), as well as paperback books published by the New Benjamin 
Franklin Publishing House. The titles were catchy: Dope, Inc., The Hitler Book, 
and What Every Conservative Should Know about Communism. 



Although the ultimate goals of the LaRouche network were political, the fund 
raising was an obsessive daily routine. Hundreds of LaRouche followers fanned 
out each morning to airports around the country or to the NCLC's telephone 
"boiler rooms" at shifting locations. While selling literature and cadging donations, 
their chief aim was to solicit loans (often from senior citizens) that would rarely be 
repaid. Potential lenders were told they would be helping a patriotic or 
humanitarian cause (such as SDI or research to cure AIDS) while supposedly 
earning a high interest rate. The weekly EIR, high-priced special reports, 
videocassettes, the frequent television ads in which LaRouche addressed the 
nation in a "presidential" manner — all were used to gain the confidence of 
potential lenders. The income from loans and donations was shuttled from entity 
to entity in a never-ending shell game to avoid creditors and the IRS, and to 
guarantee that the maximum funds would always be available for LaRouche's 
pursuit of political influence and power. 

The NCLC National Executive Committee thus served not just as a general staff 
but also as a board of directors, with LaRouche as chairman of the board. His 
presidential campaigns provided a cover of constitutionally protected activity for 
what became an increasingly predatory financial empire. When faced with 
criminal and civil proceedings, he claimed "political persecution" and often sued 
the investigating agency or creditor for violation of his civil rights. His intelligence- 
gathering and propaganda networks also helped protect the financial operation 
by investigating the investigators and launching smear campaigns against 
creditors. The system was not foolproof: After 1986, dozens of LaRouche's 
followers were indicted for credit card and loan fraud and other offenses. In 
October 1988, LaRouche himself was indicted on charges of defrauding lenders 
of over $30 million. But his fundraisers still continued to rake in large amounts 
each week. (LaRouche and six top aides were convicted on fraud and conspiracy 
charges in December 1988.) 

LaRouche's political and financial network did not end at the borders of the 
United States. He had created an international web that included political parties 
in eight countries inspired by his ideology and financed in part by his fundraising 
schemes. Together with the NCLC, they comprised the International Caucus of 
Labor Committees (ICLC). The largest branch was in West Germany, with 
vigorous organizations also in France, Italy, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, 
and Peru~and support networks in at least a dozen other countries. Each ICLC 
member party had its own array of front groups. Their combined membership 
apart from the NCLC was no more than one thousand, but their influence in 
several countries was far greater than the numbers alone would suggest. Their 
high level of motivation, financial support from the U.S. organization, and open 
and covert support from military officers, government officials, or trade union 
leaders in countries with strong right-wing tendencies all played a role. The result 
was the world's best-organized, wealthiest, and ideologically most sophisticated 
neofascist operation of the 1980s — ruled not from the jungles of Paraguay, as in 
a B-grade movie, but from a country estate thirty minutes from Washington, D.C. 



In 1 981 , the creator of this political network ruminated — in his only published 
work of overt fiction, a short story — about the possible circumstances under 
which an individual who threatens the social order can act out his dreams. There 
is a "fabric of social controls," LaRouche wrote, which usually restrains such 
individuals. These controls supposedly are based on the ability to identify and 
keep track of potential troublemakers "in the equivalent of some computer filing 
system." But what if the system "misses a problem-case with special 
capabilities"? Does not the "very habit of reliance on the system" become the 
system's main vulnerability? In LaRouche's story, a "paranoid technologist" is 
believed to have invented an "infernal machine" to blow up downtown Chicago. 
The detective-hero of the story (not surprisingly, LaRouche himself) struggles to 
deduce what is going on after the authorities clamp a security screen around the 
incident. 

In the chapters that follow, we shall invert this process. We shall pierce the 
screen that has concealed the real story of political "technologist" Lyndon 
LaRouche and his potentially explosive ideology and movement. Why did 
society's containment system miss this "problem-case"? How did LaRouche 
break out of quarantine? Did powerful people know all along who and what he 
was, deciding simply to use him for their own purposes? Why did he remain 
invulnerable to prosecution for so many years? How did he inspire so much fear 
in those who should have led an early fight to drive him back into quarantine? 
This book will examine these questions as well as investigate the motives of the 
remarkable range of allies that LaRouche gathered along the way — hoodlums, 
spooks, Klansmen, mercenaries, defense scientists, political wheeler-dealers, 
diplomats, retired generals. New Right ideologues, foreign dictators, and White 
House aides. What was LaRouche's secret appeal that attracted people from 
both the heights and the depths of our society, and still attracts them today? 



PART ONE: The Vanguard 

Cry for the duck? 
You silly chickens! 
This is a hawk. 
See now how he moves. 

—LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR., "Morning Is a 
Wonderful Day" 

Chapter One 

Makings of an Ideologue 

In the mid-1960s Lyndon LaRouche saw protest movements burgeoning 
throughout America and sensed for the first time the real possibility of political 
power. What he needed to start with, he decided, was a cadre of several hundred 
full-time organizers, tightly organized and armed with the correct strategy and 
tactics. He understood that such a vanguard could only seize power in a social 
crisis far greater than that triggered by the Vietnam War or the civil rights 
struggle. But he believed such a crisis was inevitable. If the organization and 
program were developed years in advance, the masses could be swiftly 
mobilized at the right moment. 

This appeared to be standard Marxist doctrine, but LaRouche added his own 
unique twist: The members of the revolutionary party must be intellectually of a 
superior breed — a philosophical elite as well as a political vanguard. In the 
following years this innovation became more and more important in his thinking, 
and he broke completely with Marxism. He began to portray his philosophical 
elite as the forerunners of a biological-cultural master race, which he called the 
"golden souls" after Plato's aristocratic usage. They would rise to power, he 
taught, by championing the interests of industrial capitalism. 

LaRouche's swing from far left to far right was not without precedent: Mussolini 
was also a socialist before throwing in his lot with the upper classes and 
launching Italian fascism. But in LaRouche's case there was an additional twist. 
He had adopted Marxism as a young man to escape the ultraconservatism and 
religious fundamentalism of his parents. His shift to the right in the 1970s would 
be partly a return to this mental universe of his childhood. 

Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr., was born in Rochester, New Hampshire, on 
September 8, 1922, the oldest of three children. His father, the son of a French- 



Canadian immigrant, was a United Slioe IVIacliinery Corporation roadman 
earning a comfortable salary. His mother, the former Jesse Weir, came from an 
evangelical Protestant background. Both parents regarded themselves as 
orthodox Quakers, Lyndon Sr. having converted from Roman Catholicism in his 
teens. 

Lyndon Jr.'s first ten years were spent in Rochester, where his two sisters were 
born and where he attended the School Street elementary school. The rest of his 
childhood and youth were spent in Lynn, Massachusetts, to which the family 
moved after Lyndon Sr. resigned from United Shoe to launch his own business. 

LaRouche has described his childhood as that of "an egregious child, I wouldn't 
say an ugly duckling but a nasty duckling." He felt socially isolated. This was 
partly because of his precociousness. He learned to read at age five and was 
soon dipping into adult books in the family library. Kids at school called him "Big 
Head." A greater problem was his parents' strictures. When he was about to 
begin first grade he was summoned to the family dining room and told that under 
no circumstances could he fight with other children, even in self-defense. This 
resulted, according to LaRouche, in "years of hell" from bullies at school. 

Despite their belief in nonviolence, LaRouche's parents did not fit the popular 
stereotype of gentle and tolerant Quakers. The two were ferocious sectarians 
who accused their co-religionists of closet Bolshevism and embezzlement of 
religious funds. They wanted their son to share these beliefs. LaRouche recalls 
being herded with other children into a basement when he was eight years old to 
listen to a woman evangelist fulminate against the evils of communism. She 
denounced him to his parents when he accidentally crumpled his song sheet. 

LaRouche writes that his mother spent most of her time on "church work" and 
that his father's chief interest, apart from his career, was in assisting this work. 
How this affected LaRouche is suggested by his vehement opposition as an adult 
to matriarchal elements in religion (e.g., the goddess Isis and the Virgin Mary), as 
well as his numerous psychological tracts about an archetypal "witch mother" 
who renders her children and husband "impotent." 

Visits to his grandparents provided young LaRouche some relief from the rigid 
home atmosphere. He was especially fond of his maternal grandfather Weir, a 
United Brethren minister in Qhio, who stimulated his interest in biblical history. 
Forty years later this interest would resurface in LaRouche's conspiracy theories 
about the ancient Near East. 

LaRouche continued to feel like a social leper in high school. He withdrew into 
his books, took long walks in the woods, and accumulated an enormous 
resentment against his peers. He found solace in the great philosophers, 
especially Descartes, Leibnitz, and Kant, whose works helped him rationalize his 
social isolation. He was the victim, he mused, of an educational system based on 



the evil ideas of Jolin Dewey and Britisli empiricism. Tliis belief persisted into 
adulthood. In his 1979 autobiography, The Power of Reason, he describes his 
high school tormenters as "unwitting followers of David Hume" (the eighteenth- 
century philosopher). 

Kant's ideas in particular prompted LaRouche to question his parents' beliefs and 
their plans for him to become a minister. He stopped carrying the King James 
Bible to school every day. But when his sisters rebelled more openly, LaRouche 
disapproved. He regarded them as shallow creatures, concerned only with 
winning the approval of their peers. 

In spite of his growing doubts about religion, LaRouche supported his parents' 
war against their Quaker brethren. The immediate issue was a trust fund for 
religious education left by a wealthy uncle of LaRouche's mother. The 
LaRouches objected to the money being given to the liberal-minded American 
Friends Service Committee (AFSC). 

The bitterness of this dispute is reflected in a 1937 tract LaRouche Sr. published 
under the pseudonym Hezekiah Micajah Jones. Its rambling and abusive style 
and obsession with conspiracies foreshadow LaRouche Jr.'s writings forty years 
later. The elder LaRouche denounced the Friends' handling of religious trust 
funds as a "swindle." Quaker ministers, he said, were preaching the "principles of 
Communism," and he could count on his fingers the number of them that were 
not part of the plot. He singled out Quaker reform leader Rufus Jones for urging 
"love for everyone including, without doubt, Satan." "The Qrthodox Quaker," 
LaRouche Sr. vowed, "will not join hands with the ungodly, nor will he go down 
into Babylon and join forces." Only Qrthodox Quakers, he said, have a "right to 
the name Christian." 

Turning to world affairs, the pamphlet berated certain Quakers who had criticized 
"one of the governments opposed to Communism" (apparently either Mussolini's 
Italy or Hitler's Germany) at a world peace conference in Philadelphia. The 
pamphlet also chided participants at a regional Friends conference in 
Providence, Rhode Island, for not responding favorably to an anti-Jewish speech 
by a Palestinian Arab. According to LaRouche Sr., the speaker presented his 
views "well and authoritatively ... his attitude should be given more 
consideration." 

In Qctober 1941, the Lynn Meeting disowned LaRouche Sr. for his disruptive 
behavior. His wife and nineteen-year-old son resigned in protest. The LaRouches 
later established a schismatic Quaker group in Boston, and the bitterness 
persisted for decades. In a 1978 article, LaRouche Jr. charged that the American 
Friends Service Committee had used "intelligence-mode 'dirty tricks' operations" 
to isolate his parents. 



Before Pearl Harbor, LaRouche attended Northeastern University in Boston. By 
liis own account lie received poor grades and incurred liis fatlier's wratli. In late 
1942 he entered a Civilian Public Service (GPS) camp for conscientious 
objectors, as did many other young Quakers. The camp, in West Campton, New 
Hampshire, was administered by the AFSC. LaRouche promptly joined a small 
faction at odds with the administrators. 

After a little over a year LaRouche became fed up with GPS life, which he later 
compared to "a 'soft' model of the Nazi concentration camps." The experience 
had taught him, he said, the "unbridgeable dividing line" between "bestiality" (i.e., 
the AFSC) and "humanity." He contacted the Selective Service to enlist in the 
Army as a noncombatant. 

LaRouche has given two versions of this decision. In a 1974 autobiographical 
piece, he said that after engaging in political discussions with socialists and ex- 
Communists in the camp and being introduced to the first volume of Marx's Das 
Kapital, he decided to join the Army. In a second version, written after his swing 
to the right, he does not mention any Marxist influences, and claims he intended 
to join the Army all along. According to this version, he entered the GPS camp for 
a few months as a temporary concession to his parents, to soften the blow of his 
inevitable enlistment. 

The late Boston publisher Porter Sargent, who was LaRouche's close friend in 
the GPS camp, confirmed the first version to the Boston Phoenix. He said 
LaRouche had been a "serious deep pacifist," well versed in "all the ways of 
active nonviolence." 

LaRouche was inducted into the Army in early 1944 and served as a private in 
medical and ordnance units in the Ghina-Burma-lndia theatre. While stationed 
near Galcutta he attempted, without much success, to organize GIs to work with 
the local Gommunist Party. In his 1974 reminiscences, he told of meeting P.G. 
Joshi, a Galcutta Gommunist leader. Joshi supposedly rejected the twenty-three- 
year-old LaRouche's suggestion that the Indian Gommunists should stage an 
immediate uprising in Bengal against the British colonial government. LaRouche 
said he walked out of Joshi's headquarters thoroughly disillusioned with 
Stalinism: "By the time [I] reached the bottom of the stairs, [I] was a sort of 
hardened Trotskyist." 

This story also underwent heavy revision. A 1983 LaRouche campaign 
biography, prepared under his close supervision, says that his contacts with 
Indians, including lowly street sweepers, left him deeply "gratified and touched" 
by their admiration for U.S. capitalism. He returned to America, according to this 
version, determined to provide India with a "flow of capital-goods exports." 

LaRouche was mustered out of the Army in May 1946. Later that year he gave 
Northeastern University a second try. He intended to major in physics, but soon 



quit in protest over wliat lie regarded as an all-pervasive academic "philistinism." 
His autobiographical writings do not mention any subsequent attempt to gain a 
university degree. 

In December 1948, LaRouche applied for membership in the Socialist Workers 
Party (SWP), an affiliate of the Trotskyist Fourth International. This was no trivial 
decision. The Cold War and the resulting Red Scare were already underway. 
Dozens of Communist Party members had been indicted on conspiracy charges. 
The trade union movement was in the throes of a political purge that would soon 
extend to the academic world and the arts. The SWP, which had been targeted 
under the Smith Act during the war, remained on the Attorney General's list of 
subversive organizations and was under close FBI surveillance. As Senator 
Joseph McCarthy began his demagogic rise, both the SWP and the Communist 
Party feared that fascism was taking hold in America. Many leftists tore up their 
party cards, hoping to avoid the worst to come. 

LaRouche was admitted to full party membership in early 1949 and adopted a 
party pseudonym to avoid trouble with employers and the FBI. Journalists have 
speculated that his choice, "Lyn Marcus," was intended to suggest a personal 
affinity with Lenin and Marx, although LaRouche says it was based on the 
nickname "Marco Polo" given to him during the war. 

LaRouche went to work at the GE River Works in Lynn, under the SWP policy of 
industrial colonizing — the sending of intellectuals to work in factories in the hope 
of recruiting worker cadres. Within months he was put under party discipline for 
advocating a "tactical alliance" with the Stalinists. He soon tired of the proletarian 
life, and was glad to escape into a part-time job with his father. Although the 
SWP's sectarian dogmatism was beginning to remind him of his parents' 
religiosity, he thought the party could be changed from within. He spent much 
time with the late Larry Trainor, a middle-aged printer who headed the Boston 
SWP, seeking approval for his maverick views. Former Boston comrades recall 
him as an earnest young man whose life seemed to revolve around the Trotskyist 
movement's endless ideological debates. 

In 1954, LaRouche moved to New York City and married fellow SWP member 
Janice Neuberger. The party's national center was in New York, and he hoped to 
gain recognition as one of its rising ideological stars. He became friendly with 
Janice's close friends Myra Tanner Weiss and the late Murray Weiss, who led a 
small SWP faction. Myra Weiss recalls that "Lyndy" was a "quite dedicated" party 
member. He faithfully attended branch meetings, distributed party literature, and 
participated in election campaigns. He also wrote long erudite documents that he 
circulated to party leaders. Several shorter pieces appeared under his name in 
SWP publications, and he occasionally gave party-sponsored lectures on 
economics. But according to Murray Weiss, he remained on the party's outskirts, 
never able to win the leadership's trust. 



Through the years LaRouche has given various versions of his relationship to the 
SWP. In a 1970 essay he described his SWP membership from 1949 until his 
expulsion in 1966 as "my seventeen-year passage." The essay provided 
exhaustive details of his long struggle for a pristine revolutionism untainted by 
ideological compromise. However, his 1983 biography, written to win 
conservative support, omits any reference to the SWP. It depicts his involvement 
in unspecified "left politics" as lasting only for a brief period in the late 1940s. 
According to this account, LaRouche wrote to Dwight D. Eisenhower, urging him 
to run for President in 1948. When Eisenhower failed to enter the race, 
LaRouche reluctantly joined the left as the best alternative for struggling against 
"Trumanism." 

LaRouche has also repeatedly suggested that he served as a government 
informant within the SWP. In an October 1986 interview on ABC Radio's Bob 
Grant show he said he went back into the SWP after the early 1 950s "because 
the FBI approached me to go back." He explained: "I promised [the FBI] if I found 
anything that was wrong, as a citizen I would tell them." But Janice LaRouche 
does not believe her ex-husband worked for the FBI. She believes he was 
sincere in his Marxist beliefs, and only discarded them years later. Other former 
SWP members who knew LaRouche agree with Janice. 

The LaRouches' only child, Daniel, was born in 1956. At this point, LaRouche 
began to channel more and more of his energy into building a career in 
management consulting. For several years he was associated with the George S. 
May Company, often making a thousand dollars a week or more helping 
corporations reduce labor costs. He outlined his approach to troubleshooting in a 
1962 essay: If management tells you to keep your nose out of an area, that area 
is precisely where you should snoop first. 

LaRouche became interested in computer technology after reading Norbert 
Wiener's book Cybernetics. Recognizing that computers were the wave of the 
future, he pioneered in computer-complex installations and software design. He 
also tried his hand at computer theory, speculating on the possibility of a total- 
systems technology to manage the entire U.S. economy. 

Janice recalls that he could work "for forty hours at a stretch without sleeping or 
eating." During one of these round-the-clock binges, ruminating on Marvin 
Minsky's artificial intelligence theories, he experienced a quasi-mystical 
inspiration that deeply altered his view of reality. "During the night I sat and 
paced, alternately, sleepless, going through the matter repeatedly," he wrote in 
The Power of Reason. "In that moment, I saw clearly, for the first time, the nature 
of the solution to the 'particle-field paradox' — not as something I understood . . . 
but as a solution I could 'see.'" LaRouche has never revealed the precise nature 
of this solution, yet he wrote that his experience was "on a relative scale of things 
. . . one of greatness. I know what the realized pinnacles of human personal 



development are in our time and, to large measure, in earlier times. I have, 
essentially, matched them." 

He began to fancy himself an expert on psychoanalysis as well as physics. 
According to The Power of Reason, he held free counseling sessions with a 
troubled young man named Griswold, who supposedly was driven away by a 
tactless remark of Janice's. LaRouche heard several months later that Griswold 
had committed suicide. The news of this tragedy, LaRouche writes, was the "last 
straw" in his accumulated resentments against Janice. They separated in 1963, 
and he moved into an apartment on Morton Street in Greenwich Village with 
Carol Schnitzer, an SWP comrade who became his main collaborator in the 
founding of the National Caucus of Labor Committees. 

Soon "Lyn Marcus" and "Carol LaRouche" (they never married) were deeply 
immersed in factionalism in and around the SWP. They organized support work 
for a Trotskyist-influenced strike of New York City welfare workers in 1965, and 
held conspiratorial meetings with expelled SWP members. LaRouche lost 
interest in his consulting business and spent most of his time studying and 
writing, seeking to develop a new version of Marxism that could bring him a 
personal following. His experience with the SWP's ineptness had convinced him 
that "no revolutionary movement was going to be brought into being in the USA 
unless I brought it into being." 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Two 

Do You Believe in Marxist Magic? 

LaRouche's pretensions to the mantle of Lenin and Trotsl<y were by no means 
odd in tine America of tine mid-1960s. As tine movement against tine Vietnam War 
began to stir, new activist organizations sprouted like mushrooms. Antiwar 
students battled the police in New York in 1964 and gathered by the tens of 
thousands in Washington the following year. Many burned their draft cards at 
public rallies. "Free universities" were founded as an alternative to an official 
academia believed to be corrupted by defense contracts and CIA recruiters. 
Anticommunism rapidly fell out of fashion. When the House Un-American 
Activities Committee tried to probe Communist influence in the fledgling antiwar 
movement, students who were subpoenaed treated the committee with 
contempt, turning the hearings into forums to denounce the war. Meanwhile, the 
Harlem riots of 1964 became the prototype for ghetto rebellions across the 
country. Malcolm X and then the Black Panthers gave a political voice to this 
rage. For the first time in decades, the Establishment appeared to be on the 
defensive. Young radicals pored over the writings of Che Guevara and Mao 
Zedong, embibing the belief that sheer revolutionary will can move mountains. 

It was within this heady New Left atmosphere that LaRouche, a product of the 
Old Left but attuned to the new possibilities, made his first bid for leadership 
beyond the orbit of the SWP. He initially focused on the American Committee for 
the Fourth International (ACFI), a Trotskyist splinter group with about twenty 
members. 

He vowed to transform it into a proper "cadre organization," then expand into the 
larger world beyond Trotskyism. Tim Wohlforth, former leader of the ACFI, recalls 
that for six months during 1 965-66 he and LaRouche met almost every day to 
plot factional intrigues. 

The ACFI was under the influence of Britain's Socialist Labour League (SLL), a 
bitter rival of the SWP. In October 1965, Wohlforth, LaRouche, and other 
schismatics traveled to Montreal to meet with Gerald Healy, the SLL chairman, to 
discuss a plan for a new revolutionary party in the United States. The first stage 
would be to merge the ACFI with a somewhat larger SWP spin-off, the Spartacist 
League. The second stage would be to reach out to radical students. A tentative 
unity plan was agreed on, which LaRouche later called the "Montreal Concordat," 
as if the persons involved had been Great Power diplomats. He hoped to 
become the chairman of the fused organizations. However, Healy repudiated the 



scheme and forced LaRouche to resign from the ACFI. The "franchise" for 
Healyism in America went to the more pliable Wolhforth. 

It is ironic that LaRouche should have chosen a satellite of Healy's SLL for his 
first foray outside the SWP. The SLL later became famous under a new name, 
the Workers Revolutionary Party, as the vehicle for actress Vanessa Redgrave's 
anti-Zionism. As early as the mid-1960s it displayed some of the features of a 
political cult. Over the next two decades Chairman Healy developed, as did 
LaRouche, a full-blown political megalomania. The WRP split in 1985, and the 
anti-Healy faction went public with charges about subsidies from the Libyans and 
Healy's affairs with young women comrades. The British tabloid press had a field 
day with this "Reds in the Bed" scandal. 

LaRouche learned important lessons from Healy. He later wrote about the SLL 
leader's use of goon squads and psychological intimidation to control his 
followers. While LaRouche had naively tried to win support through ideological 
persuasion, Healy had gone for the jugular. The basic method, LaRouche wrote, 
was an old one: First, you "isolate and publicly degrade dangerous individuals." 
Once they are psychologically "broken," you "assimilate" them into your machine 
as "useful party hacks." LaRouche claimed that "any experienced leader in the 
socialist movement knows exactly how [such] 'brainwashing' is accomplished." 
But he boasted that he had personally resisted the process: "Healy was dealing 
with a person who knew all about that game; it didn't work out as he planned." 

LaRouche concluded that he could easily have won "hegemony" over the ACFI 
but for Healy's interference. "My commitments, temperament and creative 
abilities," he said, "seem to generate a certain amount of 'charisma.' " But he 
would need an organization of his own, with no rival gurus allowed. As for 
Trotskyism, it was basically dead. A viable revolutionary movement could only be 
launched "from scratch." LaRouche observed, "Once you have struggled free of 
the sewer, you do not jump back into it." 

He began to offer Marxist classes under the sponsorship of the Free School of 
New York. Its summer 1967 catalogue described his course on dialectical 
materialism as supposedly fulfilling "training requirements of revolutionary 
leadership cadres." LaRouche did not bother with the trendy theories of Herbert 
Marcuse or the simplistic essays of Chairman Mao. His students read the three 
volumes of Marx's Das Kapital. In preparation they studied Hegel, Kant, and 
Leibnitz. This was to winnow out all those lacking in a "passion for more profound 
scientific accomplishments." The ones who persisted were invited to daylong 
LaRouche seminars and were encouraged to do political organizing under his 
direction — "laboratory work," he called it. One of the first projects was a 
campaign against real estate speculators featuring the slogan "Tax Landlords, 
Not People." LaRouche meanwhile wrote The Third Stage of Imperialism, a 
pamphlet that warned about "cancerous speculative growth" in the U.S. 
economy. 



LaRouche targeted the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), wliicli liad 
become the activist organization on campuses from coast to coast. A lesser 
tactician would have charged in with his tiny band of disciples and challenged the 
existing tendencies head-on. Instead, LaRouche concentrated on enticing to his 
banner key members of SDS's most ideological element — the campus cadre of 
the Progressive Labor Party. 

The PLP was a Maoist group led by former members of the Communist Party 
USA. Its campus members and supporters had joined SDS in 1965 with the aim 
of taking control. Most SDS members were political novices, but those in the PLP 
had a coherent ideology, clarity of program, and the guidance of adults who 
understood how to manipulate loosely organized mass movements. By 1967 a 
few hundred PLP student enthusiasts across the country exerted much influence, 
in spite of the hostility of the SDS national office. 

The PLP had an Achilles' heel, however. This was its doctrine of the student- 
worker alliance — that campus radicals should take the antiwar movement and 
PLP ideology to the blue-collar working class. Although this strategy made sense 
from a Marxist point of view, it resulted in pressure on students to do things they 
didn't really want to do: get jobs in campus cafeterias, work in garment factories 
during the summer, and sell Challenge (the PLP newspaper) at factory gates. 
LaRouche offered a face-saving way out. Linking up with the working class is 
fine, he said, but it should be delayed until student cadres have mastered Das 
Kapital and Hegel's Science of Logic. In the meantime the student movement can 
best serve the masses by leafleting against landlords in neighborhoods around 
the campus. 

Initial contact with the PLP was established through a LaRouche disciple at 
Columbia who had several chums in the PLP — he had attended Great Neck 
South High School on Long Island with them. He persuaded them to attend one 
of LaRouche's classes. LaRouche was careful not to frighten them away with any 
frontal assaults on the PLP's doctrines. Instead he urged a united front around 
shared goals. Steve Fraser, who was one of the Great Neck PLPers, recalls how 
LaRouche's cerebral form of charisma gradually won them over. He said that 
LaRouche would lecture for hours, extemporaneously and almost nonstop. "He 
ranged over the widest imaginable intellectual landscape," Fraser said. "He 
would show how the tool-making capacity of monkeys was supposedly 
connected to the falling rate of profit. It was mind-boggling and thrilling. It also 
demanded a higher intellectual effort than I had ever faced, and a certain moral 
rigor . . . LaRouche challenged you existentially." 

In November 1967, LaRouche's disciples and several New York PLP members 
launched the "SDS Transit Project." The initial aim was to protest subway fare 
increases, but the group soon took on other issues. As the months passed, more 
PLP supporters were brought to LaRouche's classes and strategy sessions. 



When they began to raise his ideas at PLP meetings, they angered some of the 
more dogmatic members. But the PLP leadership hesitated to expel them. 

In the spring of 1968, demonstrations erupted at Columbia against the 
university's role in Pentagon research and its plan to build a gymnasium in 
Harlem's Morningside Park. Activists occupied several buildings, presented 
"nonnegotiable demands," and shut the university down. The event electrified 
students across the nation as they watched the spectacle of chanting protesters 
on TV against a colorful backdrop of red banners. It seemed to give symbolic 
form to their rage and romanticism. Thousands of students who knew nothing 
about Marxism began calling themselves SDS members and Marxists. SDS was 
transformed not only into a household name but also, briefly, into a formidable 
political force. 

Members of the PLP and the SDS Transit Committee were in the forefront of the 
Columbia strike. Tony Papert, chairman of Columbia PLP but heavily influenced 
by LaRouche, led the occupation of Low Library in support of black students 
barricaded in Hamilton Hall. When the police arrived he held out with a handful of 
associates, gradually attracting more and more students. Other buildings were 
seized, and the campus was effectively shut down. A strike steering committee 
was established, on which Papert and his friends wielded great influence. It 
seemed to the PLP's national leaders that the strike would become a PLP 
triumph, strengthening its hand within SDS nationally. But when the PLP 
leadership tried to give further instructions to their Columbia club, they 
discovered that LaRouche had most of the leverage. 

LaRouche himself kept a relatively low profile on campus as the strike 
approached its inevitable denouement, the famous charge by the NYPD's 
Tactical Police Force that routed the forces of Revolution. That summer, with the 
campus still sizzling, he taught Marxism at a fraternity house turned "liberation 
school." Gaunt, bushy-bearded, and attired in rumpled old clothes, he seemed 
the quintessential off-campus guru basking in the admiration of student rebels. 

Meanwhile, the PLP, having expelled Papert for "revisionism," found itself 
isolated within Columbia SDS. Control passed almost entirely into the hands of 
SDS chapter chairman Mark Rudd, who was close to the SDS national 
leadership. Rudd had cooperated at first with the Papert group, but had little 
sympathy for them. He built his own influence through flamboyant speeches and 
press interviews. A strong PLP organization could have handled him by 
emphasizing tactics and program, and did in fact prevent honcho-type leadership 
from emerging during several later campus rebellions. But the Papert group, 
which began calling itself the SDS Labor Committee, was unable to outmaneuver 
Rudd on its own. It thus began to operate independently of the Columbia SDS 
chapter, under LaRouche's direct command. 



The real significance of LaRouclie's recruitment of Papert and liis liandful of 
friends only became apparent during the following year. The student movement 
had entered its most volatile period during which — as the Columbia strike had 
shown — aggressive organizers could ignite campus-wide protests attracting 
thousands of previously moderate students. Often two or three such organizers 
on a campus could rapidly set up a strong new SDS chapter or gain dominance 
within an already existing one. Meanwhile, SDS's membership had grown to 
more than 50,000 nationwide while influencing hundreds of thousands of 
students indirectly. Yet it remained an amorphous organization in many ways. 
The conditions were thus favorable for the scattered but centrally directed 
organizers of the PLP to realize their goal of capturing SDS and becoming a 
pivotal force in the antiwar movement as a whole. 

During the 1968-69 school year, the PLP and the SDS national office waged a 
nationwide power struggle, preparing for the 1969 convention. The PLP's 
influence grew more rapidly than the national office's but not quite rapidly 
enough. LaRouche's raid had prevented the PLP from gaining national prestige 
from the Columbia strike and also had deprived it of several of its best campus 
organizers. For instance, Steve Fraser, whom the PLP sent to Philadelphia to 
take command of SDS, ended up joining LaRouche. When a major strike erupted 
at the University of Pennsylvania in early 1969, it was the Labor Committee, not 
the PLP, which ran the show. 

The result was that the PLP went into the 1969 Chicago convention without a 
solid majority. The mutual hostilities passed the point of no return and the PLP 
was forced to take over prematurely. It could not prevent the deposed leadership 
and a large minority from setting up a parallel organization — the "real" SDS. 
Although the latter soon fell apart, the PLP majority faction was unable to recover 
momentum. Isolated from the off-campus peace movement, SDS dwindled in 
size over the next two years. 

The main cause of the split was the sectarianism and ideological extremism of 
the two major factions, not the actions of LaRouche's followers, who were reviled 
as elitists by both camps. But LaRouche's 1967-68 raid on the PLP had definitely 
helped to tip the balance. It was his first lesson in how a small but adroitly led 
group, through the right tactics at the right time and place, can help to produce a 
"manifold shift" in the larger political arena. The lesson would hold him in good 
stead in his later forays into mainstream politics. 

LaRouche could never have influenced SDS without encouraging bold tactics, 
especially during the Columbia and University of Pennsylvania strikes. But when 
he and his followers were wooing the New Right in the early 1980s, they 
apparently felt an acute need to rewrite the history of their SDS involvement. A 
1983 LaRouchian pamphlet claimed that they had "agreed to penetrate" SDS in 
1967-68 in order to "discredit and neutralize the leftism emerging at that time." 



The pamphlet did not say who the other party to this agreement was, but strongly 
implied it was some government agency. 

The LaRouche organization did begin to cooperate with local police and the FBI 
in the mid-1970s. But former leading Labor Committee members say the idea of 
a "penetration operation," circa 1968, is preposterous. LaRouche's disciples 
entered SDS filled with revolutionary fervor. Their political strategy to develop 
"class-wide organizing" and "mass strikes" was second to none in its radical 
implications. While advocating militancy, they scrupulously avoided the 
provocateurish rhetoric and deeds that were the hallmark of police infiltrators. 

In fact, the LaRouchians were themselves the target of government surveillance 
and harassment. The FBI's COINTELPRO operatives produced a leaflet entitled 
"The Mouse Crap Revolution" aimed at discrediting Tony Papert among 
Columbia students and driving a wedge between the Labor Committee and other 
factions. In Philadelphia the FBI and the local police Red Squad engaged in a 
classic frame-up of Steve Fraser. Explosives were planted in his refrigerator, and 
he was charged with plotting to blow up the Liberty Bell. (The indictment, which 
drew heavy fire from civil libertarians, was eventually dismissed.) 

The most telling refutation of the penetration-agent myth comes in a complaint 
the LaRouchians themselves filed in 1982 in a federal court lawsuit against the 
FBI. It describes "constant and intrusive" visits by federal agents to NCLC 
members' employers and landlords, hundreds of arrests on petty matters such as 
street-corner soliciting, the use of police informers to infiltrate the organization, 
and the compiling of over 25,000 pages of surveillance files. All of this was 
supposed to have taken place between 1968 and 1976. If LaRouche was a 
government agent, he was being provided with as much cover as the Howard 
Hughes-CIA Glomar expedition! 

In the wake of the SDS split, LaRouche picked up recruits sick of faction fights 
and mindless slogans. Already his followers were organizing independently of 
SDS under a new name, the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC). By 
1973 the NCLC had over six hundred hard-core members in twenty-five cities 
and the most literate paper on the far left. New Solidarity. LaRouche also had 
attracted a small following in Europe, chiefly in West Berlin and Stockholm. 

He centralized the organization and began purging those of independent mind. 
First to get the ax, in 1 971 , were the "Bavarians," a dissident circle whose chief 
spokesman was Steve Fraser. LaRouche then surrounded himself with 
individuals willing to carry out his every whim. Most important were Konstandinos 
(Gus) Kalimtgis ("Gus Axios" or "Costas Axios") and Criton Zoakos ("Nick 
Syvriotis"), former members of a left-wing Greek exile sect. Together with a third 
crony, Andy Typaldos ("Andreas Reniotis"), they became known as LaRouche's 
"Greek mafia" and served as his key lieutenants for almost a decade. NCLC 
members developed their own cultish jargon — e.g., "creative mentation," "class- 



for-itself," "left hegemony," "Promethean hubris." Many dropped out of school or 
quit their jobs to organize full-time. Often they cut themselves off from family and 
friends, reordering their lives totally around the NCLC. They came to believe that 
the Revolution was just around the corner: The NCLC would seize control of 
most major American trade unions within six months, overthrow the government 
within the decade, and rule the world by the year 2000. To hasten the process 
they began disrupting meetings of other groups, seizing the microphone to give 
vehement speeches to the effect that everyone except themselves was working 
for the CIA. 

Other SDS offshoots were behaving even more strangely as the exhilarating 
days of campus rebellion receded. The Weathermen worked themselves into a 
frenzy via ultra-fanatical indoctrination sessions, then dove underground to make 
bombs. The Revolutionary Union built a personality cult around Chairman Bob 
Avakian, who later fled to Paris claiming the ruling class was about to kill him. 
The PLP marched through Boston's streets with sticks and Communist T-shirts to 
combat the supposedly imminent threat of fascism. 

Most of the ultraleft sects of the early 1970s adhered to standard variations of 
Marxist-Leninist doctrine. But LaRouche injected into the NCLC a conspiracy 
theory of politics quite different from anything in the Marxist tradition. In its early 
stages, before he latched on to hardcore anti-Semitism, this theory held that the 
Rockefeller family, through its alleged control of the CIA and a vast network of 
agents on every level of society, was responsible for most of the world's ills. The 
Rockefellers, LaRouche taught, were plotting a nuclear holocaust. Time was 
running out. The world's fate rested on the shoulders of the tiny NCLC. Anyone 
who couldn't see this was part of the plot. Soon the NCLC's enemies list, like that 
of Richard Nixon, was burgeoning. It included not only most of the Establishment 
but also NCLC defectors, leaders of rival sects, and distinguished scholars 
whose only apparent sin was their refusal to recognize LaRouche's genius. 

Such fanaticism, however, was sharply at variance with the flashes of 
Machiavellian cynicism that began to appear in LaRouche's own writings. In a 
1970 essay on the dog-eat-dog world of left-wing factionalism, he observed that 
ideology is mostly "designed for the purpose of deceiving — usually to deceive the 
authors above all others." He added that most leftist honchos operate on the 
hope that their "credulous followers and opponents" can be suckered into 
accepting a given factional position at face value. In reality, LaRouche argued, 
the typical leftist leader "says in print and public debate that with which he wishes 
to conceal his actual practice." 

LaRouche put this theory of deception and manipulation to the test. In the spring 
of 1973, he launched his followers on the most extraordinary odyssey in the 
history of American extremism: a journey to the farthest limits of the left and from 
thence, by circuitous paths, to the outermost reaches of the right. 



CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Three 
Operation Mop Up 



LaRouche's writings in the late 1960s displayed an intense curiosity about the 
history and methods of European fascism. His research, so his followers thought, 
was aimed at learning how to prei/enMascism. But his analysis differed in subtle 
ways from that of other leftists. One of the first observers to spot something 
amiss was his old rival Tim Wohlforth. In a 1968 article, Wohlforth noted 
LaRouche's "preposterous theory" that the Nazi's murder of six million Jews had 
been motivated solely by economics. "It seems," wrote Wohlforth, "that when [the 
Nazis] worked the Jews to a point where there was no labor power left in them, 
they simply sent them to the gas chambers to save the cost of upkeep for 
unproductive slaves." Wohlforth saw LaRouche's theory as just a one-sided 
analysis of Nazi motives. He didn't suspect that LaRouche one day would 
develop his own brand of fascism. 

In 1971, LaRouche published a major article on the prospects for fascist base 
building in America, Only with a mass base, he observed, could a "storm trooper" 
organization have "saleable qualities" that might attract support from "leading 
governmental and financial interests." He predicted that such a movement would 
emerge soon on the basis of a "populist" ideology and diverse appeals to rival 
ethnic groups. This movement would begin to furnish the capitalists with gangs to 
"break strikes and break up socialist and union meetings." Although at first it 
might include fascist-minded Jews, it would sooner or later turn on the Jewish 
community. The Jews, LaRouche observed, were "a most visible and thus 'ripe' " 
candidate for the role of scapegoat. 

LaRouche also predicted that a new type of left-wing group, defined as "left- 
protofascist," would take part in the street violence on the side of overtly right- 
wing ethnic fascists. In subsequent articles he examined how the alleged 
controllers of fascism, the American capitalist class, might use advanced 
brainwashing techniques to transform leftist college students into precisely this 
type of left-fascist "zombie." He meanwhile began to teach his own leftist 
followers to regard themselves as "Prometheans," an elite far above the rest of 
humanity, 

LaRouche's implication was clear: The NCLC must learn from fascism and adopt 
some of fascism's tactics. But his followers still regarded themselves as good 
Marxists (in spite of their elitist pretensions) and retained a visceral hatred of 
fascism. If LaRouche wanted to steer them to the right, he would have to turn the 
NCLC into a controlled environment for ideological reeducation — a political cult. 



The NCLC's transformation occurred in tliree overlapping stages during 1973-74. 
First, LaRouclie ordered liis followers into the streets for a campaign of savage 
attacks on rival leftist groups called Operation Mop Up. This forced them to either 
deepen their commitment or get out. It also isolated them irrevocably from the 
rest of the left. 

Second, LaRouche staged "ego-stripping" sessions at NCLC meetings, instilling 
in his followers a sense of shame over any ideological wavering or lack of 
courage they might have displayed during Mop Up. 

Finally, he whipped up an atmosphere of hysteria inside the NCLC based on 
allegations of an assassination plot aimed against himself. The acceptance of 
these bizarre allegations severed most of the remaining links between NCLC 
members and everyday reality. 

Operation Mop Up was preceded by months of squabbling between the NCLC 
and the Communist Party USA. NCLC members had frequently disrupted CP 
meetings with long harangues from the floor. The CP began tossing them out 
and published articles alleging that they were government agents. Matters 
escalated in early 1973 when the NCLC announced a conference in Philadelphia 
to build a national organization for welfare recipients and the unemployed. CP 
members and other local activists started a campaign to discredit the conference, 
calling its NCLC organizers racists as well as agents. The NCLC leadership was 
furious. A New Solidarity front-page editorial, entitled "Deadly Crisis for CPUSA," 
warned the CP that if it didn't back off it would face an all-out counterattack. The 
CP failed to take the threat seriously. 

On the conference's opening day the anti-NCLC coalition sent a sound truck 
through the black community and staged a picket line with signs comparing the 
NCLC to the Ku Klux Klan. This failed to stop the event, which was attended by 
several hundred white middle-class activists and a handful of welfare mothers. 
The harassment did, however, give LaRouche the pretext he needed. He called 
an emergency meeting of the East Coast NCLC. "From here on in," he declared, 
"the CP cannot hold a meeting on the East Coast . . . We'll mop them up in two 
months." The NCLC, he promised, would seize "hegemony" on the left — i.e., 
replace the CP as the dominant organization. 

Many NCLC members were shocked and frightened by LaRouche's 
announcement, but he anticipated their reluctance: "I know you better than you 
know yourselves, and for the most part you're full of crap," he said. "This isn't a 
debating society anymore." 

A front-page New Solidarity editorial, "Operation Mop Up: The Class Struggle Is 
for Keeps," echoed LaRouche's call. "We must dispose of this stinking corpse 
[the CP]," the editorial said, "to ensure that it cannot act as a host for maggots 
and other parasites preparing future scabby Nixonite attacks on the working 



class. ... If we were to vacillate ... we would be guilty of betraying the human 
race. Our job is to pulverize the Communist Party." 

Meanwhile, the NCLC leadership prepared an extraordinary psycho-theological 
document, "The CP Within Us," to bolster morale. The key to winning Mop Up, it 
argued, was to expunge the inner voice of cowardice and hesitation (i.e., the CP) 
within each NCLC member. 

Months prior to Mop Up, LaRouche had ordered the most physically agile NCLC 
members to undergo training for street fighting. This training was now stepped 
up. Members were organized into flying squads armed with metal pipes, clubs, 
and nunchukas (Okinawan martial arts devices consisting of two sticks attached 
by a chain). The idea was to go into action as mini-phalanxes with the nunchuka 
wielders in the center. 

Mop Up began in New York, and spread to Philadelphia, Buffalo, Detroit, and 
other cities. Attackers were sometimes brought from out of town so their faces 
wouldn't be recognized. In several cities they broke up public meetings and 
invaded leftist bookstores, beating anyone who tried to bar their way. In New 
York they ambushed individual CP leaders on the street. In Detroit they 
administered a savage beating to a partially paralyzed left-wing activist on 
crutches. In Philadelphia, twenty-five to thirty NCLC members raided a meeting 
of the Public Workers Action Caucus. "The steps were a mass of blood," said a 
PWAC activist. "As soon as I walked out I was hit by a pole," Although no one 
was critically injured in any of the attacks, several were hospitalized with broken 
bones and many required medical treatment for cuts and bruises. 

The NCLC rhetoric kept pace with the attacks. "The red Communist Party has 
turned into a den of yellow cowards," announced a LaRouche spokesman in 
Philadelphia. "CP Recruiting Pallbearers for Its Own Funeral," blared a headline 
in the April 30 New Solidarity. 

When members of the Socialist Workers Party and other Trotskyist groups came 
forward to defend the CP despite past differences, the NCLC responded with an 
announcement that henceforth the Trotskyists would be fair game. Undeterred, 
dozens of SWP supporters showed up to guard the CP's New York mayoral 
candidate, Rasheed Storey, after the NCLC announced it would break up a 
speech he was scheduled to give at Columbia. Doug Jenness, a member of the 
defense squad, recalls that about forty LaRouchians "filtered into the hall, some 
wearing leather jackets. They had staves concealed under blankets. When 
Storey started speaking, they stood up and moved forward, putting on brass 
knuckles and displaying nunchukas." Storey and other speakers were whisked 
out the back. The battle then began in earnest. Although the NCLC was finally 
driven from the hall, six members of the defense squad required treatment. 



An unsigned front-page New Solidarity article, "Their Morals and Ours" (named 
after an anti-Stalinist treatise by Trotsky), expressed anger at the attitude of 
LaRouche's former Trotskyist comrades. The SWP, the article complained, "has 
been saying, 'Smash the Communist Party' for almost forty years, yet when some 
left organization proceeds to actually smash the CP, the SWP leaders and 
members roll their glazed eyes heavenward, expecting the entire galaxy to fall 
upon them." 

"Their Morals and Ours" revealed the tactical thinking behind Mop Up. It boasted 
that fifty NCLC members could "rout" three hundred CP members and that the 
CP would have to mobilize at least six times as many fighters to even become a 
"serious obstacle." 

This bravado strongly resembled the passage in Mein Kampf'\r\ which Hitler, 
describing an altercation between Nazis and leftists in a Munich meeting hall in 
1 921 , crowed that "our enemies, who must have numbered seven and eight 
hundred men, [were] beaten out of the hall and chased down the stairs by my 
men numbering not even fifty." 

"Their Morals and Ours" also said that destroying the CP meant showing that it 
was "a 'paper tiger,' rightfully an object of pitying contempt in the eyes of the 
working person." This idea was further developed in another New Solidarity 
article: "All those mighty 'Communists' can do is hide behind the nightsticks of the 
local police, while publishing tear-jerking accounts of their own casualties." 

Again, there is a similar formulation in Mein Kampf: "Any meeting which is 
protected exclusively by the police discredits its organizers in the eyes of the 
broad masses. ... [A] heroic movement will sooner win the heart of a people 
than a cowardly one which is kept alive only by police protection." 

Such parallels did not go entirely unnoticed within the NCLC. Christine Berl, one 
of LaRouche's top disciples (who quit the following year), recalls that she was 
assigned to prepare a report for a 1973 NCLC conference on how Hitler built up 
the Nazi Party. "It scared me," she says. "I began to see it was the very tactics 
Lyn was using." Berl says that she presented her doubts in the form of a puzzle: 
How do we distinguish ourselves from the Nazis? The audience was unable to 
give a clear answer. 

New York in 1 973 was hardly comparable to Munich in 1 931 . There were no 
Freikorps veterans and ruined shopkeepers to flock to LaRouche's banner. And 
his street fighters were middle-class intellectuals, not desperate lumpen 
proletarians. Indeed the majority of them were not fighters at all. Most Mop Up 
attacks were carried out by just a few dozen persons. Even the most enthusiastic 
of these became nervous as the CP and SWP fought back, their defense squads 
often outnumbering the attackers. "I pissed blood for a month," recalls a female 
NCLC member who was injured while charging a Detroit SWP rally. The Chicago 



regional NCLC sent a memo to New York stating tliat it wasn't strong enougli to 
"deal directly" with the CP. Would the leadership send "defense reinforcements"? 
Until such reinforcements arrived, the Chicago organization would keep most of 
its activities "low-key or underground," the memo said. By May, the NCLC 
leadership was finding it difficult to whip up enthusiasm for fresh attacks even in 
New York. 

It is widely believed among leftists that the police in some cities encouraged Mop 
Up. This suspicion is understandable in light of well-documented police 
harassment of left-wing groups in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But former 
LaRouchians who participated in Mop Up say they don't recall any police 
encouragement. At the time, the NCLC regarded the police as the enemy, acting 
in cahoots with the CP and the SWP to repress the true forces of Revolution. 
This view was vehemently expressed in the pages of New Solidarity as the police 
cracked down on Mop Up in city after city. Several NCLC members were 
arrested in Philadelphia, including a top LaRouche aide. More were arrested in 
Boston. In Buffalo felony indictments brought the local Mop Up to a grinding halt. 
In New York City two NCLC members were charged with second-degree assault 
and possession of a deadly instrument after they attacked black CP leader Ron 
Tyson. One of Tyson's attackers was rearrested a week later for assaulting an 
SWP member. 

The only evidence of a law enforcement role in Mop Up points not to local police 
but to the FBI. The findings of a federal judge in an SWP lawsuit against the FBI 
suggest that once Mop Up was under way, the bureau's New York office 
attempted to aggravate it as part of a campaign of anonymous mailings and other 
malicious pranks to keep leftist sects at each other's throats. Federal Judge 
Charles D. Breitel of the Southern District of New York reviewed classified FBI 
files in 1979 as a court-appointed Special Master acting for plaintiff SWP. His 
report noted that a letter had been sent to the NCLC during Mop Up listing the 
names, home telephone numbers, and addresses of SWP members. "Unless the 
Government is prepared to allow disclosure of all information" in the deleted part 
of the file, Breitel ruled, "it should be conclusively presumed that the letter was 
sent by the FBI . . ." 

LaRouche knew just how far he could push Mop Up. Before the stalemate with 
the CP could turn into a rout for his followers, he declared victory and called 
everything off. In fact. Mop Up did no real political harm to the CP. A few 
meetings were canceled in the first weeks, but thereafter the CP continued its 
normal activities behind a screen of defense squads. However, Mop Up was a 
great success for LaRouche. It induced his followers to believe that those they 
had attacked, and who had fought back, were permanently the enemy. No longer 
were non-NCLC leftists seen as rivals within a common Marxist tradition. They 
had become unredeemable devils, traitors to the working class, subhuman police 
agents, fascists. Mop Up thus marked a bizarre new stage in the NCLC's political 
evolution — the stage of antifascist fascism. 



CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 

Chapter Four 

The Great Manchurian Candidate Scare 

In the summer of 1973, LaRouche began sessions of what he called "ego- 
stripping." He suggested this would cure his followers of the cowardice and 
bourgeois moral qualms they had displayed during Mop Up. The big problem with 
most NCLC members, he said, was their psychosexual fears. LaRouche 
proposed to use fear to fight fear: 

"I am going to make you organizers — by taking your bedrooms away from you . . 
." he announced. "What I shall do is to expose to you the cruel fact of your sexual 
impotence ... I will take away from you all hope that you can flee the terrors of 
politics to the safety of 'personal life.' I shall do this by showing to you that your 
frightened personal sexual life contains for you such terrors as the outside world 
could never offer you. I will thus destroy your rabbit-holes, mental as well as 
physical. I shall destroy your sense of safety in the place to which you ordinarily 
imagine you can flee. I shall not pull you back from fleeing, but rather destroy the 
place to which you would attempt to flee." 

The ego-stripping sessions were similar to the confrontational therapy practiced 
by psychological cults. LaRouche would pick an NCLC member at random, or 
perhaps one who had failed at some political assignment. The group would heap 
nonstop attacks on every aspect of the victim's behavior. Supposedly it was a 
sign of psychic liberation if he or she broke down and started sobbing 
hysterically. LaRouche said this was the way in which the individual "abruptly 
'breaks free' as if from a drugged state; a sudden personality change occurs, in 
which the group sees the real person come forth, assume control of himself, or 
herself, and bring the ego-state under control." Thus ego-stripping was "an act of 
social love." 

Christine Berl, who participated in these sessions, gives a different view. The so- 
called social love, she writes, was "pure psychological terror" and resulted in an 
extreme form of "depersonalization." The T-group members were "transformed 
into sniveling informers vying with each other for [LaRouche's] approval. Even 
couples were encouraged to 'inform' on each other's 'progress,' particularly by 
singling out any behavior that could be construed as apolitical, or that was 
suspected of being 'resistant' to the aims of the sessions." 

LaRouche took to calling himself Der Abscheulicher {the Abominable One). 
Along with the ego-stripping, he began to instill in his followers an outlook of all- 



pervasive paranoia. In tine unconscious mind, lie warned, tliere lurked dark 
forces producing impotence, homosexuality, zombie states, madness. These "pit 
creatures" would destroy anyone who let his or her guard down. Meanwhile, in 
the outside world. Rockefeller, the CIA, and a vast network of secret agents and 
assassins were poised to attack at any moment. Safety could be attained only by 
following LaRouche's every command, replicating his thoughts and remaking 
oneself in his image. 

Some NCLC members were unconvinced of this, despite their deep admiration 
for LaRouche's intellectual abilities. Matters came to a head in January 1974, 
when LaRouche seized upon a fantasy that united the demons of the 
unconscious mind and the assassins of the outside world into a single horrifying 
vision. This was the Great Manchurian Candidate Scare, which wiped the slate 
clean of skepticism among the members and completed their transformation into 
a totalitarian political cult. 

The prologue to this momentous event took place in the summer of 1973, when 
LaRouche traveled to West Germany to meet with members of the European 
Labor Committees, a newly formed NCLC affiliate. In early August, LaRouchians 
in the United States began to read in New Solidarity how Konstantin George, a 
member of the German organization, had been drugged and brainwashed by the 
East German secret police while visiting a girlfriend in East Berlin. George had 
then been sent back over the wall, so the story went, to spy on the European 
Labor Committees and finger LaRouche for assassination by a KGB-CIA hit 
team. The plot was foiled when LaRouche recognized the symptoms of 
brainwashing in George's behavior, and deprogrammed him using techniques 
"absolutely unprecedented in 'psychological science.' " The details of these 
techniques were not revealed, but NCLC members were warned to be on the 
lookout for other brainwashing victims. 

The George affair did not unduly alarm the NCLC membership. Not only was the 
story extremely confused, but also a rumor was rampant that George had denied 
it all. Real fear seized the organization only after LaRouche announced the 
uncovering of a second zombie — a Manchurian Candidate in every respect — 
Christopher White, a twenty-six-year-old NCLC member and British national who 
had earned the personal resentment of LaRouche. In 1972, Carol Schnitzer had 
left LaRouche and married White, who was ten years her junior. The Whites had 
withdrawn to London, promising to organize a British NCLC branch. 

In December 1 973, LaRouche ordered them to return to New York for an NCLC 
year-end conference. White had good reason to feel nervous about this. He had 
done a poor job of organizing the British branch, and was a prime candidate for 
ego-stripping even apart from the love triangle. During the flight over the Atlantic, 
he viewed the film Trinity. According to his recollection of the plot (in an article he 
wrote two months later), the hero has a girlfriend "at least ten years older than 
himself." She is murdered, and the hero then arranges the execution of a "rather 



paternal figure." White became increasingly agitated. When the plane landed, he 
began to shout that the CIA was planning to kill both his wife and LaRouche. 

Instead of calling a doctor, Carol called LaRouche. Chris was rushed into a 
deprogramming session at LaRouche's apartment. LaRouche's security aides 
and Dr, Gene Inch, a physician and NCLC member, rushed to the scene. 
Meanwhile, members from across the country had gathered in New York for the 
conference. The suspense began to mount as alarming rumors emanated from 
LaRouche's apartment. It was said that White had been tortured and 
brainwashed in a London basement by the CIA and British intelligence, who had 
programmed him first to kill his wife upon the utterance of a trigger word and then 
to finger LaRouche for assassination by Cuban exile frogmen. 

LaRouche mobilized the entire NCLC. They passed out fliers on a massive scale 
in New York and other cities, describing White's alleged tortures in lurid detail. 
The national office issued over forty press releases in a two-week period. 
LaRouche and the Whites filed a complaint with the United Nations Commission 
on Human Rights and launched a lawsuit against the CIA. NCLC members 
frantically solicited their parents and friends to serve on an Emergency 
Commission of Inquiry. 

LaRouche's proof for the story was his tapes of the deprogramming. But New 
York Times reporter Paul Montgomery listened to them and gathered only that 
White was emotionally distraught. "There are sounds of weeping and vomiting," 
Montgomery wrote. "Mr. White complains of being deprived of sleep, food and 
cigarettes .... There is also what appears to be an attempt to hypnotize Mr. 
White." Montgomery wrote that at one point, after White failed to contradict one 
of LaRouche's suggestions, LaRouche exclaimed, "Now do you see Carol? Do 
you believe?" At another point. White complained of a pain in his arm. When 
LaRouche said the pain was merely part of the "program," White suddenly 
shouted: "The pain is real ... I have to tell you what's real and stop this crazy 
fantasy world. Because it's not my fantasy." 

The NCLC brought in three psychiatrists. None would substantiate the 
Manchurian Candidate story. Dr. Israel Samuelly suggested that White was 
suffering from "schizophrenic catatonia with paranoiac features." Most of the 
persons listed on the Emergency Commission either quit or said they had never 
agreed to serve in the first place. 

Within the NCLC, the atmosphere of hysteria was so intense that facts didn't 
matter. LaRouche drilled his followers on what each could expect if kidnapped by 
the CIA: "When they really start the heavy programming," he said, "first of all they 
give you heavy electric shock, f/eavy electric shock. . . . 

"But then, you know what they do to you? It's not the pain that brainwashes 
people. 



"What kills you is when you eat excrement as a way of inducing your torturer to 
lay off the pain. In permitting a bottle to be inserted in your anus and sitting on it 
on a chair for hours while interrogation continues, as a way of avoiding greater 
pain. Lying on the floor and whining like a puppy, as a way of getting your 
torturers to lay off. Or permitting yourself to be subjected to homosexual rape, 
oral and anal. . . . They say your father was nothing, your father was a queer, 
your father was a woman. . . ." 

As for the skeptics in his audience, LaRouche cried, "Any of you who say this is a 
hoax — you're crudsl You're subhumanl You're not serious. The human race is at 
stake. Either we win or there is no humanity." 

New Solidarity followed up with an editorial entitled "Will You Eat Shit for 
Rockefeller's CIA?" It warned that the enemy would use "every form of 
degradation known to man." During the next few weeks, each NCLC member 
was terrified that he or she had been brainwashed. (LaRouche emphasized that 
the victims would have total amnesia about the experience — until the moment of 
utterance of the fatal trigger word.) The leadership was flooded with requests for 
deprogramming from those who found themselves harboring vaguely murderous 
thoughts about LaRouche. One member went berserk, screaming, "Cancel me! 
Cancel me!" and had to be hospitalized. According to LaRouche, this individual's 
"code barrier" had gone out of control. 

The hysteria prompted the issuance of an "intake procedure" manual by Carol 
White. "The brainwashed comrade's version of events should be taken down," 
Mrs. White wrote, "and particular attention should be paid to his fantasies — 
reference to witches, devils, sensitivity to hissing sounds. . ." 

Predictably, any member who expressed skepticism became immediately 
suspect. Christine Berl called the story hogwash and withdrew from any active 
role in the leadership. LaRouche said that the CIA, acting through her boyfriend, 
had taken over her mind. A friend warned her that a plot was afoot to kidnap and 
deprogram her — to liberate her from her brainwashed condition. They waited 
outside her door, but she didn't come out. Less fortunate was Alice Weitzman, 
also a skeptic, who was held captive in her apartment and forced to listen to 
Beethoven at high volume — a deprogramming technique suggested by 
LaRouche. Weitzman managed to throw a note out the window. A passerby 
picked it up and alerted the police. When officers went to the apartment, they 
heard screams, forced their way in, and freed her. Later that day, they arrested 
six NCLC members on kidnapping charges. (The case was ultimately dismissed 
after Weitzman refused to press charges.) 

NCLC security chief Jose Torres was another skeptic. "The spook stuff [went] on 
for weeks," he recalls, "and for that time I was the functioning head of the LC 
because nobody would do shit." Torres decided he'd had enough. "I [took] Chris 
White aside and said, 'Do you know who I am?' And he said, 'Yes, I know you.' I 



said, 'Look, I'm going to bust you up riglit now if you give me any bullsliit about 
being brainwaslied because you weren't brainwaslied so winy tine fuck did you 
put us on like this?' And he said, 'It's too late to turn back now.' He couldn't back 
out now, it was all crap, all of it." 

Torres says he told LaRouche about this, but LaRouche dismissed it as part of 
White's brainwashing. Torres later concluded that White had known "exactly what 
he was doing" and had been motivated by a desire to avoid a psychological 
dressing-down. Says Torres: "White knew how Konstantin George had been 
deemed a victim of brainwashing and forgiven. So why not be brainwashed? He 
did it, and... Lyn... believed him and that was all it took. ... He just kept feeding 
Lyn, and Lyn constructs the whole big thing out of it." 

At the time, an NCLC leaflet described the deprogramming of White as "opening 
up a whole new area of psychology — the solution to psychosis." But LaRouche 
apparently decided in later years that the incident was best forgotten. His 1979 
and 1987 autobiographies, although boastful about his alleged discoveries in 
many fields of knowledge, are silent about his cure for psychosis. 

Most NCLC defectors agree with Jose Torres that LaRouche appeared genuinely 
spooked during the Chris White affair. They point out that on several later 
occasions LaRouche's belief in being a target of assassination seemed to fill an 
inner need. Yet the frequent security alerts to protect LaRouche also serve an 
extremely practical goal: They keep the NCLC membership in a state of mindless 
hysteria, scrambling frantically to raise money for LaRouche's coffers. 

Various articles and speeches at the time by LaRouche and top aides suggested 
a high degree of calculated behavior. fFOOTNOTE 1] Key passages dealt with 
the psychological weaknesses of the NCLC membership, their vulnerability to 
brainwashing, and the various manipulative techniques that might be used on 
them (for instance, playing on fears of homosexuality and triggering an infectious 
group paranoia). Although these methods were described — as in LaRouche's 
January 3, 1974 speech — as something the CIA was planning, they bore an 
uncanny resemblance to what LaRouche himself was doing to the NCLC 
membership. 

To brainwash someone (so the LaRouchian theory went), it is first necessary to 
"terrorize" him into regarding "the entire world as a police-controlled 
environment." This was done during the Chris White affair, when many members 
believed themselves in imminent danger of being picked up by the CIA and/or the 
New York City police for tortures worse than death. The victim must believe the 
entire world is falling apart and that he himself is personally to blame. This was 
also done: NCLC members were told that if they didn't stop the CIA conspiracy, 
the entire human race would die — and they\N0u\6 be responsible. Finally, the 
victim must be placed in a controlled environment, an artificial family. This, too, 
corresponds to life in the NCLC. ■ 



LaRouche also described brainwashing as a system of doubletliink, or metalogic, 
by wliicli a person comes to believe that it is not he but the rest of the world that 
is brainwashed. "The victim's sense of reality is turned inside out," he explained. 
Christine Berl and Alice Weitzman accused him of brainwashing the 
membership, he said, because the CIA had brainwashed them to say this. 

The doublethink during the Chris White affair went far beyond anything during 
Mop Up. Thus leading NCLC members who had readily supported Mop Up, such 
as Berl and Torres, challenged LaRouche's credibility during the spring of 1974. 
They had believed in Mop Up because it possessed at least a veneer of rational 
justification: CP members indeed had assaulted NCLC members and spread 
exaggerated accusations about them on several prior occasions. Berl and Torres 
thus could convince themselves that the CP was a counterinsurgency force 
standing in the way of Revolution. But the Chris White story had no empirical 
basis at all. It required a leap of faith, not just contorted logic. NCLC members 
with a strong sense of reality found it intolerable. One by one during 1974 they 
defected. 

Those who remained were capable of believing in anything LaRouche might 
suggest, even neo-Nazism. 



[1] LaRouche knew exactly what he was doing, according to Dr. Fred Newman, a 
Stanford University-trained logician-turned-Marxist-activist who worked with the 
NCLC during the Manchurian Candidate Scare. Newman was the author of 
Explanation by Description (1 968), a study of how we believe what we believe. 
After splitting with the NCLC in mid-1974, he wrote a pamphlet analyzing how 
LaRouchians believe what LaRouchians believe. He charged that LaRouche had 
a "systematic plan" to transform his followers' ordinary middle-class values into 
an explicitly fascist consciousness, chiefly through the generating of an artificial 
paranoia at every level of the organization. (Newman went on to build his own 
political cult, the New Alliance Party, which through the years has mimicked 
LaRouche's tactics to an uncanny degree.) 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Five 

The Beethoven Gang 



One would think that the many black, Hispanic, and Jewish members in the 
NCLC would have become an embarrassment to LaRouche as he swung to the 
ultraright. But he developed his own unique viewpoint on the relationship 
between ethnic minorities and fascism. 

In a 1971 essay, still writing from an ostensibly Marxist perspective, LaRouche 
tried to imagine how fascism might come to America. He looked at Rabbi Meir 
Kahane's Jewish Defense League, Joe Colombo's Italian-American Civil Rights 
League, George Wallace's American Party, and various black-nationalist groups. 
These, LaRouche argued, were the germs of a uniquely American fascism. 
America is an "ethnic-cultural polyglot," and a powerful fascist base can't be built 
on one ethnic community alone. A successful U.S. fascism must include 
multiethnic alliances different from anything in Hitler's lexicon. 

LaRouche predicted that the "mutually segregated" ethnic fascist groups would 
join with youth from the drug/rock counterculture in a "common front" around a 
"populist" cover ideology. This coalition would launch the "direct street-battle 
between socialism and fascism," growing into "the sort of large organization 
which U.S. fascism must become to be taken seriously." 

He was aware that a fascist movement embracing white Christian ethnics, Jews, 
blacks, and Hispanics, even in segregated units, would seem to be a strange 
combination. But was it not fascism's nature to unite apparent opposites? (The 
NCLC acted on this principle in later years when it attempted, unsuccessfully, to 
unite elements of the KKK, the Black Muslims, the Jewish Defense League, and 
mob-linked labor racketeers under its leadership.) 

The first application of "ethnic fascism" came in 1973, when the NCLC set out to 
organize street-fighting units, fascist in all but name, among black and Hispanic 
ghetto youth. LaRouche first alluded to this idea in his April 1973 speech 
announcing Operation Mop Up. "You think this CP stuff [Mop Up] is scary?" he 
asked. "Well, I'll tell you something that's really gonna scare you. In a few months 
we're gonna have 10,000 enraged ghetto youth, we're gonna organize street 
gangs. . . " 

At an NCLC convention in late May he launched the Revolutionary Youth 
Movement (RYM), which he said would be a "paramilitary organization" reaching 
out to the type of ghetto youth who believe they can "make it as Superfly." It 
would "cut through" their "hustle" mentality and organize them on the basis of 



"what they really feel underneath," their feelings of despair and of "increasingly 
pure rage." RYM would teach them that rage is not just "robbing the corner candy 
store." Rage is the determination to "take it all" — to seize control of America in 
alliance with other enraged groups. 

LaRouche predicted that his message would "spread like wildfire" in the ghetto. 
Thousands would join RYM, where they would learn military discipline and 
revolutionary theory. "These youth will be able to debate philosophers," he 
boasted. 

During that summer and fall, NCLC's small cohort of college-educated blacks, 
wearing Black Panther-style leather jackets and sunglasses, fanned out to 
Manhattan's Lower East Side, Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant, Newark's Central 
Ward, and other poor neighborhoods. The message was that gang members 
could become "Prometheans" — like Zeke Boyd, a former Panther and the token 
black on the NCLC security staff. 

LaRouche's organizers developed ties with the Outlaws, reportedly the largest 
gang in Bedford-Stuyvesant. New Solidarity said the Outlaws were a peaceful 
bunch attending RYM classes to learn to appreciate classical music. According to 
Christine Berl, this was not entirely accurate. "I gave the Beethoven class," she 
recalls. "They had guns in the room." 

The NCLC tried to persuade RYM members to reject the subculture of the 
streets. A black NCLC member told The Village Voice that ghetto youth "spend 
their time practicing the jungle boogie. . . . They look like they're masturbating in 
public. I tell these kids I don't want to talk to them until they're human." Tolerance 
was never the NCLC's strong point. But like Marine recruits, the RYM members 
accepted this drill-instructor message without taking offense. The leader of the 
Outlaws, twenty-one-year-old Tea, said that if RYM was "ever ready to fight the 
government and pick up guns, the Outlaws will be right behind them." 

A former LaRouchian, Dan Jacobs, writes that the RYM project was doomed to 
failure because the NCLC was never willing to accept the ghetto youth as 
anything more than exotic auxiliaries to stand around and look tough at rallies. 

But the New York Police Department was not about to tolerate "red gangs," as 
LaRouche called them. It came down hard on RYM, arresting Tea, Tango, Sly, 
Ace, and others on charges including attempted murder, robbery, and illegal 
weapons possession. RYM members also were arrested in Newark and 
Philadelphia. New Solidarity complained in article after article that the arrests 
were politically motivated, but the NCLC was politically too isolated to mount an 
effective defense. RYM members became disillusioned and dropped away. 

At the same time NCLC members were learning to talk out of both sides of the 
mouth. While RYM organizers urged ghetto youth to "take it all," New Solidarity 



editorials sent a very different message to etiinic wliites: "Soon, you will lose your 
job — probably to a "welfare loafer,' a methadone-crazed dope-fiend . . . some 
gang member brought in from a ghetto neighborhood." The NCLC also physically 
attacked black activists and disseminated blatantly racist propaganda. This 
began during Mop Up, when blacks were priority targets. A black CP leader was 
assaulted on the street near party headquarters in Manhattan. A CP meeting in 
Harlem was terrorized by a contingent wearing hockey helmets. A meeting of the 
Martin Luther King Coalition in Buffalo was attacked by an all-white Mop Up 
squad, which beat up several people. New Solidarity meanwhile carried 
headlines such as "CP Turns Rebels into Niggers" and bestowed demeaning 
nicknames on black CP members — e.g., "Ron 'Race Riot' Tyson." 

In Newark the NCLC targeted poet turned activist Amiri Baraka, who had 
attracted national attention by his crusade for black community empowerment. 
NCLC members convinced themselves that Baraka was a CIA agent and hence 
fair game. They circulated a pamphlet called Papa Doc Baraka: Fascism in 
Newarf<. This and various New Solidarity articles called him a "gutter dweller," an 
"animal," a "mad dog," "Aunt Jemima," and "Superfly." A cartoon on the 
pamphlet's cover portrayed him as a hyena with Negroid lips drooling over a 
baby's corpse. Baraka became the NCLC's Symbolic Black, just as Henry 
Kissinger would become its Symbolic Jew. 

Baraka's and LaRouche's followers began to fight it out in the streets, much to 
the delight of right-wing elements in Newark's white ethnic community led by law- 
and-order advocate Anthony Imperiale. Followers of Imperiale began to echo 
some of the NCLC's charges against Baraka, and met with Newark NCLC 
members to explore the possibility of joint action. Individuals claiming to be 
affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan also approached NCLC members to express 
support. In September 1973 the NCLC staged an anti-Baraka demonstration that 
turned into a slugfest inside the Newark City Council chambers. Ten NCLC 
members were arrested, including Gus Kalimtgis, co-author of the Baraka 
pamphlet. 

The NCLC developed a plan to take its anti-Baraka campaign nationwide. "The 
country will be saturated with our newspapers, leaflets, with the Baraka 
pamphlet, with meetings, forums, press conferences, rallies," boasted New 
Solidarity. It called on "every working class organizer" and "all trade unionists" in 
the country to join the fight. That fall violent clashes between the NCLC and black 
nationalists occurred on several campuses. At Harvard the NCLC security staff 
set a trap. They called a meeting, armed themselves, and waited for members of 
the Boston-based Mau Mau to filter into the room. "A signal was given," said a 
former NCLC member. "Suddenly a sea of nuncliukas rose in the air and came 
down." One of the Mau Mau tried to pull a gun; NCLC members wrestled him to 
the floor. "They beat the shit out of him with sticks, then one of our guys stood 
over him with a shotgun while he lay there bleeding. The rest of the Mau Mau 
beat a retreat." 



In the summer of 1974 the NCLC tried to whip up public fear of a new black- 
nationalist threat: Zebra killers. In the San Francisco Bay Area, members of a tiny 
prison-based cult had killed several whites for ritualistic reasons. The NCLC, with 
no evidence whatsoever, claimed that similar killers were about to erupt into the 
streets of New York City from a Bronx drug addiction treatment program run by 
leftist doctors. "You could be white. You could be black . . ." said an NCLC leaflet 
circulated in Manhattan. "This summer you will be walking down the street with 
your family and a cruising car will pull up beside you. A group of young black 
men will jump out of the car and surround you. As they close in on you, you may 
notice that their eyes show no emotion, their pupils are pinpoints. Your throat will 
be slashed, your wife will be stabbed, your children's heads will be smashed 
against the pavement. The attackers will be grinning or laughing." 

It is hard to imagine how black NCLC members went along with this. Sheer 
hysteria undoubtedly played a role, but more important was LaRouche's 
ideological "refraining" of the NCLC membership's view of racism. He began, as 
he often does, with what seemed to be a valid point: Poverty in black ghettos is 
perpetuated by destructive lifestyles and a self-defeating psychology. Unless 
these problems are addressed, the cycle of poverty cannot be ended. The point 
is a commonplace today, but in the early 1970s it was not something most 
sociologists or civil rights activists were ready to confront. LaRouche did confront 
it, in striking rhetoric, when he lashed out at "the illusion that the ghetto can 
survive by parasitizing on itself." Black NCLC members thus could fancy he was 
the one white radical leader who would never try to patronize them. White 
members could pride themselves on belonging to the single radical party hard- 
nosed enough to reject the politics of liberal guilt. But LaRouche developed no 
constructive program from his insights. He simply used them to bolster the 
NCLC's synthetic paranoia: The CIA invented ghetto street culture to control 
black youth, jazz is a form of brainwashing. Black Power advocates are part of 
the CIA-Rockefeller plot to set up black America for enslavement and genocide in 
concentration camps. 

LaRouche thus turned his followers' views on racism and black liberation inside 
out. Black and white NCLC members rushed into the streets to battle Baraka with 
a clear conscience, believing they were saving the black community from the 
CIA. They also used epithets like "nigger" and "animal" without any qualms, 
telling themselves the terms merely referred to the targeted individual's 
enslavement to false values invented by the CIA. 

This topsy-turvy logic helped NCLC leaders justify alliances and political 
positions they never would have dreamed of in previous years. In 1974, at the 
height of the anti-busing agitation in Boston, they traded intelligence with a leader 
of the stridently anti-busing ROAR, based in white ethnic South Boston. They 
also sponsored their own anti-busing congressional candidate in that troubled 
community. This was justified on the logic that busing was a CIA plot to divide the 
working class. 



In Michigan, NCLC members began meeting witli followers of KKK grand dragon 
Robert Miles, who had been convicted of bombing school buses in Pontiac, 
Michigan, to protest local busing. They even nominated the great knight hawk 
(sergeant at arms) of Miles's Klan organization, Vernon Higgins, as their 1974 
candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives from Pontiac. Although 
Higgins turned out to be an FBI informer, the NCLC was not deterred from further 
dealings with Klansmen. 

In 1975, members began what would be an eleven-year alliance with Roy 
Frankhouser, the Pennsylvania grand dragon and Miles's close friend. When 
Frankhouser went on trial that year in Philadelphia on charges of transporting 
stolen explosives to Michigan for associates of Miles, the LaRouchians 
sponsored a press conference to support him. 

Curiously, the closer the ties the NCLC developed with Klansmen, the more it 
downplayed anti-black rhetoric. Instead, LaRouche moved into an anti-Jewish 
mode, attempting to promote anti-Semitism in black as well as white 
communities. The NCLC was not alone in this tactic. Klan and neo-Nazi leaders 
had long recognized the wisdom of tactical alliances with secondary enemies to 
concentrate maximum force against the primary enemy. In the mid-1960s the 
neo-Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell had suggested an alliance with the 
Black Muslims. Such thinking became more common in the 1970s as anti- 
Semitism and anti-Zionism took strong hold in black communities. When Louis 
Farrakhan emerged as America's premier black anti-Semite in the 1980s, he won 
the sympathy of many Klansmen and neo-Nazis, including Frankhouser. But 
LaRouche, unlike the Klan, did more than pay lip service to the idea of a black- 
white anti-Jewish front. In 1978 his National Anti-Drug Coalition began massive 
propaganda in black communities charging that Jews control the narcotics traffic. 
Issuing a warning to black Americans on the "Zionist evil," LaRouche said: "We 
[blacks and the NCLC] are poised to destroy this enemy politically, if we 
collaborate." 

His overtly anti-black campaign of 1973-74 may have been short-lived, but it was 
of great importance in the NCLC's development. It was LaRouche's first really 
complicated experiment in ideological reframing — the tactic of changing a 
person's emotional response to an idea by changing the context in which it is 
communicated. The anti-black campaign was essentially a dry run for what he 
next did to his Jewish followers, leading them step by step to believe that true 
liberation for Jews lay in the rejection of everything Jewish. The NCLC's left-wing 
Jews had the typical viewpoint of young leftists of the period: that racism against 
blacks is more evil and more worthy of protest than anti-Semitism. Once they 
violated the ultimate leftist taboo by attacking blacks, it was relatively easy to get 
them to attack their fellow Jews. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Six 

The Jewish Question 

When the LaRouchians began reaching out to the Ku Klux Klan and other white 
supremacist groups, they justified it as a tactical move. The main enemy, a 1 975 
NCLC internal memorandum argued, was "Rooky's [Nelson Rockefeller's] 
fascism with a democratic face" backed by liberals and "social fascists" (non- 
NCLC leftists). The NCLC should "cooperate with the Right to defeat this 
common enemy." 

There was semantic trickery here. Not only did the memos lump together neo- 
Nazis with conservatives in an amorphous right (thus sanitizing the former), but 
also groups traditionally opposed to fascism were tarred with the fascist label. It 
was the same logic used by Stalin in the early 1930s when he told the German 
Communists to cooperate with Hitler on the ground that the Social Democrats 
were the main enemy. (The term "social fascist" was first coined by the Stalinists 
to express this idea.) 

The 1975 memo also argued that organizing on the right would bring the NCLC 
large financial contributions, allies with real influence, and new recruits. After the 
Revolution it would be "comparatively easy" to crush those who refused to be 
recruited. 

The memo divided the "right wing" into "pro-Rocky" and "anti-Rocky" factions 
(i.e., pro- and anti-big business). The "pro-Rocky" side included William F. 
Buckley and other alleged big business penetration agents. The "anti-Rocky" 
side appeared to include the various Klansmen and neo-Nazis who had 
expressed interest in the NCLC. The implication was that these anti-Rocky 
rightists could be a positive force for social progress. 

Some LaRouchians sincerely believed this, but the NCLC leadership was 
preparing itself for an ideological shift rather than merely a tactical one. The 
previous year the NCLC had developed an important friend in neo-Nazi circles — 
Ken Duggan, editor of The Illuminator. Duggan met regularly with NCLC security 
staffers, especially Scott Thompson, and urged them to move further to the right. 

Duggan was soon arrested for stabbing a political rival, and was convicted of 
attempted murder. While awaiting sentencing at Rikers Island, the New York City 
detention center, he used a bed sheet to hang himself from a light fixture. But 
during his brief relationship with the LaRouchians he introduced them to a 
number of contacts and potential allies, the most important being Willis Carto. 



Carlo, founder of the Liberty Lobby, was by far the most successful and 
influential American anti-Semite of the1970s. He was an intellectual disciple of 
the late Francis Parker Yockey, who roamed Europe and North America in the 
1950s futilely attempting to build an underground movement. Carto met Yockey 
only once — in San Francisco in 1960, when Yockey was in jail awaiting trial for 
possession of false passports. Several days after their meeting, Yockey 
committed suicide in his cell by taking cyanide. Carto, already an ultrarightist, 
dedicated himself to carrying out Yockey's mission to save Western civilization. 

This mission was set forth in Yockey's Imperium, a 600-page synthesis of Nazi 
racialism and Oswald Spengler's philosophy of history. The book was dedicated 
to the "Hero of the Second World War" (Hitler). But Carto, although devoted to 
Yockey's ideas, had no illusions about Yockey's tactics. Instead of engaging in 
inept conspiracies, he concentrated on building a political movement and 
developed a populist cover ideology. Although he discreetly sold Mein Kampfand 
The Protocols of the Elders ofZion by mail, he publicly denied being either a 
Nazi or an anti-Semite — he was merely "anti-Zionist." 

Carto defended Hitler's heritage not by saying the Holocaust had been a good 
thing, but by denying that it ever took place. He founded the Institute for 
Historical Review to prove that the alleged murder of six million Jews was a hoax 
invented by Zionists to make people feel sorry for them. Carto went so far as to 
publicize a theory that the gas ovens at Auschwitz were really just an industrial 
facility for converting coal into oil, operated by happy well-fed Jewish prisoners. 

Carto's Liberty Lobby, based in Washington, D.C., and nominally headed by 
Colonel Curtis B. Dall (a former son-in-law of President Franklin D. Roosevelt), 
enjoyed friendly ties with conservative congressmen. It published a weekly 
tabloid. The Spotlight, which by 1979 enjoyed a paid circulation of almost 
200,000. Its articles championed income-tax rebels, protested the plight of family 
farmers, and promoted quack cancer cures such as laetrile. Its favorite political 
targets included the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, Henry Kissinger, the Council 
on Foreign Relations, and the "Zionist entity" in Palestine. 

As early as 1975, Carto chatted frequently with Scott Thompson, and LaRouche 
himself visited Liberty Lobby headquarters to meet with Colonel Dall. A multi- 
leveled collaboration soon developed between the two organizations. They 
shared intelligence on various targets, including William F. Buckley and Resorts 
International. The Spotlight published articles by Thompson and other NCLC 
members writing under pen names. It also sold LaRouchian tracts through its 
mail-order service. 

An initial point of agreement was on the need to expose the Rockefellers. 
However, Carto believed the NCLC hadn't cast its conspiracy nets wide enough. 
A 1976 Spotlight review of an NCLC report on terrorism complained that the 
NCLC still failed to recognize the role of the Jewish bankers. LaRouche received 



the message loud and clear. A wave of articles in New Solidarity blamed the 
Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers for a wide range of crimes, including the 
assassination of Abraham Lincoln. A 1977 piece by LaRouche admitted the 
Liberty Lobby had been ahead of the NCLC in identifying the main enemy. 
(LaRouche subsequently met with Carto in Wiesbaden. Questioned about this 
meeting during a 1984 deposition, LaRouche recalled that they had discussed 
"the Jewish question" as well as the "abomination" of America's postwar 
occupation of Germany.) 

The NCLC also developed ties with persons on the fringes of the Liberty Lobby. 
Mitchell WerBell III, a friend of Carto, became LaRouche's security adviser. 
Colonel Tom McCrary, a Georgia rightist often praised in The Spotlight, 
accompanied Gus Kalimtgis on a national speaking tour. Edward von Rothkirch, 
a Liberty Lobby contact who ran a small press service in Washington and had 
once threatened to sue the LaRouchians for appropriating his firm's name, now 
became friendly. Several leaders of the American Agricultural Movement, a 
group championed by The Spotlight, began to work with the LaRouchians on 
farm issues. By the time LaRouche launched his 1980 presidential campaign, he 
felt free to call himself the candidate of The Spotlight's readership, which he 
hailed as the quarter million strong "'Gideon's Army' of American nationalism." 

LaRouche's own "nationalism" had taken a quantum leap after he went to 
Wiesbaden in 1977 to straighten out the German organization and romance a 
young woman named Helga Zepp. While in Wiesbaden he became fearful of left- 
wing terrorists. He hunkered down in his villa and did some hard thinking. 

When he returned to the United States late that year, with Helga as his bride, the 
war on Jews began in earnest. New Solidarity and other NCLC publications 
started to be full of attacks on wealthy Jewish families, B'nai B'rith, Zionism, the 
State of Israel, the American "Jewish Lobby" and the Jewish religion. New 
Solidarity published crude anti-Semitic jokes as well as articles suggesting that 
Zionists were a kind of subhuman species. 

Actually LaRouche and some of his followers had ruminated along these lines 
even in their leftist days. In a 1973 article, "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach," 
LaRouche argued that the Jewish religion is a fossilized reflection of the life in 
ancient and medieval times of the Jewish "merchant-usurer." The Jew of that 
epoch was a wretch who "had not yet evolved to the state of Papal 
enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not developed a Christian conscience." 
Today's Jew is no better. His culture is "merely the residue left to the Jewish 
home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim." Any religious 
feelings today's Jew may have are nothing but "infantile object elation." 
LaRouche also offered an anti-Semitic brand of psychoanalysis: "The brutally 
sadistic moral castration of the Jewish boy by the domineering 'Jewish mother' is 
the basis for one of the most horrifying models of male sexual impotence ... the 
'business Jew.' " 



Following this article, The Campaigner published an anti-Israel tirade by Nancy 
Spannaus, one of LaRouche's top aides. The Israelis, she wrote, have a 
"psychotic" fear of anti-Semitism. In particular Jerusalem's Orthodox Jews are 
"crazed with the fear of death" and thus engage in "frightful orgies of sex and 
violence." Their religion is only the "thinnest disguise for exacerbated peasant 
paranoia." 

LaRouche's 1974 tirade against the Jews was buried in a footnote. Many NCLC 
members passed over it. Others thought it was just LaRouche engaging in 
provocative remarks to help his Jewish followers confront their personal hang- 
ups. As for Spannaus's remarks, everyone knew she was a difficult personality. 
But the anti-Semitic agitation which began in 1977-78 was much more difficult to 
ignore or rationalize. It was not just a footnote or personal aberration; it was a 
systematic expression of hatred, revulsion, and scorn targeting every aspect of 
Jewish history, culture, religion, and home life. [FOOTNOTE 1] 

How could the Jewish members of the NCLC — at that time, a quarter of the 
membership — let this pass without expressing outrage? Defectors say that many 
members either didn't hear the message or simply tuned it out. They were 
working on the streets or in LaRouche business enterprises sixteen hours a day. 
Many of them were too exhausted to read New Solidarity. Those who did read it 
were in such a state of hysteria — mobilizing for the latest NCLC campaign to 
prevent imminent nuclear war — that the message didn't register. 

Former NCLC member Linda Ray, in her 1986 article "Breaking the Silence," 
describes another factor — the NCLC habit of knee-jerk rationalization. Ray, who 
is Jewish, says that whenever anyone tried to tell her the NCLC was anti-Semitic, 
she instantly denied it, pointing to supposedly anti-Nazi statements in New 
Solidarity. She recalls reading in New Solidarity about LaRouche's concept of a 
subhuman oligarchical species. "Although I knew it did not make scientific sense, 
I presumed that it was a deep intellectual metaphor that was over my head." 
Years later a friend showed her a New Solidarity article in which the Star of David 
was used to symbolize the drug trade. "I quickly replied ... 'It is just a graphic arts 
symbol' — which I had naively thought for years. But as soon as I said it out loud I 
realized that I sounded ridiculous. It was as if I was waking from a nightmare." 

Ray's article explains the state of mind of many NCLC rank-and-filers. It does not 
explain the acquiescence of the NCLC national and regional leadership cadre, 
many of them Jewish, who helped develop the anti-Semitic line and implemented 
it with alacrity. Here, as during Mop Up and the Chris White affair, a few rebelled 
but most bowed to LaRouche's will. 

Kevin Coogan, a member of the intelligence staff, did some background research 
on Carto and the Liberty Lobby. Shocked by what he discovered, he quit. Several 
other members of the national office staff also resigned. They prepared unsigned 
reports and met privately with journalists, stating that the NCLC had become an 



anti-Semitic organization and tliat LaRouclie was espousing Nazi ideas. But 
none were willing to go public against LaRouche. 

Security staffer Bob Cohen played a key role in stirring up the discontent. He met 
with several trusted comrades to point out the similarities between LaRouche's 
writings and Mein Kampf. But when his friends decided to quit, Cohen backed 
out. His reverence for LaRouche kept him in the organization until 1981. 

Cohen's brother-in-law and fellow security staffer, Paul Goldstein, came back 
seething from a trip down South with LaRouche. The hulking former college 
athlete had been present, as LaRouche's bodyguard, when anti-Semitic jokes 
were traded among the good old boys. Goldstein, former friends say, was almost 
ready to quit. But the leadership put him through an ego-stripping session led by 
Helga LaRouche. The session focused on his alleged sexual fantasies, and he 
was told his wife would be ordered to leave him if he didn't shape up. Goldstein, 
reduced to tears, capitulated totally. Thereafter, he was one of LaRouche's most 
loyal followers. 

A few more NCLC members protested when LaRouche announced that only one 
and a half million Jews, not six million, were killed in the Holocaust. 
Contemptuously ignoring his followers' complaints, he issued a press release 
reaffirming the 1 .5 million figure. 

By 1980-81 the protest over LaRouche's anti-Semitism died down. Most NCLC 
members who subsequently quit did so for personal reasons, not over matters of 
principle. Unlike earlier defectors, most would do nothing to oppose LaRouche. 
Don and Alice Roth charged in a resignation letter that the membership had 
undergone a process of "moral anaesthetization." They cited a joke that they said 
had become popular in the national office: "How many Jews can you fit into a 
Volkswagen? One hundred. Four on the seats and ninety-six in the ashtray." 

In psychological terms the anti-Semitism that seized the NCLC in the late 1970s 
was similar to the violent fantasies that gripped it during Operation Mop Up. 
Instead of assaulting Communists with nunchukas, the NCLC now attacked Jews 
via brutally worded propaganda tracts. Once again LaRouche helped his 
followers overcome their moral qualms by reframing reality for them through 
semantic tricks and false syllogisms. 

The resulting belief structure involved four layers: a redefinition of "Jew," a 
redefinition of "Nazi," a denial of the concepts of "left" and "right" in politics (to 
totally disorient the believer), and, for Jewish LaRouchians, a guilt trip and 
special fears. 

To redefine the meaning of "Jew," LaRouche concocted a distinction between 
real and false Jews. He said his political attacks were not aimed at all Jews, just 
those who advocate evil policies like Zionism. Using Orwellian semantics, he 



called the latter "nominal Jews," the "Jews who are not Jews." Who then are the 
real Jews? LaRouche said they are the Jewish members of a "humanist" faction 
drawing its inspiration from Philo of Alexandria, a first-century Jewish 
Neoplatonist, 

Here LaRouche was at his wiliest. For Philo has no following in modern Judaism. 
His only professed followers are LaRouche's own NCLC members, whose 
interpretation of Philo bears little relation to the latter's actual writings. 

The bogus nature of the "real Jew" faction was further revealed in LaRouche's 
polemics against the "unremitting evil" of Zionism. To be a real Jew, he 
suggested, one must repudiate the State of Israel, Zionism, and the mainstream 
leadership of the Jewish community. But a sizable minority of Jews is already 
anti-Zionist and estranged from the mainstream Jewish leadership — e.g., some 
of the Hassidim and many secular Jewish leftists. Are they "real Jews"? Not at 
all. In LaRouchian propaganda the Hassidim are depicted as evil cultists while 
leftist Jews appear as dope-pushing terrorists. In the final analysis the Jewish 
members of the LaRouche organization — a few score individuals — are the only 
real Jews in the world! 

LaRouche redefined what a Nazi is in tracts such as "The Truth About 'German 
Collective Guilt'" and "Hitler: Runaway British Agent." He argued that Hitler was 
put into power by the Rothschilds and other wealthy Jews-who-are-not-really- 
Jews. These evil oligarchs invented Nazi racialism and brainwashed the Nazis to 
accept it. They then urged Hitler and his cronies to persecute the German Jews 
so the latter would flee to Palestine, where the Rothschilds had decided to set up 
a zombie state as a tool of their world domination. But as this scenario unfolded, 
the German people developed their own agenda: a "sound and intense . . . 
nationalist enthusiasm" to invade Britain (the Rothschild headquarters). Hitler at 
first acquiesced in this desire, but unfortunately he was ideologically weak — he 
backed off and returned to the puppet masters' game plan by attacking the Soviet 
Union. Thus did LaRouche place the ultimate blame for Hitler's crimes on the 
Jews-who-are-not-Jews-but-really-are-the-Jews-anyway. 

LaRouche didn't deny that Hitler and the Nazis were partly responsible for many 
horrendous crimes as the Rothschilds' junior accomplices. But he instructed 
NCLC members to focus on a newer and deadlier plot. The Rothschilds and 
other "British" families — and the Israelis — were preparing to launch a Holocaust 
a hundred Wmes worse than Hitler's. This new Holocaust was aimed at 
consolidating "British" power, and would involve the death of billions of human 
beings via nuclear war, plagues, famine, and a New Dark Age — horrors that 
would make the "Nazi thing" seem like a "slight mistake." The New Dark Age 
conspirators were "a hundred times worse" than Hitler, and anyone collaborating 
with them (like Jimmy Carter) was also a hundred times worse. 



With his followers thus confused, LaRouche was able to switch labels on his 
concepts. The New Dark Age conspirators were not only far worse than the 
Nazis of the Hitler era, they were Nazis. The real Nazis were the hundred-times- 
worse Nazis. Menachem Begin was a Nazi, Ariel Sharon was a Nazi, the "Jewish 
Lobby" in America was "Nazi." 

It followed from this re-labeling that anyone who opposed Israel and the "Jewish 
Lobby" was, objectively, anfz-Nazi. LaRouche's followers thus ended up with a 
topsy-turvy view in which the real Nazis were seen as anti-Nazis, and anti- 
Semitism was perceived as a moral necessity — to "save" the Jews from 
themselves. The LaRouchians accordingly worked seven days a week to build a 
fascist movement while imagining they were building an antifascist movement. 
LaRouche had used their fears of fascism to further fascist goals. 

There was always the possibility that some NCLC members would wake up and 
begin to critically examine these Orwellian labels. Stage three guarded against 
such a possibility. In "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," LaRouche 
announced that the left and the right in politics don't really exist. They are a 
fiction concealing the struggles of two conspiratorial elites — the humanist elite 
(LaRouchians or proto-LaRouchians) and the oligarchical elite (the Jews-who- 
are-not-Jews, etc.). Hence, in judging a given party or faction one should not ask 
where it stands on the political spectrum, but which elite is manipulating it. 
Depending on the answer, there are good Communists and bad Communists, 
good conservatives and bad conservatives, good Klansmen and bad Klansmen. 
During World War II there were good Nazis (the Wehrmacht) and bad Nazis (the 
Rothschild agents-of-influence in the Nazi Party leadership). 

With the traditional political spectrum abolished, LaRouche's followers no longer 
had to deal with the glaring contradictions between their old leftist and new 
fascist politics. For all intents and purposes, the NCLC's political past no longer 
existed. Fascism and communism no longer existed. All that mattered were 
LaRouchism and anti-LaRouchism, which were whatever LaRouche said they 
were. 

When LaRouche first promulgated these views in the late 1970s, he played on 
his Jewish followers' guilt feelings, their anxiety over their possible tainted status 
in the NCLC, and their nightmares about the Holocaust. In a 1978 article on the 
"cult origins of Zionism," he warned the NCLC Jews: If you don't put aside your 
doubts and totally devote yourself to our political goals, you are "just as guilty" as 
Adolf Hitler. Indeed, you are more guilty, since the consequences of an NCLC 
failure to take power will be human death on a far greater scale than under Hitler. 
But I know you: Underneath your veneer of loyalty to the NCLC you still have a 
residual sense of loyalty to your fellow Jews — the false Jews. Insofar as you feel 
that residual loyalty, you are "on the pathway to becoming a Nazi" — a supporter 
of the evil oligarchy's plan to kill off two-thirds of the human race. Forget your 
narrow bestial ethnic loyalties! Instead ask yourself: "What is a Jew good for? 



What can a Jew contribute to humanity generally which obliges humanity to value 
the Jew?" 

LaRouche used even sterner language to warn his Jewish followers of the 
possible consequences of disloyalty: "You have no right to hide behind the 
whimpering, morally degraded profession [of excuses]. . . . Either you take 
responsibility for the ultimate consequences of your conduct or you have no 
moral right to complain against whatever evil the world's developments bestow 
upon you." 

To get the full flavor of this threat, one must understand that, in 1978, many 
NCLC members fervently believed that LaRouche would soon take power in 
America. Jewish members thus could easily have felt worried — at least on a 
subliminal level — for their own safety. 



[1] A sampling from NCLC publications, much of it written by LaRouche: Early 
Jewish settlers in America were prominent in the slave trade. Those who came 
over in the early twentieth century became the founders of organized crime, 
rising to power through rum running, drug pushing, and pornography. Their 
corrupting influence was supplemented by that of Viennese refugees in the 
1930s — an intellectual "cholera culture" and "intellectual pus" undermining 
American values. Their chief organization, the B'nai B'rith, resurrected the 
"tradition of the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Jews 
who pleaded with Nero to launch the 'holocaust' against the Christians." They 
manipulated the U.S. government, against its best interests, to support the 
"kosher nostra" government of Israel. Also they founded the Zionist Lobby, "the 
most visible of the internal enemies of the United States — and of the human 
race." The policies of the Zionist Lobby are "pure evil." Any American "professing 
Zionist loyalties" is, by definition, "a national security risk." As for Israel itself, it is 
a "zombie-nation" and follows policies "a hundred times worse than Hitler." Its 
denizens display a "nauseating Jewish hypocrisy over the murder of one of their 
children" while "bellow[ing] and belch[ing] in smug contentment every time 
hundreds of thousands of . . . Palestinians are butchered." 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



PART TWO: What LaRouche Wants 

" The war in which I am presently engaged against the forces of the 
Whore of Babylon . . . is not a war merely for some particular policy, 
but a battle for that Great Design under which sovereign nations 
dedicated to generalized scientific and technological progress form 
a powerful alliance to crush the remaining power of the oligarchist 
faction, to rid our planet of that faction." 

—LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR., The Power of 
Reason, 1979 

Chapter Seven 
The Grand Design 

In the early 1970s LaRouche bolstered his followers' morale with fantasies of an 
insurrection that would soon put them in power. Select NCLC members were 
sent to a secret boot camp near Argyle, New York, to study riflery, the use of 
explosives, and small-arms tactics. One of the former instructors, Gregory Rose, 
said they learned "how to take this hill, that hill." They also played Capture the 
Flag. Members not attending the camp participated in local NCLC "militias." 
Former NCLC member Linda Ray recalled: "We were each handed a pole. We 
were told we were preparing for class warfare. We practiced marching in circles." 
A top LaRouche aide produced a study of Tito's World War II partisans as the 
prototype for LaRouche's army. Relevant intelligence was collected, such as on 
the troop strength and readiness of California's National Guard. 

As the NCLC moved to the right, the idea arose of winning over military officers 
to help LaRouche achieve power. U.S. Army intelligence reports reveal that in 
the mid-1970s NCLC members began calling and sending suggestive memos to 
high-ranking officers. For instance, Ron Kokinda called the XVIII Airborne Corps 
commander at Fort Bragg in 1976 to warn him that a Carter victory in the 
presidential election would pose a threat to the Republic. Kokinda also sent a 
letter to General Frederick C. Weyand, the Army Chief of Staff, claiming that 
Carter and the Wall Street bankers were plotting to destroy the Constitution. The 
way to stop them, he advised, was to crush Wall Street's "command structure" 
and undertake a massive "economic reorganization." 

NCLC security staffers sought out officers with strong political views, such as 
Major General John K. Singlaub, removed as commander of U.S. forces in Korea 
in 1977 after criticizing President Carter's defense policies. Singlaub recalls being 



approached when he was stationed at Fort McPherson in Georgia: "They said, 
'You military people are going to be the savior of the country. . . . We want to 
work closely with you.' " Singlaub cut them off and denounced them in press 
interviews. (In a 1983 letter to this author, he compared them to the Nazis and 
said they were one of the most dangerous extremist groups in America.) 

According to former NCLC members, the national office staff was briefed in May 
1979 on how a military coup would make LaRouche dictator. The NCLC's "right- 
wing allies" supposedly would bring this about sometime before the 1980 
election. Meanwhile in a campaign speech LaRouche called for the abolition of 
democracy and alluded to a plan for a march on Washington. The context 
suggested something like Mussolini's 1922 march on Rome. 

Whatever LaRouche might tell his followers to feed their sense of self- 
importance, he knew he could only establish his dictatorship if a "leading strata of 
capitalists and governmental agencies" were willing to sponsor it. For this, a 
major crisis would be necessary. As the signs of such a crisis multiplied, a faction 
of the capitalists would begin to call for new leadership. A coalition would emerge 
of Midwestern industrialists, technocrats, the Teamsters union, military officers, 
and dissident CIA agents to win over the silent majority and isolate the nation's 
"liberal third." NCLC advisers would permeate the coalition and coordinate its 
efforts. But LaRouche cautioned his followers to let their prospective allies take 
the lead at first, while the NCLC built up its independent political base. 

LaRouche thought he recognized the seeds of the impending crisis in the 
international monetary system. The Third World and Eastern Europe had run up 
hundreds of billions of dollars in debts to Western banks. Many debtor countries 
were hard-pressed to pay the interest, to say nothing of the principal, and the 
total debt was mounting steadily. What if just one major debtor nation decided to 
default? LaRouche predicted a "chain-reaction collapse" of the debt structure 
leading to "a depression far worse than that of the 1 931-33 period." The only way 
out would be for "someone in a leading position in the U.S.A." to override the 
greed of the bankers and bring the nation "back to its senses." LaRouche's 
grandiose tone suggested that this "someone" would be himself. 

LaRouche urged the formation of a debtors' cartel and a don't-pay strategy. His 
followers toured Latin America, contacting hundreds of government officials, 
labor leaders, and military officers. They produced dozens of research studies 
and propaganda tracts, and LaRouche himself wrote Operation Juarez {^982), a 
brilliant call to arms against the International Monetary Fund austerity programs. 
The small LaRouchian parties in Mexico, Peru, and Colombia gained access to 
high government officials. LaRouche became known in Latin America as a 
serious economist and political strategist. He met with Presidents Jose Lopez 
Portillo of Mexico and Raul Alfonsin of Argentina. A delegation of his followers 
met with Peru's president, Alan Garcia, in Lima. Fighting the IMF meanwhile 
became a continent-wide demagogic rallying cry. Tens of thousands of students 



marched against the IMF in Buenos Aires. Fidel Castro seized on the issue and 
developed his own version of Operation Juarez. But no Latin American leader 
was willing to take the final step — actual default as opposed to rhetorical 
threats — that might cut off the credit keeping their economies afloat. LaRouche 
wasn't discouraged, however. He still believed the catastrophe was only a few 
years away and that he alone would know how to save civilization. He called his 
long-range plan, to be implemented once he took power, the Grand Design for 
Humanity. 

The Grand Design was based, like his plan for triggering the debt bomb, on an 
anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. LaRouche claimed that the world is dominated by 
a Zionist oligarchy — a cabal of international usurers — with headquarters in 
London. In The Power of Reason he stated that he was fighting to restore 
sovereignty to the United States and other key nations so they could "rid our 
planet" of this oligarchy, so that mankind could create the social conditions for 
the next step in evolution: the super race of "golden souls." LaRouche said that 
creating this super race was the true objective of his life. 

The Grand Design is the key to all of LaRouche's multileveled efforts, including 
his amassing of great wealth. In working out its details, he became the first 
systematic thinker in the history of international fascism to deal with the state, the 
economy, culture, race, military strategy, and a host of tactical questions within a 
consistent philosophical framework. This tour de force contains genuine insights 
on many questions and borrows from LaRouche's major achievement in 
economics — his model of a totally mobilized economy. The Grand Design is 
embodied in a score of articles and books, including The Case of Walter 
Lippmann (1977). As reworked for popular consumption in various propaganda 
tracts, it has exerted a subterranean influence on ultra-rightists from Argentina 
through West Germany. Given the uniqueness of this body of ideas — the fact that 
they fill a void in international fascism — it is inevitable that LaRouche's ideological 
influence will continue for years, even if he should die tomorrow. 

The Grand Design begins with a total rejection of "British liberal notions of 
'democracy,' " notions which are "like a farm without a farmer, in which the 
chickens, sheep, cows, horses and pigs form 'constituencies.' " His own humanist 
republic would have "nothing to do with elections, parliaments, or such 
differentia," but would ruthlessly suppress all "nonrepublican" (i.e., non- 
LaRouchian) influences. The American people wouldn't lose anything, because 
our democracy is merely a fagade for an already existing dictatorship of the 
"monetarist faction" — i.e., the oligarchy. LaRouche would replace this bad 
dictatorship with a good one — a "class dictatorship-in-fact" of the industrial 
capitalists, with labor leaders like the Teamsters as junior partners to provide a 
"broader social base." Within this dictatorship the interests of capital and labor 
would be "understood to be identical," and strikes by labor unions would not be 
tolerated. 



But the capitalists would not actually run their own "dictatorship-in-fact." A special 
elite that has mastered the "humanist" (LaRouchian) philosophy would take 
command. These favored few would have exclusive power to shape the laws of 
the new order — laws aimed at curbing the selfish tendencies of society's "less 
moral strata" — and they would not tolerate any "direct violation of humanist 
outlook and methods" even from capitalists. 

To make this palatable, LaRouche adopted Big Brother's "freedom is slavery" 
slogan, only phrased more arcanely. Freedom has nothing to do with tolerating 
"violations of universal law" (i.e., of LaRouche's will). Freedom is "exactly the 
opposite"; it is the "abhorrence of such error." In other words, freedom is the 
abhorrence of freedom. 

LaRouche's "freedom" would involve total control over the individual's innermost 
thoughts. He distinguishes between thoughts "which lead to increasing human 
perfection — which we call good," and thoughts "which abort progress or worse — 
which we call evil." His Republic would "mobilize the good within the individual 
citizen to rule over the evil within himself." The individual citizen would have little 
choice to do otherwise. The state "does not 'concede' freedom to the individual, 
but demandsXhaX he or she partake of it in the general interest of the state. . ." 
Anyone who refuses to go along "has no consciously defensible premise on 
which to say to his fellows: 'I have a right to live as a free man.' " 

LaRouche would revise the criminal justice system to reflect this. No longer 
would a criminal be someone who commits criminal acts; it would be anyone who 
thinks criminal thoughts. Such thoughts would include putting one's own interests 
and those of one's family above the interests of the Republic. "Every citizen who 
holds the view, 'I can't worry about society and the world; I must attend to my 
family responsibilities,' is exhibiting a degree of relative infantilism tending in the 
direction of the criminal mind," says one LaRouchian manifesto. Indeed, such a 
mentality not only tends toward criminality, it is criminal. 

LaRouche's system of government would require immediate purges of any 
opposition. The police would be empowered to conduct "surgically precise 
preventive action." The first target would be the Jews and others who operate as 
agents of the London-based oligarchy, LaRouche describes the conspiracy as a 
four-tiered ziggurat of (from the top down) Jewish bankers on Wall Street, Jewish 
community leaders, Jews and pro-Jewish Gentiles in the government and media, 
and finally the gutter networks of Communists, environmentalists, and peaceniks. 
This conspiracy has kept the nation subservient to London, enabling "speculative 
capital" to bleed dry "industrial capital" through usury. The influence of the 
conspirators dates back to Benedict Arnold and is so deeply rooted that only a 
complete purge can restore the nation's sovereignty. As a New Solidarity editorial 
put it, "America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate 
elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby . . . from the councils of government, 
industry and labor." (Note the Orwellian use of the word "Nazi.") A second 



editorial called for an FBI task force to "root out the cancer in the American body 
politic that is the so-called Zionist Lobby." The task force would include a 
"permanent Special Prosecutor's office." Jewish leaders would be investigated 
and their organizations "dismantled or registered as foreign agents." A special 
congressional committee would "clean out Senators and Congressmen who 
maintain their covert relationships with Zionist spies." Anyone who opposed this 
would be "branded as a traitor." The Zionist "octopus" would be "eliminated" at all 
costs. 

Such appears to be LaRouche's program for a fascist state: dictatorship by the 
party elite, a purge of the "Zionists," suppression of all opposition, brainwashing- 
style pressure on those who refuse to internalize the party elite's ideology, denial 
of citizenship to subhumans, and revisions in the criminal code to make it all 
"legal." The Grand Design's next stage is the "total mobilization of the entire 
nation" in preparation for Total War. 

The Nazis used the term "total mobilization" to discuss Germany's war economy, 
but LaRouche believes they never understood the idea. They simply looted until 
there was nothing left to loot, and then went under. Real total mobilization means 
ever-expanding scientific discovery, technological innovation, and industrial 
investment. And these must expand /aster than the needs of the war machine. 

But LaRouche certainly agreed with the Nazis that total mobilization requires a 
centralized, disciplined economy. Scientific and technological progress cannot be 
left to "British" free enterprise. LaRouche envisioned an economy dominated by a 
cluster of giant "brute-force" projects with his humanist elite cracking the whip. 
He often cited the Apollo Project and the Manhattan Project, but his chief model 
seemed to be Hitler's Peenemunde rocket center, where the V-2 rockets were 
developed that then were manufactured by slave laborers at underground plants. 
The cost of such projects would be offset by the "spin-offs" — new civilian-sector 
products, cheap new sources of energy like fusion power, and miraculous gains 
in productivity. These in turn would produce more resources for the military 
economy. 

The key to the ever-expanding military potential would be the "creative powers of 
the mind," mobilized via fanaticism to serve the Grand Design. To encourage 
such creative powers — especially the ability to invent and master advanced 
military technologies — the educational system would be completely transformed. 
Children would be taught NCLC "humanism" as well as "classical German" 
doctrines. They would also be taught the "hypothesis of the higher hypothesis," 
LaRouche's own method of insight (one thinks about how one thinks while one 
thinks). As many children as possible would be transformed into Wernher von 
Braun-type geniuses. Thus the rate of innovation in science and technology 
would accelerate through the roof, and the speedy adoption of the most useful 
innovations would be guaranteed by the educational machine churning out 
millions of engineers and skilled technicians — the high-tech force to operate 



weapons systems of ever-increasing complexity. Tine young scientists, 
engineers, and teclinicians would be Spartan-type "soldier-citizens," led by 
"engineer-officers," thoroughly dedicated to the mobilization process. They would 
be the cutting edge of armed forces vastly expanded through Universal Military 
Training (not just the draft) into an invincible "pyramid of maximum in-depth war- 
fighting capabilities." 

Of course, there is one thing missing from this Star Wars fascism. The soldier- 
citizens wouldn't be Germans. But they would memorize Schiller's poetry, listen 
to Beethoven night and day, and master classical German philosophy as well as 
emulating the V-2 scientists. Even today, NCLC publications suggest they revere 
their Teutonic heritage and the alleged critical role played by Germany (not 
England) in founding the real America — and hence regard America as having 
special ties with Germany transcending those with any other NATO ally. 

The ultimate aim of LaRouche's total mobilization would be world conquest. As 
LaRouche said in 1978, he would be the President who would win wars. He 
would lead the nation in establishing the "permanent hegemony of the 
Neoplatonic-humanist [LaRouchian] forces over the globe." The oligarchical 
"forces of evil" would be crushed everywhere, bringing the nations under "firm- 
handed (if loving)" rule. The "progressive liquidation" of oligarchist regimes would 
not end until "total victory" — the crushing of the world's "last bastion of 
oligarchical policy." 

Just as LaRouche took issue with Hitler's version of total mobilization, so he 
criticized the Nazi leader's military strategy of waging a two-front war against 
both the West and the Soviet Union. Hitler should have mopped up the 
Rothschilds' headquarters, Britain, before marching east. The London blitz was 
not carried out boldly enough. LaRouche here makes explicit his Nazi 
sympathies. The war on Britain was an expression of Germany's "republican- 
nationalist impulse," and the enthusiasm to crush Britain was "sound." Britain 
was "then, as now, the enemy of continental Europe, including the German 
nation." Hitler was "London's most deadly enemy" (hence by implication he was 
Europe's hero in spite of his mistakes). 

LaRouche would do things right, one stage at a time. The United States should 
plan first for a war against Britain, not the Soviet Union, There must be a "total 
elimination of Britain's worldwide political, economic, and military leverage." If it 
doesn't surrender it should face the use of "force" against its outpost in the 
Middle East — Israel — and London itself should receive the "treatment" meted out 
to Japan in 1945. 

While crushing Britain, LaRouche would carry out the unification of other Western 
nations by installing "humanist" regimes in each. Nuclear blackmail would be a 
helpful means to this end: "The might of the United States . . . will moderate the 
heteronomic impulses of the erring." Once the smaller nations recognized that 



American policy "lias a fist witliin it," clianges of government would 
"spontaneously erupt around the globe" (presumably like the fascist putsches 
that erupted in Eastern Europe in the 1930s). LaRouche provided a rationale in 
terms of international law. One must distinguish, he said, between the 
sovereignty of nations in the abstract and the sovereignty of particular incumbent 
governments. To extend the principle of sovereignty from the former to the latter 
is "specious," he said. 

With the entire West unified, purged, and totally mobilized, America would be 
ready to go after the "last bastion" of the enemy — the Soviet Union. This would 
not be a matter of a few bombs or a putsch. LaRouche believed that war 
between the two superpowers "cannot be less than total war," and that to win 
such a war one would have to hit the enemy with an atomic, bacteriological, and 
chemical triple punch. LaRouche called this "ABC paving" because it supposedly 
" 'paves' the entire front of assault to the purpose of exterminating every possible 
means of opposition." The attack would occur in waves: maximum-strength ABC 
bombardment of "all adversary logistical and political [i.e., civilian] targets out of 
short-term reach" would be followed by ABC tactical bombardment of front-line 
targets and then by rapid advance of ground forces through the ruins with 
continuing ABC support. The war would become a "meatgrinder," with the West 
hopefully emerging from each phase with a marginal gain in relative strength. 
Whichever side possessed greater surviving "in-depth logistical and deployable 
reserve capabilities" (i.e., whichever side was better at total mobilization) would 
win. 

LaRouche conceded that the initial nuclear exchange would "eliminate between 
120 and 180 million lives in the United States," and that the Soviet Union would 
lose "up to 30 percent of its population." He even admitted as "credible" the claim 
by scientists that the radioactive cesium-137 levels would "eliminate all higher 
animal life on earth." Although he said that such considerations do not apply 
when great powers "threaten the total conquest of one another," he apparently 
later decided that so final a solution for himself as well as the enemy was not 
really desirable. Shortly after writing the above, he began his intensive 
propaganda push for Star Wars, which some on the right see as a miracle shield 
that might make a first strike marginally possible. 

Assuming a victory short of mutual annihilation, what should happen next? 
LaRouche says that the "pacification process of military occupation" must begin 
with wiping out the "oligarchist component" in the Soviet Union. It also must 
include the "creation and defense" of new cities on the occupied territory as the 
"chief mediators of scientific and technological progress into urban and rural life." 
This "citybuilding" policy should be the chief objective of the occupying force, 
LaRouche says. 

This is nothing new. SS chief Heinrich Himmler also had a citybuilding plan for a 
string of Aryan cities to be built under SS sponsorship from the Ukraine to the 



Caucasus as strategic foci for tine rutliless pacification of tliat vast region. 
Himmler glorified tine medieval German king Heinrich I, who earned the title of 
"citybuilder" by constructing fortresses on the eastern frontier to hold back the 
Magyars. Himmler even regarded himself as Heinrich I's reincarnation and built a 
shrine to him. A photo accompanying a LaRouche article on pacification 
suggests that his dream is similar to Himmler's. According to the caption, it 
shows U.S. Army soldiers working in a vast cavern "underneath the Greenland 
polar ice cap." This supposedly demonstrates that GIs have "the potential to 
serve as an army of citybuilders." Any former SS veteran in West Germany would 
get the point, for the main U.S. base in Greenland is at Thule, which happens to 
be the name the Nazis gave to the alleged Arctic homeland of the Aryans. The 
name also suggests the Thule Society, the Munich occult lodge believed by 
many neo-Nazis to have recruited Hitler for his historic mission. And in the 
popular mythology that has grown up around Nazism, a team of Nazi scientists is 
supposed to have escaped in submarines at the end of the war to a secret UFO 
base under the polar ice to prepare for the eventual rise of a Fourth Reich. 

In imposing the "benefits of a Republican order" on occupied countries, 
LaRouche sometimes cites Alexander the Great as a model conqueror. Most 
historians would agree that Alexander's policies were relatively benign. But the 
LaRouchians also have another model: Timur the Great, also known as the 
"Prince of Destruction," a Mongol who conquered most of Central Asia in the 
fourteenth century. They depict him as a "humanist," although he was a 
genocidal monster who probably killed more civilians than any conqueror prior to 
Hitler. His soldiers decapitated the entire population of Baghdad, piling up the 
victims' heads in a pyramid to rot in the sun. 

In 1983 an NCLC drama troupe staged for the faithful a version of Tamburlaine, 
Christopher Marlowe's lurid Elizabethan tragedy about Timur. New Solidarity 
explained that the play was selected because it provided a sympathetic portrait of 
a hero who, like LaRouche, "makes his own rules." Marlowe's Tamburlaine, the 
reviewer said, is a "city-builder" who demonstrates his humanism by using 
conquered emperors as a footstool. As to his stern measures, the reviewer 
chided NCLC members for their lack of understanding: "Some get queasy when 
Tamburlaine skewers the Virgins of Damascus, and [some] pout heads-in-hands 
during speeches about piling millions of carcasses at the gates of hell. But, as 
long as their [sic] is a place in hell for the present-day [oligarchical] emperors; so, 
there must be a place in the minds of men for Marlowe's Tamburlaine." 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



PART THREE: LaRouche and Star 
Wars 

" We are shaping increasingly the course of important events. . . 
. We play the enemy forces as a hundred-pound fisherman 
successfully plays a powerful sailfish or oversized tarpon" 

—LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR., "Resisting the 
Pressures of 'Littleness,' " 1981 

Chapter Eight 

The Greatest Invention Since Fire 

In a historic speech delivered on March 23, 1983, President Reagan announced 
the Strategic Defense Initiative, a plan for a space-based missile defense 
system. To most of the Washington press corps, the so-called Star Wars speech 
came as a bolt out of the blue. But the LaRouchians were not at all surprised. For 
years they had advocated their own version of SDI and were in close contact with 
officials who helped develop Reagan's proposal. 

LaRouche began speculating about a space-based particle- or laser-beam 
weapons system as early as 1975. His organization included scientists who 
grasped the basic principles and were able to explain them in layman's terms for 
him. During the late 1970s he became more and more intrigued. Beam weapons 
seemed to fit well with his dreams of world conquest. A miracle shield against 
ballistic missiles would make large-scale offensive wars thinkable for the first 
time since the beginning of the nuclear age. 

The Fusion Energy Foundation, established in 1 974 as a cover for the NCLC 
intelligence staff's science and technology division, became the chief LaRouchian 
propaganda vehicle for beam weapons. In the late 1970s it gained a measure of 
credibility in the scientific community and the aerospace and nuclear power 
industries by publishing the monthly Fusion, which championed high technology. 
It also sponsored seminars and conferences on scientific and political topics. Its 
officers included Dr. Morris Levitt and Dr. Steven Bardwell, both physicists, and 
John Gilbertson, a nuclear engineer. 

The FEF tried to cultivate Major General George Keegan, Jr. (ret.), a former Air 
Force intelligence chief who believed the Soviets were gaining a dangerous edge 
in beam technologies. When Keegan called for stepped-up research in this field. 



FEF members offered their support. They published a pamphlet, Sputnik of the 
Seventies (1977), praising Keegan and calling particle-beam weapons "crucial to 
this nation's survival." But Keegan was suspicious of their intentions and soon cut 
them off. 

The FEF continued to publicize the issue on their own, with frequent articles 
about the latest American and Soviet advances in relevant fields of theoretical 
and applied physics. They recognized that fusion energy research had potential 
applications in the beam weapons field, and that many of the scientists for any 
large-scale Pentagon effort would have to come from civilian fusion research. By 
discussing the two technologies together, Sputnil< of thie Seventies was right on 
target: Many fusion scientists whom the FEF cultivated in the late 1970s ended 
up in SDI research in the 1980s. 

There is no mystery about how the FEF won the respect of fusion scientists. It 
launched a campaign to get them more government funding. FEF staff members 
testified before Congress, lobbied, held press conferences, and crisscrossed the 
nation on speaking tours. Meanwhile, LaRouche followers at airports displayed 
pro-fusion posters and literature. Hundreds of thousands of Americans first 
learned about fusion from their encounters with these seven-days-a-week 
salesmen. 

The FEF undeniably met a real need, and not just for a handful of scientists. 
OPEC oil price hikes had made cheaper energy sources a national priority, and 
fusion energy was the most promising long-range solution. But fusion 
researchers had been inept at presenting their case to the public. Thus the 
Carter administration poured billions of dollars into synfuel, only a few million into 
fusion. To frustrated scientists the FEF was a heaven-sent ally. 

Support for the FEF's work was especially strong among government fusion 
scientists. According to Department of Energy documents obtained under the 
Freedom of Information Act, the contacts began during the Ford administration. 
At first the FEF spokesmen made a comical impression. One DOE scientist 
circulated a memo describing how they had tried to convince him of the need for 
a new world monetary system based on the Soviet ruble. But during the Carter 
years the FEF proved its effectiveness in building a fusion constituency. 
Researchers and administrators in the DOE's Office of Fusion Energy (OFE) 
began to take the LaRouche foundation seriously, speaking at its conferences 
and praising its work. They were willing to overlook its sinister politics, including 
its scurrilous attacks on Energy Secretary James Schlesinger. The FEF might be 
nasty, but it was useful. 

The relationship between the OFE and the LaRouchians had a peek-a-boo 
quality. This was reflected in a September 1978 letter from OFE director Edward 
Kintner to Stephen Dean, head of the Magnetic Confinement Systems Division, 
who had previously spoken at FEF events. Kintner, apparently under pressure 



from superiors, ordered Dean "not to appear" at an FEF meeting later tliat montli 
because it was a fund-raising event and because tine FEF liad expressed "policy 
disagreement" with top DOE officials. (The FEF had accused these officials of 
being part of a treasonous plot.) Yet Dr. Kintner's memo also displayed a 
remarkable solicitude for the LaRouchians: "This [directive] by no means 
precludes . . . staff participation in FEF events in general. . . . Please assist FEF 
in arranging for a substitute speaker if possible so as to minimize problems for 
the FEF." 

The substitute who showed up was Kintner's deputy. Dr. John Clarke. He didn't 
just talk on fusion technology — he gave a strong endorsement of the FEF. "You 
are one of the few organized groups I know of," he said, "that has the courage to 
stand up and advocate high technology as a solution to some of the problems of 
the world, and for that I think that we owe you a debt of gratitude." This statement 
was used in Fusion advertisements to solicit subscribers and new FEF members. 
When Clarke received inquiries about it, he acknowledged on DOE stationery 
that the quote was accurate. In a letter to a Georgia Tech professor he said that 
although he didn't agree with the FEF's politics, he thought they performed a 
"valuable function in our society." 

Shortly after Clarke's speech, a senior scientist from the DOE's Office of Energy 
Research addressed an FEF conference in Pittsburgh. Scientists from Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory and Princeton University's Tokamak fusion reactor 
project also participated. Fusion crowed that the event was attended by 
representatives of major corporations and that it "marked a quantum jump in 
FEF's stature as the political leadership of the scientific and engineering 
communities." While this was an exaggeration, it suggested the hidden agenda 
behind the FEF's touting of high technology. 

In 1979 Stephen Dean left the government to set up Fusion Power Associates, a 
nonprofit firm backed by energy and defense corporations. This was a setback 
for the LaRouchians inasmuch as it co-opted their "leadership" role on fusion. But 
Dean and the LaRouchians continued to have a warm relationship. In August 
1979 he appeared on the podium with LaRouche at a U.S. Labor Party rally in 
Lansing, Michigan. He also accompanied the FEF's Uwe Henke von Parpart on a 
FEF-arranged trip to India, where they met with fusion energy buff Indira Gandhi 
and other notables. 

When Dean was questioned about the FEF at a 1980 U.S. Senate energy 
hearing, he testified that "fusion community people attempt to treat the variety of 
different people that come to us equally and respectfully, independently of 
whether we agree with their political views. . . . Some of the comments and 
positions taken by the FEF are in fact positions we support on the merits." He 
added in a 1 984 phone interview; "I don't think they've done the country any 
harm. It makes life exciting to have them around." 



OFE scientists were not tine only ones impressed by tine FEF. By 1980 it claimed 
thousands of dues-paying members and over 80,000 Fusion subscribers. FEF 
director Levitt spoke at West Point on the military applications of fusion power, 
and Uwe Parpart gave a presentation at Lawrence Livermore. Almost $2 million 
in donations poured in during fiscal 1980-81. 

John Bosma, editor of Military Space magazine, explained the enthusiasm for the 
FEF as being partly due to the "top drawer" technical expertise of Fusion 
magazine. He had worked for Boeing Aerospace in Seattle in the late 1970s, and 
recalled senior managers and engineers "waving [Fusion] around and saying. 
This is great stuff.' " 

Another key to the FEF's success was its championing of nuclear power at a time 
when antinuclear sentiment was sweeping the nation. The 1979 Three Mile 
Island near-disaster alarmed millions of Americans. Environmentalists staged 
large demonstrations at nuclear power construction sites such as Seabrook in 
New Hampshire. Hollywood's The China Syndrome, starring LaRouche hate 
figure Jane Fonda, portrayed nuclear engineers as liars and murderers. 

The nuclear power industry was dismayed and angered. The FEF played on this 
by charging a giant plot to undermine American world leadership in science and 
technology. Fusion blamed the Three Mile Island incident on saboteurs. It offered 
slogans and bumper stickers for an industry counterattack: "More Nukes, Less 
Kooks" and "Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales." It also suggested that the United 
States should emulate the Soviet Union's hard line against "zero-growthniks." 
The February 1980 issue hailed a Soviet government scientist, A. P. Aleksandrov, 
who had attacked scientists opposed to building nuclear plants near cities. Said 
Aleksandrov, as quoted by Fusion: "Nuclear plants are very safe." 

The FEF provided an opening wedge for other activities. LaRouche's intelligence 
staff prepared reports for power companies on antinuclear activists. His 1980 
presidential campaign committee solicited donations from executives of nuclear 
power and aerospace corporations. Dozens of scientists and engineers 
(including a top man from Three Mile Island) signed a full-page Fusion 
advertisement backing LaRouche for President. 

Although some FEF supporters were turned off by its strident attacks on 
Darwinism, rock music, and Isaac Newton, it continued to grow. One reason was 
its support for a 1980 congressional bill to establish fusion power as a major 
national energy goal. The bill's sponsor. Representative Mike McCormack (D.- 
Wash.), envisioned a development push modeled on the Apollo Project. He 
estimated it would cost about $20 billion. In a speech before the House he 
predicted that the development of fusion energy would be "the second most 
important energy-related event in human history — second only to the controlled 
use of fire." 



McCormack didn't need the LaRouchians to tell him this. Many distinguished 
scientists had urged increased fusion funding. Nevertheless, the sweeping nature 
of the McCormack bill was not dissimilar to that of a 1976 fusion research and 
development draft bill prepared by the FEF. During the late 1 970s, FEF staffers 
sent a steady stream of proposals to McCormack's office. They attempted to 
mobilize support for his 1980 bill through speaking tours and press interviews, 
encouraging a barrage of postcards and telegrams to Congress. Simultaneously 
they attacked the Senate version, accusing its sponsor. Senator Paul Tsongas 
(D.-Mass.), of attempting to sabotage fusion development. 

The campaign for the McCormack bill proved to be a dry run for the 
LaRouchians' beam weapons campaign. FEF director Levitt warned that the 
United States was falling dangerously behind the Soviet Union in industry, 
education, and defense. The McCormack bill could create a "strategic focal point" 
to mobilize the nation for a historic comeback. "Fusion is strategic militarily," 
Levitt said. 

In November 1980, President Carter signed the Magnetic Fusion Engineering 
Act, which set the goal of a successful magnetic fusion demonstration plant by 
the year 2000. Although the bill provided only token funding, the FEF hailed it as 
a historic step. After Ronald Reagan assumed office, the massive fusion funding 
McCormack had envisioned went into SDI instead, and many fusion scientists 
shifted into SDI research. The FEF and LaRouche uttered nary a word of protest. 
They recognized that SDI offered a far better opportunity to push their ideological 
agenda. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Nine 

The "Higher" Peace Movement 

In the spring of 1 981 , two years before President Reagan's Star Wars speecli, 
New Solidarity reported that the President was "known to favor a space-based 
ABM system." The FEF promptly held a seminar in Washington on "anti-missile 
beam potentials" and other national-security implications of fusion energy. But 
the LaRouche campaign for beam weapons did not get into full swing until the 
following winter, when LaRouche supposedly received a message from a 
mysterious personage known only as "Mister Ed." 

LaRouche had received dozens of messages of advice from Mister Ed since the 
mid-1970s, often in the form of "E to L" (Ed to LaRouche) memoranda. This time 
the message suggested that he launch a major push for beam weapons. 
LaRouche, believing that Mister Ed spoke for a faction of the Central Intelligence 
Agency, "accepted the assignment," according to a report LaRouche's attorneys 
filed in Boston federal court five years later. 

In February 1982, LaRouche held a forum in Washington to propose a campaign 
for beam weapons. It would be a good counter to the nuclear freeze movement, 
he said. The next month he issued a research and development proposal 
followed in May by an FEF "white paper." In August the FEF circulated a report 
on Capitol Hill regarding a scheme for X-ray laser weapons favored by Dr. 
Edward Teller, the father of the H-bomb. The FEF held briefings for 
congressional aides to promote Teller's idea. 

LaRouche's publications reported on the various high-level lobbying efforts for 
space weaponry — including the September 1982 White House meeting between 
Teller and President Reagan. New Solidarity printed the text of Teller's speech 
the following month at the National Press Club, and dubbed his proposal the 
"LaRouche-Teller initiative." The FEF's Dr. Bardwell embarked on a tour of 
college campuses to convince audiences to join "the higher peace movement." 

LaRouche apparently was forewarned about Reagan's March 1983 speech. The 
previous month he had instructed his followers to intensify their campaign of 
petitions and lobbying and to make beam weapons "a household word in 
America . . . during the month of March." The day after Reagan's speech, 
LaRouche hailed it as probably the most important action "by any President in 
twenty years," adding that "true greatness . . . touched President Ronald Reagan 
last night ... a moment of greatness never to be forgotten." 



The media turned to the FEF to explain Reagan's proposal. The wire services, 
syndicated columnists, and The Washington Post all quoted FEF spokesmen. 
Meanwhile LaRouche began to assert that he was really SDI's "intellectual 
author." According to Dr. Ray Pollock, the National Security Council's director of 
defense programs at that time, LaRouche's followers "flooded Capitol Hill" with 
literature claiming this. Pollock said that although some White House officials 
were annoyed, no steps were taken to set the record straight. 

The FEF was undeniably one of the best sources for up-to-date information on 
SDI in its early stages. An October 1983 FEF seminar in the U.S. Senate's 
Dirksen Office Building was packed with government officials and foreign 
diplomats to hear FEF scientists explain the latest developments. John Pike, 
associate director for space policy at the Federation of American Scientists, 
recalled that he first learned about Teller's Excalibur project from the 
LaRouchians. Pike said it was apparent that they had talked to "people with 
access to classified information." Beam Defense, a 1983 book by the FEF's staff, 
contained. Pike said, "one of the most comprehensive and detailed studies" 
publicly available on particle beams and X-ray lasers. It won a 1984 award from 
the Aviation/Space Writers Association. 

The LaRouchians were reaping the rewards of their foresight and hard work. 
When they published their first article on beam weapons in 1975, warning about 
alleged Soviet breakthroughs, they attracted little notice. But they persisted, 
building their network of contacts among scientists. 

One of their first targets was Teller. As late as 1976 they had described him as a 
Rockefeller agent and a plotter of genocide. But when Teller delivered a speech 
attacking the ecology movement and its zero-growth theories, the LaRouchians 
began praising him. LaRouche set his sights on a private meeting with Teller to 
explore the possibilities of an alliance. FEF staffers hoped that Dr. Stefan 
Possony, a Teller colleague at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, would 
arrange it. LaRouche dedicated his magnum opus. The Case of Walter 
Lippmann, to Possony and Teller as "the writer's former opponents who exhibited 
the integrity to modify their views on important questions." (They were not his 
only dedicatees; the list also included Fidel Castro, Helmut Schmidt, and the 
ghost of Benjamin Franklin.) But Possony, whose taste in rightist politics ran 
more along World Anti-Communist League lines, never delivered the goods, 
although he did address two FEF conferences before dropping away. 

In a 1984 phone interview Teller called LaRouche "a poorly informed man with 
fantastic conceptions." Teller said he had chatted with FEF members on the 
phone from time to time, but had rejected all invitations to meet with LaRouche. 
He acknowledged he had made a mistake in not objecting when they began 
publishing articles suggesting he was working with them. "I was reluctant to 
criticize someone for agreeing with my ideas," he explained. 



In 1983 the LaRouchians strongly urged Teller to reciprocate their support. He 
asked a close personal friend, Dr, Robert Budwine of Lawrence Livermore, to 
take the matter in hand. Budwine knew very little about the LaRouchians, but 
agreed to meet with them to take the pressure off Teller. He ended up traveling 
to Paris and Bangkok, at LaRouchian expense, to speak at beam weapons 
conferences sponsored by the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence 
Review. 

Budwine became deeply intrigued by the LaRouchians and was drawn for 
several months into the periphery of their cult life. Among other things, he 
attended the NCLC annual conference in January 1984 at LaRouche's Virginia 
mansion, where the baroque harpsichord background music struck him as "an 
attempt to re-create an eighteenth-century salon." He formed friendships with 
Uwe Parpart and other NCLC members, and spent several hours in private 
discussions with LaRouche on Indo-European root languages, Riemannian 
geometry, and other LaRouche hobbies. 

Budwine's scientific training ultimately made him a poor target for recruitment. 
"They kept talking about this great method they have, but I kept asking: 'What 
kind of method is it that consistently gives you the wrong answers?' " He began 
to read up on cults and brainwashing, and came to the conclusion that 
"LaRouche is not a serious man, he's even less than that . . . LaRouche is crazy." 

The LaRouchians continued to go to great lengths to entice Star Wars scientists. 
Roy Woodruff, former head of arms development at Livermore, recalls at least 
twenty phone calls from Chuck Stevens, a Fusion reporter and former nuclear 
engineering student. Again and again. Woodruff refused to speak with him, but 
Stevens persisted. "He sat at the West Gate and waited for me," Woodruff said. 
"I went out another gate to avoid him." 

New Solidarity articles often praised Dr. Lowell Wood, chief of Livermore's "O 
Group," a top SDI research team. Wood said in 1 984 that FEF representatives 
called him from time to time and that he also ran into them at scientific 
conferences. Asked if they had influenced the development of SDI, he was 
hesitant to deny it. He said they had boasted to him about meetings with top 
presidential aides and Pentagon officials. Although he never attempted to confirm 
these claims, he said that many administration officials had mentioned to him the 
"quality, speed, and accuracy" of LaRouche's intelligence operation. 

Dr. John Nuckolls, Livermore's associate director for physics and the man to 
whom the O Group reported, received calls from the LaRouchians throughout the 
late 1970s and early 1980s. Their attempts to "break the classification barrier," 
he said, made "interaction difficult." He couldn't decide if their promotional 
activities on behalf of fusion energy and SDI were "positive or negative." 
However, he thought it might "be useful to have someone at the grass roots — 



assuming they are at the grass roots." He said he didn't want to either attacl< or 
defend them. "We have a common interest," he said. 

For Dr. Winston Bostick and Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, physicists on the outer 
fringes of Star Wars, this common interest involved more tlian SDI. Bostick, 
former chairman of the Stevens Institute of Technology physics department, 
participated in beam weapons-related research at the Kirtland Air Force Base 
weapons laboratory from 1979 to 1983. He was also a leading figure in the FEF, 
speaking at its conferences, writing for Fusion, and serving on the editorial board 
of another FEF publication, the International Journal of Fusion Energy. In a 1984 
telephone interview he said he supported LaRouche's attempts to promote 
"German military, scientific, cultural, and economic traditions." 

Winterberg was a fusion specialist with the University of Nevada's Desert 
Research Institute. He volunteered ideas on beam weapons to the Air Force in 
the late 1970s, and later speculated on the subject for LaRouchian publications. 
In 1980 he described LaRouche as having the "most scientifically founded" 
program of any candidate for the U.S. presidency. The FEF published his 
Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices (1 981 ) and also sent 
him on overseas speaking tours. 

One of the most important government scientists contacted by the LaRouchians 
was Dr. Richard DeLauer, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering from 1981 to 1984. DeLauer, who first became aware of their 
activities in the late 1970s when he was executive vice president of TRW Inc., 
granted an interview to an Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) reporter in his 
Pentagon office in 1981. He fulminated on the weaknesses of American science, 
which he blamed on the "greening of America" and "gurus" who "took advantage 
of food stamps." Asked about his assessment of Soviet progress on space-based 
ABM systems, he said his views came in large part from reading EIR — "you guys 
are supposed to know more about it than anybody else." 

In mid-1984, after being attacked by the LaRouchians for alleged foot dragging 
on SDI, DeLauer claimed that his statement about EIR's expertise had been 
mere sarcasm, an expression of his "exasperation" with the interviewer. "I have 
no use for that guy [LaRouche] and his opinions." he said. But he praised the 
FEF for its pronuclear stance: "In their support of nuclear power — in that sense — 
I support them." He had even donated money to the FEF as "the only active 
group that opposes Jane Fonda." Asked about a sexually demeaning anti-Fonda 
bumper sticker sold by the FEF, he chuckled and said: "I got another one [FEF 
slogan] for you: 'More people have been killed in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's 
car than in a nuclear accident.' " 

A far more useful contact was the NSC's Dr. Pollock, one of the key policymakers 
behind Reagan's Star Wars speech. Pollock said the LaRouchians first contacted 
him while he was working at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the late 1970s. 



He began to chat on the phone with Fusion reporter Stevens to find out the latest 
gossip about the fusion research community. 

When Pollock moved to Washington to work at the Department of Energy, he 
sometimes lunched with Stevens. After his appointment to the National Security 
Council he continued the relationship, and during the months prior to the 
announcing of SDI he met on several occasions with high-level LaRouche aides 
such as Uwe Parpart. They urged on him a plan for a beam weapons "Manhattan 
Project." He found merit in their ideas on the potential economic spin-offs. They 
offered to pay his way to conferences overseas, but he declined. 

Pollock met twice with LaRouche at the prodding of National Security Adviser 
William Clark's right-hand man, Richard Morris. Morris was present at the first 
meeting, as was Helga LaRouche. They discussed German politics, and Pollock 
found LaRouche to be a "frightening kind of fellow." Pollock's recollection of the 
second meeting is that LaRouche explained his conspiracy theory of history. 
LaRouche in a 1984 deposition said they also discussed the "economic 
implications" of SDI. Pollock says he put LaRouche's views into a one-page 
memo and sent it across the street to the White House. 

In 1986, LaRouche wrote that his personal contribution to SDI had been to 
demonstrate that it was affordable. Obviously the United States could pay for a 
"first-generation" system. The problem lay in the costs of deploying second-, 
third-, and fourth-generation systems if the Soviets developed countermeasures. 
LaRouche claimed that he had proven, via his LaRouche-Riemann economic 
model, that the "spillover" of SDI technologies into the civilian economy would 
produce profits fully offsetting SDI's cost. He had thus proposed "a 'crash 
program' ... as the best way to cause this 'spillover' to occur." In other words, 
LaRouche had proposed that the Reagan administration adopt one of the key 
points of his own Grand Design: pay-as-you-go total mobilization. 

The LaRouche organization chiefly contributed to SDI by publicizing and 
organizing support for it in Western Europe. They held numerous conferences 
and seminars in Paris, Bonn, and Rome, attracting many high-level military 
officers. The first such events occurred months before Reagan's Star Wars 
speech, with audiences being told something big was in the works. (This led 
many Europeans to subsequently regard LaRouche as a major player in SDI 
policy.) The LaRouchian effort was strongly supported by Colonel Marc Geneste, 
a French neutron bomb expert, and General Giulio Maori, a former NATO expert 
on high technology weapons who ran for the Italian Parliament as a LaRouchian 
beam-weapons candidate. Several retired German officers joined with the 
LaRouchians to launch Patriots for Germany, a pro-Star Wars political party. A 
similar group was launched in Paris under the suggestive name France et Son 
Armee. In much of their propaganda, the LaRouchians presented themselves as 
allies of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Lieutenant-General James 
Abrahamson (USAF), the director of SDI. When Abrahamson went to Europe in 



July 1984 to build NATO support for his program, the LaRouchians boasted that 
their organizing efforts over the previous two years had prepared the ground for 
his favorable reception. 

The success of LaRouche's European campaign hinged on maintaining an image 
of legitimacy. In this he received help from the highest levels in Washington. The 
State Department sent a priority cable bearing George Shultz's name to the Bonn 
embassy. Entitled "Anti-LaRouche Disorganizing Activity," the January 1983 
cable quoted a complaint from a LaRouche aide that "certain U.S. embassy 
officials abroad" were trying to dissuade individuals in foreign countries from 
associating with LaRouche. The cable then reminded the embassy that negative 
characterizations of U.S. political figures "are not authorized" and directed staff 
members to "refrain from offering personal opinions while acting in their official 
capacities." (The cable was based on a DOS press guidance statement that EIR 
had quoted from the previous month.) 

LaRouche's followers also promoted SDI in Japan, which they said could thereby 
be transformed into an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." Uwe Parpart and other FEF 
officials made several trips to Tokyo. According to General Yoshio Ishikawa, the 
Japanese defense attache in Washington, these trips were sponsored by 
"several private associations concerned with defense." When a Japanese 
translation of Beam Defense was published in 1984, Parpart met with Liberal 
Democratic Party legislators in Tokyo, then addressed a defense industry 
seminar. 

When Japan's Cabinet began formal consideration in 1986 of whether or not to 
participate in SDI, the LaRouchians staged a Tokyo conference to urge "full 
strategic commitment." In addition to LaRouche's usual gaggle of scientific 
experts, the speakers included a retired French general, a retired American 
colonel (who was receiving $2,000 a week from LaRouche as a consultant), an 
engineer from a California firm involved in SDI, and spokesmen for two Japanese 
research institutes. According to EIR, the conference was intended as an 
antidote to the "treasonous" influence of Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard 
Perle, who had visited Tokyo several weeks previously. EIR called him an agent 
of the "Mossad-linked Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs" and accused 
him of trying to undercut Japanese participation in SDI. 

The LaRouchians also kept up a vigorous propaganda effort throughout the 
United States: signs at airports, FEF speaking tours, lobbying for pro-SDI 
resolutions in state legislatures, beam-weapons election campaign slates. They 
brought over General Maori and Colonel Geneste for speaking tours in 1984. 
Maori, who had previously urged American military officers to "begin to concern 
themselves with politics," was given an official Pentagon briefing on SDI. 
Geneste spoke at the U.S. Air Force Academy and met with Edward Teller. The 
Pentagon also furnished its own speakers for LaRouchian events. In May 1984 
two top officials of the DOD's International Security Policy Division accepted an 



invitation to address a LaRoucliian rally in Crystal City, Virginia. DOD spokesman 
John d'Amecourt said in September 1984 that the department regarded the 
LaRouchians as a "conservative group . . . very supportive of the administration 
in general." As LaRouche's notoriety grew, Pentagon officials became reluctant 
to speak at such events, but EIR continued to gain interviews with top brass (for 
instance, a 1985 interview with Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, Admiral 
Wesley McDonald). 

In 1986 the Fusion Energy Foundation became the target of multiple criminal 
investigations. According to prosecutors, evidence showed that FEF fundraisers, 
along with those of other LaRouche front groups, were defrauding elderly 
persons in every region of the country by soliciting unsecured loans with no 
intention of repaying them. FEF officials were indicted for loan fraud in New York 
and Virginia, and for credit-card fraud in Massachusetts. (The LaRouchians 
denied the charges.) Federal authorities raided the offices and seized the assets 
of the FEF and other LaRouche front groups to collect fines levied by a federal 
judge after they failed to cooperate with grand jury subpoenas. 

Despite these troubles, the FEF was not abandoned by its friends in the fusion 
and SDI communities. The July 1987 issue of Spectrum, published by the 
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, carried a full-page ad signed by 
many scientists and engineers from Star Wars-linked corporations and 
laboratories protesting the government's shutdown of the FEF. The ad's 
signatories included twenty-two employees of Lawrence Livermore. Dr. Stephen 
Dean of Fusion Power Associates, which is supported by major Star Wars 
contractors, sent out a letter defending the FEF and calling the government's 
charges "quite far-fetched." Urging FPA members to take action, he suggested 
they contact LaRouche aide Carol White. 

On balance, LaRouche's twelve-year campaign for fusion power, beam weapons, 
and SDI brought him more benefits than problems. His followers learned to 
operate in influential mainstream circles, not just among right-wing eccentrics. 
Many scientists and government officials found the LaRouchians useful and thus 
were willing to overlook their anti-Semitism and other unpleasant qualities. Some 
of these alliances of convenience lasted for years, involving frequent low-profile 
exchange of favors. LaRouche built up a pool of influential people whom he had 
compromised, and who thus had a vested interest in downplaying his extremism 
to avoid embarrassment to themselves. 

Many SDI figures refused to have anything to do with LaRouche, others 
distanced themselves from him when informed of his background, and some, like 
General Daniel Graham of High Frontiers, publicly denounced him. Yet far too 
many SDI proponents quietly winked at his involvement in the politics of SDI. 
Such people wanted the American taxpayer to pour vast sums into building a 
supposedly invulnerable military shield against the Soviet Union, yet were 



themselves far from invulnerable politically and morally when a totalitarian 
movement appeared under their noses. 

Many of the early claims for Star Wars were prompted by political enthusiasm 
and unsupported by scientific data. As in many historic cases of pseudo-science, 
the motives of critics were impugned to divert attention from theoretical and 
research flaws. This is where the LaRouchians played their most insidious role. 
In an atmosphere in which a scientist as important as Roy Woodruff could be 
demoted at Lawrence Livermore for questioning dubious data, hundreds of 
Fusion and EIR articles accused SDI critics — or persons such as General 
Graham, who advocated technological approaches different from Teller's — of 
being unpatriotic or worse. Although Teller himself denounced an especially 
nasty EIR attack on Graham, many SDI supporters continued to chat with the 
LaRouchians (for instance. Dr. Robert Jastrow, who told a Fusion reporter in 
1984 that it would take a psychologist to explain the attitudes of anti-SDI 
scientists). 

The use of the LaRouchians as SDI's cat's paw was a reflection both of the 
program's ideologically driven nature and of the cynicism underlying the ideology. 
But the LaRouchians were not merely pawns in all this. They had their own 
unique agenda. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Ten 

Old Nazis and New Dreams 

While speculating on total war in the late 1970s, LaRouche had to concede that 
an American-Soviet nuclear showdown was too dangerous. Between 120 and 
180 million Americans would die in the initial exchange alone. This threatened his 
entire dream of world conquest. His solution was a multitrillion-dollar crash 
mobilization to build a space-based particle-beam missile shield. Naturally he 
said it would be a defensive system. The FEF's airport literature tables displayed 
"Beam the Bomb" posters. Dr. Steven Bardwell urged audiences to join the " 
'higher' peace movement." But Bardwell quit the LaRouche organization in early 
1984 and stated bluntly, in a letter to his former comrades, what many of them 
had known but ignored: LaRouche's goal was not a defensive system such as 
President Reagan's SDI, but a "first strike" system predicated on a denial of "the 
right of the Soviet Union to exist" in its present form. Indeed, Bardwell claimed, 
the LaRouchians had privately discussed "Doomsday weapons," such as "cobalt 
bombs with fans." 

In the early and middle 1980s LaRouche utilized SDI and beam weapons to draw 
together the scattered forces of European and American neo-fascism to defend 
Nazi war criminals and promote revanchism. This effort was symbolized by a 
photograph of a four-pronged object, glowing with light, that appeared from time 
to time in Fusion and New Solidarity. Its shape was reminiscent of the swastika. 
A caption in a 1978 issue of Fusion said it was a plasmoid created at Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory in the 1950s, when a scientist supposedly collided 
four plasma beams to "form a rotating plasma structure whose dynamics are 
governed by a 'balancing' of forces." In a 1985 Fusion article by LaRouche urging 
total mobilization for SDI, the ghostly object was described as a laboratory 
"'galaxy'. ..created by colliding electron beams," and it was paired with a 
telescope photo of a barred spiral galaxy in the constellation Eridanus. According 
to the photo caption, the two objects represent "harmonic patterns," while 
LaRouche described SDI itself as the precursor of a "hyperbolic flaring" based on 
"triply self-reflexive" spirals. Readers were also informed that the "spiral 
geometry of many galaxies coheres with the spiral shape found in living 
biological processes." 

The reference to cosmic spirals in an article on advanced weapons systems was 
something that SS veterans in Germany could understand. During World War II 
the theory of spiraling expansion/conquest had been a staple of Nazi 
propaganda. As a 1942 tract put it, "The living space of the Third Reich can be 
enlarged only by moving out from a powerful territorial hub and by accomplishing 



this conquest progressively, step by step, following the accelerating movement of 
a spiraling dextrogyre." 

In the postwar period, neo-Nazis developed various forms of swastika mysticism; 
for instance, the late James Madole of the New York-based National 
Renaissance Party taught during the 1970s that the swastika represented 
"undefiled cosmic energy and hydrogen . . . flowing into the spiral arms of our 
mighty galaxy from the hidden galactic heart." But LaRouche developed a more 
sophisticated spiral mysticism embracing biology as well as cosmology, in which 
"manifold leaps" produce higher and higher stages of consciousness, racial 
types, superhuman species, and weapons systems. 

The LaRouchians reached out to former Nazi scientists who had worked on V-2 
rockets, jet aircraft, and the Nazi version of the atom bomb at research centers 
like Peenemunde. They also approached West German military officers, using a 
sales pitch that glorified "classical German culture" as the high point of world 
civilization while vilifying Russian culture. LaRouche developed a new version of 
the Grand Design featuring forced-draft development of SDI, underground 
factories on the moon, Lebensraum on Mars, and electromagnetic weapons 
capable of turning the Soviet Union into a vast microwave oven. 

LaRouche and his wife, Helga, quickly developed a following among retired West 
German military men. Admiral Karl-Adolf Zenker, former head of the West 
German Navy and a World War II veteran, joined Patriots for Germany and met 
with LaRouche on many occasions. As a Navy captain in 1956 Zenker had 
created a furor by telling cadets they should respect Admirals Erich Raeder and 
Karl Doenitz, Nazi war criminals convicted at Nuremberg. Zenker said the two 
were blameless men who had merely done their "duty to their people." When 
LaRouche was indicted for obstruction of justice in a credit-card fraud case in 
1987, Zenker called him an "honest defender of a strong Western alliance." 

Brigadier General Paul-Albert Scherer, former chief of West German military 
counterintelligence, also joined the bandwagon. After LaRouche's indictment, he 
testified before a Schiller Institute-sponsored commission set up to prove that the 
U.S. government was violating LaRouche's civil rights. He praised LaRouche's 
warm heart, "gentle humor," and devotion to the Western alliance. 

LaRouche's New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House issued a translation of 
Modern Irregular Warfare by Brigadier General (Reserves) Freiherr von der 
Heydt, a Bavarian law professor and longtime ultranationalist who had been a 
Nazi war hero. New Solidarity said the book presented a model of "total violent 
confrontation, involving the totality of the state and people." Suggesting this 
model might be useful in handling left-wing opponents of SDI, the NCLC 
newspaper urged the public to make bulk purchases "so that we can provide 
military, educational, and government institutions with the copies they need." 



The list of those who endorsed LaRouche's various public appeals included a 
former Frankfurt police chief, a vice president of the Bavarian Soldiers 
Association, a Kiel University professor who had worked on Hitler's uranium 
bomb, and various ultra-rightist generals in France, Italy, and Spain. The 
LaRouchians also cultivated former Nazi scientists brought to the United States 
after the war as part of the Army's Operation Paperclip to work on defense 
projects. They included the survivors of Wernher von Braun's team who designed 
missiles at the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama. 

For decades the wartime deeds of these "old-timers" (as they call themselves) 
appeared to be a closed book. Former SS general von Braun became an 
American hero for his work on the space program. But in the late 1970s, after 
von Braun's death, the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations 
(OSI) began to examine the records of alleged Nazi war criminals in this country, 
with the aim of deporting the guilty ones. When the investigators nibbled at the 
edges of the Paperclip crowd, the latter felt angry and betrayed. Had they not 
wiped the slate clean by their contributions to America's fight against 
communism? 

LaRouche told them the slate never needed any wiping in the first place. In a 
1981 EIR article praising Nazi Germany's work on jet aircraft, he distinguished 
between bad Nazi politicians and good Nazi scientists. "Although the Nazis 
commanded the German state," he said, "it was the German nation which 
deployed its non-Nazi resources to fight the war," The Peenemunde scientists 
were part of this healthy German nationalism. The crimes of the Nazi regime thus 
were "irrelevant" to any judgment of their wartime role. Fusion and New Solidarity 
published adulatory articles about how Peenemunde had paved the way for 
fusion energy and SDI. It was said to represent the "classical German tradition," 
the path to true progress as opposed to the degenerate science of the "British." 

In November 1 981 the FEF held a special dinner and awards ceremony for the 
University of Colorado's Adolf Busemann, who had worked at Peenemunde. In 
an interview with Fusion he criticized Hitler for not giving Germany's rocket 
scientists enough resources to do their job properly. When he died in 1986, New 
Solidarity urged its readers to "reflect on his life with joy" and bemoaned the fact 
that so few old-timers were left to "carry on the great traditions of the German 
scientific school." 

The LaRouchians also developed close ties with Krafft A. Ehricke, a member of 
the von Braun team widely known for his visionary ideas on space travel. He had 
served in World War II as a tank platoon leader on the Eastern Front before 
being assigned to Peenemunde. Brought to the United States in 1947, he helped 
develop the Atlas rocket, America's first intercontinental ballistic missile. Retired 
and living in La Jolla, California, in the early 1980s, Ehricke dreamed of colonies 
on the moon. He wrote articles for Fusion, served on its editorial advisory board, 
and spoke at FEF and Schiller Institute events. In a 1984 phone interview shortly 



before his death, he praised LaRouche's followers as "open, clean-cut, and 
positive," in contrast to Jane Fonda and the environmentalists with their "African 
grass hut technology." He said he had spent many an evening with his friends 
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche discussing Star Wars and the Soviet Union's plan 
to become the neo-Byzantine "Third Rome." Ehricke said he agreed with 
LaRouche's assessment of the Soviet menace because of his own observation of 
their murderous qualities during World War II. 

Another LaRouchian role model was Arthur Rudolph, the Paperclip engineer who 
developed NASA's Saturn V moon rocket. When he was accused by the Justice 
Department of working thousands of slave laborers to death at a V-2 factory in 
1943-45, the LaRouchians and the old-timers launched a campaign to depict him 
as the innocent victim of a Communist plot. Yet his Nazi activities were extremely 
well documented. He had joined both the Nazi Party and the SA storm troopers 
in 1931, before Hitler came to power. After serving as an SA Oberscharfuhrer 
and then as a Peenemunde engineer, he became production manager of the 
underground Mittelwerk factory in the Harz Mountains. Mittelwerk used slave 
labor from the nearby Dora-Nordhausen concentration camp. A third to a half of 
the camp's 60,000 inmates died from disease, starvation, and mistreatment. 
Approximately 5,000 died while working for Rudolph, who once stood by while 
SS men lynched twelve of his slaves. In 1945 a U.S. Army report called him a 
"100 percent Nazi, dangerous type" and recommended that he be interned. 

But after Rudolph joined Operation Paperclip a revised security report said he 
was "not an ardent Nazi." In the early 1980s, having long retired from NASA, he 
was investigated by the OSI. He admitted in a 1983 interview with OSI attorneys 
that he had been fully aware of the inhuman working and living conditions of the 
Dora-Nordhausen laborers. The following year he returned to Germany and 
agreed to give up his U.S. citizenship rather than face deportation proceedings. 
OSI prosecutor Eli Rosenbaum later described him as having an "almost 
unbelievable callousness and disregard for human life." 

The FEF, the Schiller Institute, and the Huntsville crowd campaigned to restore 
Rudolph's citizenship. The old-timers were increasingly nervous because two 
more from their ranks. Dieter Grau and Gunther Haukohl, had come under OSI 
investigation for their role at Mittelwerk. The FEF warned that "hundreds" of 
Operation Paperclip scientists were under investigation, but this was denied by 
the OSI. 

An Old-Timers' Defense Fund was established, and a petition was sent to 
President Reagan asking him to help Rudolph. Major General J. Bruce Medaris 
(ret.), former chief of the U.S. Army Ordnance Command, Baltic and Ukrainian 
emigre groups. The Spotlight, and the neo-Nazi magazine Instauration all lent 
their support. A delegation from Huntsville met with White House 
communications director Patrick Buchanan. 



Rudolph's most outspoken supporter was Friedwardt Winterberg of the FEF. A 
student of former Nazi physicist Erich Bagge after the war, Winterberg felt 
strongly that Rudolph was a victim rather than a victimizer. He launched his own 
investigation and sent letters of protest to Ed Meese and other administration 
officials on Desert Research Institute stationery. He also gave an interview to 
The Spotlight repeating the LaRouche line that an attack on Rudolph was an 
attack on NATO. Winterberg also sent handwritten notes (he called them 
"brainteasers") to OSI prosecutor Rosenbaum focusing on such themes as: 
Israel is guilty of Nazi-style crimes; Simon Wiesenthal was a Nazi collaborator; 
Zionism is a form of Nazism that has "infected" world Jewry. 

EIR published an article by General Medaris: "Stop the OSI's Assault against 
German-American Scientists!" Editorials in New Solidarity described Rudolph as 
an American "patriot" and suggested that OSI prosecutors were Soviet agents 
and "traitors" who perhaps should be executed for treason. Their activities were 
said to be a plot to undermine the SDI by demoralizing and deporting America's 
brilliant cadre of Peenemunde scientists. The Schiller Institute expanded the list 
of patriotic martyrs to include John (Ivan the Terrible) Demjanjuk of Treblinka 
fame; Karl Linnas, the butcher of the Tartu death camp; and Tscherim 
Soobzokov, a Waffen SS mass murderer whose attorney, Michael Dennis, was 
also LaRouche's attorney. (Just why autoworker Demjanjuk, construction 
surveyor Linnas, and Paterson, New Jersey, ward heeler Soobzokov were vital to 
SDI was never explained.) 

In 1985 the old-timers held their fortieth reunion at the Alabama Space and 
Rocket Museum beneath a giant picture of von Braun. Linda Hunt, a former 
Cable Network News reporter, recalled a darkened auditorium full of aging Nazis 
eagerly watching a slide show of the latest laser-beam weapons. She said that 
when the lights went on, the FEF's Marsha Freeman went to the front and 
delivered a tirade against the OSI to hearty applause. 

This event was mild compared with the Krafft Ehricke Memorial Conference held 
that year in Reston, Virginia. Sponsored by the FEF and the Schiller Institute, it 
united support for SDI, defense of Nazi war criminals, glorification of 
Peenemunde, and a messianic vision of the conquest of outer space. Fusion 
boasted that participants included "military, scientific, and diplomatic 
representatives from four continents." Former top Nazi scientist Hermann Oberth 
sent greetings from West Germany hailing Ehricke's "vision of 'Homo Sapiens 
Extraterrestris,' " the New Man who would leave behind the "flaming harbors of 
the Earth." Speakers included Admiral Zenker and Peenemunde rocketeer 
Konrad Dannenberg. LaRouche gave the keynote address, entitled "Krafft 
Ehricke's Enduring Contribution to the Future Generations of Global and 
Interplanetary Civilization." Resolutions were passed calling on President 
Reagan to adopt LaRouche's crash program for SDI and halt the Justice 
Department's investigation of the old-timers. Since the only old-timers being 
probed were those who allegedly served at Mittelwerk, the FEF/Schiller Institute's 



hoopla about underground factories on the moon and the spirit of Peenemunde 
in space technology was suggestive, at the least. 

Over the next two years LaRouche assumed Krafft Ehricke's mantle. He outlined 
plans for cities on Mars and in the asteroid belt — an extension of his earlier 
earthbound citybuilding schemes so reminiscent of the SS plans for Aryan 
colonies in occupied Russia. His prototype design for a space city was based on 
the geometry of cosmic spirals. He said his inspiration had come from the work of 
German scientists who, at the end of the war, while "awaiting reassignments" 
(presumably to the Redstone Arsenal) had amused themselves by drawing up 
plans for rebuilding the Ruhr. 

While thus dreaming of a new Ruhr on Mars, LaRouche did not forget the Green 
Steppes of Earth. In a speech at a September 3, 1 987, EIR seminar in Munich, 
he claimed that when he promoted SDI in the early 1980s he had intended it only 
as the first stage in the most awesome revolution in the history of military 
technology — the development of "mass-killing" weapons using the "full range of 
the electromagnetic spectrum." Such weapons would make possible the "true 
total war." Aimed eastward, they could fry the entire Soviet population while 
leaving Soviet factories and railroads intact. LaRouche told his audience of 
military officers and Bavarian defense contractors that whoever develops 
microwave weapons first can "dominate this planet." 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



PART FOUR: Building a l\/lovement 

"It was really a treat . . . to follow the perplexity and helplessness of 
our adversaries in their perpetually vacillating tactics. . . .They 
called on their adherents to take no notice of us and to avoid our 
meetings. And on the whole this advice was followed." 

—ADOLF HITLER on the rise of the Nazi Party 

Chapter Eleven 

More American than Apple Pie 

In the mid-1970s the LaRouchians started to build a nationwide election 
machine. At first it grew slowly, hampered by their rhetoric about Rockefeller-CIA 
conspiracies and their hesitancy to run candidates in major-party primaries. But 
their percentage of the vote grew dramatically once they began to participate in 
Democratic primaries. They gained the financial support and even the 
organizational allegiance of thousands of discontented Americans. Like earlier 
far-right groups such as the John Birch Society, they attracted many senior 
citizens and economically troubled farmers and small businessmen. They also 
reached out to blue-collar workers and inner-city blacks. By 1984 the 
LaRouchians were fielding more candidates, gaining more votes, and raising 
vastly more money than any other extremist sect in America. 

The LaRouche election machine contested almost 4,000 Democratic primaries 
and general elections in over 30 states between 1982 and 1988. Its fund raisers 
brought in tens of millions of dollars while its candidates attracted over 4 million 
votes, including voting percentages above 10 percent in hundreds of contests. In 
at least 70 statewide, congressional, or state legislative races, LaRouche 
candidates polled over 20 percent of the vote. At least 25 appeared on the 
general election ballot as Democratic nominees, either by defeating a regular 
Democratic opponent or by running in the primary unopposed. Although none 
was actually elected to any public office higher than a local school board, 
hundreds won Democratic Party posts (mostly county committee seats) across 
the country. 

This election machine grew out of the U.S. Labor Party, an NCLC electoral arm 
founded in 1971 and disbanded when the LaRouchians entered the Democratic 
Party in 1979. Most of the USLP's youthful candidates and campaign workers 
were NCLC cadre with few ties to outsiders. They often sounded ludicrous with 
their warnings of imminent nuclear war, famine, and plague. But occasionally a 



USLP candidate would impress reporters witli wliat appeared to be a sober 
grasp of economics. Paul Gallagher, who ran for governor of New York in 1978, 
issued a position paper on how the New York business community could take the 
lead in a "national export boom." He promised that if elected he would "defend 
the dollar." 

In 1974 the USLP ran 33 candidates for major public office in 1 1 states, receiving 
65,000 votes. In 1976 it sponsored 140 candidates in 21 states. Many were 
knocked off the ballot, but the number remaining was still greater than all other 
small leftist parties combined and greater than any single right-wing minor party. 
Although LaRouche received only 40,000 votes for President, the total vote that 
year for all USLP candidates running for major public office (Congress and up) 
was 154,000 — more than any party of the radical left but less than the right-wing 
American Party. In 1 978 the USLP ran 72 candidates in 1 7 states, taking the total 
number of USLP candidates between 1974 and 1979 (including those knocked 
off the ballot) well over 300. 

Most of this was the work of fewer than 500 NCLC local and regional cadres. In 
some cities virtually every NCLC member ran for office, year after year. Their 
compulsive electioneering was a source of amusement to other radical sects, yet 
the LaRouchians were gaining invaluable experience: They learned how to fill up 
nominating petitions rapidly, efficiently, and with a minimum of invalid signatures. 
They learned how to fend off petition challenges and, conversely, how to kick 
rivals like the Communist Party off the ballot. Their in-house lawyers and 
paralegals learned how to challenge local authorities over such issues as access 
to shopping malls and the right to use bullhorns on street corners. The USLP 
candidates mastered the tricks of campaigning on a shoestring budget. For 
instance, they submitted letters and op-ed pieces to local dailies and cadged 
invitations to appear on radio talk shows and cable TV. They also staged small 
but noisy demonstrations claiming that local police were persecuting them. When 
daily newspapers still ignored them, they went to neighborhood or ethnic 
weeklies, whose reporters sometimes were more desperate for a story or simply 
more gullible. 

USLP candidates also met with local trade union officials to request 
endorsements, something that most other radical groups rarely bothered to do. 

In the 1970s radical sects such as the Communist Party and the Socialist 
Workers Party ran candidates chiefly for propaganda purposes, concentrating on 
the higher offices such as governor or mayor. Knowing they could not win, they 
rarely did much campaigning. But the USLP filed for minor public offices and 
campaigned seriously, A 1977 report from the Richmond, Virginia, USLP local 
claimed that its City Council slate had scheduled more than a dozen meetings 
with community groups and trade union officials, as well as appearances on 
three radio talk shows. The memo urged party members in other cities to field 



City Council candidates, since sucli contests furnisli "virtually pre-set meetings 
for exposure of the USLP program." 

Most USLP candidates were lucky to get 1 or 2 percent of the vote. Although 
voters will often give the benefit of the doubt to an outsider in the Democratic or 
Republican primary, they are reluctant to throw away their vote on a fringe party 
in the general election. Still the USLP did better than most fringe parties. A 1979 
survey by the Manhattan weekly Our Town identified over two dozen races in 
seven states and the District of Columbia where USLP candidates picked up 
between 8 percent and 31 percent of the vote for everything from local school 
board to U.S. Congress. One Virginia USLP congressional candidate received 
over 10 percent in three successive elections. 

These results did not reflect any groundswell of support for the USLP's politics. In 
most of the congressional races in which USLP candidates edged beyond the 
usual minor-party totals, their opponent was a Democratic incumbent with no 
Republican opponent. They would thus pick up the knee-jerk protest vote. Also 
they were often listed on the ballot as "Independents" rather than "USLP." The 
municipal and school board elections in which they did well were usually 
nonpartisan contests in which all names on the ballot were listed without party 
affiliation. Nobody told the voters who the USLP candidates were, or that they 
were extremists. Many voters pulled the lever for them at random. 

In some cities the USLP attempted to exploit emotional public issues. During 
Boston's intense white ethnic opposition to school busing in 1974, the USLP 
fielded a congressional candidate in a district that included the anti-busing 
stronghold of South Boston. After denouncing busing as a Ford Foundation plot, 
he received 10.7 percent of the vote. Two years later the son of a former Ford 
Foundation vice president ran as the USLP's senatorial candidate in 
Massachusetts. Although he received fewer than 5,000 votes. New Solidarity 
boasted that he had done well in South Boston. 

In Baltimore, USLP candidate Debra Freeman appealed openly to racist and anti- 
Semitic sentiments in her 1978 campaign against incumbent Congressman 
Parren Mitchell, chairman of the Black Congressional Caucus. Freeman, who is 
white, described Mitchell as a "house nigger" for Baltimore's "Zionists" and an 
example of "bestiality" in politics. Her campaign literature carried headlines like 
"End 200 Years of Zionist Slave Trading in Black Commodities." She won more 
than 1 1 percent of the vote, doing especially well in several white precincts. 

In early 1979, LaRouche announced his second run for the presidency. He called 
himself the "candidate more American than apple pie" and toured the Midwest, 
speaking before chambers of commerce and civic clubs. He attempted to keep 
his rhetoric low-key, but his real views sometimes erupted. "If I had been 
President in 1973, and they had tried to do that [Watergate] to me ... I would 



have smashed them," he told the Government Relations Roundtable of the 
Detroit Chamber of Commerce. 

LaRouche began his campaign under the U.S. Labor Party banner, but by mid- 
1979 he recognized the futility of fringe-party electioneering and announced he 
would enter the New Hampshire presidential primary to appeal to the "silent 
Republican majority." Although he had not lived in New Hampshire since the age 
of ten, he called himself a "native son" candidate. 

LaRouche's plan centered on his greatest asset — a devoted band of disciples 
who could be deployed anywhere in the United States on short notice to work 
sixteen hours a day without salaries while being housed and fed at minimal cost. 
Their legwork would compensate for his initial lack of a New Hampshire political 
base. To overcome his lack of name recognition he would start campaigning 
early, crisscrossing the state and holding "town meetings" in even the smallest 
villages. He would emphasize his French-Canadian descent, thus winning the 
sympathy of the state's largest ethnic minority. He would flood the state with 
campaign literature produced at low cost by the NCLC's in-house printing and 
typesetting facilities in Manhattan. The sum total of these efforts would invest the 
campaign with enough excitement — and the appearance of enough legitimacy — 
to attract local volunteers. Then, in the final weeks, LaRouche would bring in 
hundreds of NCLC members, including the entire national office staff. The result 
might not be as dramatic as Senator Eugene McCarthy's New Hampshire 
crusade in 1 968, but LaRouche figured he could win 1 or 1 5 percent of the 
vote — enough to gain celebrity status and a chance for financial backing from 
Texas oilmen. 

In August, LaRouche sent in an advance team to open his Manchester 
headquarters. He made his first campaign tour in early September. At this point, 
most observers assumed he would enter the Republican primary, traditional 
magnet for right-wingers. Instead LaRouche declared himself a Democrat. 

The decision was shrewd on both tactical and strategic grounds. The far right of 
the Republican Party was crowded with people who mostly disliked LaRouche. 
The Birchers in particular regarded him as a dangerous poacher and had 
repeatedly raised questions about his Trotskyist past. Most of the radical right in 
any case was supporting Ronald Reagan, and would have perceived LaRouche 
as an annoying diversion if not a spoiler. For his own part, LaRouche had no 
desire to harm Reagan's campaign. He already believed Reagan would be the 
next President, and hoped to gain influence with him. 

By contrast, the Democratic Party lacked an organized right wing. LaRouche 
could have the territory all to himself — a domain of millions of conservative- 
minded voters seething with anger. These were conservatives of modest income 
and status, which is why they stayed in the Democratic Party rather than joining 
their more prosperous Republican brethren. They were the ones hardest hit by 



high interest rates, unemployment, and street crime. They had already revolted 
once to support George Wallace in 1968. Although most had returned grudgingly 
to the fold, the party leadership had lost touch with them during the following 
years. Nothing revealed this more clearly than the fact that all three major 
primary candidates in 1980 — President Carter, Massachusetts senator Ted 
Kennedy, and California governor Jerry Brown — stood to the left of center. 
LaRouche thus could present himself as the voice of the party's forgotten wing, 
the proverbial common man. He could also use this guise to reach out to the 
mass of Democrats who were neither conservative nor liberal — the trade union 
members, small farmers, and churchgoing inner-city blacks that the USLP had 
courted for years. By addressing their social problems in stark, angry rhetoric, he 
could perhaps nudge some of them into a new formation — a LaRouche wing of 
the party. 

In New Hampshire, LaRouche attacked the liberals with gusto. The Democratic 
primary, he said, was a "Mad Hatter's tea party" dominated by Jane Fonda and 
her "antinuclear bacchanal" and by "Zen Buddhist governor Jerry Brown." 
LaRouche appealed to those sturdy "nation builders," the construction workers at 
the Seabrook nuclear power site. Vote for me, he said, and I'll build 2,500 nuclear 
plants by the year 2000. He also presented himself as a champion of "traditional" 
American values. "No one is going to grow a field of marijuana" in a LaRouche 
America, he said. "We'll spot it down to one stalk, and the next day we'll be in 
there with paraquat. . . .We can put this country on cold turkey." 

LaRouche exchanged the academic bow-tie look he had affected during his 1976 
campaign for three-piece business suits, yellow-tinted designer glasses, and a 
Texas Stetson. He dropped in at local VFW posts, spoke at Rotary and Kiwanis 
luncheons, met with leaders of the Franco-American community's Richelieu 
clubs. By November he had the second-largest campaign staff among 
Democratic candidates, with offices in eight towns. He bought newspaper, 
broadcast, and billboard advertising on the scale of a major candidate. His 
campaign events drew respectable crowds. 

But the scheme had a major problem: The LaRouche organization was as cultish 
as ever, and LaRouche's personality continued to be volatile. To expect either 
the organization or LaRouche to maintain a strictly pragmatic stance even for a 
few weeks, to say nothing of an entire campaign season, was not realistic. 
Things began to unravel when New England newspapers picked up on a New 
York Times series about LaRouche's anti-Semitism and links to the Ku Klux Klan. 
Most articles reported this information in a low-key manner and without much 
detail. LaRouche could have simply ignored the charges and gone on 
campaigning for nuclear power. Or he could have issued a statement pointing out 
that many of his campaign aides were Jewish and that his contacts with the Klan 
were a legitimate part of his work as publisher of a political intelligence 
newsmagazine. Instead, his followers went into a frenzy, claiming that a Zionist 
disinformation campaign was afoot — the first stage of a plot to assassinate 



LaRouche. He marched into the Manchester Union Leader with armed 
bodyguards and threatened to "make it very painful" for a reporter. His guards 
took the hubcaps off his car as a precaution against bombs. His campaign 
workers made hundreds of harassing phone calls to New Hampshire state 
officials and Democratic Party leaders at all hours of day and night. 

The LaRouchians also alienated public opinion by their almost gleeful 
exploitation of loopholes in the state's election law — including the absentee ballot 
provisions. LaRouche organizers rounded up low-income senior citizens in the 
industrial towns of southern New Hampshire and took them to the city clerk's 
office. There, they had the seniors fill out voter registration forms, get the forms 
properly certified, and then request and fill out absentee ballots on the spot. 
According to Manchester city clerk Joan Walsh, the LaRouchians even helped 
the seniors mark the ballots. Newspaper articles suggested that many who filled 
out the absentee ballots did so out of fear. Local police received several 
complaints about LaRouchian canvassers harassing and intimidating seniors. 
Meanwhile a LaRouche aide appeared at the office of the New Hampshire 
secretary of state to ask blithely for 3,000 absentee registration forms. When the 
request was refused, the LaRouchians printed their own forms. 

By primary day LaRouche's Grand Design for New Hampshire was in disarray. 
After spending over a million dollars, he received only 2,300 votes, about 2 
percent of the Democratic primary total. Although this was a larger vote than 
either Senator Bob Dole or former Texas governor John Connally received in the 
Republican primary, it devastated LaRouche's followers, who had actually 
expected him to win. They charged that election officials had tampered with the 
voting machines to erase tens of thousands of LaRouche votes. Leaflets referred 
to New Hampshire as "Peyton State," the center of Yankee blueblood scandal 
and corruption. LaRouche went to court to demand a recount. When it was 
performed, he gained only 19 votes. 

By mid-March, the LaRouchians had calmed down and were ready for more 
primaries. With the help of Teamster officials, LaRouche campaigned hard in 
Illinois and Wisconsin, sending Helga to Milwaukee to charm the German- 
American community. In Texas he held a press conference in front of the Alamo 
to call for a square deal for the nation's farmers. He told his followers to hang in 
there — he'd emerge as the dark horse at the national convention. 

Most Democratic Party officials regarded the LaRouche campaign as a joke after 
New Hampshire. This view was not justified, for although LaRouche failed to gain 
a single convention delegate, he demonstrated his organization's electioneering 
skills and its potential for the future. He qualified for the primary ballot in fifteen 
states, including some with strict ballot access laws. He received 185,000 
votes — over four times his 1976 total. In Connecticut he outpolled Jerry Brown by 
more than a thousand votes. He won endorsements and other campaign 
assistance from a number of trade union officials and farm leaders in the 



Midwest, Texas, and California. And, most important, lie received over lialf a 
million dollars in federal matching funds — the first extremist candidate to get a 
penny. 

LaRouche also gained name recognition. Millions of Americans viewed his half- 
hour network television ads in which he described himself as a Democrat in the 
mold of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Daily newspapers published scores of 
articles about him. People magazine ran a full-page picture of LaRouche with 
pipe smoke swirling around his head, and said he had mounted what was 
possibly the "best-organized" fringe campaign in American history. Most of the 
media portrayed LaRouche as a mysterious figure who borrowed ideas from both 
the left and the right to express his anger about current economic conditions and 
his hostility to the Eastern Establishment — not a bad image for a man who 
aspired to capture the attention of the old George Wallace constituency. 

When LaRouche requested floor passes for the national convention in New York, 
the party leadership turned him down, concerned as it was about possible 
disruption. Otherwise, the party leadership showed very little concern over his 
invasion of the party. His nominating petitions went unchallenged in most states 
and no one objected strongly to his calling himself a Democrat. In Texas he was 
allowed to address the state convention. The media continued to be 
unsympathetic and the party leadership contemptuous, but this was something 
LaRouche had already prepared his followers to accept and take advantage of: 
"an intensive 'soft' containment that is not an effective containment." The way to 
handle such a situation, he said, is to just keep plugging away, building up an 
intangible cumulative influence "on the other side of the containment wall." At the 
convention this took the form of seminars for delegates, appearances before 
state caucuses, a flood of position papers, a daily convention newspaper, and a 
coalition with the American Agricultural Movement to publicize an anti-Carter 
"Open Convention" strategy. Lyndon LaRouche had grabbed hold of the 
Democratic donkey's tail, and he was not about to let go. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Twelve 

The Gotterdammercrats 

Shortly after the 1980 Democratic convention LaRouche informed his followers 
that the NCLC was in the two-party system to stay. Having already disbanded the 
U.S. Labor Party, he now announced a "multi-candidate political action 
committee" that would work to eventually capture control of the Democratic Party. 
He called it the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC), a name falsely 
suggesting a link to the official party leadership. 

The NDPC got off to a roaring start with a rally in Huntsville, Alabama, to Hang 
Paul Volcker (the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and a favorite target of 
the ultra-right). But before the LaRouchians could develop this campaign very far, 
they became preoccupied with figurative lynchings in their own ranks. First 
LaRouche declared war on his own chief of staff, Gus Kalimtgis, blaming him for 
the New Hampshire debacle. Kalimtgis and several other top NCLC members 
quit. Then LaRouche went after the Detroit regional leadership, accusing them of 
insufficient zeal. Virtually the entire Detroit membership resigned. In the midst of 
this, the organization was able to field only one Democratic primary candidate in 
1 981 — Melvin Klenetsky for mayor of New York. 

New York's Democrats could have taken vigorous action against this incursion, 
setting a nationwide example of how to handle LaRouche. Local leaders could 
have filed suit to keep Klenetsky off the ballot, on grounds that the NDPC's 
racism and anti-Semitism violated everything the Democratic Party stood for. 
They could have challenged his petitions. They could have denied him the floor 
at clubhouse candidates' forums. They could have urged the legitimate 
Democratic candidates not to participate in debates with him. 

But none of this was done. As U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.) 
said, recalling the Klenetsky campaign in a 1986 speech about LaRouche: "To 
the disgrace of our party — the oldest political party on earth, and from the first a 
democratic party — no effort . . . was made to keep these fascists out of our ranks 
and off our ballot. To the contrary, rumor had it that in some circles they were 
welcomed: the more confusion, the better." 

Moynihan was referring to the fact that Mayor Edward I. Koch's 1981 reelection 
campaign had regarded Klenetsky as a useful buffer between the mayor and 
Assemblyman Frank Barbaro, the main challenger. The Koch campaign 
encouraged Klenetsky's participation in public forums and debates to prevent the 
public from seeing the campaign as a one-on-one contest between Koch and 



Barbaro and to prevent the latter's criticisms of Kocli from being given a serious 
liearing. 

Wlien Barbaro cliallenged Klenetsky's petitions, lie received no lielp from Kocli. 
Wlien Barbaro protested against Klenetsky's inclusion in the debates, Koch 
insisted that Klenetsky be included. When Barbaro raised the issue of 
Klenetsky's membership in an anti-Semitic organization, Koch remained silent. 

Koch could not claim ignorance. Reports of LaRouche's anti-Semitism had been 
widespread in the New York media for years. The Anti-Defamation League had 
denounced the LaRouche organization for injecting "anti-Semitic poison into the 
American political bloodstream." The Manhattan weekly Our Town, usually read 
carefully at City Hall, had published a twelve-part series delving into LaRouche's 
neo-Nazi proclivities. Koch's own police department had prepared several 
intelligence reports that carefully documented LaRouche's extremism. 

Klenetsky was careful not to seem to be a tool of Mayor Koch. His campaign 
literature included the slogan "Stop Crazy Eddie — His Policies Are Insane." But in 
the debates and newspaper interviews his main role was to redbait Barbaro, 
something that Koch hesitated to do on his own. The pro-Koch New York Times 
went along with this tactic to defeat real estate industry foe Barbaro. Although a 
1979 Times editorial had denounced the LaRouchians as a menace, this fact 
disappeared into an Orwellian memory hole. Klenetsky was given what for a 
fringe candidate was an extraordinary amount of coverage, depicting him as 
almost a legitimate Democrat. The Times quoted him as warning New Yorkers 
that Barbaro's backers "include the bulk of the Socialist and Communist Party 
forces in New York." In an even lower blow, the Times reported two days before 
the election that Klenetsky had accused "some Barbaro supporters of anti- 
Semitism"! A pleased Mayor Koch then told the Times: "Klenetsky, he's not as 
bad as his rhetoric; Barbaro is as bad as his rhetoric." Klenetsky ended up with 
the votes of 25,000 New Yorkers — 5 percent of the primary turnout. 

The Klenetsky campaign set the stage for the national growth of the NDPC, by 
establishing the principle that its candidates could run in Democratic primaries as 
legitimate Democrats without significant opposition. It was a cynical LaRouche 
masterstroke: Use a Jewish follower to drive the opening wedge, and do it in the 
heart of enemy territory. Psychologically, LaRouche was operating from a 
position of strength — his utter contempt for the Koch machine as shortsighted 
"empiricists" who could be manipulated at will. Indeed, with Koch compromised, 
LaRouche received an additional bonus: the silence of the Jewish community. 
Not one mainstream Jewish organization spoke out against the legitimization of 
Klenetsky and the NDPC. In effect, many had acquiesced in the new dogma of 
neoconservatism: It's okay to ally oneself with fascists against the main enemy, 
the left. 



In 1982 the NDPC sponsored several dozen candidates around the country. 
Klenetsky ran again, this time as Senator Moynihan's sole challenger in the New 
York primary. Moynihan, one of the Democratic Party's few intellectuals, took 
seriously the fact that the LaRouche movement represented a homegrown fascist 
ideology. Although Klenetsky was no threat to his reelection, he decided it would 
be a disgrace to sit back and allow the LaRouchians to gain further legitimacy in 
the party. He challenged every one of Klenetsky's 30,000 petition signatures, 
narrowly failing to remove him from the ballot. He also roundly denounced the 
LaRouche movement's anti-Semitism, and ended up spending $1 .3 million on the 
primary. 

Klenetsky waged a vigorous campaign. He obtained the endorsement of one of 
the state's most powerful labor leaders, John Cody, president of Teamster Local 
282 on Long Island, as well as several Laborers International Union officials. He 
raised over $100,000 for newspaper, radio, and TV advertising, including a half- 
hour on New York City's ABC affiliate. In a half-page ad in the Amsterdam News, 
New York's most important black weekly, he accused Moynihan of racism (in 
spite of the LaRouche organization's own ties to the Ku Klux Klan) and listed 
endorsements by black ministers across the state. On primary day Klenetsky 
polled 162,000 votes statewide, of which 95,000 came from New York City. His 
statewide vote percentage was three times that of his 1981 mayoral primary 
campaign. His New York City vote total was four times his mayoral primary total. 

Moynihan recalled being unable to get media help in unmasking Klenetsky. Most 
newspapers dismissed the LaRouchians as kooks, he said. Only two dailies in 
the state published editorials warning about what the NDPC candidate stood for. 
Compounding this media problem, Moynihan received a letter from the 
Committee on Decent Unbiased Campaign Tactics (CONDUCT) demanding how 
he could defend calling Klenetsky anti-Semitic. CONDUCT was concerned, the 
letter said, "that issues of bigotry would become an issue in anyone's campaign." 
CONDUCT was no LaRouche front organization but a coalition of prominent New 
Yorkers including R. Peter Straus, Rabbi Balfour Brickner, Bishop Paul Moore, 
Jr., and Howard Squadron, former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of 
Major Jewish Organizations. "It was bad enough to be running against a fascist," 
Moynihan said. "What if the respectable people of New York suddenly took the 
fascist's side?" Moynihan's attorney prepared a several-hundred-page brief, and 
CONDUCT finally exonerated Moynihan. (According to Straus, the watchdog 
committee also called in Klenetsky, questioned him closely, and found him to be 
"far off base.") 

With the exception of Moynihan, Democratic Party leaders across the country 
ignored the NDPC during 1982. This contributed to strong electoral showings for 
several LaRouche candidates. Steve Douglas polled 19 percent in the 
Pennsylvania gubernatorial primary, coming in second out of four. A Minnesota 
NDPC congressional candidate — Pat O'Reilly, former state president of the 
American Agricultural Movement — picked up 32 percent. Debra Freeman, the 



terror of Baltimore's alleged Zionist slave traders, made her second 
congressional bid, this time against incumbent Barbara Mikulski. Freeman 
replaced Jew-baiting with lesbian-baiting, publicizing allegations of an affair 
between Mikulski and a staff aide. Freeman's radio ads featured a babble of 
monkeys, baboons, and hyenas, supposedly representing Mikulski's moral 
character. "Vote Freeman, Vote Straight Democrat," the NDPC's literature urged. 
With these tactics. Freeman polled 19 percent on primary day. 

Only one major newspaper in the nation took the NDPC's 1982 gains seriously. 
The Baltimore Evening Sun published a hard-hitting series on Freeman's political 
views and campaign finances. "We would like to hope," said a Sun editorial, "that 
even the 19 percent who voted for her were unaware of the dark impulses and 
exploitations that lurked behind her campaign." The voters got the message: In a 
race for Baltimore City Council President the next year. Freeman came in last of 
five, with only 2 percent of the vote. 

LaRouche was heartened by the nationwide results in 1982 and decided to 
attract new blood into the NDPC via a grassroots "candidates' movement." His 
followers advertised for and recruited hundreds of Americans with 
ultraconservative views to run for public office. These candidates — senior 
citizens, small businessmen, blue-collar workers, and, especially, farmers — were 
given quickie indoctrination sessions and thrown into the primaries. The NDPC 
didn't expect them to understand and defend the full LaRouche ideology, only 
simple points like the war on drugs, beam weapons, emergency aid for farmers. 
The NDPC had nothing to lose if some of the candidates proved unreliable. But if 
they remained loyal, LaRouche could take credit for their successes. 

He carried his plan to the 1983 American Agricultural Movement convention in 
Nashville and a subsequent AAM rally in Georgia. Farmers were suffering 
through their worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and thousands 
had lost their farms to the banks. LaRouche proposed his candidates' movement 
as a way to fight back: Farmers must "stop seeking out politicians and become 
politicians." They must "run early, run often, run for anything from dogcatcher to 
senator." The Eastern Establishment would try to stop the movement through 
media smears and vote fraud, but LaRouche had the answer to that: Just "keep 
adding candidates" until the Establishment's control mechanisms break down. 
LaRouche estimated that "one thousand candidates around the country" could 
provide the nucleus of a mass movement to alter the face of American politics. 

By June 1983 the NDPC had recruited over 200 candidates. Many of them ran as 
"beam weapons" slates to promote President Reagan's new Star Wars policy. A 
Wichita, Kansas, woman decided this was God's will. She quit her job to run for 
the City Commission, to "open up channels to develop an 'E' beam in space." 
The movement attracted other obvious eccentrics, but it also attracted college 
professors, nuclear engineers, trade unionists, and scores of farm activists. By 
the end of the year the NDPC had fielded over 600 candidates in 27 states. 



According to NDPC chairman Warren Hamerman, tliey polled a total of 700,000 
votes and 27 were elected. 

Hamerman's figures were not as impressive as they sounded. Most of the 
candidates ran for Democratic county committee seats with no power or 
influence. Those who were elected mostly ran unopposed. Very few did any 
significant campaigning. In California an NDPC member was elected to a local 
sanitation board and another to a local school board. But the school board 
winner, an elderly man, later repudiated the LaRouchians. When the NDPC 
attempted to capture local school boards in New York and New Jersey, they 
stirred up a hornet's nest. Parents, teachers, community organizations, and local 
Democrats in upper Manhattan united under the slogan "Stop the Fascist Cult." 
Senator Moynihan supported the coalition and even dragooned Mayor Koch into 
co-sponsoring an anti-LaRouche press conference at City Hall. (Koch, clearly 
uncomfortable, edged away from the cameras after mumbling a one-liner, 
"They're the pits." He well knew the ability of LaRouche to exact revenge on 
bachelor political figures.) In New Jersey local newspapers conducted an 
intensive educational campaign against LaRouche's "beam weapons" school 
board slate. No NDPC school board candidates were elected in either state. 

Incidents during the New Jersey contest suggest that the NDPC was sometimes 
recruiting candidates on a fraudulent basis. Bessie Mae Coleman, eighty-seven, 
told a reporter that the NDPC had never obtained her permission to enter her 
name as a candidate. Harding Evans, Sr., a fifty-four-year-old handyman, said 
that when the NDPC asked him to run, he thought they were ordinary Democrats. 
He and several other candidates dropped out when they learned the facts. New 
Jersey newspapers highlighted these incidents, but most of the 90-odd NDPC 
candidates stayed in the race, apparently willing to be associated with the 
LaRouche cause. 

LaRouche ran for President again in 1984, selecting as his running mate a 
farmer, Billy Davis of Mississippi. Repeating his 1976 tactic, he encouraged the 
maximum number of grass-roots candidates who would work for his election 
while working for their own. The candidates' movement was re-christened the 
"NDPC's citizens' militia." According to New Solidarity, recruits were encouraged 
to attend "cadre schools" to learn the "science" of politics and listen to seminars 
on the "nature of the Russian empire." 

The number of NDPC candidates in 1984 jumped to over 2,000 in more than 30 
states. Once again the media ferreted out a few duds but ignored the fact that 
many well-educated people of apparently sound mind — people with careers and 
families — were willing to run on the NDPC ticket. These recruits were not all 
political novices. Some had prior experience in the major parties or in the 
American Party. They agreed with LaRouche on some things, disagreed on 
others, but were willing to call themselves LaRouche Democrats and support 



beam weapons. They also were willing to accept the risk of being LaRouche- 
baited in local newspapers. fFOOTNOTE 1] 

Although no surveys were conducted of the LaRouche candidates movement, 
two Furman University professors did the next-best thing. In 1986 they 
interviewed a random sample of the thousands of LaRouche campaign donors 
listed with the Federal Election Commission. Their survey found that LaRouche 
contributors tended to be "populist" conservatives, "profoundly uncomfortable 
with modern America and susceptible to conspiratorial explanations of their 
distress." To many, LaRouche's views offered "a plausible answer" to the 
question of who controls their lives. 

"Nearly all," the report said, "now claim to be conservative, with half labeling 
themselves 'very' or 'extremely' conservative." Many expressed affinity not only 
for LaRouche but also for traditional rightist groups such as the John Birch 
Society. There was a "uniform dislike" for Ralph Nader and the American Civil 
Liberties Union. Asked whom they regarded as especially dangerous, over half 
cited "figures prominent in conspiracy theories . . . such as communists, drug 
dealers, Jews, bankers, intellectuals and the mass media." Two-thirds were fifty- 
five or older, male, of WASP or German extraction. Most were lower-middle-class 
people whose income and status lagged behind those of average donors to other 
right-wing causes. They seemed, the report concluded, "to be the remnant of the 
'small-town America' of a generation ago." 

This report was remarkable on two counts. First, it revealed a strong similarity 
between those surveyed and LaRouche's own parents. Second, it suggested that 
LaRouche had been successful in his long-range plan to reach precisely such 
people. In the mid-1970s he had begun to weave themes into his propaganda 
from the traditional rightist groups referred to in the survey, especially the John 
Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby. His 1980 book. What Every Conservative 
Should Know about Communism, identified these people as a major part of his 
"constituency," They were the "patriotic conservatives" as opposed to phony 
conservative elitists like William F. Buckley. They were the "truly moral" 
conservatives who despised hippies. Playboy magazine, the Trilateral 
Commission, and the bestial advocates of "negritude." Many of these patriots, he 
said, were subscribers to The Spotlight, and a fair number had read W. Cleon 
Skousen's The Nal<ed Capitalist. LaRouche called them the " 'Gideon's Army' of 
American nationalism today." He wrote about them affectionately, but without 
illusions regarding their intellectual limitations. He estimated their numbers at 
upward of a quarter million Americans — the "opinion leaders," he said, for a 
"similarly inclined population more than a scorefold larger." 

As the 1984 primary season unfolded, it seemed as if the NDPC's grass-roots 
candidates were indeed beginning to establish themselves as opinion leaders to 
influence broader populist circles. The vote percentages for NDPC candidates 
rose dramatically, with dozens receiving over 20 percent in every region of the 



country. In Ohio the NDPC ran candidates in a majority of the state's 21 
congressional districts. In the 7th CD the NDPC won its first contested 
Democratic nomination for major public office when family farmer Don Scott 
trounced the regular Democrat 23,000 to 15,000. This CD was heavily 
agricultural, centered on the small industrial city of Springfield. When 
Newsweek's editors were seeking a typical American community to celebrate in 
their fiftieth-anniversary issue, this is the city they picked 

Scott, as described in NDPC literature, was as typical as the district: a "seventh 
generation" farmer, married with two daughters, a 4-H Club adviser, and member 
of the Covenant Lutheran Church, St. Paris Lions Club, National Farmers 
Organization, Knights of Pythias, and Champaign County Pork Council. The 
Columbus Dispatch noted that his victory "could go down in history as the first 
major step in legitimizing" the LaRouche organization. But the national media 
ignored the story. In the November general election the incumbent Republican 
spent $194,000 and Scott only $8,000, yet Scott received 46,000 votes— about 
24 percent of the total. (By comparison, Mondale received 63,000 votes, or 31 
percent, against Reagan in the same district.) Scott later was sent by the NDPC 
to Europe to speak before LaRouchian audiences. 

Scott was not the only NDPC candidate on the Ohio ballot in November. In the 
4th CD they picked up an uncontested nomination. And in the 8th CD, the NDPC 
candidate received 47 percent in spite of an effort by the regular Democrat to 
expose his extremism. Meanwhile, in North Carolina, the NDPC candidate for the 
U.S. Senate gained 127,000 votes (15 percent) in a three-way race, coming in 
second after former governor James Hunt. In Oregon the NDPC's U.S. senatorial 
candidate won 24 percent in a two-way race. In Pennsylvania the NDPC 
contested twelve congressional seats, receiving 46 percent in the 17th CD and 
over 20 percent in four others. 

In California an NDPC congressional candidate won 49 percent in a two-way 
race. In Michigan the NDPC candidate in one CD received 26 percent in a three- 
way race, coming in second, while in another CD the NDPC candidate polled 33 
percent in a two-way race. In Georgia an NDPC congressional candidate — an 
airline pilot — gained 24 percent in a four-way race, coming in second. He then 
won 34 percent in the runoff. 

The NDPC later claimed that its candidates, apart from LaRouche himself, 
received close to two million votes in 1984, and that 280 NDPC members were 
elected to Democratic county committee seats in various states. However, most 
NDPC county committee members did not become active in the party, and 
nowhere did the NDPC build caucuses within the local party organizations. In 
lllinois's Du Page County, where dozens of LaRouchians were elected, the party 
leadership expected a major battle at the first post-election meeting. But the 
NDPC members just "sat like bumps on a log," according to Truman Kirkpatrick, 
a local party official. Most of them never came back. 



The NDPC had more urgent concerns than building county caucuses. Its 
fundraisers were working around the clock to feed the maw of LaRouche's 
presidential campaign. Officially, LaRouche spent about $6 million on the 
campaign, including $500,000 in federal matching funds. It was later estimated 
that his organization raised over $30 million that year through various fund- 
raising entities. 

As in 1980, LaRouche made heavy use of broadcast advertising by purchasing 
fourteen half-hour segments on network television as well as thousands of local 
radio and TV spots. In his network speeches, taped at his colonial mansion in 
Virginia, he called for sweeping economic changes to pay for a gigantic military 
buildup. He warned that "Henry Kissinger and his friends" were the cause of 
America's problems and that he himself had the solution. After an especially 
abrasive LaRouche speech that fall, TV stations around the country received 
close to a thousand viewer complaints. 

LaRouche was on the ballot in 13 state primaries but received only 178,000 
votes. The only primary in which he received a significant percentage was in 
North Dakota, where he and Gary Hart were the only candidates on the ballot. By 
that point LaRouche had been ruled ineligible for more matching funds, because 
of his failure to achieve 20 percent of the vote in any primary. He saw North 
Dakota as his one chance to restore his matching-funds eligibility. According to 
New Solidarity, LaRouche bought 998 radio spots, 127 thirty-second TV spots, 
and a full-page ad in a Bismarck daily. His ads also promoted the gubernatorial 
campaign of Anna Belle Bourgois, a farm wife and NDPC organizer, in an 
apparent attempt to piggyback off her wholesome image. The result was 12 
percent (4,018 votes) for LaRouche and 12 percent (5,180 votes) for Mrs. 
Bourgois. It probably represented the maximum percentage of conscious votes 
for LaRouche ever. When he ran as an independent in 19 states that November, 
his total vote amounted to only 79,000. In the 1984 primary and general elections 
combined, LaRouche spent almost $25 per vote. 

His failure at the polls did not discourage the NDPC grass-roots candidates. In 
1985, an off year for elections generally, the NDPC claimed to have 500 
candidates running for public office and Democratic Party posts. Once again 
Democratic Party leaders and local Democratic organizations prevaricated. And 
once again New York's Mayor Koch, facing another reelection campaign, 
attempted to make use of the NDPC. His aides urged various reporters to give 
coverage to the NDPC's Phil Rubinstein and Farrakhan supporter Fred Newman, 
both on the mayoral primary ballot. The Daily News produced a frothy piece, 
"Hey, Guys, We're in It Too," in which Rubinstein and Newman were described 
as offering voters "a breath of fresh air." Koch personally called for their inclusion 
in the mayoral debates, in the interest of "fairness." His obvious goal was to 
muddy the voters' choice between himself and his two major challengers. City 
Council president Carol Bellamy and Harlem assemblyman Herman Farrell. (Not 
to be outdone in the fairness game, Bellamy also expressed her hope that the 



minor candidates would be included.) But this time, the media didn't bite the bait. 
Koch didn't have a Barbaro to scare them with. Rubinstein remained a minor 
candidate and received only a minuscule vote. 

The NDPC problem had receded in New York politics because LaRouche had 
moved most of his New York followers, including Melvin Klenetsky, down to 
Leesburg, Virginia, to run his new national headquarters. But the NDPC 
continued to grow — without any serious resistance — almost everywhere else. It 
was only a matter of time before a combination of circumstances and the NDPC's 
hard work produced a major electoral breakthrough. That breakthrough came in 
1986, in the heartland of blue-collar America, Illinois. 



[1] New Solidarity articles and interviews in 1983-84 portrayed the NDPC 
grassroots candidates as having a variety of political motives and fixations. An 
elderly woman in California complained that the Democratic Party had been 
turned into the "party of the giveaways." She had voted for Reagan in 1980, but 
when he was "turned around" by the Eastern Establishment she decided to 
support LaRouche as the man with "the ideas to guard our country." A Florida 
trade union official said he'd sensed there was a conspiracy controlling the 
country ever since Truman fired MacArthur. Then he bought a LaRouchian tract 
at an airport. "I felt like I had been granted my salvation; that somebody else was 
in touch with some of the same things I was." An Oregon school board candidate 
said that he'd always wanted to transcend the "banality" of his "backwater 
community" and fight the good fight against censorship, mistrust, cynicism, 
pessimism, prejudice, drugs, television, and thermonuclear terror. A North 
Carolina group home administrator was more down to earth: He just wanted to 
bring Star Wars R&D jobs to his hometown. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Thirteen 
Tanks Down State Street 

The Illinois Democratic Party received the greatest surprise of its history when, in 
the March 18, 1986, primary, followers of LaRouche won the nominations for 
lieutenant governor and secretary of state. The LaRouchians were no less 
amazed. Their Chicago contingent hadn't even bothered to watch the election 
polls that night, being too busy conducting a mock exorcism in front of the home 
of University of Chicago religion professor Mircea Eliade (they claimed he was an 
evil warlock). The following day, Janice Hart, thirty-one, the victor in the secretary 
of state contest, announced her plans for a different kind of exorcism targeting 
bankers and drug pushers: "I'm going to revive the spirit of Abraham Lincoln and 
Genera! Patton. We're going to roll our tanks down State Street." 

The Democratic candidate for governor, Adiai Stevenson III, announced that he 
would not run on the same ticket with Hart and the nominee for lieutenant 
governor, twenty-eight-year-old Mark Fairchild. He described them as neo-Nazis 
and said: "There is no room in the Democratic Party for candidates... who preach 
anti-Semitism, who cavort with the Ku Klux Klan, and who want to destroy labor 
unions." The following month Stevenson renounced the Democratic nomination 
and became the candidate of a hastily organized Illinois Solidarity Party. 

The LaRouchian victory became the media sensation of the week. Janice Hart 
was interviewed on Nightline, and LaRouche almost made the cover of 
Newsweek. Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko called it "the strangest thing 
that's ever happened in an election in my memory." Syndicated columnist Max 
Lerner declared that "this is the face American fascism will wear." New York's 
Senator Moynihan spoke of a failure of the party's political immune system. 
LaRouche, in a speech before the National Press Club, described the Illinois 
victories as the will of the "forgotten majority." Farmers and blue-collar workers 
were turning to him as the new George Wallace, "the guy who's going to stick it 
to them in Washington." 

The Democratic Party claimed it was all a fluke. Two political unknowns running 
an invisible campaign had won by narrow margins because voter turnout was 
low, because the media failed to warn the public, and because the regular 
Democratic candidates neglected to campaign vigorously. Also, Hart's WASPish 
name gave her an advantage over machine Democrat Aurelia Pucinsky among 
Chicago's black voters, who were angry at Pucinsky's father and other Polish- 
American politicians for dumping on Mayor Harold Washington. The name factor 
also may have helped Hart downstate, where many voters are suspicious of 



ethnic Chicagoans. But any further LaRouchian victories could be easily 
prevented with a little party vigilance and voter education. 

It was to be expected the Democrats would assert something like this, for their 
aim was damage control rather than an objective postmortem. To perform the 
latter would have involved admitting that the party had allowed the LaRouchians 
to run amok in its ranks for over six years. If the Democrats already had a wimp 
image from the Mondale debacle, how would this appear to the media? 

Undeniably a majority of the LaRouchian votes resulted from accidental 
circumstances. But the Democrats and the media ignored evidence that a 
substantial minority of these votes — a portion without which Hart and Fairchild 
never would have won — reflected various forms of conscious voter rebellion. 
Furthermore, no one examined the fact that the two victors were part of a 
statewide NDPC "Warrior Angel" slate, thirty candidates in all, running for 
everything from governor to precinct committeeman and adhering to a national 
NDPC strategy called, prophetically. Operation Takeover. 

The vote percentages of these other Illinois NDPC candidates (none of whom 
faced Polish opponents) reveal the flaws in the only-a-fluke theory. The figures in 
statewide contests included 15.8 percent for U.S. senator, 5 percent for 
governor, 22.3 percent for comptroller, and 14 percent for state treasurer. In 
congressional races the figures included 9.1 percent (3rd CD), 14.7 percent (4th 
CD), 35.8 percent (6th CD), 12.8 percent (8th CD), 15.6 percent (9th CD), 35.2 
percent (10th CD), 15.1 percent (11th CD), 42.5 percent (12th CD). The total was 
over one million votes excluding the 13th and 15th CDs, where NDPC candidates 
won the Democratic nominations unopposed. 

These vote percentages were commensurate with what an increasing number of 
NDPC candidates had gained in Midwest contests between 1982 and 1985. They 
also fit with what NDPC candidates would poll in later Midwest primaries that 
year and in Illinois primaries over the following two years. "How can anyone look 
at the record and say this is a fluke?" asks Chip Berlet, a Chicago journalist who 
has tracked the LaRouchians for years. "Flukes do not increment upwards in a 
steady pattern." 

Michael McKeon, a pollster who specializes in the attitudes of blue-collar voters, 
warned of a possible LaRouche electoral breakthrough in Illinois over a year 
before it occurred. In open-ended interviews with trade union households in 
communities plagued by crime and unemployment, he found a growing 
willingness to vote for LaRouchian candidates. Those interviewed had little 
knowledge of what LaRouche really stood for, McKeon said, but "were fed up 
with the way they believed the two major parties were ignoring them." Illinois and 
national Democratic leaders pigeonholed McKeon's January 1985 report, 
regarding it as farfetched. 



McKeon was willing to stake his reputation on an offbeat finding because of clear 
warning signs in grass-roots elections. In 1983, the LaRouchians managed to 
field 53 candidates in Chicago suburban school board races. Although failing to 
elect anyone, they bounced back in the March 1984 Democratic primaries, 
winning 57 suburban county committee seats, including all 31 of the seats they 
went after in Du Page County. Although three out of four of the NDPC candidates 
ran for uncontested seats, at least they were willing to run — the party machine 
couldn't find anyone. Meanwhile in the Will County auditor's race, the NDPC 
candidate defeated her regular Democratic opponent by over 3,000 votes. (Will 
County had an unemployment rate twice the state average. Joliet, the county 
seat, was a blue-collar town of failed steel mills. McKeon, who lived there, 
described it as "everything Bruce Springsteen sings about.") 

The Chicago dailies, which two years later affected so much amazement at the 
Hart and Fairchild victories, covered the 1984 victories in detail, with headlines 
such as "'LaRouchies' Score Sweep in Du Page" and "LaRouche Party Victories 
Chill Du Page Democrats." But Democratic officials told the Chicago Tribune it 
was all a simple case of voter confusion — voters had thought the NDPC was the 
Democratic National Committee. One county chairman even suggested that the 
victories of the LaRouchian candidates weren't "necessarily all that bad" if they 
"really want to be part of the party and help build the party ... if they are actually 
going to go out and support our nominees." Neither the Democrats nor the media 
bothered to ask how a tiny fringe group had persuaded ninety registered 
Democrats in a four-county area to run on its ticket for nonpaying, low-prestige 
posts while also fielding ten congressional candidates and several candidates for 
state and county public office. (The NDPC claims it ran 114 candidates in Illinois 
that year, garnering 220,000 votes.) 

In 1 986 the cornerstone of the fluke theory was the assertion that the LaRouche 
candidates did little or no campaigning. Michael McKeon disputed this: "They just 
weren't around where the media was," he said. "Most of the media was out of 
contact with the people." He observed the LaRouchians campaigning in Joliet 
months before the primary. "They knew their target area. They'd have tables by 
the K-mart department store, where the people laid off from the steel mill 
shopped. Their literature was more easily available than Democratic or 
Republican brochures." Listening to their pitch, he sensed they would surprise 
everyone in March. As he later explained to The Washington Post, they had 
"taught themselves how to talk to Joe Six-Pack" and were "tapping into the 
feelings that are out here in blue-collar America." Working-class voters are 
"tough on crime and hate drug dealers. They'd like to see them all killed — 
Rambo-ed. This is what the LaRouche candidates have been saying too." 

McKeon said that he received many reports of NDPC campaigning downstate. 
"They went around in information vans," he said. "They'd go to farms and talk to 
people for hours. This wasn't a fluke; they seized an opportunity." 



Chip Berlet also received numerous reports. "I was called by Democratic Party 
activists all over the suburbs — from Joliet, Glencoe, Batavia. They wanted 
literature to counter them." Berlet criticized the Chicago media's analysis of the 
primary for ignoring the "cumulative" effect of LaRouche organizing over the 
previous decade. "This was never looked at," he said, "because it involved areas 
of politics that are usually invisible to the media." He noted their attempts to form 
anti-drug alliances with black churches and mosques and with black weekly 
newspapers like the Chicago Defender. "They'd get rebuffed," he said, "but they 
kept coming back." In the late 1 970s they formed ties with the Laborers Union in 
Chicago and downstate officials of the Teamsters union and the Cement Masons 
and Plasterers. Berlet also cited their year in, year out "nitty-gritty" work — fund 
raising, selling New Solidarity subscriptions, compiling phone lists of potential 
supporters, leafleting in downtown Chicago, manning literature tables at O'Hare 
International Airport seven days a week. He believed that "many thousands" of 
1 986 primary voters knew who the LaRouchians were, even if they didn't vote for 
them. 

The first clear warning signal of their electoral potential came in 1980, when 
LaRouche received over 19,000 votes in the Illinois primary. Although this was 
only 1.1 percent of the total, it was half as many votes as California governor 
Jerry Brown received. It was far more votes than Howard Baker, John Connally, 
and Bob Dole received in the Republican primary, and almost as many as Illinois 
congressman Phil Crane. Most of LaRouche's votes came from the Chicago 
wards, where he received two-thirds the vote of Jerry Brown and more votes than 
six out of eight of the Republican candidates. Indeed, he received almost twice 
as many votes in the wards as George Bush. His slate of 49 convention delegate 
candidates, mostly in Chicago and the suburbs, received well over 75,000 votes. 
In the predominantly black 2nd CD on Chicago's South Side, LaRouche 
delegates received over 35,000 votes. "The LaRouchians had conducted a 
strong anti-drug organizing drive in that district," Berlet said. "I attended rallies 
there in the summer of 1979. These were mass meetings, hundreds would show 
up." Over the next six years the LaRouchians continued to court black voters. 
Sheila Jones, a former Chicago public school teacher and perennial NDPC 
candidate, became widely known as their spokesperson in the black community. 
In the 1986 primary she received 70,000 votes in the Chicago wards (130,000 
statewide) against incumbent Senator Alan Dixon. 

When the LaRouchians asserted that they had indeed campaigned hard to win 
their 1986 victories, most of the media dismissed this out of hand. But months 
before primary day New Solidarity was already reporting details of the campaign. 
For instance, a January 1986 article described a weeklong tour of downstate 
Illinois by Mark Fairchild and the NDPC candidate for governor, Peter Bowen, to 
speak out on the farm crisis and unemployment. The article also revealed that 
the Illinois NDPC had purchased hundreds of sixty-second radio spots to 
publicize its positions on AIDS and the Gramm-Rudman bill. 



Voters interviewed after tine primary told tine media tliey liad not known anytliing 
about Hart and Faircliild wlien tliey voted for them. Although the majority of 
respondents were doubtless telling the truth, the minority who had known had 
good reason not to admit it. Articles and TV news reports were calling the chosen 
candidates of these voters neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, extreme rightists, conspiracy 
theorists, kooks, cultists, white-collar crooks, crypto-Communists, and racists. As 
Chip Berlet observed: "Why should an unemployed steel worker or bankrupt 
farmer, already seething with resentment against the liberal media, 'confess' to 
some yuppie TV reporter and get looked at like he's dirt?" 

Robert Albritton, a Northern Illinois University political scientist, analyzed the 
election returns county by county. He found a strong correlation in central and 
southern Illinois between the incidence of family farms relative to the population 
and voter support for Janice Hart and the NDPC candidate for state treasurer, 
Robert Hart. In the case of Robert Hart (Janice's husband), the relationship was 
especially striking. Democratic voters had three other choices, including an 
incumbent and a downstate candidate. Unlike Janice's opponent, these 
candidates campaigned vigorously. Yet Robert Hart won thirty-five counties down 
state. Most of these were economically depressed, like Johnson County in the 
state's far south, where an unusually large percentage of total family income 
came from welfare, unemployment, and other government benefits. 

Dan Levitas, research director of Prairiefire Rural Action, monitored the NDPC's 
farm organizing in Illinois and other Midwest states for more than two years 
before the 1986 primaries. "They'd bring crews out of Chicago. They'd do a drive- 
through of the LaRouche vans with bullhorns where they had people running for 
Congress." Levitas said he'd listened in on weekly LaRouchian radio hook-up 
conference calls with farmers. "They'd take attendance," he said. "There were 
farmers at fifty to seventy-five locations, but the number influenced was much 
greater. You had Mom and Pop listening in, you had people making tapes and 
circulating them, you had neighbors gathering each week." 

One center for Illinois conference call gatherings was a farm in Fayette County, 
where Janice Hart defeated her opponent by more than two to one. The couple 
that sponsored the gatherings, Elbert and Jean Finley, also organized in 1985 an 
NDPC rally, attended by about sixty farmers. Clem Marley, who operates a farm 
news service, signed the attendance sheet, and his wife later received a call from 
Hart. 

LaRouchian agitation among Illinois farmers dates back to 1 974, when the U.S. 
Labor Party candidates for governor and lieutenant governor toured southern 
Illinois. According to New Solidarity, they passed out leaflets explaining the 
"Labor Party Emergency Food Program," and learned firsthand about farmers' 
"bitterness and populist demoralization." Although the USLP was still too left- 
wing for rural America, New Solidarity continued to cover farm issues, gradually 
shifting its rhetoric into the populist mold. During the 1980 presidential primary. 



LaRouche sent his agricultural adviser, a Michigan grain farmer, on a tour of 
southern and central Illinois, where he was interviewed on TV and radio and met 
with many farmers. In June 1980, LaRouche invited farmers to an all-day 
conference at Chicago's O'Hare Hilton, where he talked about agriculture as a 
professional economist, downplaying ideology. A transcript of his 
extemporaneous answers during the lengthy question period reveals that he had 
thoughtful positions on a wide range of farm issues, which he expressed in 
colorful witty language. Meanwhile, his followers promoted a National Emergency 
Agricultural Declaration to maintain federal parity price payments at 90 percent. 
They formed an alliance with the American Agricultural Movement, which lasted 
through 1983-84 (LaRouche, as noted earlier, addressed AAM activists in 1983). 
Throughout the early 1980s — the worst years of the farm crisis — the NDPC 
organized farm rallies, participated in farm auction protests, ran farmers for public 
office, and sold LaRouchian publications across the rural Midwest. 

Farm activists estimate that LaRouchian campaign activities in 1986 reached 
only a small fraction of Illinois farm families directly. But given the depressed 
economic conditions and political discontent in rural Illinois in the mid-1980s, that 
may have been sufficient to gain a significant protest vote. According to Susan 
Danzer of the Illinois South Family Farm Program, rural areas of the state were 
"riddled" with right-wing groups operating informally, without much high-visibility 
organizing. "Farmers in trouble talk to other farmers in trouble," she said. 

Leonard Zeskin, the Missouri-based research director of the Center for 
Democratic Renewal, said that the interconnections of the various rural extremist 
groups make it possible to spread the word quickly about a candidate. Farmers 
active with the NDPC tend also to have ties with the Populist Party, Liberty 
Lobby, and Posse Comitatus. "One hand washes the other," he said. He noted 
that shortly after the primary. Populist Party leader Robert Weems (a former 
Klansman) announced his support for Hart and Fairchild in a front-page article in 
The Spotlight. 

The murkiness of the LaRouchian relationship to Illinois farmers, and to 
downstate Illinois in general, was captured in a report by Tom Johnson, a 
freelance researcher for the American Jewish Committee, after a three-day swing 
through five central Illinois counties in late March 1986. He said no one would 
admit having voted for the LaRouchians, even though their highest vote 
percentages came from this region. He spoke to one of the NDPC congressional 
candidates, a farmer who said he was his "own man" but added: "You gotta have 
an organized unit to get enough people thinking the same way. . . .We're facing 
the big boys, not the politicians, but them who's running them." (This farmer later 
dropped out of the NDPC.) Johnson also talked to a Champaign County 
Democratic official who said Fairchild and another NDPC candidate had been 
"laughed at and greeted with anger" when they appeared at a Forum for precinct 
workers. Yet Hart and Fairchild drew 57 percent and 52 percent, respectively, in 
the Champaign County primary. Although Johnson did not find much evidence of 



NPDC campaigning, lie observed conditions tliat suggested a political tinderbox. 
"Town after town . . . appears to be a ghost town," he wrote. "In one small burg of 
3,700 we saw ten 'for sale' signs on a single street." 

A curious incident the day before the primary showed that the LaRouchians were 
well aware of this tinderbox. A contingent of NDPC demonstrators led by Sheila 
Jones invaded the lobby of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. They unfurled 
a banner: "End the Bankers' Dictatorship — Jones for Senate." The NDPC had 
unsuccessfully sought major media attention during the previous week through a 
variety of stunts. In picking the Federal Reserve, a favorite target of right-wing 
populists, they knew exactly what they were doing. Thousands of downstate 
farmers would have received a powerful election-eve message if the 
demonstration had been reported on TV evening news. 

In November's general election the majority of voters no longer could plead 
ignorance about Hart and Fairchild. For over seven months, the two had received 
extensive hostile press coverage and had been attacked by campaign literature 
of both Republicans and regular Democrats. But the NDPC candidates 
hammered away, albeit in bizarre language, with their message for the "forgotten 
majority": Halt farm foreclosures, reopen steel mills, form vigilante groups to 
crack down on drug pushers, prosecute banks for laundering money, quarantine 
AIDS victims. 

By ordinary political standards, the LaRouchians suffered an overwhelming 
defeat in November. Hart received only 15.3 percent of the vote; Fairchild, only 
6.4 percent. No Democratic nominees for major office had ever done so poorly in 
Illinois. Yet by the standards of vanguard extremist politics (in which winning 
public office is never the top priority) their campaign was a success. They drew a 
clear line between themselves and the political system, letting the public know 
they were at war with the existing order. They developed a reputation for an 
uncompromising spirit. And Hart received 478,000 votes, over 100,000 more 
than in March. She ran as strongly as the Illinois Solidarity Party candidate 
backed by Stevenson and the state Democratic organization. She received 
226,000 votes in Cook County and about 25 percent of the vote in economically 
depressed St. Clair, Madison, and Rock Island counties. Her campaign evidently 
had tapped a substantial number of voters who knew who and what she was and 
weren't at all bothered by media warnings. Although her promise to send the 
tanks down State Street had sounded strange in March, it may have been the 
smartest move of her campaign. 

Neither the Democratic Party nor the media, thinking only in mainstream political 
terms, drew any serious lessons from the Hart vote. Outside Illinois most 
newspapers reported only the vote percentages, not the totals. The Democratic 
Party announced that LaRouche had been defeated, and that was that. No one 
confronted the plain fact that in a state saturated with anti-LaRouche propaganda 
his candidate had received almost a half million votes. 



The LaRouchian primary victories were tine pivotal event in Illinois politics in 
1986. Adiai Stevenson III, running on his third-party line, lost to Republican 
governor James R. Thompson by 400,000 votes. Democratic candidates in 
general were hurt by the ballot confusion: They had to warn voters to beware of 
non-Democrats running as Democrats, and to vote for "real" Democrats on a 
non-Democratic line. The Republicans meanwhile spent $200,000 in Cook 
County alone on ads with a simple message: If you don't know who the 
LaRouchian candidates are, play it safe by voting straight Republican. Thus did 
Lyndon LaRouche help deliver the nation's sixth most populous state to the 
Republicans for four more years. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Fourteen 
After Illinois 

Despite the nationwide barrage of anti-LaRouclie publicity in tine wake of tine 
1986 Illinois primary, NDPC candidates did well in subsequent primaries that 
year. According to the NDPC's own figures, it fielded candidates in 31 states, 
including 157 for Congress, 14 for the U.S. Senate, about 50 for state legislative 
office, and over 700 for Democratic Party posts (the last figure was probably 
inflated). Although none was elected to public office, ten made the ballot in 
November as Democratic nominees (four by winning primary fights, six by filing 
for uncontested nominations). Well over a million Americans voted for NDPC 
candidates in the post-Illinois primaries and the general elections. 

The Anti-Defamation League compiled the percentage figures for 234 NDPC 
primary candidates, not including those for Democratic Party posts. It found that 
119 received from to 10 percent, 60 received 1 1 to 20 percent, 22 received 31 
to 30 percent, 16 received 31 to 40 percent, 4 received 41 to 50 percent, 4 
received over 50 percent, and 9 were unopposed. In other words, almost half 
received over 10 percent. Percentages of more than 20 percent were obtained in 
every region, from Idaho to Georgia and from New Hampshire to California. 

Oklahoma's NDPC candidate for the U.S. Senate, farmer George Gentry, 
received 157,000 votes (33 percent) in a two-way race. This vote probably was 
influenced by the fact that Gentry lost his farm in a sheriff's auction shortly before 
the primary — an event widely reported in the local media. In Indiana the NDPC's 
senatorial candidate, Georgia Irey, campaigned hard in a two-way race against a 
regular Democrat who aggressively publicized key's LaRouche connection. 
When a Democratic official said the LaRouchians were like cockroaches that 
can't stand the light of day, Irey announced that she was adopting "La 
Cucaracha" as her theme song. Promising action to halt plant closings and farm 
foreclosures, she won 93,000 votes (26 percent). 

In Iowa, Democrats and trade unionists were shocked when Juan Cortez, a 
former member of the Democratic state committee and a past president of Local 
231 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, 
announced as the NDPC's senatorial candidate. In the face of strong attacks on 
his LaRouche connection, Cortez gained 17,000 votes, or 16 percent. Seventeen 
counties gave him over 20 percent. In no county did he receive less than 12 
percent. 

NDPC candidates gained significant vote totals in other statewide contests. In 
Ohio, farmer Don Scott challenged U.S. Senator John Glenn and received 



96,000 votes, or 12.5 percent. In Texas and Georgia the NDPC candidates for 
state Agricultural Commissioner each won 18 percent — 187,000 votes in Texas, 
103,000 in Georgia. Both were farmers; the Texas candidate ran against a well- 
known and popular incumbent, James Hightower. 

NDPC congressional candidates polled between 20 and 40 percent in 21 
contests in California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Also, two NDPC candidates picked up 
uncontested nominations in Ohio and Texas. But in New Jersey, where the 
Democratic Party conducted an especially strong anti-LaRouche voter education 
drive, the NDPC's 13-candidate congressional slate received only 15,473 votes 
combined. 

On the state legislative level the NDPC won two Michigan state senatorial 
primaries. Both were in Republican-dominated districts where the Democrats had 
fielded weak candidates. In Idaho an NDPC candidate picked up an uncontested 
nomination for state representative, then polled 41 percent in the general election 
against the Republican incumbent. In Alaska an NDPC candidate won 1 9 percent 
in a state senate primary. In Texas an NDPC candidate gained an uncontested 
Democratic nomination for state assembly, then polled over 20 percent in 
November. 

The NDPC claimed about 50 victories in races for positions within the Democratic 
Party, mostly county committee seats. In Pennsylvania's Bucks County an NDPC 
candidate won election to the Democratic state committee over four regular 
Democrats. In Texas the NDPC fielded over 150 candidates for party posts. Of 
the 16 who ran for county chairmanships, 12 received over 20 percent. Two 
months before the primary a newspaper columnist in Bexar County (San Antonio) 
warned that if the Democrats didn't wake up, the LaRouche candidate for county 
chairman, Donald Varella, would win. The columnist pointed out that another 
NDPC member had polled 40 percent in the previous Bexar County 
chairmanship race (1984). The local Democrats didn't heed the warning, and 
Varella came in first in the 1986 primary. The party was saved from further 
embarrassment only by the fact that Varella was not deeply committed to the 
NDPC. After unfavorable press coverage he dropped out of the race before the 
runoff primary, saying that he didn't really want to be county chairman and that 
he'd rather "follow the Man to the Cross than a man to Washington." 

Varella was not the only NDPC candidate whose link to LaRouche was tenuous. 
The Houston Post polled 25 presumed NDPCers who were elected, mostly 
unopposed, as county committeemen in Harris County. Fourteen said either that 
they'd had second thoughts about LaRouche or that they'd been unclear about 
the NDPC's affiliations from the beginning. The same phenomenon was found in 
other states. Two NDPC candidates for Congress, nominated unopposed in 
Illinois and Ohio, disassociated themselves from LaRouche. Others, when 
questioned by the press, were hesitant to back LaRouche fully. "I am not a 



LaRouche follower," said a General Dynamics technician who won a Michigan 
state senate primary. "I like some of their ideas and they like some of mine." 

But other NDPC candidates were less skittish. Major Robert Patton (USAF, ret.), 
a U.S. senatorial candidate in New Hampshire, told a local reporter that he 
backed LaRouche because whenever "evil rears [its] ugly head . . . LaRouche 
strikes with the written word, and it's effective." An Alabama NDPC candidate for 
the state legislature laughed off the media's attacks. "At first, we were 'followers 
of extremist LaRouche, neo-Nazis, blah, blah, blah,' " he told New Solidarity in 
mid-May. "Now, it's gotten to the point where — in the local media, more so than 
the national media — we're simply getting straightforward coverage." 

Overall, despite the negative media coverage and the Democratic Party's anti- 
LaRouche mailings to voters in some states, the NDPC's post-Illinois candidates 
in 1986 did better than its 1984 candidates, who had faced almost no media or 
party opposition. But the Democrats made no serious attempt to analyze these 
results. They just noted that the LaRouchians weren't i/iz/nn/ng elections, as if this 
would make the hundreds of thousands of NDPC votes disappear. Democratic 
National Committee spokesman Terry Michael cited races in which the NDPC 
was held to under 30 percent as proof that the Illinois victories had been a fluke. 

The truth was much more complicated. Although there was indeed a fluke factor 
in many NDPC contests, the high NDPC vote totals sometimes were also the 
result of hard work and clever demagoguery on volatile public issues. The fluke 
vote itself was not just a matter of voters pulling the lever at random. The 
LaRouchians were selecting their contests carefully, concentrating on 
Democratic primaries in staunchly Republican districts where the regular 
Democratic candidate was often as obscure as the LaRouchian one. The local 
party leadership didn't care much about the outcome, the voters didn't care, and 
the regular Democratic candidate merely went through the motions. Everyone 
knew the Democratic nominee couldn't win the general election anyway. 

When NDPC candidates ran against well-known incumbents with no other 
primary challenger (e.g., Scott against Glenn in Ohio), they also picked up 
significant vote percentages with little effort. The incumbent couldn't lose, so 
again there was little incentive to wage a strong battle against an obscure 
challenger. Voters who didn't like the incumbent — especially conservative 
Democrats who regarded him as too liberal — could express their disgruntlement 
by voting for the NDPC candidate. They might not approve of the NDPC's 
extremism, but inasmuch as there seemed no danger of the NDPC candidate 
actually winning, they would seize the opportunity to "send a message," as 
George Wallace used to say. 

These tactics involved conscious manipulation of weaknesses within the 
Democratic Party. But artful tricks do not explain everything. First, the 
LaRouchians did well in a number of multi-candidate elections that included well- 



known political figures on the ballot. Second, the high 1986 vote percentages for 
LaRouche candidates were mostly in low-turnout primaries. It is a rule of thumb 
in analyzing election returns that the lower the turnout, the higher the political 
awareness and socioeconomic status of those who vote. In other words, the 
LaRouchians were often getting support from the voters teasNikely to engage in 
fluke voting. Third, post-Illinois candidates like Georgia Irey in Indiana did well 
despite vigorous anti-LaRouche voter education specifically designed to counter 
fluke voting. Fourth, the LaRouchians were striking a chord with angry 
conservatives on the AIDS issue. In California they collected over a half million 
signatures in 1986 for an AIDS quarantine ballot initiative. It garnered 29 percent 
of the vote even after LaRouche's role was widely publicized. 

In 1986-87 the LaRouchians were placed on the defensive for the first time — not 
in the political or ideological arena, but in court. Top LaRouche aides were 
indicted for credit card and loan fraud, while LaRouche himself was indicted for 
obstruction of justice. It seemed for a while that this might be the end of the 
NDPC election machine. But that certainly wasn't the case in Illinois. NDPC 
candidates for city clerk and city treasurer in the 1987 Chicago municipal 
primaries received 47,000 and 50,000, respectively, while an NDPC aldermanic 
candidate received considerable support in a suburban district. Elsewhere, 
NDPC activity was muted as the LaRouchians reorganized their forces, but by 
early 1988 their machine was running smoothly again. LaRouche ran for 
President in more states than ever, including eleven on Super Tuesday. In 
California his followers recruited 205 registered Democrats in 45 congressional 
districts to run on his convention delegate slate. (They did this while also 
collecting 731 ,1 66 signatures to place a second AIDS initiative on the ballot.) 
LaRouchian fund raising also returned to normal, under the command of the very 
people who had been indicted. By June, LaRouche had gained over $650,000 in 
federal matching funds, more than in either of his two previous bids for the 
Democratic nomination. 

As in 1 984, he did poorly at the polls (receiving only 21 ,979 votes on Super 
Tuesday), but NDPC grass-roots candidates did well. In the 1988 Pennsylvania 
primary an NDPC candidate won the Democratic congressional nomination in the 
5th CD by a vote of 10,670 to 9,298. NDPC candidates in the 7th and 10th CDs 
received 20 percent and 32 percent, respectively. In Pennsylvania's U.S. 
senatorial primary, NDPC leader Steven Douglas, running in a field of four, polled 
146,050 votes, or 13 percent. Back in Illinois, the NDPC fielded a slate of twenty. 
Sheila Jones received 21 percent (1 15,000 votes) in the race for Cook County 
recorder of deeds, while NDPC candidates picked up 22 percent in the 4th CD, 
38 percent in the 6th CD, 25 percent in the 13th CD. These Illinois results were 
achieved in spite of mailings by the party leadership to registered Democrats in 
the targeted CDs and a massive distribution of anti-NDPC brochures in Cook 
County. 



The NDPC mounted a major effort in Iowa, with candidates for 16 congressional 
and legislative seats across the state (up from 4 candidates in 1986). Phil 
Boeder, the state party's communications director, told the Des Moines Register: 
"They are the political version of the 'Creature from the Black Lagoon.' They keep 
coming back to haunt us." The party leadership sent out anti-NDPC mailings and 
urged local party organizations to ban NDPC candidates from their candidates' 
forums. Juan Cortez, the NDPC's 1986 senatorial candidate, was held to 1 1 
percent in the 2nd CD and the majority of the NDPC candidates received less 
than 10 percent. However, the NDPC candidate in the 1st CD polled 30 percent, 
and four NDPC state legislative candidates polled over 20 percent, with a high of 
32 percent for a longtime LaRouche farm activist in House District 17. 

Prairiefire Rural Action in Des Moines did a county-by-county analysis. It found 
that a majority of the NDPC candidates received over 10 percent in one or more 
counties, with their best showings in rural counties and/or their home counties. It 
described as "surprising" the 14 percent vote Cortez received in his home 
county, where voters were especially aware of his LaRouche connection. The 
NDPC congressional candidate in the 1st CD received 40 percent or more in five 
of the sixteen counties; in three, he received over 45 percent. His best showing 
was in Wapello County, where "LaRouche operatives campaigned aggressively 
with door-to-door canvassing and literature distribution efforts." Comparing the 
1986 and 1988 NDPC vote, the report concluded that although no "stable bloc" of 
LaRouche voters yet existed, the vigorous exposures of LaRouche in Iowa had 
not been entirely effective: "Far too many [voters] chose to support LaRouche- 
sponsored candidates in 1988. And, in the absence of continued vigilance, there 
is nothing to suggest that a significant number of lowans won't make the same 
mistake again in 1990." 

As in previous years, the LaRouchians took advantage of the flabbiness of local 
Democratic organizations in strongly Republican districts. Indeed, by 
concentrating on such districts they won more contested primaries in 1988 than 
in any single previous year. And they also picked up several uncontested 
nominations in districts where the regular Democrats simply didn't bother to field 
anyone. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, two NDPC candidates picked up 
congressional nominations unopposed. In Indiana, Georgia Irey, the NDPC's 
former U.S. senatorial candidate, gained an uncontested state assembly 
nomination. In Iowa, NDPC candidates harvested two state senatorial 
nominations without opposition. 

The NDPC's surprise of the year was in Harris County, Texas (Houston). 
Although LaRouche received only 389 votes for President in Harris County, 
Claude Jones, a staunch LaRouche loyalist, was elected Democratic county 
chairman. He defeated the incumbent, Larry Veselka, by a vote of 54,394 to 
51 ,318. In some respects the incident was a replay of Illinois in 1 986. The local 
party leadership and the media again failed to warn the public about the 
LaRouche candidate, the regular Democrat again didn't bother to campaign very 



much, and everyone again ignored clear warning signals — the strong vote totals 
for local LaRouche candidates in several previous elections (for instance, the 26 
percent obtained by Harley Schlanger, the leader of the LaRouche Texas 
organization, in a 1986 Houston congressional primary). 

Although Jones had polled only 5 percent against Veselka in the 1986 county 
chairmanship race, LaRouche candidates had done well in other Texas county 
chairmanship races that year. In Houston, of all places, the Democrats should 
have remained vigilant. Harris County is the second-largest election district in the 
United States. It has 664 voting precincts and sends more delegates to the 
Democratic National Convention than many states do. Yet the ousted chairman, 
Veselka, defended his decision not to campaign vigorously: It had clashed with 
his duties as a trial lawyer, he said. 

Houston Democratic leaders put most of the blame on the voters. "Jones is a 
simpler name than Veselka, so people went with the familiar," said the county 
committee's executive director. The argument was similar to that of the Illinois 
Democrats in 1986: that voters had chosen a Hart over a Pucinsky. Houston 
Democrats speculated that Jones had deliberately kept a low profile in order to 
keep the Democrats asleep at the wheel, so that he, too, could take advantage of 
the name factor. It was also pointed out that the record presidential primary 
turnout had included many voters unfamiliar with party officeholders — a theory far 
more plausible than the claim by Illinois Democrats that the Hart-Fairchild 
victories had been due to a /oi// turnout. 

The Democrats got off easy this time. The county Democratic leadership met 
three days after the primary and passed new bylaws stripping the county 
chairman of all powers, including the power to write checks and handle funds. 
When the full county committee met to approve the new bylaws, the NDPC could 
muster only a handful of protesters. Yet it was sheer luck that the LaRouche 
victory had occurred in an intraparty contest rather than in a race for public 
office — Jones, unlike Hart and Fairchild, couldn't hurt the Democratic ticket in 
November. 

The LaRouchian electoral record from 1 974 through 1 988 shows that they have 
discovered and learned to exploit hitherto unnoticed weaknesses in America's 
two-party electoral system. And their opportunities for doing so apparently are 
expanding. An August 1988 New York Times article reported a national increase 
in the number of uncontested primaries and general elections, reflecting the 
growing clout of incumbency, the greater costs of running for office, and the 
closer press scrutiny of candidates' personal lives and finances. In the 1988 New 
York elections, the Times said, "at least one of every five members of the House 
and Legislature does not have a major party opponent and is thus virtually 
assured of re-election in November." Hence any extremist candidate who 
chooses to run on a shoestring budget can pick up a hefty percentage of the vote 
and in many cases an uncontested nomination. 



Besides LaRouche, other ultrarightists and neo-Nazis recognize tine growing 
potential for miscliief. Robert IVIiles, America's leading old-style white 
supremacist, hailed the LaRouchians as "political raiders" after their 1986 Illinois 
victories. Comparing them to Hitler's SS, he said they had wrought "havoc" in the 
ranks of "ZOG" (the Zionist Occupation Government). "Well done, Lyndon, well 
done," he crowed. Former Klansman Robert Weems also praised the NPDC's 
feat in a front-page article in The Spotlight. Leaders of the Populist Party, 
electoral arm of the Liberty Lobby, called for a LaRouche-style strategy of 
infiltrating major-party primaries. David Duke, head of the National Association 
for the Advancement of White People, announced his candidacy for the 1 988 
Democratic presidential nomination. Like LaRouche, he compared himself to 
George Wallace, entered the New Hampshire primary, and applied for 
government matching funds. Lacking a cadre organization such as LaRouche's, 
he failed to raise enough money to qualify for federal funds. But on Super 
Tuesday he received 41,177 votes in five states. 

Pollster Michael McKeon believes that the electoral activities of extremists like 
LaRouche and Duke may "expand exponentially" in the next decade. Democratic 
and Republican Party leaders have failed to offer blue-collar voters credible 
solutions to the problems of drugs and street crime. Neither party has done much 
to reverse the decline of traditional smokestack industries or give long-range 
hope to America's remaining farm families. Meanwhile, the parties' traditional 
means of reaching the voter, network television, has been undercut by VCR 
technology. "The VCR means people can control information coming into their 
homes," said McKeon. "A lot don't listen to television news anymore. There's a lot 
of networking going on." McKeon believes that blue-collar voters are looking for 
ideas that mirror their frustration. "You've got couples working in low-wage or 
part-time jobs who used to make a good living at a plant that closed down. It 
simmers and simmers. Fred Flintstone starts picking up on all kinds of strange 
notions. When the Democrats and Republicans get together to tell him not to 
vote for a LaRouche candidate, he thinks: What have the Democrats and 
Republicans done for me?" 

In this new political arena, the old standards of political measurement may prove 
inadequate. In mid-1986, pollster Mervin Field asked registered voters in 
California about LaRouche. Sixty-five percent had heard of him, and 55 percent 
had an unfavorable opinion of him. Field said the score was the lowest he'd ever 
found for a politician. Yet the following November, 2,039,744 Californians voted 
in favor of LaRouche's AIDS quarantine initiative. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Fifteen 

LaRouche and the Reagan Revolution 

During his eiglit years of presidential press conferences, Ronald Reagan often 
took questions from Executive Intelligence Review correspondents. On August 3, 
1988, the question and answer created a furor. EIR's Nick Benton asked the 
President if he thought Michael Dukakis should make his medical records public. 
Benton was alluding to rumors spread by his own NCLC colleagues that the 
Democratic presidential nominee had sought psychiatric help for depression in 
the late 1970s. Reagan, grinning, answered: "Look, I'm not going to pick on an 
invalid." The remark elicited groans of dismay from the assembled reporters, and 
Reagan half apologized several hours later. Yet the President had managed to 
transform an unsubstantiated smear into a major international news story. The 
New York Times's Anthony Lewis wrote that "anyone who thinks that crack was 
accidental must believe in the Tooth Fairy." Senator Daniel P. Moynihan used 
even blunter language, charging that the "Big Lie" of Lyndon LaRouche had 
"reached the Oval Office." 

The LaRouchians had started their Dukakis rumors at the convention, with 
leaflets that asked, "Is Dukakis the new Senator Eagleton?" Afterwards they 
called daily newspapers around the country, telling each that its competitors were 
already hot on the story. Fearful of being scooped, editors and reporters reacted 
predictably. Dukakis headquarters received a barrage of inquiries. Although 
campaign spokesmen denied everything and the LaRouchians offered no solid 
evidence, the rumors became newsworthy simply as rumors. The weekend 
before Reagan's "invalid" quip, several important news outlets had already 
reported the story. The Reverend Moon's Washington Times gave it front-page 
coverage with the sly headline: "Dukakis Psychiatric Rumor Denied." On August 
3, a Wall Street Journal editorial noted "rumors about [Dukakis's] depression," 
which supposedly highlighted "how little the American people know about this 
man." 

Dukakis called a press conference to deny the rumor, and within a few days it 
was overshadowed by the story of Dan Ouayle and the National Guard. 
Syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak noted that the caper 
apparently had backfired by linking Bush to LaRouche more than Dukakis to the 
psychiatrist's couch. They charged that, weeks before the story broke into print, 
the "political apparatus of Bush campaign manager Lee Atwater was 
investigating the details and trying to spread the findings without leaving any 
vice-presidential fingerprints." The column suggested that Atwater's lieutenants 
had "asked outside GOP operatives" to do the dirty work. 



There was a potential bombshell here, but most of the media showed the usual 
reluctance to cover anything relating to LaRouche. This emboldened his 
followers to escalate their smear campaign with a sixteen-page pamphlet on 
Dukakis's alleged mental problems, partiality for the "drug-sex counterculture," 
and support for "privileges for homosexuals." The initial press run was 100,000 
copies, available for fifty cents each in bulk orders of 100 or more. 

The press treated the original smear as an isolated incident, but the LaRouche 
organization had conducted scores of dirty-tricks operations against the 
Democrats (and occasionally against moderate Republicans on behalf of the 
Reaganites) over the previous twelve years. Almost totally ignored by the press 
except in the earliest and least harmful stage, this campaign is probably the 
largest and certainly the longest-running operation of its type in American 
electoral history. 

The NCLC's wooing of the Republicans began in 1976, when LaRouche was 
running for President on the U.S. Labor Party ticket. Shortly after Jimmy Carter 
won the Democratic nomination, LaRouche shifted from seeking votes for himself 
to diverting votes into President Ford's column. NCLC defectors recall meetings 
that summer and fall to plan pro-Ford and anti-Carter activities. New Solidarity 
told the NCLC membership that the nation would face a "near-certain nuclear 
incineration" if they didn't launch an all-out "stop Carter" effort. On election eve 
LaRouche appeared on NBC-TV to warn the nation about Carter's alleged mental 
imbalance — the same charge as against Dukakis, although less artfully 
presented. The NCLC collected $96,000 on an emergency basis to pay for 
LaRouche's half-hour speech. New Solidarity said the money was raised "with 
the aid of a group of conservative Republican businessmen" — a statement which 
NCLC defectors say is true. Federal Election Commission records show large 
donations to LaRouche's campaign committee the day before the election. The 
reputed donors were NCLC members covering for the real donors. One 
conservative donor, who was a member of the board of directors of Ocean 
Spray, put up $15,000. 

After the election, the Republicans joined with the LaRouche organization in 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin to challenge the election returns 
in court on grounds of vote fraud. The objective was to deprive Carter of his edge 
in Electoral College votes. Republican National Committee executive director Ed 
Mahe was in contact with the LaRouchians on this and encouraged support for 
their effort. He became involved at the urging of Representative Guy Vander Jagt 
(R.-Mich.), chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee and a close 
friend of President Ford. A spokesman for Vander Jagt told The Washington Post 
that "our Republican interest is similar to theirs on the one issue of voter fraud." 
In Oklahoma, a prominent publisher hosted a luncheon for a select group of 
Republicans to hear a pitch for money from LaRouche, while the state finance 
chairman of the Ford campaign also helped raise funds. A Denver stockbroker 
serving as director of LaRouche's so-called Citizens Committee for a Fair 



Election revealed that supporters of Ronald Reagan were also raising money for 
the suit. 

Conservative journalist Morton Blackwell in The Right Report described 
LaRouche's wooing of top Republicans that year as "a surprising success." 
LaRouche followers had contacted "literally hundreds of conservatives and 
Republicans." Their approach had been "unfailingly courteous." One LaRouche 
spokesman tried to ingratiate himself with Blackwell by saying, "You're committed 
to the ideals which created this country, as we are." 

Many Republicans dropped the LaRouchians after major dailies reported on the 
curious alliance. But in some cases, the process simply went underground. 
NCLC defectors say that ongoing ties were established with several well- 
connected Republicans. One was Hal Short, a former Republican National 
Committee executive who operated as a political consultant in Washington. 
Another was Thomas Miner, president of Chicago's Mid-America Committee for 
International Business and Government Cooperation, who attempted to arrange 
meetings between LaRouche and several of his wealthy friends. In California, at 
least one wealthy Reagan backer became temporarily enchanted with the 
LaRouchians. 

LaRouche soon recognized that Reagan was the man of the future. In May 1978 
he issued an appeal to Reagan to take the leadership of the party away from 
flunkies of the "Judas-goat Kissinger" and to unite the party around an 
international strategy of export of "high technology capital goods." In a February 
1979 New Solidarity editorial, LaRouche said that Reagan "is without doubt the 
best" among the potential Republican presidential candidates, exhibiting a "moral 
quality lacking in all the rest." George Bush was "totally unacceptable" in the 
opinion of LaRouche, who said he was fulfilling a "duty" to the Republican Party 
by pointing this out. 

By the summer of 1979, LaRouche sensed the impending conservative ground 
swell. "The giant nonliberal sections of the Democratic Party and the GOP are 
ready to bolt from the control of their national leaderships," he wrote. "Any 
presidential candidate who links up with this coalition will be 'piggy-backed' into 
the White House." But he expressed concern that Reagan might not move boldly 
enough to take advantage of the electorate's mood. New Solidarity urged 
Reagan to keep on a conservative course rather than plunging into the 
"mainstream." The latter strategy, it said, would be "fatal" to his campaign. 

Meanwhile LaRouche announced his own candidacy for the Democratic 
nomination~to raise high the banner of American "nationalism" within the party 
most vulnerable to infiltration. His pro-Republican friends in the Teamsters Union 
encouraged this decision, and a Michigan businessman close to the Teamsters 
would end up managing his New Hampshire primary campaign. Said Rolland 
McMaster, a top Michigan Teamster leader: "People like it he's a Democrat now." 



The Teamsters were the only major union in 1980 to support Reagan. Jackie 
Presser, the NCLC's most important Teamster ally, was appointed to Reagan's 
transition team and inauguration committee. 

In the fall of 1979 LaRouche spent most of his time lambasting his liberal 
Democratic opponents — Carter, Kennedy, and Jerry Brown. But as primary day 
approached in New Hampshire, a curious shift in emphasis occurred. LaRouche 
focused his fire on Reagan's major rival, George Bush. A deluge of anti-Bush 
propaganda emanated from LaRouche headquarters, focusing on the type of 
conspiracy theories that William Loeb's Manchester Union Leader had long 
popularized throughout the state. LaRouche charged that Bush was a tool of the 
Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission — a typical 
Anglophile one-worlder. He also alluded to the "bones in Bush's closet," his 
membership in Yale University's Skull and Bones society. 

Similar charges about Bush came from publisher Loeb, the John Birch Society, 
and Reagan's campaign aides. Reagan himself expressed concern over the 
Trilateral Commission's "undue influence" in government and politics, although 
not mentioning Bush's name. But LaRouche spread the message most 
vigorously. He had hundreds of volunteers, millions of dollars, and his own 
printing and typesetting companies. Most important, he had nothing to lose. No 
intemperate or exaggerated statements could hurt him since he already was 
branded as an extremist. 

It worked. During the final weeks of the primary campaign. Bush repeatedly was 
asked about the Trilateral Commission, and booed when he attempted to brush 
off the questions. The Wall Street Journal devoted a front-page article to his 
Trilateral problem, noting that it had become "a genuine, if unlikely issue." 

LaRouche himself received only 2 percent of the vote on primary day, but New 
Solidarity suggested that he had helped Reagan to make "Bush's 'blueblood' 
connection to the Trilateral Commission ... the key issue in the race." 
Supposedly the Reagan campaign and Loeb had borrowed their material from 
Citizens for LaRouche, and LaRouche's own attacks on the "silk-stocking crowd" 
had "set the tone" for the primary. This tactic had put Bush "on the defensive." 

LaRouche was not so obvious as to eulogize Reagan while harassing Bush. In 
early January he wrote an article describing Reagan as "a man whose career 
was originally sponsored by Borax, and who is still selling the stuff." But he was 
confident Reagan would win in November, and fully intended to be on the 
winning side. He urged the Reagan campaign to continue on an aggressively 
conservative course. This could "make political mincemeat of the Carter 
administration," he said. For his own part, no sooner was the New Hampshire 
primary over than he shifted his main attack to Carter and spent the rest of the 
season pointing out that the President, like Bush, was a Trilateral Commission 
alumnus. The New Hampshire effect was not duplicated, but LaRouche did 



exasperate Commission member David Rockefeller. In a letter to The New York 
Times, Rockefeller complained about the outlandish conspiracy theories, citing 
specific charges made only by the LaRouchians. The Times accompanied his 
letter with an editorial deploring certain unnamed anti-Trilateralists. 

That summer the LaRouchians met a veteran political operative who would 
become a mentor of sorts. Paul Corbin, a longtime Kennedy family retainer who 
had served Robert Kennedy as a specialist in sensitive operations, was working 
for Teddy Kennedy at the Democratic convention. LaRouche had long despised 
Teddy, entitling one of his political tracts "Beneath the Waters of 
Chappaquiddick." But at the convention LaRouche hoped to put together a 
coalition of Kennedy supporters, farm activists, labor leaders, and his own 
organization to stop Carter. Corbin was invited to LaRouche's convention 
command post at Regency House to discuss a deal involving delegates. He was 
amused to find that LaRouche had no delegates. However, he would continue his 
contacts with LaRouche's followers. After Carter was renominated, Corbin 
seethed with resentment on behalf of Teddy. He offered his services to Reagan 
campaign manager William Casey, and was hired as an operative to report 
directly to Casey, James Baker, and Edwin Meese. (Corbin says he told Casey: 
"I'm not here for pay but I want to stop Carter. If Carter wins, the next nominee 
will be Mondale.") After linking up with the Reaganites, Corbin developed a 
relationship with the LaRouchians that lasted for years, although he never agreed 
with their politics. He attended many of their political events, had dinner with 
Lyndon and Helga, became fast friends with LaRouche's top Washington 
operative, Richard Cohen, and provided them wilh advice on how to gain 
influence within the Democratic Party. He also chatted frequently on the phone 
with Jeffrey Steinberg, the chief of LaRouche's security staff. 

In 1983 the press uncovered that William Casey had surreptitiously obtained 
copies of President Carter's television debate briefing book prior to the October 
1980 debate. The incident was dubbed "Briefingate." The Justice Department 
launched an investigation and a congressional committee made inquiries. Casey, 
who had become CIA director, revealed that he had received certain Carter 
campaign materials, although not the briefing book, from Paul Corbin. 

The LaRouchians were anxious to stop the Briefingate probe, and issued a 
pamphlet calling it a Communist-liberal plot to undermine Reagan's Strategic 
Defense Initiative. The morning the story about Corbin broke in the media, there 
was a lengthy phone conversation between Corbin and Jeff Steinberg, according 
to former security staffer Charles Tate, who took the incoming call. Asked about 
this in 1988, Corbin didn't recall the conversation but noted that Steinberg 
frequently solicited his opinion on fast-breaking political events. Corbin denied 
having anything to do with snatching Carter's briefing book and said he doubted 
the LaRouchians could have gotten close enough to Carter's inner circle to obtain 
it. But he speculated that Republican tricksters might be dealing with the 
LaRouchians against Dukakis. As to his own dealings with the LaRouchians, he 



said he had just been keeping an eye on them as a favor to another former 
Kennedy aide. 

Shortly after the 1980 Democratic convention, LaRouche launched the National 
Democratic Policy Committee for long-range organizing and disruption among 
Democrats. Kenneth Dalto, a Detroit LaRouche follower and businessman with 
close ties to the Teamsters, was appointed executive director. NDPC literature 
announced that the goal was to organize a LaRouche-led "conservative" 
movement within the party, with the aid of the Teamsters and right-wing 
construction union leaders. This faction would seek national "bipartisanship" — 
that is. Democratic capitulation to the Reagan agenda. That autumn the NDPC 
functioned unofficially as a kind of Democrats for Reagan movement attacking 
Carter nonstop. Two days before the general election the NDPC placed an anti- 
Carter ad in the Detroit Free Press. 

After Reagan's election LaRouche tried to call in his chips. He went to 
Washington with aide Warren Hamerman, who later wrote in EIR that they met 
with "numerous officials of the Reagan transition team, a score of congressmen 
and senators, and various people with policy influence." (It was shortly after this 
that LaRouche began planning to move his headquarters to the Washington 
area.) In early 1981 the LaRouchians held policy seminars on Capitol Hill and 
provided EIR gift subscriptions to cabinet members and leading congressional 
figures. The most important administration contacts were handled by operatives 
such as Uwe Parpart and Richard Cohen, who knew how to push the right 
buttons and mouth the right slogans. They became known as strong supporters 
of administration policy on defense, the environment, and drugs. They kept their 
mouths shut about the LaRouche organization's peculiar views on the "Zionist- 
British organism." 

The early stage of the "Reagan Revolution" was an ideal time for the 
LaRouchians to make inroads. Everything was in flux, and their extremism did 
not stand out. They seemed just another part of the mosaic of unorthodox ideas 
along with Ayn Rand's capitalist anarchism, Edward Teller's sci-fi weapons 
fantasies, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's plans for 
emergency rule drafted by cronies of Edwin Meese. The LaRouchians crowed 
when Reagan stated in his 1981 West Point commencement address: "At Trophy 
Point, I'm told there are links of a great chain that was forged and stretched 
across the Hudson to prevent the British fleet from penetrating further into the 
valley. Today, you are that chain, holding back an evil force that would extinguish 
the light we've been tending for six thousand years. . ." In the heady atmosphere 
of the Reagan Revolution's springtime, the LaRouchians could actually convince 
themselves this was a coded reference to the six-thousand-year struggle 
between "humanists" and British "oligarchs." 

EIR obtained interviews in 1981 with many high-level appointees, including 
Agriculture Secretary John Block, Defense Under Secretary Richard DeLauer, 



Commerce Under Secretary Lionel Olmer, Treasury Under Secretary Norman 
Ture, Assistant Attorney General Lowell Jensen, and the chairman of the 
President's Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Murray Weidenbaum. In addition. 
Senator Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), a friend of the President, and Senator John Tower 
(R.-Tex.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, granted 
interviews. LaRouche told The Village Voice in 1987 that all this was his reward 
for helping sandbag Bush, but in some cases there is a more pedestrian 
explanation. LaRouche spokesmen took the trouble to testify in favor of a number 
of Reagan appointees at Senate confirmation hearings, and then called up for 
interviews. LaRouche himself cadged an invitation to have breakfast with Interior 
Secretary James Watt along with several other supporters of Watt's confirmation. 
LaRouche hoped for a consultant's post, but Watt recalls feeling "instinctively" 
that "something was off." (Within months. New Solidarity and Executive 
Intelligence Review began to attack Watt as a closet environmentalist.) 

The most important LaRouchian inroads were at the National Security Council, 
where several LaRouche followers became frequent visitors, functioning almost 
as unofficial consultants. They met numerous times with Richard Morris, right- 
hand man to National Security Adviser William Clark. Other NSC officials who 
listened to them included Ray Pollock and Norman Bailey. (EIR has mentioned 
meetings with additional NSC officials, including one visit where Criton Zoakos 
transmitted LaRouche's views to a specialist in Soviet affairs.) Morris met several 
times with LaRouche himself, as did Pollock twice and Bailey at least three times. 
After leaving the administration in early 1984, Bailey became an economics 
adviser to the Reagan-Bush reelection campaign, and traveled out to Leesburg 
for dinner and a political discussion with Lyn and Helga. 

LaRouchian efforts in Washington were paralleled by a nationwide effort to serve 
the Republicans on the local level. Here the LaRouchians became specialists at 
smearing Democrats. This began well before Reagan's victory, but the first 
experiments were not very successful. When Jane Byrne won the Chicago 
Democratic mayoral primary in 1979, the LaRouchians published a scurrilous 
pamphlet about her. The Plot to Steal Chicago. Hundreds of thousands of free 
copies were distributed. Her Republican opponent repeated some of the charges, 
and when asked by reporters for proof, cited the LaRouchian pamphlet. Later he 
felt obliged to issue a sheepish retraction. 

The following year the LaRouchians backed conservative Republican candidate 
Alfonse D'Amato for the U.S. Senate in New York against Congresswoman 
Elizabeth Holtzman. D'Amato held a joint press conference with LaRouche's 
National Anti-Drug Coalition, a group devoted to blaming the drug traffic on the 
Jews. The LaRouchians had attacked Holtzman for her role in founding the 
Justice Department's Nazi-hunting unit, the Office of Special Investigations. The 
OSI, the LaRouchians charged, was a Zionist-British plot against America, and 
Holtzman was a traitor. They continued these attacks during the campaign, also 
calling Holtzman soft on drugs. D'Amato failed to publicly disassociate himself 



from the LaRouchian rhetoric at the time, although he held no more press 
conferences with them. Incredibly, Holtzman's campaign staff let slip the 
opportunity to score a major point with Jewish voters, and D'Amato squeaked 
through to a narrow victory in November riding the coattails of the Reagan 
landslide. 

With the launching of the NDPC, LaRouche had the perfect cover for pro- 
Republican smear campaigns: One of his followers would enter the Democratic 
primary against the targeted candidate, disseminating the smears from within. 
This would soften up the target for the Republican nominee's post-primary 
onslaught. 

In 1982 the LaRouchians used red-baiting and sexual smears against former 
California governor Jerry Brown, who was running for the U.S. Senate. The 
material was issued by NDPC candidate William Wertz's campaign committee. It 
emphasized Brown's ties to Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda, presenting a wildly 
exaggerated account of the couple's leftist activities in hopes it would rub off on 
Brown. Fonda engaged in animalistic sexual behavior, one pamphlet said. Her 
movies promoted incest. Her mother had committed suicide. Her Malibu home 
had been the scene of "wild goings-on" prior to Sharon Tate's murder. She, her 
husband, and Brown were all part of the "Cult of Aquarius" plotting to deprive 
America of clean safe nuclear energy. The pamphlet advertised campaign 
bumper stickers: "Clean Up the Fruitflies — Spray Jerry Brown," "Don't Let Jerry 
Brown Pull Down Your Pants" and "What Spreads Faster than Radiation? Jane 
Fonda." 

The Baltimore LaRouche organization smeared liberal Democratic 
congresswoman Barbara Mikulski in the 1982 and 1984 primaries, as noted 
earlier, but the softening-up tactic was best seen in 1986, when Mikulski became 
the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. She was opposed by Republican 
Linda Chavez, a Social Democrat turned neo-conservative who had served as 
the chief of President Reagan's public liaison office. The Republicans regarded 
the race as a crucial one in their battle to keep control of the Senate, and the 
LaRouchians obliged by lesbian-baiting Mikulski in the primary. NDPC candidate, 
Debra Freeman, urged Maryland Democrats to "vote straight Democrat." She 
continued this rhetoric beyond the primary season, calling Mikulski a "dike in the 
way of progress" and the "ugliest woman in Congress." New Solidarity quipped 
that there should be a prize for anyone "who can correctly identify Mikulski's sex." 
Chavez adopted a watered-down version of this, calling her opponent a "San 
Francisco-style Democrat" and warning that she could not "hide in the closet." 
Supporters also dredged up stories about an alleged affair between Mikulski and 
a staff aide. But many voters apparently were disgusted by the Freeman-Chavez 
act: Mikulski won a strong victory in November. 

The LaRouchians intervened more successfully in a senatorial race two years 
earlier in North Carolina. It was a contest of national importance, with former 



Democratic governor James Hunt attempting to unseat Republican senator 
Jesse Helms, one of the most powerful figures on Capitol Hill. Former NCLC 
security staffer Charles Tate says he was told in early 1984 that work would be 
done on Helms's behalf. This was no surprise to Tate: he knew the security staff 
had been in touch with a top Helms aide for several years. (During the Falklands 
war in 1 982, Helms had been the only senator to adopt the idea, also held by 
LaRouche, that the United States should invoke the Monroe Doctrine against 
"British imperialism" and in defense of Argentina's junta. The NDPC had issued a 
pro-Argentina propaganda pamphlet, including statements by LaRouche and 
Helms.) 

Security staffers discussed sending an infiltrator into the Hunt campaign, but 
decided they could do the job best through undercover phone calls. Tate was 
present in the New York security office while a black NCLC member made calls 
to gay activists backing Hunt. The caller claimed to be from the Chicago Metro, a 
black weekly. Given Helms's notorious racism, the persons being interviewed all 
assumed the caller was anti-Helms. 

Meanwhile articles linking Hunt to the gay community began to appear in The 
Landmark, a now-defunct conservative weekly published by Chapel Hill realtor 
Robert Windsor. The Landmark published excerpts from what apparently were 
taped conversations with various Hunt supporters in Chapel Hill, New York City, 
and elsewhere. The persons interviewed included gay activists as well as liberal 
socialites and civil rights leaders. The idea was to show that Hunt was getting 
substantial local and national support from constituencies disliked by many 
conservative Democrats. There were also articles suggesting Hum was himself 
gay. "Jim Hunt Is Sissy, Prissy, Girlish and Effeminate," read one headline, 
followed by "Is Jim Hunt homosexual?. ..Is he AC and DC? Has he kept a deep 
dark secret in his political closet all of his adult life?" Hundreds of thousands of 
free copies of The Landmark were circulated throughout the state, especially in 
rural areas. Like any wily campaigner. Helms publicly disassociated himself from 
the false charges about Hunt's sex life (and there is no evidence that Helms 
personally knew of the LaRouchians' involvement), but The Landmark's press 
run increased sharply right before Election Day. In the wake of Helms's narrow 
victory, many North Carolinians believed the smear campaign had tipped the 
balance. 

At least some of the tapes used by The Landmark came from LaRouche's 
security staff. In early March 1984, a LaRouchian phoned Virginia Apuzzo, 
director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, pretending to be a news 
reporter. Charles Tate says he heard the call being made and "saw the tape 
recorder running." A transcript of Apuzzo's remarks appeared in the March 29 
issue of The Landmark, which also included excerpts from a phone conversation 
with Lightning Brown, a gay activist in Chapel Hill. Brown says he received two 
calls. The first was from Grant Duay, a supposed reporter for a gay weekly, the 
New York City News. Brown said that Duay "asked about my fund raising for 



Hunt. The details ended up in Tine Landmark riglit away — it was friglitening." 
Duay was in fact a notorious LaRouclie operative wlio liad previously used the 
New York City News as his cover for interviewing and taping political opponents 
of LaRouche. (In 1986 Duay would be arrested in Manhattan as part of a 
homosexual child pornography ring.) 

Brown's second call was from the black LaRouchian. "I told him I felt sorry for the 
publisher of The Landmark and that I had prayed for him," said Brown, who is a 
Quaker. "My remark later appeared in The Landmark. It was supposed to prove I 
was a devil worshipper." 

Landmark publisher Windsor was in close contact with the LaRouchians 
throughout that spring. He accompanied Tom Allred, Hunt's LaRouchian 
opponent in the Democratic primary, on a trip to Raleigh. "We toured the 
legislature and I introduced him to Listen Ramsey, speaker of the house, and 
many other people," Windsor wrote in a front-page article about Allred. In a 1987 
phone interview Windsor said he had also attended an NDPC meeting held to 
recruit North Carolina conservatives to run on the LaRouche slate, Windsor 
claimed that a number of his conservative friends had contributed money to the 
NDPC, including one $50,000 contribution. 

The LaRouchians' biggest effort ever was against the Democrats' 1984 national 
ticket. What they were planning was suggested by their attitude toward the 
party's May 1983 telethon. They called it a "disgustathon" and a cover for the 
laundering of drug money. New Solidarity gloated that "complaint and insult calls 
reportedly outnumbered favorable responses 9 tol ," and that party leaders 
believed but could not prove that someone "intentionally jammed their incoming 
lines." (The LaRouchians had scores of WATS line phones in their national and 
regional offices and had practiced jamming before.) 

That fall they went after Democratic front-runner Walter Mondale with insulting 
leaflets and carefully staged disruptions of his campaign appearances and press 
conferences. As against Bush in 1980, they used the Trilateral Commission 
issue, publishing a list of Mondale advisers said to be Trilateral members and 
citing his own membership as proof that he was a tool of "Kissinger and 
Rockefeller." At the time of the Grenada invasion they charged that Mondale 
foreign policy adviser Robert Pastor and former Carter aide Dr. Peter Bourne had 
been in cahoots with the ultra-left military regime overthrown by the invasion. In 
fact. Pastor and Bourne had merely provided advice to Bourne's father, who ran 
a medical school on the island, on how to steer safely through a dangerous 
situation. The LaRouchians circulated a pamphlet asserting that Pastor and 
Bourne had formerly been associated with the Institute for Policy Studies. When 
Mondale was asked about the Grenada allegations at an Oklahoma press 
conference, he complained about the smear campaign. But he never took any 
steps against the LaRouchians, and never raised the issue of their apparent ties 
to the Reagan administration. 



The heart of the 1984 LaRouche operation was the NDPC candidates' 
movement, a spectacular eruption of approximately 2,000 candidates into 
Democratic primaries. This was not part of the normal electoral process within 
the party but a deliberate disruption orchestrated from without. Most of the 
candidates had no commitment to the party. Some were full-time LaRouche 
cadre, others were senior citizens only dimly conscious of what they were doing. 
At least a few were veteran ultra-conservatives well aware that the point was to 
help Reagan. The rhetoric of their campaigns was anti-Mondale, rarely including 
criticism of the Republicans. They staunchly supported Reagan's key policies 
such as Star Wars. In effect, they were an extension of the Republican 
presidential campaign into the ranks of the Democratic Party. 

The media as well as the Mondale campaign utterly failed to spot what was 
happening. Instead, they focused on a sideshow — the heckling of Mondale by 
conservative student activists who apparently were organized by Reagan 
operatives. No one probed LaRouche's hundred-times-larger operation. 

In March 1984 NBC-TV's First Camera aired an expose of LaRouche's ties to the 
Reagan administration and especially to the National Security Council, The 
report also described the NCLC's anti-Semitism and history of violence~and 
LaRouche's discussion of a scheme to kill President Carter. Afterward, 
Democratic National Chairman Charles Manatt appealed to President Reagan to 
"repudiate" the LaRouchians and "order officials of his administration to cease all 
contacts with these extremists." White House spokesman Larry Speakes's reply 
was that the administration talks to "various people who may have information 
that might prove helpful to us. . . .Any American citizen, we'd be glad to talk to." 
In other words, there was to be no public repudiation of LaRouche. Later that 
spring, the Reagan campaign made much over the Democrats' failure to 
repudiate Jesse Jackson. Reagan spoke of an "insidious cancer" in the 
Democratic Party. "We have no place for haters in America," he said. He and 
Bush hounded Mondale about Louis Farrakhan even though the Democratic 
candidate had repeatedly and unequivocally denounced the Nation of Islam 
leader. But in one sense Mondale merely got what he deserved. Although he 
could have shut up the Republicans by uttering the magic words "LaRouche" and 
"Nazi," he was curiously too timid to do it. 

LaRouche filed a libel suit against NBC and the Anti-Defamation League 
regarding the First Camera report. At the trial in the fall of 1984, he called former 
NSC aide Richard Morris as a witness. Morris, who had moved to the Interior 
Department with Reagan crony Clark, was in effect the administration's voice at 
the trial. He studiously avoided any negative statements about LaRouche and 
praised him to the jury by affirming that he had provided "good intelligence" to the 
government. Roy Innis, the head of CORE and one of the Reagan 
administration's few black allies, appeared as a LaRouche character witness, 
telling the jury he didn't think his friend was at all racist or anti-Semitic. (Innis was 
a veteran at such denials. Back in 1973, after Uganda dictator Idi Amin called 



Hitler a great man, Innis had declined to criticize Amin, saying he had "no records 
to prove" that Hitler had ever been an enemy of black people.) Although Innis's 
support for LaRouche was in every respect the equivalent of Jesse Jackson's 
involvement with Farrakhan, Reagan praised Innis in a New York Times interview 
the following February for supporting the administration's social agenda. The jury 
members in the NBC trial, however, rejected Innis's protestations. They found the 
defendants innocent of libel and awarded NBC $3 million in damages on a 
counterclaim against LaRouche. 

Although The Washington Post and The New Republic published in-depth probes 
that fall and winter of LaRouche's White House ties, he continued to enjoy 
immunity from any open administration criticism. His fundraisers began calling 
elderly Reagan supporters all over the country. Their pitch was: Give us your 
life's savings to help President Reagan and keep America strong. This was how 
LaRouche rewarded the Reagan administration for not speaking out against him. 

In 1986, as we have seen, the victory of LaRouchian candidates for lieutenant 
governor and secretary of state in the Illinois Democratic primaries guaranteed 
the reelection of Republican governor Jim Thompson. This was LaRouche's 
greatest service yet for the GOP (although an unplanned one). When Reagan 
went to Chicago to campaign for Thompson, he was asked his opinion on the 
LaRouchians. His reply: "I'm not here to do battle with him [LaRouche]; but I don't 
believe I could find myself in agreement with him on just about everything." 

In the following months the LaRouchians received amazing vote totals in state 
after state. The Democratic Party leadership tried to explain this away as a fluke 
or as a failure of local party officials to exercise proper "vigilance." But the 
Republicans knew better--they adopted LaRouche's enthusiastic support for SDI 
as a campaign theme of their own. Evans and Novak wrote in October 1 986 that 
the "unlikely conversion" of SDI from an "outer space fantasy ... to a highly 
positive political issue" had given Reagan a "potent last-minute weapon" in the 
congressional elections. They cited race after race in which Republican 
candidates were attacking Democratic incumbents for failing to back SDI. 
Reagan had served notice, they claimed, that "any Democrat who opposes 
strategic defense is fair game." This was precisely the approach the 
LaRouchians earlier had used in hundreds of Democratic primaries. LaRouche 
may not be the intellectual author of SDI, but he can lay claim to being the 
founder of SDI politics. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Sixteen 

The Art of Scapegoating 



In an October 1987 review of Veil, Bob Woodward's Iran-Contra book, LaRouche 
held forth on the subject of propaganda. "There is no morality, no truth," in a 
propaganda war, he wrote. "A choice is made to boost or to discredit this or that 
personality, group, issue, or policy, and the mechanics of the psy-ops 
[psychological operations] trade go to work without scruple to get the job done." 

The statement referred to the CIA and the KGB, but LaRouche might as well 
have been talking about the NCLC. Few organizations have ranged the 
ideological map with such adroit inconsistency. First they attacked the U.S. 
government for being soft on communism, next they criticized it for giving aid to 
the Nicaraguan Contras. They praised the NAACP for its support of nuclear 
power, but they also met with Ku Klux Klan leaders and bemoaned the decline of 
the white race. When they enjoyed access to the Reagan administration, 
LaRouche said Reagan was "touched by greatness." After the administration cut 
them off, LaRouche called Reagan a man of low intelligence, "pussywhipped" by 
the First Lady. 

The inconsistencies sometimes reflect LaRouche's personal pique. More often 
they arise from his dualistic view of politics — that all groups inevitably split into 
factions representing sharply opposed views. Thus, the LaRouchians condemn 
the bad Mafia of drug pushers but praise the good Mafia of redeemable patriotic 
labor racketeers. They rail against the bad Communists who, like Gorbachev, 
promote glasnost, but express admiration for the good Communists who adhere 
to old-fashioned Stalinist views. They distinguish between good and bad 
Freemasons, good and bad Knights of Malta, good and bad Klansmen, They also 
believe that the war of "humanist" vs. "oligarchical" tendencies is within the soul 
of individual world leaders, which makes it perfectly logical to praise Reagan one 
moment and savage him the next. 

Underneath all this, LaRouche continues to pursue his anti-Semitic Grand Design 
through front organizations, coalitions with outside groups, election campaigns, 
pseudo-academic conferences, and what he calls the "naming of names." His 
propaganda methods are far more complex than those of the Ku Klux Klan and 
other extremist groups. He will start by selecting a legitimate issue such as AIDS, 
the farm crisis, or defense spending. Giving an appearance of sincere concern, 
his followers often research the issue thoroughly and come up with proposals 
that make sense. But they always announce that an evil plot is blocking 
implementation of their proposals and attempt to steer the campaign in an anti- 
Semitic direction. Sometimes they employ obvious euphemisms — "Zionist," 



"usurer," "shylock," or "cabalist." Other times, they refer to "monetarists" (as in 
moneylender), "Venetian bankers" (as in The Merchant of Venice), or "Our 
Crowd" (from the title of Stephen Birmingham's best-selling book about 
prominent New York Jews). They also use esoteric code words like "British," 
"Babylonian," "Whore of Babylon," and "Mesopotamian," which may puzzle the 
average person but strike a chord with anti-Semites of the old school. 

Another tactic is to highlight well-known Jewish families or individuals. The 
Bronfman family (Seagram's), oil tycoon Armand Hammer, philanthropist Max 
Fisher, or investment banker Felix Rohatyn are either blamed for problems with 
which they have no connection or assigned a greatly exaggerated responsibility. 
If an individual happens to be a mobster or some other reprehensible type, the 
LaRouchians will emphasize his misdeeds to the exclusion of those of his Gentile 
associates. (To the LaRouchians, Meyer Lansky i/i/asthe Mafia in his day; the 
Sicilians hardly counted.) LaRouche's publications also strive to hit mainstream 
Jews with guilt by association, through the use of semantic tags — e.g., "Lansky's 
ADL" and "Lansky's Israel." 

The list of those to be attacked includes many non-Jews, such as Senator 
Moynihan of New York or former Secretary of State Alexander Haig, But the 
attacks usually focus on their support for Israel or their friendship with prominent 
Jews, and may allude to real or rumored Jewish ancestry. In a 1978 piece, 
LaRouche called Energy Secretary James R. Schlesinger an "imp of evil," born 
Jewish and "a convert to Lutheranism." While Schlesinger does come from 
Jewish ancestry, LaRouche's statement basically reflected a traditional practice 
of anti-Semites — call anyone you don't like a Jew. Slyly, LaRouche added that 
Schlesinger's alleged Jewishness was really "irrelevant" since his "morality is 
neither Jewish nor Christian." LaRouche failed to explain why, if it was irrelevant, 
he had bothered to mention it. 

Through such tricks, LaRouchian propaganda blames the Jews for just about 
every problem facing the average American. The message is carefully tailored for 
different constituencies. Farmers are told that Wall Street "monetarists" are 
behind the agricultural crisis and the decline of the family farm. Teamster union 
leaders are told that liberal Jewish foundations are behind the government's 
crackdown on union corruption. The AFL-CIO rank and file is told that its leaders 
are Zionist agents who don't really care about bread-and-butter problems. Black 
college students are told that Jews exploit black entertainers and that the Anti- 
Defamation League secretly funds the Ku Klux Klan. The public in general is told 
that Jews are inveterate conspirators who planned the slayings of Abraham 
Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Jimmy Hoffa, and are trying to assassinate 
LaRouche. 

The LaRouchians weave into these charges a toned-down version of the "blood 
libel" — the belief, widely held in medieval Europe, that Jews kidnap Christian 
children and use them for ritual sacrifices. Various wealthy American and Israeli 



Jews are accused of pushing drugs to American youtli, sexually molesting them, 
or teaching them immorality via rock music and Hollywood movies. 

LaRouchian propaganda also tries to raise doubts about the patriotism of 
American Jews. When a Pentagon official, Jonathan Pollard, was arrested as an 
Israeli spy in 1986, the LaRouchians portrayed him as typical of Jews in the U.S. 
government. In March 1987, New Solidarity published on its front page a list of 
Jews in the Reagan administration, described as agents of a "subversive parallel 
government." These individuals, including Assistant Defense Secretary Richard 
Perle and Geneva arms negotiator Max Kampelman, were identified as Jewish 
via the label "JINSA operatives" (a reference to the Washington-based Jewish 
Institute for National Security Affairs). An Executive Intelligence Review special 
report described them as "not simply 'Zionist Lobby' activists, but hardcore 
Mossad operatives." A LaRouchian editorial urged a general "housecleaning" to 
get these associates of the Israeli "mafia" out of the U.S. government "once and 
for all." 

The loyalty issue has been a standard anti-Semitic tactic ever since the French 
army captain Alfred Dreyfus was falsely convicted of treason in 1894. But the 
LaRouchians add another twist (as did Hitler in Mein Kampf, and Stalin in his 
polemics against Trotsky), claiming that the Jews are not just spies but political 
agents who secretly manipulate policy to weaken the nation's will to resist its 
enemies. 

LaRouchian publications also depict Israel as providing the Soviet Union with 
intelligence culled from a vast network of Zionists in the U.S. government. It is 
said to be the "main intermediary country which Moscow uses in stealing U.S. 
sensitive equipment" — the United States gives Israel high-tech weaponry, and 
the Israelis pass it on. 

Such themes go hand in hand with attempts to trivialize the crimes of the Third 
Reich. In 1978 LaRouche dismissed the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," while his 
wife, Helga, called it a "swindle." New Solidarity attacked the Holocaust 
curriculum in New York public schools as "viciously anti-German" and as "filth," 
saying that any teacher who taught it should be fired. When the television movie 
Holocaust was aired in 1979, New Solidarity denounced it. In the early 1980s, 
LaRouchian publications began to defend Nazi war criminals as innocent victims 
of persecution. The Justice Department's investigation of Tscherim Soobzokov, a 
former SS officer, was attacked as an "outrageously corrupt, KGB-modeled 
witchhunt." When he was seriously wounded in a 1984 pipe-bomb explosion at 
his New Jersey home, local LaRouchians called a press conference and accused 
the Anti-Defamation League and the Israeli government of complicity in the 
bombing. They demanded the appointment of a federal special prosecutor. After 
the FBI refused to take their allegations seriously and Soobzokov died from his 
injuries. New Solidarity published a cartoon of an FBI badge dripping with blood. 
"Blood on Hands of FBI, ADL," the headline said. 



Austrian President Kurt Waldlieim seems to be anotlier innocent victim. Wlien 
tine World Jewisli Congress produced evidence of liis Nazi past in 1986, 
Executive Intelligence Review dismissed it as a "gigantic hoax." World Jewish 
Congress chairman Edgar Bronfman, EIR added, is a "Meyer Lansky-linked 
organized crime figure." 

President Reagan's 1985 trip to the graves of SS officers at Bitburg in West 
Germany was no policy blunder in New Solidarity's view, but a "courageous" 
action to strengthen the Western alliance. It gave the German people "a sense of 
pride in the historical importance of Germany's contribution to all mankind." 
Jewish leaders who opposed the trip, such as Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, 
acted as anti-German "racists" and as dupes of Soviet propaganda. "There is no 
limit," Executive Intelligence Review wrote, "to the psychotic frenzy [Jewish 
leaders] can be driven to by guilt and [Soviet] blackmail." 

Despite all this, LaRouche and his followers vehemently deny they are anti- 
Semitic. They say that the real anti-Semites are the Zionists, who keep the Jews 
in an inward-turned nationalistic frame of mind and use them on behalf of 
nefarious oligarchical political purposes. One of the supposed aims of the 
LaRouchians is to liberate the Jews from Zionism so they can lead fuller lives. 

Zionism and the Jews are not the LaRouchians' only obsessions. They agitate 
around a variety of issues that appear innocuous and often intriguing: a crash 
program for fusion, a manned trip to Mars, new irrigation projects for the Rocky 
Mountain states. Yet there's always a catch to it. Support for space exploration 
becomes a crusade for a trillion-dollar government project necessitating 
centralization of the economy — an indirect way of promoting national socialist 
economics. 

America's law-and-order problems likewise become a pretext for nudging the 
public toward accepting police-state methods. In 1978 LaRouche predicted a 
massive surge of domestic terrorism would soon hit America. The nation's 
survival would depend on "surgically precise" action against the controllers of the 
plot — e.g. the Zionists. When the terrorist wave failed to materialize, the 
LaRouchians simply linked the idea of extra-constitutional surgery to the drug 
problem, urging a mobilization of the armed forces. 

In this they followed the basic principle of fascist agitation: Pick a problem that is 
real, highly visible, easy to understand, and, above all, charged with emotion, 
then offer a simplistic solution. They are attuned to such issues and the ever- 
shifting possibilities for demagoguery because of their constant dialogue with the 
public. LaRouche followers are at the nation's airports every day, all day, talking 
politics with quintessential Middle Americans. Or they are on the phone for long 
hours as fundraisers, sounding out the views of potential donors. As candidates 
for public office, they fan out each primary season to working-class 
neighborhoods and farm communities across the country, not just to ask for 



votes but to engage people in serious discussions. Illinois pollster Michael 
McKeon has watched them at work at shopping centers. He observes that a 
LaRouche campaign worker may experience rejection from nine out of ten 
passersby, but the latter will often communicate the reason for their negative 
response. They will suggest new and more relevant issues even while flinging 
the leaflet back in the canvasser's face with a curse. The LaRouchians listen 
carefully to angry people and sometimes perceive things about the public's mood 
before the pollsters and professional politicians do. 

The best example is the AIDS issue. By the fall of 1985, LaRouche recognized 
that it was about to become the scariest issue of the decade. He concocted the 
slogan "Spread Panic, not AIDS!" The entire human race, he claimed, would face 
extinction if stern measures weren't taken immediately against gay people and 
mosquitoes. Offering himself as the only leader willing to act with the necessary 
ruthlessness, he picked California as his first battleground. In the summer of 
1986 his followers fanned out through most of the state's fifty-eight counties. 
Operating through a committee called PANIC, they collected over 700,000 
signatures for a ballot initiative calling for quarantine of AIDS victims. The 
signatures withstood all legal challenges, and the measure was placed on the 
ballot as Proposition 64. It received nationwide publicity and became a major 
issue in California politics. Congressman William Dannemeyer (R.-Cal.) 
championed it and became its respectable front man. Ironically, Dannemeyer had 
chaired the Republican Study Committee two years earlier when it produced a 
report warning conservatives not to be taken in by LaRouche propaganda and 
pointing out that LaRouche's intent was to "disrupt our democratic system." 
Dannemeyer now said, as did some other California conservatives, that he was 
supporting Proposition 64 solely on its merits. Gay organizations, the health 
professions, labor unions, and the Democratic Party launched a counter-effort, 
warning the public that "political extremist Lyndon LaRouche" was behind the 
measure. (One of the anti-Proposition 64 groups was even called "Stop 
LaRouche.") Gay organizations charged that when LaRouche said quarantine he 
really meant concentration camps. 

LaRouche's cadres were preprogrammed for the quarantine campaign. For years 
words like "faggot" and "queer" had peppered NCLC publications, along with 
allegations that child molesters, Satanists, and Communists control the gay rights 
movement. The articles also suggested that homosexuality is a characteristically 
Jewish condition and that rich Jews encourage it to undermine Western 
civilization. When the AIDS crisis erupted, LaRouche blamed the "shylocks" for 
being too cheap to pay for research crash programs. 

His gay-equals-Jewish canard dates back to the 1970s, when New Solidarity 
raved against the "faggot politics" of "Zionist-supporting" gay activists. New 
Solidarity published a cartoon series in which prominent New York Jews were 
shown in Roman togas at a banquet sponsored by the "Emperor of Homohattan," 
Mayor Ed Koch. In the early 1980s LaRouchian publications accused prominent 



Jews and pro-Zionist Gentiles of being part of an international "Homintern." 
LaRouche wrote "Kissinger: The Politics of Faggotry," a crude and defamatory 
leaflet on his longtime Symbolic Jew. According to LaRouche, Kissinger's alleged 
"heathen sexual inclinations are merely an integral part of a larger evil," and 
Kissinger is "psychologically" part of a "distinct species." In the context of 
LaRouche's biological-racial theories about the Jewish "species," the equation of 
Jewishness and "faggotry" was unmistakable. 

LaRouche also taught that the alleged pathology of the Jewish family, especially 
the mother's possessiveness, produces psychosexual aberrations in young Jews. 
A 1986 New Solidarity item, "Jewish Mothers in the Age of Aquarius," joked that 
homosexuality is the natural result. 

That the Jewish oligarchy deliberately promotes homosexuality is suggested by 
LaRouche's references to "sodomic," "pederastic," and "lesbian" practices within 
oligarchy-controlled "cults" such as Freemasonry and the Quakers. In a 
November 1985 speech, he said AIDS was a "man-made evil" linked to these 
"cults out of Babylon." He further developed this theme in "The End of the Age of 
Aquarius?," a rambling discourse on AIDS that included attacks on the 
"Babylonians," the "British," "usurers," and "cabalists." His conclusion; 
"Homosexuality was organized in the United States. It wasn't something that 
sprang from the weeds. . . .It was organized. . ." 

In an article on government monetary policy, LaRouche claimed that the money 
for the necessary public health measures against AIDS could only come from 
funds currently being used to service the international debt. But the "shylocks" 
were blocking this: "Shylock demands his pound of flesh, and cares not in the 
least whether the collection kills the debtor." The implication was that anyone 
who opposed Proposition 64 was probably acting on behalf of powerful Jews. 
LaRouche lashed out at "Meyer Lansky's" Hollywood and a New Solidarity 
columnist joked that the Anti-Defamation League had launched a stop-LaRouche 
committee called "AiDsL." 

LaRouche's AIDS propaganda bears a striking resemblance to Hitler's on syphilis 
as set forth in Mein Kampf. Syphilis, like AIDS, is sexually transmitted, and in the 
1920s there was no cure. Hitler focused on it because of his obsession with 
racial purity and his fear that the Aryan bloodline was being contaminated. Just 
as he blamed the spread of syphilis on its victims, especially prostitutes, so 
LaRouche blames gays for spreading AIDS. Hitler believed that sexual 
promiscuity and prostitution were the result of "Jewification of our spiritual life and 
mammonization of our mating instinct" and thus called syphilis the "Jewish 
disease." LaRouche refers to AIDS as the "Babylonian disease." 

Hitler's answer to syphilis was to call for a quarantine of prostitutes and other 
infected persons. "There must be no half measures; the gravest and most 
ruthless decisions will have to be made. It is a half measure to let incurably sick 



people steadily contaminate the remaining healthy ones. . . .[I]f necessary, the 
incurably sick will be pitilessly segregated — a barbaric measure for the 
unfortunate who is struck by it but a blessing for his fellow man and posterity." 
LaRouche, in "The End of the Age of Aquarius?", urges much the same solution 
for AIDS: "We've got to contain it, we can't find a miracle cure that fast; we're 
going to have to use methods of public health, which means we're going to have 
to put away every carrier until they can no longer carry." 

The parallels continue. Hitler said regarding syphilis victims that there "is no 
freedom to sin at the cost of posterity." LaRouche says it's "nonsense" to be 
concerned about the "civil rights" of AIDS victims. Hitler criticized the authorities 
for not "summon[ing] up the energy to take decisive measures" and for their 
attitude of "total capitulation." LaRouche says the U.S. government is afraid to 
"estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers." Hitler said that 
for people who refuse to fight to save their own health, "the right to live in this 
world of struggle ends." LaRouche says that unless the American people change 
their attitude toward AIDS and their "moral direction," they will "no longer [be] fit 
to survive morally, and will not survive." 

Mein Kampf and "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" both express a concern for 
public health and describe quarantine as necessary in order to save lives. Yet 
Hitler clearly stated that his syphilis-fighting program masked a higher goal: The 
Nazi Party leadership, he said, must "succeed in representing to the people the 
partial goal which now has to be achieved, or rather conquered, as the one which 
is solely and alone worthy of attention, on whose conquest everything depends. 
The great mass of people cannot see the whole road ahead of them without 
growing weary and despairing of the task." LaRouche is equally candid, linking 
the struggle for an AIDS quarantine with the need for a new ideological 
"paradigm" in America. New Solidarity even suggests that AIDS might become 
the springboard for a nationalist revolution. 

What America could expect in the wake of such a revolution is revealed in NDPC 
propaganda urging a roundup of prostitutes, gays, drug users — anyone who 
might have been exposed to the AIDS virus — and their incarceration in "special 
isolation hospitals, under prison guard if necessary." LaRouche's "Aquarius" 
article also discusses the possible need to "hang" or "burn" those responsible for 
spreading AIDS. Given the virtual equation of Jews and gays. Proposition 64 
becomes simply an extension of earlier LaRouchian calls for an anti-Zionist 
Special Prosecutor's Office and for the "immediate elimination" of Zionists from 
American public life. 

When two-thirds of California's voters rejected Proposition 64 in November 1986, 
the media depicted this as a defeat for LaRouche. Yet it actually was a 
LaRouche victory of sorts. His measure received over two million votes in the 
teeth of an opposition that outspent the LaRouchians ten to one. In some rural 
counties it received the support of over 40 percent of the voters. Apart from these 



election statistics, LaRouclie scored a major ideological breakthrough for neo- 
Nazism in America. He took a previously taboo idea — enforced isolation for the 
Scapegoat — and elevated it into a topic of legitimate discourse. He did this by 
reframing the discourse in pseudo-medical terms and targeting a minority less 
well organized than the Jews. Proposition 64's opponents, frightened by its 
implications but lacking a full understanding of LaRouche's ideology or of fascism 
in general, were maneuvered into appearing on talk shows with the 
LaRouchians, thus lending an aura of legitimacy to their extremist ideas. 

As the campaign intensified, some opponents of Proposition 64 developed a 
strategy to cut through the smoke screen and expose the hidden political 
agenda. Howard Wallace, the coordinator of the San Francisco Labor Council's 
work against Proposition 64, stated in the SFLC newsletter: "The real purpose of 
this initiative has little to do with either AIDS or public health. . . .[The 
LaRouchian] purpose is to build their small corps of storm troopers into a larger 
one.... In the grand tradition of Hitler's Nazis, they're taking the path of least 
resistance: attacking those who suffer in some measure from social stigma. . ." 
But too much of the literature opposing Proposition 64 continued to be confused, 
jumbling together the political and pseudo-medical issues and dismissing the 
LaRouchians as kooks or cultists. 

In the following year the quarantine idea became "respectable" nationally. 
Congressman Dannemeyer appeared on TV talk shows to discuss it as just one 
more proposal in the marketplace of ideas. Several other prominent New Right 
politicians expressed interest in the concept. In mid-1987 President Reagan's 
domestic policy adviser, Gary Bauer, when questioned about it, coolly 
commented: "I don't see any evidence at this pointXhaX a quarantine in the 
traditional sense would be particularly eiiecWve" (italics added). Thus does 
LaRouchian propaganda spread like ripples in a pond. 

LaRouche meanwhile developed a more extreme solution for AIDS. Praising 
Western Europe's skinheads for beating up gays, he said they spontaneously 
expressed the "conspiratorial and other ethical characteristics" of a nationalist 
revolution. He suggested that lynching might be the next step — in Catholic 
countries they'd pick off the gays one by one, while in Protestant countries 
lynching would become a mass movement. The lynchers, LaRouche said, would 
perhaps be remembered as the "only political force which acted to save the 
human species from extinction." 

From this, he passed over to the concept of an anti-gay Holocaust, stopping just 
short of advocacy. "The only solution" to AIDS, he said, "is either public health 
measures including isolation as necessary, or 'accelerated deaths' of carriers." 
He added: "The point of no return ... is coming up very fast. If the violence 
comes, the politicians, the courts, and the governments will have no one to 
blame but themselves. They left a desperate, terrified population no other 
choice." 



Meanwhile, public concern over AIDS reached a high pitch. An American Medical 
Association poll found that 50 percent of the American public believed all 
necessary measures should be taken to stop AIDS "even if it means some 
people might have their rights violated." LaRouche continued his inflammatory 
propaganda, claiming that AIDS was spread by casual contact and that the 
majority of heterosexual Americans would soon be infected if his draconian 
measures were not adopted. His followers were on the phones at their telephone 
boiler rooms in Leesburg, Virginia, night and day, calling thousands of Americans 
to warn them of impending disaster and to solicit funds to pay for more 
propaganda. In California, LaRouche's PANIC committee, undeterred by 
Proposition 64's defeat, easily collected over 700,000 signatures to place a 
second initiative on the ballot, this time in the presidential primary election. 
LaRouche purchased a half hour on network television to present his views on 
AIDS three days before the primary. The initiative again failed to pass but 
received over 1 ,700,000 votes. 

While this represented less votes than the first time (because of a lower voter 
turnout), the percentage of supporters had risen from 29 percent to 32 percent. 
(In November 1988 a third AIDS crackdown measure appeared on the ballot, this 
one sponsored by Congressman Dannemeyer and other conservatives without 
LaRouche's direct involvement. Although polls in September indicated that it had 
majority support, it failed to pass.) 

LaRouche had demonstrated the vulnerability of the public, when frightened and 
angry, to the lure of thinly veiled fascist measures. He had desensitized millions 
to the idea of rounding up unpopular minorities. His California ballot initiatives 
had revealed that many Americans with healthy biological immune systems have 
no political immune systems at all. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Seventeen 
Get Kissinger! 

On February 7, 1982, two LaRouchians met the Devil, not in a graveyard at 
midniglit, but in tine well-lit terminal at Newark International Airport. They 
abandoned their literature table and rushed to exorcise him with a barrage of 
hostile questions. "Jesus Christ," muttered Dr. Henry Kissinger, their longtime 
hate figure. He and his wife, Nancy, kept walking toward the boarding area, en 
route to Boston, where he was scheduled to undergo triple-bypass heart surgery. 

"Dr. Kissinger," shouted twenty-eight-year-old Ellen Kaplan, "is it true that you 
sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel?" It was a standard LaRouchian 
accusation. Nancy Kissinger would have ignored it on other occasions, but she 
was distraught by the prospect of her husband's operation. According to her 
attorney, her hand reached out and came in contact, very lightly, with Kaplan's 
throat. Others assert that her actions were less restrained. Whatever the truth, 
Kaplan retreated, and the Kissingers continued on their way. 

A trivial event, one might say. Yet its consequences included a warrant for Mrs. 
Kissinger's arrest, a heavily publicized assault trial, and a LaRouchian 
harassment campaign against Dr. Kissinger on four continents. This campaign, 
waged from mid-1982 through late 1984, is unique in the annals of radical protest 
against public figures. It involved a torrent of propaganda attacks in at least six 
languages, carefully planned disruptions of Kissinger's public appearances, the 
planting of defamatory rumors in the international press, scores of malicious 
pranks, and the expenditure of millions of dollars on network television ads 
denouncing him. 

Some observers have viewed LaRouche's anti-Kissinger campaign merely as an 
example of irrationalism and cultism — the expenditure of enormous resources on 
an effort better suited to an insane asylum. Yet there were coolheaded pragmatic 
reasons for it. LaRouche had gained a measure of credibility with the Reagan 
administration over the previous year. He had to disguise his anti-Semitism 
better. 

LaRouche's solution was to select a Symbolic Jew. Kissinger, with his thick 
Central European accent, "Semitic" features, rationalistic worldview, and 
reputation for secretive highest-level intrigue, was the perfect choice. The fact 
that he was Jewish was almost universally known — indeed, he was probably the 
most famous Jew in the world. What's more, he was a controversial one, disliked 
by many conservatives and by almost all leftists. Even many moderates had 
questions about his record as secretary of state. A campaign against him, no 



matter how nasty, could gain an unspoken sympathy across the political 
spectrum. Building on this dislike of Kissinger, the LaRouchians could turn it into 
a dislike of his alleged archetypal qualities. 

The LaRouchians had attacked Kissinger on an overtly anti-Semitic basis 
throughout the late 1970s. When New Solidarity called for the "immediate 
elimination" of the "Jewish Lobby" from American public life, it said the first stage 
should be "the naming of names, such as Henry A. Kissinger." A subsequent 
editorial railed against infiltration of Washington by agents of the "Zionist-British 
organism." Heading the list was the "Israeli-British" agent Kissinger. When 
Kissinger's The White House Years \Nas published in 1980, a review by 
LaRouche in EIR used Mein Kampf-s\y\e images of infection and contamination. 
America's moral "rot," he said, was due to "such alien 'Typhoid Marys' of 
immorality" as Kissinger. LaRouche then dashed off The Pestilence of Usury, a 
pamphlet sold at airport literature tables. Among the villains was Kissinger, said 
to be the servant of oligarchs "far worse than Hitler . . . nasty, evil." 

America's traditional neo-Nazis and white supremacists recognized what 
LaRouche was doing. The Christian Defense League, a hate group based in 
Louisiana, developed its own line of anti-Kissinger pamphlets mimicking 
LaRouche's rhetoric. Robert Miles, the premier theoretician of the Aryan 
Nation/Identity crowd, stated in a 1984 article: "We agree with LaRouche on . . . 
his efforts to dislodge the Kissingerites from positions of influence." Miles also 
praised LaRouche for "exposing the neo-atheist materialism of Kissinger to the 
dismay of the Talmudists." 

LaRouche once again reframed reality so that his Jewish followers could tell 
themselves that the anti-Kissinger campaign was "anti-Nazi," He called it 
Operation Nuremberg, an effort to punish Kissinger for alleged crimes a "hundred 
times worse than Hitler's." The government would never punish Kissinger; only 
the NCLC could do it. The NCLC might lack the power to exact the ultimate 
penalty, but it could psychologically torment Kissinger. LaRouche used his 
vaunted profiling technique to determine what Kissinger supposedly feared the 
most: ridicule. The NCLC set out to confront him with it, much like the 
interrogator in Nineteen Eighty-four \Nho confronted Winston Smith with rats. 
LaRouche called this "psychological terror." 

He framed his plan in such a way that no matter what happened, he would look 
all-powerful to his followers. If Kissinger expressed anger, this would be proof 
that LaRouche had freaked him out. If he ignored LaRouche, this would be proof 
that LaRouche had frightened him into silence. In either case LaRouche could 
claim that the trauma was festering and that Kissinger would sooner or later 
commit suicide or die of a heart attack. 

After the Newark Airport tussle the LaRouchians dispatched Ellen Kaplan to 
criminal court to swear out an assault complaint. This tactic had gained them 



media attention on earlier occasions, as wlien FEF members filed assault 
charges against Peter Fonda after he ripped up their poster at Denver 
International Airport calling for feeding his sister Jane to the whales. The New 
York Post's gossip page took note of Kaplan's assault complaint, but the story 
would have stopped there except for a simple mishap: The summons was 
delivered to the Kissingers' Washington home at a time when it was closed up. 
Mrs. Kissinger did not receive it in time to file an answer before a routine warrant 
for her arrest was issued. 

The LaRouchians were ecstatic. They called a press conference in Manhattan. 
Kaplan briefly recounted her story, and then NCLC regional director Dennis 
Speed outlined the plan to psychologically harass Kissinger through ridicule. In 
an ideal world the press would have walked out at this point. Instead, Kaplan and 
Speed's remarks — including the canard about the Carlyle Hotel — were given 
national coverage. 

On May 21 , Mrs. Kissinger's attorney moved for dismissal in New Jersey State 
Superior Court, arguing the case was "too trivial" for trial. The judge denied the 
motion and set a trial date. An editorial in the New York Daily News asked why 
the courts should be party to schemes that merely "add injury to the original 
insult." 

When the non-jury trial convened on June 1 0, the media turned out in force. 
Kaplan took the stand and delivered a litany apparently designed for maximum 
quotability: Mrs. Kissinger "took her left hand and grabbed my neck. I was very 
scared. She sneered, bared her teeth, and I thought she was going to bite...." 
Municipal judge Julio Fuentes found Mrs. Kissinger not guilty. Sometimes, he 
observed, it is "spontaneous and somewhat human" to assault someone. 

Although press columnists denounced Kaplan as "swinish," "lowest," and 
"filthiest," LaRouche must have felt satisfied. First, he had escaped denunciation 
himself — most news accounts didn't even mention that Kaplan was connected to 
him. Second, the public had been exposed to a baseless charge against 
Kissinger, and it was inevitable the accusation would stick in many people's 
minds, in that twilight zone where people half believe something because they 
want to believe it, (Former NCLC security staffer Charles Tate says the Carlyle 
Hotel story came from a "demented" source who also purveyed hysterical rumors 
of nationwide homicidal conspiracies.) 

The chief significance of the incident was on the level of archetypes: LaRouche 
had presented the media with a subliminal version of the medieval Christian 
blood libel — the belief that Jews kidnap and sacrifice Gentile children. In his 
Newark version, ritual sacrifice was replaced by the contemporary crime of 
sexual abuse. It was the perfect opener for Operation Nuremberg. In the summer 
of 1982, the LaRouchians announced the next step — an international campaign 
to draw the noose of psychological terror around the neck of "Fat Henry." 



What followed was a multileveled effort by hundreds of LaRouche's followers. 
Most important was the planting of defamatory stories about Kissinger with 
overseas newspapers. This was easiest to achieve in Mediterranean and Third 
World countries where conspiracy theories are a basic part of the political culture, 
many intellectuals are anti-American and anti-Israel, and Communists and ultra- 
rightists subsidize mass circulation dailies. LaRouche's intelligence staff 
concocted different stories for different audiences. Always there was a plot, and 
always it reflected anti-Semitic stereotypes. Kissinger and his friends were 
portrayed as plotting the assassination of prominent Gentiles, collecting usurious 
debts for the International Monetary Fund, engaging in real estate swindles, 
betraying America to its enemies, and encouraging moral degeneracy on behalf 
of a cosmopolitan value system. The supporting cast included, in one version or 
another, the CIA, the KGB, Mossad, the Mafia, the Freemasons, and a powerful 
homosexual cabal. 

The LaRouchians held press conferences in various world capitals to release 
official-looking reports on behalf of Lyndon LaRouche, representing him as a 
leader of the U.S. Democratic Party, international publishing tycoon, friend of 
Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt, and economist of world renown. 
Reporters for sensation-mongering newspapers often failed to check whether 
LaRouche's credentials were really what his followers claimed. 

LaRouche's European Labor Party (ELP) presented a legal brief to the Italian 
government tribunal investigating the Red Brigade's kidnapping and murder of 
former Prime Minister Aldo Moro. The brief said Kissinger was behind not only 
the Moro murder but a wide range of terrorist acts — a "strategy of tension" 
designed to prevent Italian Communist Party participation in the government, A 
former Moro aide then told the tribunal about a 1974 conversation in which 
Kissinger, who was secretary of state at the time, told Moro that the U.S, 
government disapproved of his plan to bring the Communist Party into the 
government. The LaRouchians said this proved their case. The fact that Moro 
was kidnapped in 1978, when Kissinger was no longer secretary of state, didn't 
faze them at all. 

This story obviously was aimed at the left, but the ELP also developed a version 
for the right: Kissinger was a member of the "Homintern," a secret gay 
brotherhood operating at the "highest levels of several governments." The KGB 
had learned about this and had blackmailed him into becoming their agent. Just 
why a KGB agent would have wanted to murder Aldo Moro and keep the 
Communists out of the Italian cabinet was not explained. The LaRouchians 
boasted that story number one (Kissinger/CIA) was picked up by Moscow's 
Literaturnaya Gazeta, while story number two (Kissinger/KGB) was supposedly 
reported in Italian, French, and Tunisian newspapers and on Venezuelan 
television. 



The 1 981 attempted assassination of Pope Jolin Paul was also grist for the mill. 
To blame Kissinger fit right in with LaRouche's theory that the Jews controlled 
Europe in the Middle Ages through selective poisoning of popes. The 
LaRouchians also enticed the Arab media with a story that Kissinger had formed 
a real estate consortium to buy up the Israeli-occupied West Bank. 

In mid-1982 the LaRouchians learned that Kissinger was planning a trip to 
Argentina, which was in political turmoil following the Falklands fiasco. A press 
statement was sent to Buenos Aires from the office of "U.S. Democratic Party 
leader" LaRouche reminding Argentinians that Kissinger had supported the 
British. The statement also accused Kissinger of murdering Aldo Moro, 
attempting to murder Helga LaRouche and braining a Rumanian waiter with a 
whiskey bottle during a sex orgy in Acapulco. 

EIR later claimed that the LaRouche statement was distributed by TELAM, the 
Argentine government press agency, and was printed under banner headlines in 
a Buenos Aires daily. A follow-up news release said that Kissinger intended to 
put the squeeze on Argentina for the usurers of the International Monetary Fund 
and would destroy any politician who opposed him. According to EIR, this 
release also was distributed by TELAM and printed in at least two Argentine 
newspapers. LaRouche's Mexican Labor Party joined the act with a 
demonstration at a Chase Manhattan branch in Mexico City to protest an 
upcoming Kissinger visit. Kissinger's name was again linked to IMF usury and 
threats to national sovereignty. 

In late 1982 the LaRouchians set up a "special-operations 'Kissinger watch'" in 
Wiesbaden. This coincided with the arrival in Europe of LaRouche security aide 
Paul Goldstein (who according to FBI claims was hiding from a Manhattan grand 
jury investigating the NCLC's harassment of Roy Cohn). EIR boasted that the 
Kissinger Watch had "tracking capabilities extending from Ireland through the 
Middle East." In fact, security staffers merely called up Kissinger Associates in 
New York, posing as journalists, to obtain Kissinger's travel schedule. 

The objective was to create a "controlled aversive environment" around 
Kissinger — schoolboy pranks, crank calls, demonstrations. When he was about 
to leave Munich for London to meet with British officials, an imposter called 
Britain to say Kissinger wasn't coming, then called Kissinger's hotel room to say 
the British had canceled. When he visited Milan, the LaRouchians released a 
banner supported by hundreds of balloons proclaiming that "Kissinger Killed 
Moro." When he traveled to Stockholm, Swedish ELP members disrupted his 
press conference and had to be removed by the police. New Solidarity boasted 
that this took place "under cascades of flashbulbs and television cameras," and 
that the story "reached as far as Singapore and Mexico via satellite hook-ups." 

When Kissinger gave a speech in Worms on German-American Friendship Day, 
an ELP leaflet urged the audience to buy Seymour Hersh's biography of 



Kissinger, The Price of Power. According to El R, a prankster dressed as 
Kissinger jumped up as tine event began and sliouted: "Tliat man on tine podium 
is not tine real Dr. Kissinger. I am the real Dr. Kissinger. I will now tell you the 
truth about Aldo Moro. . ." EIR said that as the prankster was being carried out, a 
second one, dressed as Nancy Kissinger, jumped up to continue the disruption. 

The campaign was no less intense in the United States. When Kissinger 
appeared on ABC-TV's Nightline in August 1982, the LaRouchians mobilized at 
the studio in Manhattan. Covering both exits, they pelted his limousine with eggs, 
forcing him to make his escape hidden in a catering truck. When he spoke at 
Georgetown University, they passed out copies of EIR containing an article 
entitled "How Henry Kissinger Will Be Destroyed." When his friends gave him a 
birthday party, the LaRouchians passed out a fake "medical alert bulletin" 
alleging that he had AIDS (again, the Mein KampfXheme: contamination). When 
he addressed the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, picketers carried signs 
such as "It's Anti-Semitic to Call Kissinger a Jew." 

LaRouche meanwhile issued a personal attack in Kissinger. Circulated in leaflet 
form under the title "The Politics of Faggotry," it was a kind of manifesto of the 
harassment campaign, uniting LaRouche's loathing of Kissinger, Roy Cohn, 
gays, discotheque music, and the Roman Empire into a single extraordinary 
vision. To understand Kissinger's evil species-nature, LaRouche said, one must 
"think back to the Emperor Nero and his court. Think of Studio 54, then of Nero's 
court, and then of Studio 54 again. Think of Roy Cohn's parties . . . Think of 
Nero, and then of Kissinger, and then of Nero and then of Roy M. Cohn. That is 
the kind of faggot Henry Kissinger is." (Questioned about this quote in a 1984 
deposition, LaRouche knew he was on shaky ground. He backed down and said 
Kissinger merely had the "personality of a faggot.") 

LaRouche noted the tug-of-war in Washington between hard-liners on the White 
House staff and State Department moderates. He reasoned that given the 
bumbling moves of the hard-liners in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time 
before the moderates, whose ranks included some former Kissinger proteges, 
would begin to exert a preponderant influence. By portraying this process as a 
Kissinger-backed conspiracy, LaRouche could inject his brand of anti-Semitism 
into the New Right. 

A 1983 EIR special report accused Kissinger of "coordinating a drive to 
consolidate control of the Reagan administration for the Trilateral Commission 
wing of the Republican Party." When Reagan appointed Kissinger to head the 
White House Commission on Central America, New Solidarity claimed that "a 
wave of fear and foreboding is now sweeping through the United States." An 
accompanying article alleged "intense resistance among Reagan Kitchen 
Cabinet insiders to Kissinger involvement in administration policy making." (The 
LaRouchians were in contact at the time with Judge William Clark's assistant, 
Richard Morris.) But Kissinger was said to hold all the aces. He had supposedly 



obtained, via tine "Israeli mafia," blackmail videotapes of top administration 
officials in bed with Alfred Bloomingdale's mistress, Vicky Morgan. At this point 
the LaRouchians downplayed the theme of Kissinger the "British" agent, which 
always had been too esoteric for most Americans. Now the Symbolic Jew was 
given a guise the New Right could easily comprehend: a good old-fashioned 
Commie traitor like the Rosenbergs. New Solidarity announced that Kissinger, 
although still linked to the British, was also a "secure and long-term asset of the 
Soviet KGB." This charge was soon extended to other Jews in the U.S. 
government and to many Israeli leaders. 

In 1984, LaRouche adopted the campaign slogan "Vote for the man that 
Kissinger hates the most." This was a variation on the 1980 campaign theme that 
LaRouche was the man the Zionists hated the most. LaRouche purchased fifteen 
half-hour spots on national television, incessantly attacking Kissinger as a traitor. 
Under federal law the networks had to sell LaRouche the time and could not 
censor his remarks, for he was a registered candidate. EIR boasted that 
LaRouche's television chats reached "up to 15 million people." When he referred 
to "Kissinger and his friends" and "Kissinger and people like him," the real 
meaning was obvious to many viewers. 

A LaRouchian internal briefing of March 7, 1984, reporting on the organization's 
daily round of telephone calls, alleged that the anti-Kissinger campaign was 
making headway in important circles. "Republican and military layers in the south 
and mid-Atlantic states are queasy about Kissinger," the memo said. It cited a 
"high level military contact who is a former astronaut." This individual supposedly 
hated Kissinger and believed "the Administration has been going 'downhill' ever 
since the removal of Clark from the NSC. He wants all our material on Kissinger." 
(It should be noted that internal briefings routinely exaggerated the NCLC's 
influence: High-level officials described as enthusiastic allies were sometimes 
just listening to them out of curiosity.) 

The LaRouchian hysteria about Kissinger resulted in a strong indirect warning to 
the former Secretary of State in July 1982. An EIR news brief quoted a prediction 
by an unnamed psychic that if any attempt should be made on the life of 
LaRouche, "a list of 13 well-known political figures, headed by Henry Kissinger, 
Nancy Kissinger, and Alexander Haig will meet sudden death by either massive 
heart attacks or strokes." Death fantasies about the Symbolic Jew thereafter 
became commonplace in LaRouchian publications. When Hersh's The Price of 
Poi/i/erwas published. New Solidarity reported that Kissinger was on the verge of 
a "potentially fatal coronary." EIR boasted that, as a result of Operation 
Nuremberg, Kissinger had become a "cardio-vascular risk" and might "choose [a] 
coward's way out" (i.e., suicide). When Hungarian-Jewish writer Arthur Koestler 
(the author of Darkness at Noon) committed suicide along with his wife in 1983, 
New Solidarity suggested various ways in which Henry and Nancy Kissinger and 
Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker (the arch-usurer, in LaRouche's 
eyes) could follow the Koestlers' example. In what could be read as an allusion to 



the Holocaust, the article asked: "Why should the worthwhile vast majority of the 
human race settle for attempts to solve its antisocial problems on a case-by-case 
basis? Why not get organized to settle with such characters all at once?" 

The LaRouchians privately discussed various extreme measures. Former 
LaRouche bodyguard Lee Pick told NBC Nightly News that Paul Goldstein had 
asked him to put a bomb under Kissinger's car. Charles Tate recalls a security 
staff meeting on the lawn of LaRouche's Loudoun County mansion at which 
members were told Kissinger must die. But this rage ultimately was just 
sublimated into more nasty leaflets and EIR articles. The LaRouchians had come 
to believe that really clever conspirators never carry out an assassination 
themselves, but simply spread hate propaganda about the targeted person which 
might trigger an attack by some disturbed personality or fanatic. That way, they 
can never be held legally responsible. 

As a result of the menacing rhetoric, Kissinger wrote PBI director William 
Webster for advice in 1982. He was careful to emphasize that he was not asking 
the PBI "to interfere in any manner with LaRouche's Pirst Amendment rights." 
When the harassment escalated, Kissinger sent a second letter. The PBI 
checked to see if there were grounds for prosecution under the federal statute 
pertaining to interstate obscene or harassing phone calls. There weren't. 

When the LaRouchians obtained copies of this correspondence under the 
Preedom of Information Act, they immediately released it to the press in an effort 
to embarrass Kissinger. Jack Anderson, in an archly written 1985 column on the 
POIA documents, made no moral distinction between victim and victimizer. He 
referred to a "decade-long feud" between Kissinger and LaRouche, as if 
Kissinger had been partly responsible. In 1987, James Ridgeway of The Village 
Voice rehashed this story, also affecting neutrality: LaRouche had harassed 
Kissinger, but Kissinger had an "animus" against LaRouche, Ridgeway said. The 
Voice illustrated Ridgeway's column with pictures of Kissinger, LaRouche, and 
Webster with the caption "The Three Paces of Evil." This type of press coverage 
encouraged the LaRouchians, when they came under federal indictment, to use 
the Kissinger-Webster letters as proof that the PBI and the prosecutors were 
motivated by a vendetta. 

The press was not alone in displaying a curious blindness to the true nature of 
the anti-Kissinger campaign. None of the major Jewish organizations spoke out, 
even in the face of blatantly anti-Semitic LaRouchian headlines such as 
"Kissinger Mafia Pollute the Holy Land." The Reagan administration also said 
nothing. Indeed, many administration officials continued to meet with the 
LaRouchians at the height of the anti-Kissinger campaign, all but egging them 
on. Kissinger was well aware of this. In a 1984 interview he called the 
administration's dealings with LaRouche "outrageous, stupid, and nearly 
unforgivable." 



LaRouche's rhetoric against Kissinger sometimes became so wild tliat it ceased 
to be effective propaganda. But LaRouclie was playing not just to the general 
public and Washington conservatives, but also to his own followers. On this level, 
what might have seemed demented to an outsider was often a highly effective 
tactic for manipulating the NCLC membership. For instance, when New Solidarity 
said Kissinger had organized a "multimillion-dollar special counterintelligence 
team" to combat LaRouche, this built up the NCLC's belief in LaRouche's status 
as an international figure — a man so important that even the famous Kissinger 
would stay up all night thinking about how to thwart him. It also helped to 
maintain the NCLC's siege mentality as an organization surrounded by 
innumerable enemy agents. 

Furthermore, the alleged machinations of Kissinger served as a convenient 
explanation for NCLC setbacks. When LaRouchian candidates did poorly in 
elections, it was because of vote fraud arranged by Kissinger. When an NCLC 
member defected, it was because agents of Kissinger had bribed him. When a 
journalist wrote a scathing article about LaRouche, it was because he was part of 
a Kissinger psychological warfare network. Thus, by a strange inversion, the 
setbacks became a proof of the NCLC's success, for Kissinger would only bother 
to do these things if the NCLC was a real and growing threat to the forces of evil. 

Ultimately LaRouche's greatest gain from harassing Kissinger was in making an 
example of him. In powerful circles in Washington, New York, and Chicago, 
many people became aware of how much the attacks had upset Kissinger and 
disrupted his life. And these people recognized just how few options were open 
to him in fighting back. He couldn't sue: That would just give the LaRouchians an 
additional forum in which to attack him, as well as the opportunity to go 
rummaging through his financial records in pretrial discovery. He couldn't call a 
press conference about LaRouche: That would just be dignifying the NCLC 
leader's insidious charges (besides, LaRouche would respond with new and 
nastier charges). He couldn't have LaRouche arrested, since the NCLC chairman 
acted mostly through intermediaries who either stayed within the law or engaged 
in telephone mischief too petty to prosecute. 

Thus did Kissinger's ordeal become an object lesson for anyone in authority who 
might be tempted to stand up to LaRouche. Each leaflet and each demonstration 
helped to solidify LaRouche's public image as an unpredictable wild man who 
refused to play by the rules. The message — don't mess with Lyndon LaRouche — 
was received loud and clear. Along with his penchant for filing libel suits and 
collecting dossiers on his enemies, LaRouche's anti-Kissinger campaign helps to 
explain why, even in the late 1980s, he continued to enjoy a remarkable degree 
of immunity from public criticism. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



PART FIVE: LaRouche's Private CIA 

" Every conspiracy collapses eventually, because . . . of the 
psychological likelihood that those who are superlatively clever at 
deceiving others become equally clever at deceiving themselves. 
Disinformation eats those who create it." 

--ROBERT ANTON WILSON 

Chapter Eighteen 

The Billion-Dollar Brain 

When indicted for obstruction of justice in 1987, LaRouclie was well prepared. 
He had hired Bernard Fensterwald, Washington's premier attorney for wayward 
spooks. In addition to denying the charges outright, LaRouche and his 
codefendants decided to use the "CIA defense" as other Fensterwald clients 
(such as Edwin Wilson, the rogue agent who smuggled arms to Libya) had done. 
The argument went as follows: We thought we were operating on behalf of the 
government on instructions from high-level CIA officials. But dishonest elements 
in the CIA set us up, and now we are being hung out to dry. We can prove this to 
the jury if only the judge will order the CIA to turn over the relevant documents. 
The prosecution's response was to depict the LaRouchians' intelligence 
community ties as nonexistent. It argued that three nobodies from Reading, 
Pennsylvania, had pretended to be CIA agents to get consulting work from 
LaRouche. These hoaxsters simply invented government sources and wrote 
fictitious reports out of thin air. 

The Reading trio did indeed operate a scam. However, the LaRouchians had a 
history of extensive dealings with the intelligence community dating back over a 
decade, entirely apart from this. The NCLC first offered its services to the CIA in 
1976. A longtime CIA contract agent subsequently became LaRouche's security 
adviser and meetings with several retired high-level CIA officials took place. By 
the early 1980s the LaRouchians enjoyed a wide range of contacts at the CIA, 
the National Security Council, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, former chief of the code-breaking National Security 
Agency and a consummate intelligence professional, received a steady flow of 
reports from the LaRouche organization while serving as CIA deputy director in 
1981-83, He met personally with Lyn and Helga LaRouche in a little house on F 
Street in Washington to discuss West Germany's peace movement. After leaving 



the CIA to head an electronics firm, he talked frequently on the phone with 
LaRouche security staffers, who regarded him as their "rabbi" and hoped that 
someday he would become CIA director. Former LaRouche security aide Charles 
Tate, in his testimony as a prosecution witness in Boston, described taking the 
incoming calls from Inman to security chief Jeff Steinberg. Tate also claims to 
have chatted with Inman personally. (Inman's version is that he was merely the 
victim of a constant bombardment of phone calls from Steinberg, whom he did 
his best to evade. He believes the LaRouchians were attempting to use him to 
"establish their importance.") 

Dr. Norman Bailey, senior NSC director of international economic affairs, met 
several times with the LaRouchians in 1982-83, including at least three times 
with LaRouche. After leaving the NSC he told NBC-TV that LaRouche had "one 
of the best private intelligence services in the world." Some people suggested 
Bailey was naive, but he qualifies as a specialist in international politics as well 
as economics. Brought into the NSC by Richard Allen, he had some 
acquaintance with the world of covert operations. In the mid-1970s he acted as a 
supposed business consultant in the Azores when the CIA was preparing for a 
separatist coup if Portugal went Communist. As a scholar, one of his chief 
interests was political cultism. He wrote on the role of Opus Dei (a right-wing 
Catholic society that practices flagellation) in fighting communism in the 
Portuguese- and Spanish-speaking world. And certainly Bailey was well aware of 
the extremism of the LaRouchians, having sued them in the mid-1970s when 
they accused him of being a "fascist." 

Richard Morris, executive assistant to Judge William Clark when the latter was 
President Reagan's National Security Adviser, met with LaRouche several times, 
and with LaRouche aides on numerous other occasions. He set up meetings for 
LaRouche with other top NSC officials, including Dr. Ray Pollock. Such meetings 
could not have taken place without Clark's approval. 

In the mid-1970s the LaRouchians tried to cultivate General Daniel Graham, 
chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and General George Keegan, former 
chief of Air Force intelligence. LaRouche's ideology put them off, but they both 
recall his followers as being remarkably well informed. Graham cited an instance 
when the LaRouchians provided sensitive information on Angola and 
Mozambique that was unavailable from normal sources. Keegan noted their 
uncanny nose for the latest military technology. 

LaRouche also impressed some European intelligence officials. Brigadier 
General Paul-Albert Scherer, former chief of counterintelligence for the West 
German armed forces, recalled in a 1987 speech how intelligence experts in the 
late 1970s were "amazed at his connections and his access to special 
information on terrorism, the drug scene, the intelligence services themselves, 
and on the details of developments in the East bloc countries and in the Middle 
East." Scherer said that when the LaRouchians asked him to work with them, he 



checked with "friendly intelligence circles" (apparently the CIA) to see if this 
would pose security risks. "The fact that I did take [the LaRouchians] up, and can 
speak publicly about it here, says enough," he pointed out. 

Through the years the LaRouchians developed a reputation among investigative 
reporters as well as intelligence mavens for their access to occasionally stunning 
pieces of information. The best illustration is Executive Intelligence Review's 
scoop on important aspects of the Iran-Contra affair in the spring of 1986, many 
months before the major media learned about it from a Lebanese daily. An EIR 
special report asserted in March that a journalist and National Security Council 
consultant named Michael Ledeen had visited Israel to negotiate a "massive 
expansion of Israeli arms sales" to unnamed "U.S. allies" whom the Reagan 
administration "feared to openly arm." Two months later, EIR predicted that a 
major scandal would soon break, implicating "the U.S. State Department, high 
Pentagon officials, top figures within the Israeli defense and intelligence 
establishment, and the Soviet government--in the arming of Ayatollah Khomeini's 
war machine...." The article provided three key names: Yaacov Nimrodi, an arms 
dealer and former Israeli military attache to Iran under the Shah; Al Schwimmer, 
founding president of Israel Aircraft Industries; and Cyrus Hashemi, a New York- 
based Iranian banker. 

Except for the reference to the Soviets, this was close to the target. The major 
media belatedly confirmed in November and December that Israeli involvement 
in the affair resulted from a 1985 meeting between Prime Minister Shimon Peres 
and Michael Ledeen, and that Schwimmer and Nimrodi acted as the key Israeli 
intermediaries. As to Hashemi, it turned out that he had participated in early 
discussions with Iranian middleman Manucher Ghorbanifar and General Richard 
Secord's business partner, Albert Hakim. (In July 1986, Hashemi died under 
mysterious circumstances. U.S. Senate investigators have speculated that he 
was murdered because he knew too much.) 

The NCLC's intelligence-gathering prowess of the mid-1980s was the fruit of 
hundreds of members working at it devotedly for over ten years. LaRouche had 
first raised the idea of an NCLC intelligence arm in meetings with his top aides in 
1 971 . He proposed that it be set up "along the lines of a 'desk' organization of a 
major national newsweekly." What eventually emerged was a highly profitable 
weekly newsmagazine, a global spider's web of confidential sources, and one of 
the world's largest collections of private political files and dossiers, compiled 
through novel but effective snooping tactics. 

By 1976 the NCLC had established a smoothly functioning intelligence 
headquarters in New York, with branches in several European and Latin 
American cities. Three interlocking units emerged: the intelligence division 
proper, which mostly did telephone research and monitored the foreign press; the 
science unit, which operated out of separate offices through the Fusion Energy 



Foundation; and the security staff, wliicli worked on sensitive matters sucli as tine 
[Harassment of LaRouclie's opponents. 

Tine intelligence division was designed by NCLC member Uwe Henke von 
Parpart, a former West German naval cadet who claimed to have worked at 
NATO headquarters in the 1960s. In its early years it was more like a spoof of a 
government spy agency. The various "sectors" and "files" representing different 
regions of the world were crammed into a three-floor complex in a factory 
building on West Twenty-ninth Street in Manhattan. It was a rabbit warren of 
shabby offices, such as the "Southern Cone" room, where LaRouche disciples 
pored over newspapers from Argentina and Chile. When I visited in 1977, dozens 
of young people in rummage-sale clothing sat hunched over WATS line phones 
amidst a surrealistic clatter of the telex machine and typewriters. There was a 
smog-like atmosphere from chain smoking. When an ashtray became full, the 
contents were simply dumped on the floor. No one had swept up in days. The 
bathrooms were also in a state of neglect, and the walls were devoid of any 
decoration. One sensed that the members were so intent on their political tasks 
that they didn't even notice their surroundings. 

The intelligence division was supposed to function with Parpart's Prussian 
efficiency. Each morning the sector heads deployed their underlings on the basis 
of instructions from the National Executive Committee. Many of them spent long 
hours on the phone with news reporters, government officials. Wall Street 
experts, or college professors to "profile" their thinking and pick up tips. A report 
on each conversation was filed and cross-filed for future use. Other members 
clipped newspaper articles, prepared translations from European papers, or 
conducted searches of the already voluminous files. The more enterprising 
scooted uptown to the New York Public Library to research the pedigrees of 
British aristocrats. The result was worked up as daily sector reports and further 
distilled into the daily "briefing" on the world situation, which was given final 
approval at the NEC meeting held each evening in the "war room" (a small 
conference room with a shabby carpet). The text of the briefing was turned over 
to the communications sector to be telexed overnight to all regional and overseas 
offices, so that a copy would be in the hands of every LaRouchian in the world 
the next day. "The ferocity with which they pursue intelligence is almost beyond 
the ken of outsiders," said a former NCLC security staffer, who described the 
organization as a "cult of intelligence." 

Some defectors have said that LaRouche's brainwashing was what kept them in 
the offices twelve to sixteen hours a day. In part this was true. Members also 
endured a certain amount of psychological bullying from martinet types in the 
leadership. But many NCLC members had fun playing spook. LaRouche gave 
them titles like "intelligence officer," "sector chief" and "counterintelligence 
director." He told them they were part of a secret elite that would ultimately- 
indeed, soon~be called on to save the nation. Security staffers could thus 
imagine a five-minute phone conversation with a Pentagon public affairs officer 



as being Stage One of the global triumph of Neoplatonic humanism. They 
developed an extraordinary persistence and chutzpah: They would keep calling 
and calling a selected military officer or Wall Street banker until he agreed to talk 
to them. 

The national intelligence staff's work was supplemented in a somewhat less 
organized fashion by the regional NCLC staffs, which sent to New York daily 
telex reports regarding their local organizing and snooping. When I asked a 
LaRouche aide in 1978 about the policies of the White House Office of Drug 
Abuse Policy, he referred me to an Ohio NCLC member, who had detailed 
information about the role of drug experts close to the administration in lobbying 
for a drug decriminalization bill in the Ohio legislature. The Ohio NCLC member 
referred me to a top Cincinnati police official, who confirmed the story and was as 
impressed with the LaRouchians' information as I was--he had gone to Columbus 
at their urging to lobby against the bill (When I checked the story with the bill's 
sponsor, I found it was all true, and more.) 

In 1974 three NCLC members incorporated the New Solidarity International 
Press Service (NSIPS), and the various LaRouchian intelligence offices in the 
United States and overseas were renamed as NSIPS news bureaus. This 
provided light journalistic cover-press passes and easy access to officials who 
otherwise might not have given them the time of day. The NSIPS invested in a 
telex network to link its offices and began publishing an intelligence newsletter to 
supplement the NCLC's New Solidarity. From the outset, this cost millions of 
dollars a year, and where LaRouche obtained start-up capital of this magnitude 
has never been adequately explained. As the money poured in, the newsletter 
was turned into Executive Intelligence Review, an attractively printed weekly 
newsmagazine along the lines envisioned by LaRouche in 1971. The NCLC 
intelligence director, Nick Syvriotis (real name Criton Zoakos), took the title of 
EIR editor-in-chief, and the various intelligence division sector chiefs became the 
EIR intelligence "directors" in their respective areas. 

Field research was done by NCLC organizers (like the young man in Ohio) and 
by reporters for LaRouche publications. NSIPS gained White House press 
accreditation during the Ford administration, and both Carter and Reagan 
repeatedly took questions from them at presidential press conferences. EIR 
reporters sought interviews with public figures (and, even more important, with 
obscure experts) all over the world. The publication opened news bureaus in 
major foreign capitals, eventually establishing bureaus in thirteen cities from 
Bangkok to Stockholm that collected news as busily as their mainstream media 
competitors. 

The effect was incremental. By the early 1980s, LaRouche operatives had been 
working the phones seven days a week for almost ten years, calling hundreds of 
contacts a day from New York headquarters and the regional and overseas 
offices. They had conducted hundreds of face-to-face interviews a year with 



influential people in Washington and around the world. Winnowing through this 
mass of names and faces, they had found individuals who, either because of 
naivete, vanity, closet-fascist proclivities, or most often simply a desire to trade 
information, became part of the "briefing network"--a list that was phoned 
regularly for exchanges of gossip on a first-name basis. 

Meanwhile, the security staff made thousands of undercover phone calls to the 
"enemy": left-wing activists, liberal Democratic Party politicians, and Jewish 
leaders. The reports on the most fruitful phone calls were filed away in what the 
LaRouchians called "raw and semi-finished files." Snippets of information from 
these files could then be traded with police detectives, investigative reporters, 
scholars, the Ku Klux Klan, and European and Third World intelligence agencies. 

The LaRouche organization's effectiveness was not just a result of collecting 
masses of data. It also was a matter of intelligence analysis. Even prior to the 
Reagan administration, EIR developed an underground reputation on Wall Street 
and among some government people for its maverick focus on important issues 
which the major media were ignoring, such as beam weapons research and the 
international "debt bomb." Sooner or later LaRouche twisted every analysis to fit 
into his anti-Semitic worldview, but the original groundwork retained its validity, 
and EIR staff writers were skilled at keeping factual analysis and propaganda 
separate when necessary. LaRouche had launched his organization in the late 
1960s by recruiting from the best and brightest on elite college campuses and 
among well-educated upper-class youth in Europe and Latin America, They 
might not have been streetwise, but they were probably smarter in an 
iconoclastic academic sense than their civil service counterparts at the CIA. They 
read a wide range of foreign languages, thereby giving the organization access 
to news reports generally unavailable to anyone outside the intelligence 
community or academic research institutes. They also knew how to squeeze the 
last clue out of research library special collections. Several possessed, like 
LaRouche himself, acute analytic minds. NEC member Fernando Quijano 
produced "The Coming Bloodbath in Chile," a 1972 New Solidarity article that 
explained with compelling logic how and why Salvador Allende would be 
overthrown. David Goldman and other members contributed research in the late 
1970s on the IMF and the "debt bomb" which LaRouche synthesized into 
Operation Juarez, a report designed to influence government officials and 
economists throughout Latin America. In the midst of the Falklands war in 1982, 
Uwe Parpart produced an analysis of Argentina's strategic blunders (based in 
part on Argentine government sources) that was far superior to the mainstream 
media's coverage. 

According to LaRouche, revenues from EIR sales and other NSIPS activities 
reached $4 million in 1979. This presumably included EIR's subscribers paying 
$396 for their annual subscriptions, (Some members of the briefing network 
received it free.) LaRouche was out to develop a select readership rather than 
mass circulation. EIR served basically as a come-on for more expensive spin-off 



products such as book-length special reports ($250 each), the weekly 
Confidential Alert ($3,500 a year), secret reports for individual clients (upwards of 
$10,000), and annual retainer services (whatever the traffic would bear). 
LaRouche's West German organization launched the weekly Middle East Insider, 
which boasted of "reports from the Middle East and North Africa that no one else 
dares to publish." 

The NCLC intelligence division would have been impressive enough if it had 
been simply a United States-based operation. However LaRouche operatives 
overseas worked just as hard to build up briefing networks and compile their own 
files and dossiers, to which New York headquarters had full access. 

In the early 1960s LaRouche had aspired to found a Fifth International to replace 
the Trotskyist Fourth International. What he ended up building was the 
International Caucus of Labor Committees (ICLC), a network including the 
NCLC, the Mexican Labor Party, the North American Labor Party (today the 
Party for the Commonwealth of Canada, dedicated to dumping Queen Elizabeth 
as ceremonial head of state), the Andean Labor Party with branches in Peru and 
Colombia, and the European Labor Party with branches in Italy, France, West 
Germany, Denmark, and Sweden, The combined membership outside the United 
States is probably no more than 1 ,000, yet these foreign LaRouchians are, like 
their American counterparts, talented, educated, and well funded. Each member 
organization has, like the NCLC, an electoral arm, propaganda organs, and local 
fund-raising sources. Each also has plenty of corporate shells and private bank 
accounts into which funds from the United States, brought over by courier, can 
disappear without a trace. Finally, each has its own intelligence division (the local 
EIR "bureau") which develops information-trading relationships with the local 
police and military, thus multiplying the amount of information available to the 
NCLC intelligence division whenever it is preparing a confidential report to 
impress some CIA or other government official. 

Especially important is the Wiesbaden intelligence command center. Wiesbaden 
is the headquarters of the European Labor Party, and LaRouche has a villa 
nearby. Already in the early 1970s the ELP's German contingent began to 
cultivate military and intelligence officials. Defectors say that LaRouche aides 
met with the late Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler's Eastern Front military intelligence 
chief, who, after the war, founded the BND, West Germany's version of the CIA, 
and staffed it largely with former SS officers. Gehlen was already retired from the 
spy business when he met with the LaRouchians. He reportedly found them still 
too leftwing to be taken seriously. According to Charles Allen, a well-known writer 
on Nazi war criminals and German revanchism, the LaRouchians had more 
success with the BND after their swing to the right. They also nuzzled up to 
military counterintelligence, which was headed in the mid-1970s by General 
Scherer, who would become, after his retirement, a close personal friend of 
LaRouche. 



The director of LaRouche's German intelligence staff, Anno Hellenbroich, is the 
younger brother of Heribert Hellenbroich, chief of West Germany's Federal 
Bureau of Constitutional Protection (BfV) from 1981 to 1985. The BfV, West 
Germany's equivalent of the FBI, supposedly watches extremist groups but 
removed the LaRouche organization from its list. Heribert told Der Spiegel that it 
wasn't extremist enough and besides. Anno had assured him it was not anti- 
Semitic. 

From its inception the European Labor Party concentrated much of its energy on 
tracking, compiling dossiers on, and harassing politicians in Germany and 
Scandinavia who were critics of U.S. policy or advocates of Ostpolitik. They 
conducted a smear campaign against former Chancellor Willy Brandt, putting up 
posters depicting him in a Nazi storm trooper uniform with a swastika prominently 
displayed. (Brandt sued them and won.) 

In 1982-83 the ELP went after Petra Kelly, leader of Germany's Green Party and 
a strong advocate of removing U.S. missiles from German soil. Various smear 
articles called her a Communist, a terrorist, and sexually promiscuous. An article 
entitled "Did You See This Whore on Television?" described her alleged affairs 
with married men. She sued the LaRouchians for libel in New York federal court. 
Her attorney, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, said the LaRouchians 
had engaged in a "vicious campaign that made it difficult for her to appear in 
public. The campaign became physical at times. They cornered her on a train, 
they shoved her grandmother around. ...They abused her most fundamental 
rights of privacy, dignity, physical integrity, and reputation." 

The LaRouchians also built up a strong intelligence apparatus in Paris, where the 
head of the ELP branch was Jacques Cheminade, a former Foreign Ministry 
official. In 1984 the Paris ELP publicly disclosed a classified French cabinet 
memo discussing possible links between the LaRouchians and the KGB. The 
disclosure created a minor flap over government security, since the memo had 
been distributed to fewer than a dozen top French officials. Whoever leaked it 
had to have access to a wide range of government secrets. (According to a CIA 
memorandum on file in Boston federal court, LaRouche had boasted of his 
French presidential palace sources at a meeting at CIA headquarters a year 
before this incident.) 

LaRouche came to regard himself as a spymaster of the highest skill. In a 1979 
report he rated nine of the world's major intelligence services, distinguishing 
between what they really know and what they report to their nation's leaders. (In 
his view, which is probably accurate, spy agencies a/i/zays withhold information 
from their own government leaders.) He claimed to take into account not just 
official agencies such as the CIA and the KGB, but each nation's total intelligence 
capability, "a mixture of private, official, and semi-official institutions," implicitly 
suggesting that the NCLC should be considered part of the team. He placed the 
NCLC's three great "enemies"~Great Britain, Israel, and the Swiss bankers~at 



the top in terms of quality of l<nowledge. In terms of quality of information 
released, he rated the United States at the bottom. Apparently he was 
suggesting a pressing need for his services and was petulant that the CIA was 
not reciprocating his flow of reports. 

LaRouche tried to instill in NCLC members a sense of superiority over the CIA 
and other government intelligence agencies. He boasted that the NCLC often 
outperforms "those poor, plodding philistines, with their morose sense of a 
careerist's sort of duty, and their hunt-and-peck methods of deduction." The CIA 
thinks "arithmetically," but the NCLC reasons "geometrically." In general, CIA 
agents lack culture, A proper intelligence agent should be steeped in poetry, 
because intelligence is poetry. Agents should be "trained in Kepler, Leibnitz, 
Monge, Carnal, and the methods of Alexander von Humboldt's proteges at Berlin 
and Gottingen.. .Greek classics, music..." 

LaRouche's most revealing article on espionage is couched in the form of a short 
story, "The Day the Bomb Went Off." On the surface, it is intended to indoctrinate 
his followers in cultish views, and the hero is LaRouche himself. But on a deeper 
level the story is a satire that pokes fun at its author, his associates, his 
epistemology, the CIA, and the entire zany world of espionage. Whether or not 
the satire is entirely conscious is anyone's guess, but like LaRouche's writings on 
brainwashing, it suggests he cannot be dismissed as a paranoid kook in the grip 
of uncontrollable compulsions. Inside LaRouche there is certainly a mind of 
extraordinary cunning, laughing at all the suckers and even at himself. 

The story depicts an imaginary crisis facing the NCLC intelligence division. The 
security staff hears on the radio that a bomb threat has been received by the 
Chicago Sun-Times and that its offices have been evacuated. They call the 
Chicago police, nothing. They call the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
nothing. They call each other, nothing. Then they call LaRouche. No one gives 
him a single fact to go on, but he uses his famous "hypothesis of the higher 
hypothesis": "Let us assume," he says, puffing on his pipe, "there is a suspect 
who signed a blackmail note....Let's assume he's a talented technologist...." 
LaRouche goes on to infer that this villain is suffering from "megalomania" and is 
"trying to reorder world events with the aid of some clever sort of infernal 
machine." Confirmation of LaRouche's theory comes weeks later, in the form of 
subtle inferences from a remark by a CIA cutout to a LaRouche aide in 
Washington. Not only was LaRouche right, but also Henry Kissinger was 
involved! 

LaRouche then proceeds to his exegesis. There is a "special etiquette" in the 
intelligence "demimonde" where things function "by indirection, when not outright 
misdirection." What's really going on can only be known by inference, but is 
nevertheless a certainty. If the NCLC wants to transmit information to the CIA, all 
they have to do is mention it on the phone to some third party. The National 
Security Agency, which taps everyone's phone anyway, will record it and pass it 



on. Likewise, if tine CIA wants to send a message to LaRouclie, tliey will instruct 
some undercover spook to mention the item to a third party known to be in touch 
with LaRouche. The third party will not know he is being used as a cutout. Only 
the CIA chiefs and LaRouche himself will know what's rea//y going down--the 
former through direct knowledge, and the latter through inferences based on 
Neoplatonic philosophv. [FOOTNOTE 1] 

One can instantly see the usefulness of this theory for NCLC morale. It invests 
the membership's daily toil with an invisible significance--something like the 
drudgery of medieval monks surrounded by invisible angels and devils. Lest the 
outside reader conclude that LaRouche is insanely serious, he appends a 
seemingly irrelevant note about quarks, those elusive particles of subatomic 
physics. "The most interesting thing about quarks," he says, "is that they do not 
exist. No physicist has ever conducted an experiment in which the effect of a 
quark's existence occurred. ...The function which the quark performs is to fill a 
'logical hole' in the schematic representation of physics...." 

Once quarks infiltrate one's spy organization, Robert Ludlum and Richard 
Condon cannot be far behind (not to speak of L. Ron Hubbard and E. Howard 
Hunt). In fact, LaRouche and his top aides take spy novels seriously and act 
them out in the world of real spookery. LaRouche wrote in 1974 that the "best 
qualified CIA 'covert operations' planning executives are to be found among hack 
paperback novelists." 

A 1981 New Solidarity review of Ludlum's The Bourne Identity po'\r\\e6 out that 
"many espionage writers" write stories as "proposed scenarios for actual 
intelligence operations, or as 'disinformation' to cover up operations." Wall Street 
economist Michael Hudson recalls being told by a top LaRouche aide that 
Ludlum's fictional cabal of Corsican gangsters and Italian aristocrats in The 
Matarese Circle actually exists. LaRouche himself has repeatedly claimed that 
Edgar Allan Poe was a full-time intelligence agent and that Poe's mystery stories 
contain cryptic references to real-life operations, LaRouche's 1974 Christopher 
White brainwashing hoax was inspired in large part by Condon's The Manchurian 
Candidate and the movie version of Len Deighton's The Ipcress File. 

Former LaRouche followers have pointed out the uncanny similarities between 
his conception of the NCLC and General Midwinter's super-rightist spy outfit in 
Deighton's The Billion-Dollar Brain: Midwinter hires contract agents, devises a 
computerized system for planning operations, goes into competition with NATO 
intelligence agencies, and is put out of business by LaRouche's number one 
enemy, British intelligence. 

The most startling parallels to LaRouche's operation are found in The Intercom 
Conspiracy, a novel by Eric Ambler, whose sardonic view of spookery generally 
resembles that of LaRouche. It is the story of two raffish NATO spooks who buy 
an EIR-type newsletter. Intercom World Intelligence Network, and use it to leak 



intelligence secrets embarrassing to both East and West. (Significantly, The 
Intercom Conspiracy i\rs\ appeared in paperback in December 1970, only a few 
months before LaRouche announced his plan to found EIR.) After creating havoc 
for several months, the fictional duo hold an auction to sell Intercom to whichever 
embarrassed agency will pay the most to stop the flow of information. 

Ambler's satire is filled with terms that well fit the LaRouchians: "paper mill" (an 
organization specializing in disinformation and ideological slander), "shopping 
window" (a newsletter used to give hints of intelligence items for sale), and "play 
material" (low-grade classified information leaked through paper mills for various 
Byzantine purposes). 

Whether or not EIR's editors really have as much classified information as 
Ambler's two rogues, they like to give the impression they do. EIR's international 
news briefs column often includes snippets similar to those in The Intercom 
Conspiracy. For instance, in the EIR dated May 12, 1981, an item from a 
"[Persian] Gulf intelligence source": "The British government is secretly extending 
offers to the Saudi Arabian government to sell the Saudis the British-made 
Nimrod radar aircraft system if the U.S. Congress forces the Reagan 
administration to back down on its offer to sell AW ACS to the Saudis...." Or from 
the July 29, 1980, issue: "A secret component of the recent U.S. -British deal over 
Trident missiles involves the stationing of nuclear weapons on Diego Garcia in 
the Indian Ocean, according to confidential sources. Included in the Trident deal 
is an unwritten agreement by Britain to provide a 'supplementary Rapid 
Deployment Force' to back up Washington's RDF in deployments into the 
Persian Gulf." 

But LaRouche's followers in the early 1980s went far beyond anything in The 
Intercom Conspiracy y\ihen they started publishing hot tips on how to make H- 
bombs and death rays in league with Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, a character as 
odd as anyone in an Ambler novel. Besides his political activities as a nemesis of 
the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, Winterberg is also a 
brilliant research physicist. According to Edward Teller, he has "perhaps not 
received the attention he deserves" for his work on fusion. For the LaRouchians, 
he is a unique commodity~his value resides in what he lacks. What Winterberg 
lacks is a clearance. He therefore cannot be accused of leaking classified 
information. As a physicist, he can always say he rediscovered the information 
on his own in his Nevada desert laboratory. In fact, he does indeed figure out the 
principles of secret weapons on his own. It is his hobby, just as other people 
breed hamsters. Winterberg sincerely believes that it is ridiculous to classify such 
matters, for the essence of science is the free flow of information. In 1981 
LaRouche's Fusion magazine published Winterberg's diagrams of various 
devices, such as a "Nuclear X-Ray Laser Weapon Using Thermonuclear 
Explosives." Later that year, the FEF published his Physical Principles of 
Thermonuclear Explosive Devices, a how-to manual on H-bombs, with the 
neutron bomb thrown in as a bonus. 



Of course, the LaRouchians had been hinting at such knowledge ever since they 
set up the FEF in 1974. Predictably, they strove to develop ties with governments 
desirous of becoming the next nuclear power: India, Iraq, South Africa, 
Argentina, Taiwan, and Libya. Government nuclear experts in at least two of 
these countries (India and Argentina) have met with FEF representatives, and 
the foundation and EIR have arranged speaking tours for Dr. Winterberg. In the 
wake of the how-to manual, EIR seminars in Washington and European capitals 
were well attended by appropriately obscure diplomatic clerks from various Third 
World embassies, with Mossad agents discreetly blending into the background. 



[1] LaRouche added an extra twist in later writings, presenting the indirect 
transmittal of information from and to the NCLC as having a deep operational 
significance. It was, he suggested, the means by which the organization 
participated directly, as a kind of switchboard, in secret deals between the CIA 
and the KGB and in all kinds of disinformation games, counterintelligence 
probes, and dog and pony shows. To play in this game, EIR's staff members 
merely had to go about their daily routine and let the National Security Agency 
record what happened. But LaRouche changed his tune while preparing for his 
1988 trial. His attorney made a Freedom of Information Act request to the 
National Security Agency for any records of electronic or other types of 
surveillance of the LaRouchians. The NSA responded that it had files on the 
Schiller Institute, but declined to turn them over on national security grounds. In 
spite of LaRouche's previous eagerness to be bugged, he now said it proved 
there was a government conspiracy against him. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Nineteen 

Intrigue on Five Continents 

According to Admiral Inman, tine CIA suffered in the early 1980s from an 
intelligence "vacuum" in some parts of the world because of the Carter 
administration's cutbacks. This made it tempting to deal with private groups like 
LaRouche's. They were not the only such group around; the Unification Church 
was also in the private spy business, as were various rightist outfits supplying the 
Nicaraguan Contras. But LaRouche's snoops employed unusual techniques with 
especially intriguing results. "They are like ferrets," said the NSC's Norman 
Bailey, adding that they sometimes induced high-level foreign officials to "open 
up." Richard Morris also noted this. He cited LaRouchian reports to the NSC on 
meetings with government officials in Latin America and the People's Republic of 
China. For national security reasons, neither Bailey nor Morris would be more 
specific. 

The "ferrets" were EIR correspondents who roamed the world interviewing 
hundreds of important persons each year. A subject would see a copy of EIR 
with an attractive cover and a masthead listing as many news bureaus as Time 
or Newsweek, and would assume it was an important American magazine. Many 
who rarely, if ever, had been interviewed by the U.S. media were glad for the 
opportunity to send a message to the American public. Some of those 
interviewed were susceptible to LaRouchian political views and would be 
particularly forthcoming with respect to such pet topics as debt repudiation. 
Others proved open to some kind of information-trading or consulting 
arrangement. They would be drawn into the NCLC's international briefing 
network as intelligence sources and/or "organic-humanist" allies. In a 1986 
interview, LaRouche boasted of having such ties with government officials or 
members of the "Establishment" in about fifty countries. 

During 1982 (when the CIA, according to Admiral Inman, was receiving a 
continuous "flow of materials" from the LaRouchians), EIR published interviews 
with former Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, Argentine Foreign 
Minister Nicanor Costa Mendez, Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach, 
Spanish Defense Minister Alberto Oliart, Japanese industrialist and Mitsubishi 
Research Institute chairman Masaki Nakajima, and former Iranian Prime Minister 
Shahpour Bakhtiar (in exile in Paris). Other interviewees included the foreign 
ministers of Panama, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, and Malaysia, the Brazilian 
Planning Minister, the president of Brazil's Senate, the head of Petrobas (Brazil's 
state oil company), the Bangladesh Finance Minister, the chief of Argentina's 
National Atomic Energy Commission, and the permanent secretary of the Latin 
American Economic System (SELA). EIR correspondents also met with hundreds 



of lower-level officials, trade union leaders, and businessmen executives that the 
local U.S. embassy or CIA might never have had contact with or who would be 
reluctant to open up with official U.S. representatives. A unique file of dossiers 
and profiles was thus compiled by the NCLC for its own use and that of its 
clients, including above all the intelligence agencies. 

The LaRouchians strove for direct ties with the government of a targeted country, 
either on its home ground or through its Washington embassy or New York UN 
mission. If an embassy official liked their product, they would offer to provide 
various public relations and dirty tricks/smear services. They never bothered to 
register with the U.S. Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration 
Act nor did the Justice Department pressure them to do so. Defectors say the 
organization prepared research materials for at least a dozen governments, as 
well as Japanese multinational corporations. Besides the nuclear-bomb aspirants 
already named, the clients reportedly included French and Italian intelligence 
agencies, Iran (under the Shah) and Saudi Arabia. The name of the game was 
opportunism. While working for Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, they 
peddled anti-drug trafficking reports in Colombia and Peru. While endorsing right- 
wing military terror in Guatemala, they provided information to Washington, 
D.C.'s left-wing Christie Institute for its lawsuit against LaRouche's longtime 
detractor General Singlaub, whom Christie attorneys accused of involvement in 
Contra terrorism. 

Sometimes reports for foreign governments were prepared for cash, other times 
as a calculated political move to gain new contacts or a specific political favor. 
EIR operatives were able to arrange personal meetings for LaRouche with 
several chiefs of state as well as cabinet ministers, generals, and admirals. Over 
the years his catches included Mexican President Lopez Portillo, Indian Prime 
Minister Indira Gandhi (twice), Argentine President Raul Alfonsin, and Turkish 
Prime Minister Turgut Ozal. Although some NCLC defectors have suggested 
these meetings were merely a sop to LaRouche's vanity, he profited from them 
concretely. A report with photographs of the meeting would be published in EIR 
and other LaRouche publications in the United States to show wealthy but naive 
senior citizens (the chief targets of LaRouchian fund raising) that LaRouche was 
truly a statesman of world stature. 

If the LaRouchians were able to attract the attention of CIA bureaucrats, it was all 
the easier to gain the interest of the low-budget intelligence services of some 
developing nations. Information pyramiding was fairly easy. A LaRouchian might 
pick up an interesting rumor from a telephone conversation with a low-level 
diplomat at embassy A. He could then call up his contact at embassy B and tell 
him what he had learned. In return, he might receive another piece of gossip or 
conjecture. He could then move on to embassies C and D, multiplying his 
pennies like the lad in the pluck-and-luck story. One key was that much of the 
valuable intelligence floating around the world is neither classified nor secret, but 
merely obscure. Whoever bothers to dig it out gains leverage if he can determine 



(as the LaRouchians apparently are able to do) which corporations or 
governments would be most interested in a given piece of information. 

LaRouche's conspiracy theories to a certain extent give him an advantage in 
peddling and collecting intelligence overseas. Such theories are an important 
part of the political culture in many countries. His followers are thus able to 
instinctively tap into moods and undercurrents that might be missed by an 
American Foreign Service officer who deals with people on a more rational and 
pragmatic level. Certainly an official in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, where the anti- 
Semitic Protocols of the Elders ofZion have long been popular, is not likely to 
raise an eyebrow over LaRouche's arcane charges about British-Jewish bankers. 
Nor are Latin American daily newspapers, which often purvey tales of CIA 
machinations and flying saucers, likely to be altogether skeptical of wild tales 
about Henry Kissinger. And the public in, say, Colombia-where political and 
drug-related assassinations are frequent occurrences-could well believe that 
narcotics traffickers or terrorists were out to kill LaRouche. 

The factor of sheer ignorance about the United States was manifest in a 1975 
Iraqi request to the LaRouchians for a background report on the National 
Renaissance Party, James Madole's tiny New York storm trooper outfit. The 
Iraqis were considering funding the NRP as a propaganda asset. The 
LaRouchians reported back that the NRP was an isolated group unlikely to be 
useful. But the fact that a Middle East country could even consider working with 
the NRP revealed a profound naivete about American politics. 

The primary LaRouchian tactic in dealing with foreign governments was to tell 
them just what they wanted to hear. This was at the heart of LaRouche's 
agitation with regard to the Third World debt crisis. Nations such as Brazil owed 
the New York banks billions of dollars, and LaRouche's advice was simple 
(foreshadowing his own tactics with creditors in the mid-1980s): Don't pay, put 
them off with promises, threaten them with the debt bomb; after all, they're just a 
bunch of shylocks. LaRouche became known as an Important Economist, and 
government officials quoted Operation Juarez. As friends of "Ibero-America" his 
EIR intelligence profilers enjoyed an open door to high officials. Peru's President 
Alan Garcia, already a populist on the debt question, even addressed a Schiller 
Institute delegation in Lima. 

The LaRouchians also used flattery. Sometimes they praised the strongman of a 
government being courted (e.g., Noriega or Zaire's Mobutu). Usually they praised 
great achievements and men of a country's past. For instance, knowing that Arab 
governments are especially sensitive about racist Western stereotypes of their 
culture (camels, harems, and terrorists), the LaRouchians produced eloquent 
studies on the glories of medieval Islam, ascribing world-historical importance to 
the philosopher Avicenna. They launched an Avicenna Institute, staged an 
Avicenna conference, and published an Avicenna issue of their theoretical 
magazine. The Campaigner. 



Another variation was to appear to take sides in liistoric rivalries between 
selected nations or nationalities, as in supporting the Argentinians over the Brits 
in 1982, or the Hindus over the Sikhs. After Indira Gandhi was assassinated by 
her Sikh bodyguards in 1984, the EIR staff wrote Derivative Assassination: Who 
Killed Indira Gandhi? The book's footnotes listed numerous interviews with Sikh 
leaders in various countries, which suggested that it was a spin-off from an 
intelligence report for the Indian government. In its published form it appeared in 
part to be propaganda to keep the Sikhs from gaining public sympathy in 
Canada, where they are an important immigrant group. It also appeared to be 
aimed at readers in India, especially Hindu nationalists who would read about the 
book's allegations in the daily press. Derivative Assassination described the 
Sikhs as tools of the Israelis and various rich Jews. It also said the assassination 
was organized by Israel's Mossad as part of a vast plot to sabotage Indian 
nuclear power plants. Given that Hindu rightists had run amok after Mrs. 
Gandhi's death, slaughtering hundreds of Sikhs--and that the country remained 
politically on a hair trigger--the book was a virtual invitation to further violence 
against Sikhs, not to mention a pogrom against India's tiny Jewish population. 

A less sinister example was EIR's cozying up to the Turks against the Greeks in 
1987--an amusing choice, considering that EIR's editor-in-chief was Criton 
Zoakos and the LaRouche organization had long idolized the Renaissance Greek 
philosopher Plethon, apostle of total war against the Turks. But LaRouche has 
never let Neoplatonism stand in the way of opportunity. He traveled to Ankara to 
meet with Prime Minister Ozal, and afterward staged a press conference in which 
he accused Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou of being an alcoholic, a 
Trotskyite, and a KGB agent. He also criticized the Reagan administration as 
"derelict" in that it wouldn't "supply this kind or that of military aid" (apparently 
meaning high-tech weapons for Turkey) as well as more economic aid. After 
conferring with the U.S. embassy, the Turkish government admitted that 
LaRouche had bamboozled it. But he came out ahead, for his picture was taken 
with a NATO head of state and published by EIR to impress his contributors back 
home. He could use it along with the 1980 picture of himself chatting with Ronald 
Reagan in New Hampshire. 

The LaRouchians have a special affinity for regimes that are tottering. It is as if 
the more desperate they are, the less closely they will look at LaRouche's 
credentials. In 1978, in the final months of the Shah's regime in Iran, they 
peddled information to SAVAK, his secret police. They also prepared a 
confidential memorandum for the Shah on how to save his Peacock Throne. 
Afterward, they maintained contact with the royal family and various Iranian 
politicians in exile. EIR staffer Robert Dreyfuss's Hostage to Khomeini {^980) 
blamed the Shah's fall on the British oligarchy and its alleged treasonous 
collaborators in Washington. The book appealed to the irrationalism frequently 
found among fallen elites, as for instance the anti-Semitic theories popular 
among czarist exiles in Paris and Berlin after the Bolshevik revolution. The 
Shah's widow. Empress Farah Diba Pahlevi, told the West German magazine 



Bunte: "To understand what has gone on in Iran, one must read what Robert 
Dreyfuss wrote in the Executive Intelligence Review." EIR used this quote for 
years afterward in its advertising. 

When Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos's regime was disintegrating in the 
fall of 1985, FEF spokesman Uwe Parpart and LaRouche's security chief, Paul 
Goldstein, rushed over to Manila to advise him. They took along Peru's former 
Prime Minister General Edgardo Mercado Jarrin as the nominal head of their 
Schiller Institute delegation, and the meeting with Marcos was widely reported in 
the Philippine press. According to LaRouche in a 1986 radio interview, his aides 
warned Marcos: "They're going to coup you." LaRouche claimed that if Marcos 
"had taken the kinds of actions we'd recommended ... he would not have been 
couped." Shortly after the trip, Goldstein revealed the alleged evil force behind 
Marcos's problems: Mossad and a cabal of Jewish businessmen. 

When Polish Communist leader Edward Gierek was threatened by the Solidarity 
trade union in 1 980, LaRouche prepared a document advising him on how to 
crush the "Trotskyite insurrection" of "British intelligence's . . . Judas goats" (i.e., 
dumb Catholics led by smart Jews). He told Gierek to crush the strikers the way 
American cops crushed the ghetto riots of the 1960s. "Use force to contain and 
separate groups of rioters from one another and from uninvolved areas of the 
population," he urged. "Isolate and neutralize the agents provocateurs as 
inconspicuously and quickly as possible, and let the dupes tire themselves back 
into a normal state of mind." 

General Wojciech Jaruzelski's Soviet-backed martial law regime did just that in 
December 1981 when it rounded up and imprisoned tens of thousands of Poles. 
The regime became an international pariah, but not to the LaRouchians. They 
were the only enthusiastic Jaruzelski supporters in the West, save for a few small 
Moscow-financed CPs. EIR and New Solidarity published dozens of pro- 
Jaruzelski pieces, including the editorial "Don't Meddle in Poland," which claimed 
that Solidarity was linked to Western intelligence agencies. The AFL-CIO, which 
had attempted to help Solidarity, was described as conducting "covert operations 
targeted against the Polish nation-state." Jaruzelski's "broad purge" was said to 
be a necessary move to get rid of "hardcore British intelligence proteges." 

Some NCLC propaganda appears simply to be aimed at cleaning up the public 
image of regimes that have received negative U.S. press coverage. Jeffrey 
Steinberg, LaRouche security aide and EIR "counter-intelligence" editor, traveled 
to Guatemala in 1985-86, accompanied at least once by a former Army 
intelligence officer working as a LaRouche consultant. They supposedly went 
with government troops on a raid to destroy marijuana plantations, and EIR 
published a special report co-authored by Steinberg, Soviet Unconventional 
Warfare in Ibero-America: The Case of Guatemala. It was a vigorous defense of 
Guatemala's brutal army, and urged total war against leftists, Maryknoll priests, 
and Indians in the highlands, all said to be involved in drug trafficking, gun 



running, and assorted other criminal and subversive activities. Tine report 
accused Amnesty International, which had lambasted Guatemala's human rights 
violations, of being a "support organization for Soviet-sponsored international 
terrorism." When Steinberg and his wife were indicted in Boston for obstruction of 
justice the following year, they obtained a measure of support from Guatemalan 
rightists. The daily El Grafico carried an article on how "antidrug expert" 
Steinberg had been framed by a "drug money laundering mafia." According to 
EIR, El Grafico stated that "those democrats [in the United States] who have 
made so many campaigns about supposed violations of 'human rights' in other 
countries, had no qualms about violating the human rights of the Steinberg 
couple." 

Perhaps the cleverest foray of EIR staffers was into Israel in 1986. They conned 
prominent figures by affecting support for Prime Minister Shimon Peres's plan to 
bring peace to the Middle East via a multibillion-dollar Marshall Plan. This was 
just the type of grandiose scheme that the LaRouchians are most experienced at 
packaging and promoting, thanks to LaRouche's real achievements as the 
economist of total mobilization. EIR even hinted that Peres's plan might have 
been inspired by a 1983 LaRouche scheme along these lines. (LaRouche had 
traveled to Israel at least once to promote it.) EIR published several laudatory 
articles on the Peres plan, as well as interviews with Israeli officials. When 
LaRouche was quoted in a London-based Saudi Arabian newspaper in support 
of the plan, EIR boasted that its "Israeli sources" regarded this article as "very 
significant." The stage was being set for a ten-day trip to Israel in June by two 
EIR correspondents. They would gain interviews with Economics and Planning 
Minister Gad Ya'acobi, former bank of Israel governor Arnon Gafny, private 
foundation officials, and members of the Knesset. 

The EIR representatives' apparent friendliness toward Israel was in blatant 
contradiction to the LaRouche organization's propaganda efforts in Washington 
that summer to use the indictment of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard to drive a 
wedge between the United States and Israel (as by accusing the Israelis of 
working with the Soviets). But this wasn't the only apparent deception. The EIR 
correspondents while in Israel obtained interviews at the Armand Hammer Fund 
by presenting themselves as friendly journalists. Yet NCLC members back in 
Leesburg had just completed a massive dossier on oil tycoon Hammer, 
portraying him as a Soviet agent and an associate of mobsters. (In a 1988 letter 
to a journalist writing on Hammer, NCLC security staffer Scott Thompson claimed 
to have gained information for the dossier via a series of interviews with the late 
James Angleton, who for years was the CIA's liaison with Mossad. Thompson 
also said that an early version had been given to an unnamed foreign 
government involved in negotiations with Hammer's Occidental Petroleum.) 

The LaRouchians sold the government of Thailand on their expertise in 
promoting grand economic designs. In this case it was a plan to use atom bombs 
to excavate a canal across the country at the Isthmus of Kra, so as to shorten the 



route for oil tankers from the Persian Gulf to Japan, and perhaps stimulate Thai 
industrial development along the way. The plan had long been under 
consideration by Japan's Mitsubishi Research Institute for its "global 
infrastructure fund." Powerful persons in Thailand became interested in 
LaRouche's version, thanks to the influence of a wealthy couple, Pakdee and 
Sophie Tanapura. Pakdee Tanapura was the son of a Thai magnate who owned 
vast tracts of land in the country's northeast. The Tanapuras had bankrolled 
LaRouche's European operation for years, and guaranteed an elite audience for 
LaRouche when he traveled to Bangkok in October 1983 for a FEF-EIR Kra 
Canal conference. The Thai Minister of Communications and top military officers 
turned out to hear him. According to New Solidarity, "the warmest welcome . . . 
came from the old Thai network" that "worked with the OSS in the region." Kevin 
Coogan, a former member of the NCLC Asia file, interprets this as a reference to 
associates of the CIA-military "old boys" who ran the Nugan Hand Bank--the kind 
of military officers LaRouche security adviser Mitchell WerBell would have 
worked with when he was in Thailand in the late 1960s on CIA assignment. 

In 1984 the Thai Communications Ministry co-sponsored a second FEF-EIR 
conference, and LaRouche again traveled to Bangkok to meet with military 
leaders. When General Kriangsak Chomanan and four colleagues were jailed in 
1985 for alleged involvement in a coup d'etat, the LaRouchians agitated for their 
release. New Solidarity claimed that they were being kept in jail as a result of 
pressure from Henry Kissinger and other members of the so-called international 
oligarchy. But all was not lost. In 1986 New Solidarity announced that the chief of 
staff of the Thai Army had endorsed the Kra Canal project. 

The best-documented relationship of the LaRouchians with a foreign government 
was with South Africa. In the late 1970s they met with South African diplomats in 
New York and Washington, staged a conference to promote investment in South 
Africa, and prepared intelligence reports on anti-apartheid groups for South 
Africa's Bureau of State Security (BOSS). At the time, BOSS was engaged in 
LaRouche-style dirty tricks in Europe. It also was conducting a secret influence- 
buying and propaganda campaign in the United States and Europe financed by a 
$74 million slush fund. This fund, conduited through the regime's Department of 
Information, was exposed in 1978 by South African opposition newspapers. The 
ensuing parliamentary scandal was dubbed "Muldergate," after the late Cornelius 
Mulder, the Information Minister, who was forced to resign. 

Members of the NCLC Africa file approached Johan Adier, information officer at 
the New York consulate, in 1978. They wanted "to be friendly," AdIer said. He 
sent an aide to the NCLC headquarters, and "they took him on a sort of grand 
tour~he got the impression they wanted to sell him something." Sure enough, the 
LaRouchians later tried to sell intelligence materials to the consulate. A similar 
approach was made to the Washington embassy's information officer, Karl 
Noffke, who said: "They wanted to alert us about certain forces they think are bad 
for South Africa~the British, the Wall Street bankers, and so forth." A LaRouche 



representative also approached Les de Villiers, a former South African 
information official whose name would feature prominently in Muldergate. De 
Villiers at the time was working for Sydney S. Baron & Co., a public relations firm 
that was a registered agent for South Africa. He said LaRouche's man offered to 
help boost investment in South Africa. 

Adier, Noffke, and de Villiers all said they rejected the proposals and did not pay 
for the unsolicited materials they received. But the NCLC security staff struck a 
deal with BOSS by a different route. Defectors say they were assigned to call up 
U.S. anti-apartheid groups such as the American Committee on Africa and pump 
them for information while posing as sympathetic freelance journalists. The 
callers were told by top LaRouche aides that the reports were intended for 
BOSS. This was later confirmed by The New York Times. The reports included 
profiles of U.S. and British anti-apartheid groups. 

The LaRouchians meanwhile sent a special report in early 1977 to John McGoff, 
an American newspaper publisher who was a close friend of Connie Mulder and 
a major figure in the slush-fund scandal. This report provided background on the 
National News Council, the now-defunct newspaper industry ethics committee 
that had been critical of McGoff, whom the LaRouchians were courting at the 
time. James Whelan, a former McGoff aide, recalled being "bombarded" with 
phone calls from them. After checking with McGoff, he humored them. He read 
over the National News Council report but found it worthless. (It said the NNC 
was part of a British plot.) Whelan denied that McGoff's Panax Corporation ever 
paid for it, but ex-LaRouchians who worked on it say that top LaRouche aides 
told them it was being prepared under contract and that several thousand dollars 
was to be paid on delivery. 

In 1978 McGoff was named in South African parliamentary hearings as having 
received over $1 1 million from Mulder's secret fund. The money was to buy the 
Washington Star and the Sacramento Union and transform them into pro-South 
Africa organs. The plan never panned out, and McGoff came under investigation 
by the Justice Department for failing to register as a foreign agent. (After an 
investigation lasting almost a decade, charges were finally brought in 1986, but 
the judge dismissed the case, saying the time limit for prosecution had passed.) 

The NCLC's most public pro-South Africa effort was the Conference on Industrial 
Development of Southern Africa, held in Washington in 1978 under Fusion 
Energy Foundation sponsorship. The conference was an attempt to head off 
disinvestment campaigns by offering an alternative strategy of massive 
investment in regional development. The FEF argued that this would create 
socioeconomic conditions for the "eventual" abolition of apartheid. (A former 
leading FEF member recalled that his associates, although willing to "court the 
Boers," had been too embarrassed to "endorse apartheid openly.") The 
conference speakers included Dr. William van Rensberg, former technical 
director of the South African Minerals Bureau and author of South Africa's 



Strategic Minerals: Pieces on a Continental Chessboard, published and 
distributed in tine United States and Europe witli money from IVIulder's secret 
fund, A sprinkling of diplomats and corporate representatives showed up to hear 
van Rensberg describe the migrant labor system in South African mines. "While 
one may argue about the morality," he said, "it is not always appreciated [that] 
the mines provide these workers with certain basic skills and offer them, in some 
instances, their first contact with Western civilization." 

A hint that the Pretoria government was appreciative appeared later that year in 
To the Point International, a South African newsmagazine. A full-page article by 
the magazine's managing editor paid tribute to LaRouche as an economic 
theoretician. It said he had "access to the thinking and plans of trans-Atlantic 
policymakers at the highest levels," and that "his semantics may be off-target but 
his message runs true." In 1979 a South African parliamentary commission 
revealed that To the Point International was one of Mulder's secret operations. 
Foreign Minister Pik Botha then confirmed that General Hendrik van den Bergh, 
the head of BOSS, had arranged the magazine's financing. 

Articles and reports prepared by the NCLC Africa file throughout the late 1970s 
record its attempts to establish an ideological rapport with the apartheid regime. 
One report described a network of South African "humanists" who were said to 
share many of LaRouche's views. The report, prepared by David Cherry, cited 
Nicolaas Diederichs, a former South African President, now deceased. Cherry 
claimed to have been in correspondence with Diederichs and warmly praised his 
"humanism." In fact, Diederichs was a leading architect of apartheid and a Nazi 
sympathizer during World War II. 

Another supposed member of the network was tycoon Anton Rupert, a major 
figure in the Broederbond, the Afrikaaner secret society that controlled the ruling 
National Party. Professing to detect traces of a LaRouche-style philosophy in 
Rupert's business pep talks. Cherry praised him for allegedly maintaining the 
ethnic purity (no blacks, Jews, or British) of his corporate board. Cherry also 
expressed admiration for a scheme of Rupert and certain West German bankers 
to channel massive new investment into South Africa. (The 1978 FEF conference 
was partly an attempt to popularize this scheme.) 

The most imaginative of the NCLC reports suggested that white South Africa's 
destiny is to bring the blessings of "humanism" to all southern Africa. It called for 
a massive expansion of the notorious contract labor system for purposes of 
cultural uplift. Included were maps of mineral deposits, railroads, and proposed 
energy grids for all of southern Africa. The linchpin of the scheme was to be 
South African domination of Mozambique. The choice of this Marxist nation that 
borders on South Africa was explained as necessary for "forcing" contract 
laborers "in the appropriate direction." Domination of Mozambique would create a 
"geometry" in accord with which anti-apartheid "terrorist networks" could be 
"mopped up." Strongly implied was that South Africa should invade and occupy 



its neighbors. But tliis plan proved to be too mucli for Dr. van Rensberg. In a 
1979 telephone interview he called the NCLC "a bunch of dangerous crackpots." 
Besides, he added, their "maps were all wrong." 

NCLC security staff defector Charles Tate says that the NCLC continued its 
relationship with the South African government into the mid-1980s. In 1984, he 
says, it received $5,000 to provide an updated report on U.S. anti-apartheid 
groups. Once again, undercover phone calls were made to activists. Tate says 
he personally edited the report, and that the contract was handled through a 
"cutout," a commercial research firm in Manhattan. "It was understood by 
everyone involved that the money came from the South African government," 
Tate says. But was money paid only for research? That fall the LaRouchians 
disrupted a Washington press conference held by seventeen U.S. Catholic 
bishops to protest apartheid. LaRouchian heckling "broke up" the event and 
"prevented questioning by genuine reporters," wrote Steve Askin of the National 
Catholic Reporter. 

In 1985 LaRouche's Schiller Institute actively courted Bishop Desmond Tutu, the 
anti-apartheid Nobel Prize winner, who apparently had no idea of just whom he 
was dealing with. New Solidarity boasted that Tutu had endorsed the Schiller 
Institute's "Declaration of the Inalienable Rights of Man." The following February, 
EIR reprinted a "historic" speech by South African President P.W. Botha claiming 
that apartheid had been abolished. More obfuscation followed: EIR published an 
interview in Durban with Chief Buthelezi, leader of the Zulus, but the commentary 
praised Botha and certain high-ranking military figures as "reformers." Reverting 
to its hard line, EIR praised South African "strike aircraft and commandos" for an 
attack on African National Congress bases in Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. 
It was the 1 978 co-prosperity plan all over again~a "grand design" by which 
South Africa would become the "'Japan' of the African continent." 

In spite of the NCLC's ties with South Africa, Guatemala, and the CIA, many 
conservatives have suggested that the NCLC might ultimately be a KGB 
operation. Of course the NCLC denies the charges, and of the dozens of NCLC 
defectors interviewed for this book, including those who were high up in the 
organization, not one believes the NCLC is actually controlled by the KGB, or 
even that it is secretly still wedded to Communist ideology. However, most agree 
that the NCLC is capable of opportunistic dealings with governments across the 
political spectrum to further LaRouche's financial interests and his drive for 
power. The LaRouchians have acknowledged Soviet contacts on numerous 
occasions. Just as they found it useful to flirt with the Polish government in the 
early 1980s, so they found it rewarding to deal with the Soviets for almost ten 
years. 

The Soviet connection began in 1974, when LaRouche aides met a Soviet UN 
mission official, Nikolai Logiunov, who passed them on to Gennady Nicolayevich 
Serebreyakov, a KGB officer attached to the mission. The latter met regularly 



with Gus Kalimtgis during 1974-75. LaRouclie met twice witli Serebreyakov, 
once at tine Soviet mission and once at NCLC lieadquarters. 

Tine same year tine LaRoucliians met Serebreyakov, tliey founded tine Fusion 
Energy Foundation to work among scientists, including tliose engaged in 
classified work. The FEF zeroed in on researchers in plasma physics and fusion 
energy, areas with major military applications. Most of the scientists they called 
to pump for information were unaware that the FEF was a cover for the "science 
section" of the NCLC intelligence division, A January 1975 internal document 
sets forth LaRouche's plan for this elusive unit, which he has almost never 
referred to in any subsequent document. It would report directly to the NCLC's 
intelligence director, Criton Zoakos. Its duties would include forming collaborative 
relationships with specialists at the Atomic Energy Commission's "CTR division, 
laboratories, universities, and so forth," using the FEF as a "vehicle" when 
appropriate. LaRouche suggested organizing "ad hoc meetings of working 
discussion groups" in order to "accelerate the useful exchange of knowledge," 
but urged the science section to be very careful in its handling of these "sensitive 
relationships." 

In 1 975 a top FEF officer traveled to Moscow, supposedly to attend a scientific 
conference. He was welcomed even though the official line of the Communist 
Party USA and the Soviet press was that the CIA controlled the LaRouche 
organization. Meanwhile, LaRouche developed an elaborate espionage 
philosophy to provide an alibi for dealing privately with the Soviets. The NCLC 
was the "open channel" through which the KGB could pass "policy-relevant" 
information to the CIA, and vice versa. The NCLC didn't have to tell the CIA 
about these meetings; all it had to do was transmit the information over its telex 
lines. The National Security Agency monitored the lines and would automatically 
pick it up. As to anything secret the NCLC might learn from American scientists, 
not to worry~the NCLC was totally surrounded by government agents. Anything 
secret it learned would be something planted by the CIA because it wanted the 
KGB to get it through the open channel. Such information would be either 
disinformation or "policy-relevant." 

Somewhere in this fantasy the idea of guarding national security secrets was 
entirely lost. It became permissible to transmit anything to anybody, because 
everything was just a dog and pony show. When two Soviet spies were arrested 
in New Jersey in 1977, New Solidarity declared them to be innocent and claimed 
that the NCLC had been dealing with them. The Soviet spies were not really 
spies but "conduits," and one of their "major functions" had been the 
"transmission of USLP/NCLC materials" to Moscow. This wasn't questionable 
behavior on the NCLC's part, for the materials had been "prepackaged by 
elements of the U.S. intelligence community as part of existing courtesy 
arrangements between the Soviet and U.S. intelligence services." Just why the 
Soviet spies were arrested if they were part of a "courtesy" channel was not 
made clear. But it is curious that New Solidarity's extraordinary revelation did not 



lead to any trouble with the Justice Department, just as LaRouche's threat that 
same year to kill Carter led to no trouble with the Secret Service. Already the 
pattern was establishing itself that LaRouche could fantasize and do whatever he 
pleased without any fear of consequences. 

An equally suspicious incident was described in a 1981 NCLC internal 
memorandum signed by LaRouche security aide Paul Goldstein. After referring 
to a "certain [Soviet] UN contact" and the need for "clear channels into the 
Soviets," the memo mentioned trips by FEF scientists to Moscow for "scientific 
collaboration." During one such trip an FEF representative, whom the memo 
identified only as "the man without shoes," prepared a ninety-page report for the 
Soviets "on the U.S. scientific community." The Soviets "found the information 
given to them quite useful." Although the memo expressed concern over a 
possible "national security problem," it contained a boast that "our open policy 
commitment to public cooperation with the Soviets on scientific and related 
questions makes our defense nearly airtight." In fact, there had been several FEF 
trips to Moscow following the 1975 opener. In December 1978, Chuck Stevens, 
well known among American fusion scientists for his wide-ranging gossip on 
research contracts, promotions, and job changes in the fusion (and later the Star 
Wars) community, attended a laser physics conference in Moscow along with 
another FEF representative. On another visit an FEF physicist was given a tour 
of the Soviet science complex near Novosibirsk in Siberia~and later gave a slide 
show on it at NCLC headquarters. 

By the early 1980s LaRouche's scientific intelligence gathering and its possible 
Soviet links had become a cause for concern to Generals Keegan and Graham 
and the Heritage Foundation. Keegan warned in a 1984 interview that the 
LaRouchians had penetrated "every private and government organization in the 
United States" involved in fusion research. "I have observed with a sense of 
mounting shock," he said, "their success in eliciting what I thought was sensitive 
information." John Bosma, editor of Military Space magazine, echoed Keegan's 
view. He said that in 1 981 , when he was on the staff of the House Armed 
Services Committee, a LaRouche follower approached him seeking to find out 
the Cruise missile's odometer range, a closely guarded military secret. 

The LaRouche organization's relationship with the Soviet Union ranged beyond 
military and scientific matters. Former NCLC intelligence staffer Kevin Coogan 
writes that in 1979 LaRouche met in West Germany with Julian Semenov, a 
Soviet spy novelist widely believed to be linked to the KGB. Semenov asked the 
LaRouchians to investigate the disappearance of a czarist treasure looted by the 
Nazis. The LaRouchians found no treasure, but they did publish an EIR teaser 
about it. They also published an article by Semenov on the Kennedy 
assassination. (Predictably, he speculated that Peking was involved.) Another 
key Soviet contact was loni Andronov, a correspondent for Literaturnaya Gazeta. 
Andronov frequently chatted with Paul Goldstein, whom he occasionally quoted 
as a counterintelligence expert. In one interview Goldstein told Andronov he 



thought the so-called Bulgarian role in the attempted assassination of Pope John 
Paul was a hoax. On this point he was probably right, but he went on to suggest 
that the CIA might have been involved--an allegation for which there is no 
evidence whatsoever. 

According to Coogan, the LaRouchians met regularly with Soviet officials in 
Washington as late as 1983. The LaRouchians claim they provided reports on 
these contacts to Judge Clark's office at the NSC. Whatever the truth, 
LaRouchian publications until the death of Leonid Brezhnev displayed a certain 
degree of affection for hard-line Stalinism because of its no-nonsense attitude 
toward Zionists and other dissenters and its commitment to central economic 
planning. New Solidarity's obituary on Brezhnev praised him as a "nation builder" 
and avoided any mention of his invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. 
Thereafter, as LaRouche became more heavily involved in supporting Star Wars 
and NATO, the NCLC line changed. Moscow became the "Third Rome," a center 
of unremitting Russian Orthodox evil. When Gorbachev took power, the 
LaRouchians said he was the Antichrist. 

The Soviets in turn took serious note for the first time of LaRouche's West 
European political intrigues. In the wake of the 1986 assassination of Olof Palme, 
the Soviet press depicted the LaRouchians as the prime suspects. LaRouche 
countered that the KGB did it, a charge for which there was no more rhyme or 
reason than Goldstein's allegations about the CIA and the Pope. Meanwhile, 
LaRouche claimed that the October 1986 government raid on his headquarters in 
Virginia was Soviet-inspired. According to LaRouche, when Reagan and 
Gorbachev met in Iceland, Gorbachev delivered an ultimatum: Either you get rid 
of LaRouche or there'll be no arms deal. In Paris, LaRouche sued the pro- 
glasnost SoV\e\ magazine New Times for calling him a "Nazi without the 
swastika." It was basically the same suit he had brought repeatedly without 
success in American courts. The pro-g/asnos^ Soviet magazine chose to play by 
Western legal rules: They mounted an aggressive courtroom defense, entering 
LaRouche's own writings as evidence. The Paris High Court rejected LaRouche's 
suit and ordered him to pay costs as well as damages to the magazine and its 
distributors. 

LaRouche often pokes fun at those who would depict him as simply a pawn for 
East or West. "As long as some slow-thinking folk believed that we were CIA, 
and some other foolish folk believed that we were KGB, our mere continuing our 
own quality of independent intelligence-work kept the game on the field," he 
wrote in 1 981 . But even the most independent-minded ideologue is going to lean 
toward one side or the other. LaRouche's great dream was to rise to power in 
America with the support of the right. It was thus natural that he should put more 
effort into courting the CIA than the KGB. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Twenty 

The Wooing of Langley 



As LaRouche began his swing to tine riglit in tine mid-1970s, a certain degree of 
realism entered liis tliinking. Studying tine failure in America of tiny "sect-like" 
storm trooper groups, he stated flatly that no such organization could ever grow 
into a "large-scale fascist movement" unless a "leading strata of capitalists and 
governmental agencies sponsor and direct such a development." He soon began 
to actively seek such sponsorship. Still influenced by leftist ideas, he turned to 
the agency that all leftists believe is the chief bankroller of anything and 
everything fascist: the CIA. 

According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, NCLC 
members barraged CIA headquarters with phone calls in 1976 offering to provide 
briefings on international terrorism. They asked to speak with the director, 
George Bush, and even placed a call to his home. Commenting on these 
overtures, a CIA memo observed that LaRouche had "openly advocated the 
overthrow of the U.S. government" only two years previously, but that his 
organization appeared to be shifting its public posture "from one of violence to 
one reflecting more traditional, democratic values." 

The late 1970s were an auspicious time for a private intelligence group aspiring 
to work with the government. The CIA was under a cloud of suspicion in the 
wake of Vietnam and Watergate, and had been forced to disband its domestic 
intelligence operations. Congress had quashed its efforts to halt a Marxist 
takeover in Angola. Carter's CIA director. Admiral Stansfield Turner, had fired 
several hundred covert action specialists. Many professionals were alarmed at 
what they believed were gaping holes in the nation's intelligence capabilities. 

In 1977 New Solidarity began publishing attacks on Turner and President Carter 
for replacing deputy director E. Henry Knoche and firing the old boys. This 
culminated in LaRouche's "The CIA~Only a Caretaker Force," which claimed that 
"the once-feared premises at Langley have been degraded to a laundering 
agency for British and Israeli intelligence products....British and Zionist agents 
generally have the run of the premises....Menachem Begin runs Israel, and 
Moshe Dayan runs the United States." 

The best solution, he suggested, was for CIA dissidents to put him in the White 
House. "I would pull together an effective overall U.S. intelligence capability 
within weeks," he promised. Just what he meant by an "effective" capability was 
already outlined in The Case of Walter Lippmann, his 1977 treatise on the need 
for a dictatorship in America. LaRouche advocated the centralizing of all U.S. 



intelligence functions under a single cabinet-level "Secretary for Political 
Intelligence." This super-CIA would be used for "auditing" the entire executive 
branch and would operate its own propaganda machine to smash the influence 
of the liberal media. 

In 1977 the LaRouchians sought out Mitchell Livingston WerBell III, a longtime 
CIA contract agent and former arms manufacturer in Powder Springs, Georgia. 
"WerBell represented a group of former military and intelligence people, who we 
thought were patriotic and, therefore, would be very upset about the kinds of 
policies that would be coming about with the Carter-Mondale administration," 
said Jeffrey Steinberg in a 1984 deposition, "I went down and met with him at his 
home and for a period of time there was a sort of continuing discussion. ..in which 
he was reading and circulating our material...." 

Apart from the security staff's hope that WerBell could become a political recruit, 
there was a more practical reason to cultivate him: If LaRouche was ever to gain 
any acceptance in the intelligence world, he would need a good public relations 
man with CIA ties. For WerBell the mixing of PR and spying was no novelty. He 
had once owned a PR firm in Atlanta, and he claimed to have done PR work as 
well as security consulting in the 1950s for Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. 
Ferociously right-wing and formerly involved in many anti-Communist operations, 
WerBell was just the man to dampen down the dust cloud of suspicion created by 
LaRouche's Marxist past. In addition, he was the ideal cutout for any future 
serious dealings between the NCLC and the CIA. The latter wouldn't have to risk 
embarrassment by dealing with LaRouche directly; everything could be done 
through WerBell. 

Like the LaRouchians, WerBell had a fondness for grandiose schemes. In 1966 
he became involved in a plot to invade Haiti. Having trained the invasion force, 
he brought CBS-TV to cover the embarkation. Federal agents swooped down 
and arrested the plotters. Shortly thereafter WerBell obtained a contract with 
Papa Doc Duvalier to retrain the Haitian security forces. 

In the late 1960s he developed the Sionics silencer, the world's first efficient 
machine-gun silencer, which became extremely popular among drug traffickers, 
Mafia hit men, and Central American death squads. Needing start-up capital, 
WerBell went to Stewart Mott, the noted philanthropist and antiwar activist. 
WerBell told Mott the device could be used as a lawn-mower silencer to fight 
noise pollution. Mott invested a substantial sum. 

In 1974 WerBell sold Nevada real estate mogul and Libertarian Party leader Mike 
Oliver on a scheme to invade the island of Abaco and declare it independent 
from the Bahamas. It was to become a tax haven run on libertarian principles. 
With Oliver's backing, WerBell began to train a handful of mercenaries, and sent 
his friend Walt Mackem to the island to organize the trappings of a secessionist 
movement. As with the Haitian scheme, the feds swooped down. WerBell was 



arrested along with his co-conspirators, but the charges against him were 
dropped. 

WerBell engaged in media self-promotion with the zest of Buffalo Bill Cody. He 
succeeded because, unlike most intelligence professionals, he was willing to 
discuss his past. He befriended the journalist Andrew St. George, who called him 
the "Wizard of Whispering Death" and wrote a number of articles about his 
exploits. WerBell also opened up to writer James Hougan, whose bestseller on 
the private intelligence business. Spook, contains many anecdotes about 
WerBell. 

When his arms business failed, WerBell founded the Cobray International 
counterterrorism training school on his sixty-six-acre estate near Powder Springs, 
Georgia (called the Farm, after the CIA training center at Camp Peary, Virginia). 
He posed in a Scottish kilt on the firing range for The National Enquirer's rival. 
The Star, attracted laudatory coverage from Soldier of Fortune magazine, and 
gave himself a promotion to lieutenant general in the RFAA (Royal Free Afghan 
Army). 

In Cobray promotional material, WerBell listed almost two-dozen antiterrorist 
operations in which he supposedly had participated since the 1950s. He told 
20/20 that Coca-Cola had hired him to take care of kidnapping threats against its 
Argentine executives during the urban terrorist wave in the early 1970s. He said 
he let out the word: "We'll kill you. We'll go after your wife. We'll kill her. We'll go 
after your children. We'll kill them. Your cats, your dogs, your pigs and your 
chickens." It didn't seem to occur to WerBell that the Argentine terrorists were 
upper-middle-class city kids who wouldn't know your pigs and chickens from their 
Gucci loafers. Nevertheless, he claimed there were no more kidnap threats 
against Coca-Cola. 

If LaRouche and his followers wanted to meet some real live spooks, WerBell 
was willing to oblige. He arranged several meetings that included CIA personnel. 
"You're damn right he did~l was there," said Gordon Novel, a New Orleans 
private investigator who lived for several months at the Farm in 1977. Jim 
Hougan recalls attending two meetings in an apartment at the Crystal City 
Marriott near Washington-referred to as a "safe house" by WerBell-where the 
LaRouchians explained their theories about British control of the narcotics traffic 
to former and active-duty CIA men. 

WerBell invited LaRouche and his top aides down to the Farm to regale them 
with stories about Vietnam and introduce them to more spooks. One of these 
contacts was Major General John K. Singlaub (U.S. Army), who had spent a 
large portion of his career assigned to CIA covert operations in Asia and had 
once been CIA deputy station chief in Seoul. He first met with them while 
stationed in Georgia. After his retirement in 1978 they showed up at his lectures 



around the country and at a ceremony where he and WerBell were given medals 
by the Taiwanese government. 

Although Singlaub dropped the LaRouchians after learning of their extremism, 
some of WerBell's friends were less fastidious. Ex-CIA agent Mackem advised 
them on the international drug traffic in 1978 while they were writing Dope, Inc., 
and continued to help them off and on. By 1 986 they were paying him over 
$1,000 a month. 

WerBell was a Liberty Lobby member and close friend of Willis Carto. His 
political views were thus in the same ballpark as LaRouche's on many questions. 
NCLC defectors recalled sessions where the two would chat away like old OSS 
cronies. (Although LaRouche had not served in the OSS, he had been a medic in 
Burma briefly near the end of the war.) Out of these conversations emerged a 
scheme as bold as the Abaco Revolution. In February 1979, LaRouche--once 
again decrying Admiral Turner's cutbacks at Langley-issued a call for "an 
outpouring of financial and political support" to establish a private intelligence 
organization to fill the vacuum created by the housecleaning at the CIA. 

"What we propose," LaRouche said, "is a de facto augmentation of the resources 
of the [NCLC], thereby combining the core contribution to be made by the [NCLC] 
with the resources otherwise befitting a U.S. government intelligence service." He 
went on: "Such an agency, endowed by corporate. ..and other private sources, 
would immediately rehire those patriotic, trained former operatives of the CIA and 
related official agencies purged through British influence." LaRouche suggested 
in a follow-up article that certain trade unions (e.g., the Teamsters) should help 
finance this shadow CIA. 

The idea of finding private sponsors for LaRouche's intelligence operation was 
shrewd. Some Teamster officials responded right away. But the proposal to 
merge the LaRouchians and various covert action veterans into a single 
organization was simply not workable. LaRouche's intellectualism didn't appeal to 
those who inclined toward traditional rightist groups. The Bay of Pigs veterans in 
Florida were interested in cocaine, not a coup d'etat. The rogue element among 
the old boys was preoccupied with laundering heroin money or smuggling arms. 

Essentially this left LaRouche on his own~and with a problem galling to his 
vanity. The NCLC had impressive research capabilities, a telex network, a 
computer, and even a war room. But it lacked the crowning touch: its own "A- 
Team." LaRouche had learned during Operation Mop Up that most of his 
followers were klutzes, good only for ganging up on elderly Communist Party 
members. Even the toughest of his security staff were former college athletes 
with no military experience. 

WerBell had a solution. Members of the security staff began trickling down to the 
Farm for a ten-day course (at $2,000 each) in "counterterrorism." New Solidarity 



boasted this was a "pilot project" for units to be attaclied to corporations and tine 
Teamsters. WerBell, in a 1979 teleplione interview, said it was simply training in 
"martial arts, pistol shooting, paramedical skills, the use of shotguns, rifle 
countersniper activity, countersurveillance, and the control of three-car 
caravans." 

According to former NCLC members, the results were not very impressive. 
Although scores of LaRouchians took the training, followed by karate classes in 
New York, LaRouche himself had little confidence in them. For his personal 
security needs, he brought in professional bodyguards and moonlighting police 
officers. Nevertheless, the WerBell training provided a deep psychological 
satisfaction for LaRouche's followers. Here they were, pipe-smoking intellectuals 
hanging out with the world's deadliest anti-Communist he-men. First there was 
the "general" himself, adviser to death squads and owner of the world's largest 
private stockpile of automatic weapons. Then there was Colonel Drexel B. 
("Barney") Cochran (USAF, ret.), a former unconventional warfare expert for the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, who taught classes at the Farm on how to defend oneself 
using a hatchet or a ballpoint pen. Next came Bert Waldron, a sniper instructor 
with 113 confirmed kills in Vietnam, and Jason Lau, the resident martial-arts 
master whose "incredible expertise" (according to Eagle magazine) enabled him 
"to walk.. .across ceilings like a human fly, remain crouched in a motionless 
position for hours while waiting for his prey, jump higher than people's heads; 
and pause, bird-like, suspended in the air." 

It is possible there was more than meets the eye in all this, and that WerBell was 
psyching out the LaRouchians for the CIA to see if they could become useful in 
some form. If so, nothing would have been better than to put them through a boot 
camp while keeping LaRouche well supplied with bourbon and ice on the porch. 
When 20/20 did its report on WerBell in 1979, it included footage of LaRouche's 
followers undergoing training. It also included an interview with General Singlaub, 
who said: "In every place where Mitch has operated it's . . . been either as a 
contract employee or with the knowledge of the local CIA, even if they couldn't 
officially support it." He added that WerBell specialized in handling situations 
where "to try to get this through the Congress, to try to get this through the 
approval of the American people, would be almost impossible." 

Whatever his motives, WerBell began to exert great personal influence over the 
NCLC security staff. "I'm very fond of some of them," he told me in 1 979. 
"They're smart as hell." Jeff Steinberg chatted on the phone with him almost 
daily. It became a sign of status within the NCLC to have met "Mitch" and taken 
the training in Powder Springs. However, the NCLC leadership also invoked his 
name in a vaguely menacing manner to keep members of the national office staff 
in line. One member, after dropping out, walked around for weeks worrying he'd 
be cut down by a silenced machine gun. 



At the outset WerBell learned that being LaRouche's handler could be a nerve- 
wracking job. LaRouche was persuaded in August 1977 that German terrorists 
were out to kill him. WerBell sent a Powder Springs police officer, Larry Cooper, 
to Wiesbaden to reorganize LaRouche's personal security. Cooper sat in on a 
political discussion with LaRouche and several top NCLC members during which 
LaRouche suddenly brought up the idea of assassinating President Carter, 
National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, NATO general secretary Joseph 
Luns, and David Rockefeller. It could be done, LaRouche argued, with remote- 
controlled radio bombs activated from public pay phones. 

WerBell had told Cooper that guarding LaRouche was a CIA contract job, and 
that Cooper therefore would be serving his country. But Cooper now realized that 
WerBell had not told him the entire truth. He called the Farm in a panic, and said 
he was coming home on the next flight and contacting the FBI. Gordon Novel 
was in the room with WerBell, and recalls that "the general went through the 
ceiling, immediately started calling Washington and canceling a lot of things and 
generated a kind of propaganda story, a cover story, to completely suppress the 
affair." Indeed, WerBell had cause for worry~his name had been connected with 
a radio-bomb assassination scheme once before: During the Nixon 
administration he had worked with a secret Drug Enforcement Administration unit 
under Lucien ("Black Luigi") Conein that had planned to assassinate Latin 
American drug dealers. As a consultant, he had devised remote-control bombs 
and had provided a business cover for Conein's unit. The plan was scotched 
when Senator Lowell Weicker found out about it and called hearings. WerBell 
refused to answer questions before the committee, earning the nickname "Mitch 
the Fifth" in right-wing circles. Apparently LaRouche had taken this incident and 
transmuted it in his own spy novel-saturated imagination into something that 
could land them both in deep trouble. 

WerBell decided he'd better get LaRouche into a "reality state" fast or there'd 
never be an "accommodation between the CIA and LaRouche," Novel said. 
Shortly afterward. Novel had a falling-out with WerBell and left Powder Springs, 
He says he told the FBI about the Wiesbaden incident, but they showed no 
interest. This was a curious apathy indeed: If a leader of a Communist group or 
the Ku Klux Klan had discussed an assassination scheme in the presence of a 
law enforcement officer, as LaRouche had done, the government no doubt would 
have reacted instantly. The LaRouchians kept their White House press passes 
with Secret Service clearance. In 1984 Pat Lynch of NBC contacted Zbigniew 
Brzezinski about the incident; the answer from his office was "no comment." 

The loose talk continued with impunity. According to a report prepared by former 
security staffers for The New York Times, a LaRouche aide briefed the national 
office staff in May 1979 on a plan for "selective assassination" of opponents. EIR 
later reported that an anonymous astrologer had named thirteen enemies of the 
NCLC who might die "within hours" of strokes and heart attacks if LaRouche was 
ever the victim of assassination or attempted assassination. 



WerBell learned that one key to handling LaRouche was to provide him with 
illusory trappings of power. During his 1980 presidential campaign LaRouche 
was conveyed from the Atlanta airport to the Farm in a rented helicopter. Upon 
landing, he was warmly greeted by WerBell and some good old boys for the 
benefit of local Atlanta TV. They did all but play "Hail to the Chief." WerBell also 
provided guards for campaign events as a compensation for the Secret Service 
protection that LaRouche had been denied. But even when LaRouche was being 
manipulated on the psychological level, he somehow always manipulated right 
back on a level that really counts: His checks to WerBell began to bounce, and 
the Dooley Helicopter Company, whose services had been solicited using 
WerBell's name, went unpaid. WerBell dashed off a letter to LaRouche, together 
with a draft of a press statement that he threatened to release if LaRouche didn't 
pay up. "It is incredulous," WerBell wrote, "that an individual endeavoring to 
manage the economics and resources of a [Platonic] Republic is unable to cope 
with the finances of a small staff." 

WerBell's importance within the LaRouche universe seemed to decline in the 
early 1 980s, as the LaRouchians found other intermediaries for their intelligence 
community dealings. WerBell was suffering from cancer, and he and LaRouche 
continued to quarrel over unpaid bills. But when he died in December 1985, 
LaRouche penned an unctuous obituary saying that he owed his life to WerBell-- 
a reference to the assassination plots his adviser had supposedly foiled. 

LaRouche's efforts to cultivate ex-spooks, part-time spooks, private spooks, and 
even imaginary spooks reached an extraordinary range of people in the late 
1970s and early 1980s. He met with former CIA director William Colby but failed 
to impress him. His followers befriended CIA deputy director Ray Cline, a 
research fellow at Georgetown University's Center for International Strategic 
Studies, and persuaded him to meet with LaRouche, Cline continued to chat with 
them throughout the early 1980s. An especially prized contact was former CIA 
counterintelligence chief James Angleton, who granted a series of interviews to a 
security staffer. Defectors recall Jeffrey Steinberg shouting to an underling in the 
midst of an office crisis in the late 1970s: "Quick! Go brief Angleton!" (The 
LaRouchians eventually turned on both Cline and Angleton, accusing the former 
of "genocide" and the latter of plotting against them.) 

The nets were spread as widely as possible. LaRouche followers set up a 
literature table at a conference of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers 
(AFIO). They sent out a "Dear OSS Veteran" letter soliciting subscriptions to 
Executive Intelligence Review. They called former agents at home, asking them 
to sign Schiller Institute petitions, run for public office as beam weapons 
candidates, and donate money to save the NATO alliance. In 1984 Lieutenant 
Colonel Louis H. Atkins (U.S. Army, ret.), who had served in the CIA during the 
Korean War and was listed on the AFIO roster, was contacted at his home, 
Atkins listened politely, but when they importuned him for money and used his 



name on a list of endorsers without liis permission, lie became fed up. "I called 
the FBI," he said. 

In the early years of the Reagan administration the LaRouchians established 
direct channels into the intelligence community. Admiral Inman appreciated their 
"flow of materials" to help fill the gap left by Turner's cutbacks. LaRouche was 
allowed to brief two aides to John McMahon, Inman's successor, at CIA 
headquarters in 1983. According to court papers, an aide to Federal Emergency 
Management Agency director Louis Guiffrida frequently met with the 
LaRouchians and even came to NCLC headquarters for a day's briefing. Jeffrey 
Steinberg visited the National Security Council eight to ten times between June 
1983 and June 1984, according to his deposition in LaRouche v. NBC. Articles in 
EIR were peppered with quotes from unnamed "CIA Sovietologists" and "DIA 
analysts." 

LaRouche's science adviser. Dr. Steven Bardwell, became convinced that the 
NCLC top leadership was prostituting itself to the CIA and the Reagan 
administration. Being himself a participant in several meetings with NSC staff 
members, he wrote an internal document sharply criticizing this trend shortly 
before his defection in early 1984. "At the point, nine months ago, that Reagan 
adopted an approximation of our policy [on beam weapons], our NSA/CIA/DIA 
'connections' acquired a powerful hold over us," he complained. "We now began 
to bend our polemics, public statements, intelligence tasks, and terms of 
reference to suit our newly acquired clients." 

The capstone of the new policy was the hiring of ex-Pentagon spooks and self- 
styled CIA operatives who claimed to have special high-level sources. NCLC 
security staff reports circa 1984 contain numerous references to "the Major," a 
code name for Anthony W. ("Danny") Murdock, a former Army Special Forces 
officer who worked from 1976 to 1982 as a civilian foreign intelligence specialist 
at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Murdock provided the 
LaRouchians with frequent security advice after leaving government service. 
According to Virginia law enforcement sources, he accompanied Jeffrey 
Steinberg on fact-finding trips to Guatemala. A June 1986 internal LaRouche 
memorandum says that Murdock received $3,000 a month in consulting fees and 
loans of tens of thousands of dollars, including a $12,000 loan that month. 

In 1984 Murdock joined with Steinberg and Paul Goldstein to form a real estate 
partnership, Dan Bar Unlimited. (The "Bar" was Barney Cochran, who soon 
dropped out.) They purchased 4,500 acres of timber and farmland in Pulaski 
County, Virginia, and set up a firing range. According to Virginia authorities, 
paramilitary training for LaRouche security aides was conducted there beginning 
in 1984. A Vietnam veteran who lives nearby observed people in camouflage 
suits, their faces blackened "like for a recon assignment," training in a field. "I 
heard bursts of rapid fire, like an AR-15 on full automatic," he said. Another 
neighbor recalled frequent helicopter landings. Murdock had built a perimeter 



road around the farm and up to the top of the mountain, which was patrolled by 
jeep. The neighbors say that every Thursday night there would be a light on top 
of the mountain and a low-flying plane would come over, A 1986 LaRouchian 
memo mentioned transactions by courier totaling over $230,000 for the farm's 
expenses. The memo said these payments were being listed as "legal 
investigations," but warned this might not prove a very defensible position with 
the IRS. In 1987 court-appointed trustees seized the farm in partial payment of 
millions of dollars in fines levied on the LaRouchians because of their failure to 
comply with federal grand jury subpoenas. 

By the mid-1980s the LaRouchians had over a dozen security-type consultants 
on their payroll, but the most assiduous were three men from Reading, 
Pennsylvania, who affected knowledge of vast intrigues. One said he was a CIA 
official and used a code name. The other two were known to the LaRouchians 
under their real names but claimed to be the cutouts for mysterious high-up 
people. Their ringleader was a man almost as brilliantly devious as LaRouche- 
Roy Everett Frankhouser. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Twenty-one 
Night Riders to the Rescue 



Roy Frankhouser is a roly-poly cigar-chomping little man with a glass eye and a 
taste for loud sport jackets. For much of his adult life he has lived with his mother 
in Reading, Pennsylvania. His late stepfather was a private detective, for whom 
Roy worked in the early 1 960s. After that he usually worked as a department 
store salesman. Genial and polite, he is a difficult person not to like. He could be 
an officer of the local Rotary Club and a pillar of the community. 

But Roy turns nasty in the twinkling of an eye. He has a recorded message on 
his telephone, which he changes every week. In early 1988 the messages were 
about Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins. But Roy was feeling the pressure 
from his financial and legal difficulties. The message changed to a shrill call for 
local Aryans to join the "Reading Night Riders." The Zionists, he said, are the 
"sons of Lucifer." It's time to send them "to the rope and telephone pole." It's time 
for a "Final Solution. ..a real solution for treason," and concluding: "You can smell 
the gas, can't you?" 

Born in 1939, Roy has belonged at one time or another since his high school 
years to most of the important white supremacist groups~the United Klans of 
America, the American Nazi Party, the Minutemen, the National Renaissance 
Party, the Liberty Lobby, the White Citizens Councils, the National States Rights 
Party. For years he was the Grand Dragon of the Pennsylvania Klan. He took the 
Fifth Amendment over thirty times during a 1966 congressional investigation of 
the Klan. In 1972 he demonstrated on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue in a National 
Renaissance Party storm trooper uniform to challenge a state law against 
wearing Nazi garb in public. 

In his youth Roy participated in numerous cross burnings and street rallies and 
was arrested over two dozen times. He stockpiled guns and ammunition, and 
once ran a paramilitary training camp to prepare for the coming race war. He lost 
his eye in a 1965 bar room brawl. The American Nazi Party claimed a "Jew 
gang" did it. Roy sometimes claims it's a Bay of Pigs battle wound. 

He operates the Mountain Church of Jesus Christ in a run-down Reading 
neighborhood, and lists it as his official residence. Some folks believe the electric 
cross in front is a Klan symbol. The church is the local arm of the Mountain 
Church in Cohoctah, Michigan, a neo-gnostic Identity church whose pastor is 
Robert Miles, one of Roy's closest "racial comrades" and a LaRouche ally for 
many years. ("Mountain" stands for Mont Segur, the medieval fortress of the 
gnostic Cathars in southern France.) 



In the late 1960s some of Roy's comrades began to suspect he was an FBI 
snitch. Roy says the FBI started the rumor as part of a plot to instigate his 
assassination. But in 1 972 Roy did become an informer for the Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms Bureau's Reading office, using the code name "Ronnie." Special 
agent Edward Slamon, Roy's controller, reported to superiors that Roy had 
solemnly promised to sever "all relationships with other federal enforcement 
agencies" and work exclusively for the ATF. "This point was dwelled on and 
explored at length," Slamon wrote. "I informed Ronnie that at any time... I 
determined that he was dealing with any other agency and supplying them with 
the same information, our bargain was null and void." 

Roy told Slamon that a Black September cell in Toronto was planning attacks on 
prominent American Jews. Earlier information from Roy had checked out, and 
the ATF asked the National Security Council in the White House for approval to 
send him to Toronto. John Caulfield, the ATF's assistant director for enforcement, 
obtained the go-ahead, and Roy thus embarked on his very brief career as a 
foreign agent. 

His reports of his Toronto adventures, as reflected in Slamon's own reports to 
superiors, suggest that the Black September cell, if indeed it existed, was 
composed of the world's most indiscreet terrorists. Barely acquainted with Roy, 
they were supposedly willing to tell him everything. Roy claimed to have picked 
the brains of one cell leader while they strolled around the city "visiting museums 
and public places." Roy said the cell was planning skyjackings and kidnappings 
with the help of Quebec nationalist bomb technicians and Czech diplomats. Roy 
was supposed to recruit a bush pilot to pick up ransom money, and also was 
assigned to "keep track of all visitors from Israel to America." The ATF finally 
became suspicious. Slamon met with Roy and asked him if he would be willing to 
return to Canada and discuss his story with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 
Roy "became visibly upset and agitated," Slamon wrote, and flatly refused, 
apparently knowing that the RCMP would see through his deception. 

While working for the ATF, Roy seems to have tried to help out his friend and 
fellow Grand Dragon Bob Miles, who was facing a long prison sentence for 
masterminding the 1971 Pontiac, Michigan, school bus bombings to protest 
integration. Miles would serve six years in Marion for this crime, but at the time of 
Roy's ATF employment he was free pending the outcome of an appeal. Roy 
brought Slamon tapes of conversations with Miles and offered to set up a crony 
of Miles for a "controlled buy" of stolen explosives. Although Roy's maneuverings 
during this period are extremely murky, the best bet is that he was fishing for 
information about the Miles case and trying to compromise the feds so Miles 
could charge federal misconduct. Miles himself certainly believes this. He told 
journalist Martin Lee in 1986 that Roy "never really threw any right-wingers to the 
wolves" and that Roy was beaten up by ATF agents in reprisal. Roy says that he 
was indeed a double agent for the racialist cause, and that he was beaten by a 
motorcycle gang in Berks County Prison at ATF instigation. 



Roy landed in prison because, after tine ATF rejected liis plan for a controlled 
buy, he went ahead on his own with a real buy. In February 1974 he was 
arrested and charged with "aiding and abetting" the transportation of 240 pounds 
of stolen explosives to Michigan. At this point, the ATF washed its hands of Roy. 
His bail was set at $50,000, and he spent several months in prison before he 
could raise the money. 

Finally out on bail and awaiting trial, Roy encountered members of the Reading 
NCLC as they sold New Solidarity. They had only just begun their swing to the 
right, and interaction was difficult at first. But Roy knew how to ingratiate himself 
with leftists from his experience infiltrating Socialist Workers Party meetings in 
New York in the early 1960s. (He claims he first met LaRouche then, but 
LaRouche denies it.) Roy was helped in approaching the NCLC by neo-Nazi 
occultist Ken Duggan, who introduced him to security staffer Scott Thompson in 
New York. 

Regarding his indictment, Roy told the LaRouchians he was an honest, 
dedicated government agent who had risked his life in the war on gunrunners, 
drug traffickers, and terrorists. He was being "hung out to dry" by the intelligence 
community because he knew too much about local cover-ups and corruption. 
The LaRouchians put him through an intensive grilling, and he thoroughly 
convinced them. They issued broadsides in his defense and sponsored a well- 
attended press conference at which he made numerous detailed allegations 
about unlawful activities by federal agents in the Reading area {for instance, 
directing him to commit burglaries and secretly tape conversations between the 
Pontiac defendants and their attorney). "My partner in crime was Uncle Sam," he 
said. 

In a press statement aimed more at the NCLC than at the media, Roy claimed 
that while working for the ATF he had really been working for the CIA. He had 
been a CIA agent ever since the Bay of Pigs. He had perused a top secret White 
House Committee of 40 report. He had been drugged and brainwashed in Berks 
County Prison. Roy's account of his brainwashing was remarkably similar to 
LaRouche's account the previous year of Chris White's alleged ordeal: "strapped 
in a medical chair," "a sensation of receding into a tunnel," "an overwhelming 
sense of drowning," a lingering "disassociation reaction." 

At Roy's trial, retired agent Slamon testified for three days. His account of the 
NSC-approved Toronto caper stimulated press attention, and Roy was glad to 
oblige with more details. The upshot was a deal whereby he pleaded guilty to 
trafficking in explosives and was given five years' probation, although he had 
originally faced a possible fifty-one years in prison. A Reading police official told 
me years later that he believed the intelligence community had intervened. 

Roy's maneuverings during the trial apparently made a deep impression on the 
LaRouchians. He had shown that if you can get government agents to meet with 



you and give you money, then no matter what you do later, you can tell the court 
you were doing it for the feds. And if you happen to have observed any 
improprieties while working for the feds, you can use that for leverage. The 
LaRouchians would use similar tactics in Boston thirteen years later. 

After the trial, Roy began to spend more and more time with the "comrades," as 
he called the LaRouchians, He exchanged information with NCLC security chiefs 
Jeffrey Steinberg and Paul Goldstein almost daily on the phone. He traveled to 
New York at NCLC expense on security assignments. While staying at the 
homes of Jewish members he was the perfect gentleman, never displaying any 
bigotry. For Roy, it was just one more manipulative relationship--to get money out 
of the LaRouchians and to persuade them to take political stances that would 
serve the fight against the pro-Zionist establishment. 

Roy chiefly fascinated the LaRouchians because of his alleged intelligence 
community ties. When they indicated that they too wanted to hobnob with secret 
agents, he set about facilitating it to the mutual advantage of himself and various 
third parties. It was Roy who first suggested that the LaRouchians should link up 
with Mitch WerBell. Claiming to have worked with WerBell on CIA assignments, 
Roy helped them compile a detailed dossier on him. At the time WerBell was in 
trouble with the ATF and strapped for cash. His son, Mitch IV, had been arrested 
on charges of trying to illegally sell machine guns to an undercover agent. 
Although the charges against Mitch IV were dropped, the ATF forced WerBell out 
of the armaments business because of improprieties in his record keeping. An 
NCLC dossier suggested that the Rockefeller family and Interpol were behind 
this: "Roy believes that if we can pin down how the operation is being run against 
WerBell there is a possibility. ..he can be turned." 

Months passed, yet no deal between LaRouche and WerBell was finalized, and it 
was time to prime the pump. When LaRouche went to Wiesbaden in the summer 
of 1977, Roy sent a warning from "Mister Ed" (an alleged mysterious personage 
whom Roy said was linked to the highest levels of the CIA) that LaRouche might 
be in danger from terrorists. In previous months there had been several highly 
publicized terrorist assassinations and kidnappings in West Germany. On July 31 
a band of anarchists linked to the Baader-Meinhof gang gunned down Jurgen 
Ponto, a banker much admired by LaRouche. Shortly before 5 A.M. on August 1 , 
LaRouche received a transatlantic phone call from Roy, passing on an 
emergency message from Mister Ed: A hit list had been found in a terrorist safe 
house, and LaRouche's name supposedly was included. LaRouche panicked. In 
a news release later that day he announced the threat to his life. He did not 
specify the source, merely saying that it was "relayed. ..from high-level sources of 
the best qualifications." LaRouche immediately agreed to hire WerBell as his 
security adviser. 

Roy's role as the cutout for Mister Ed became the centerpiece of his dealing with 
the LaRouchians. Mister Ed supposedly had asked him to open the channel 



because LaRouche's knowledge of terrorism had impressed many important 
people, including George Bush. (Roy knew the LaRouchians had called Bush's 
home in an attempt to brief him on terrorism.) Roy said that Mister Ed would be 
requesting reports from LaRouche on various questions which would be 
transmitted to the highest levels of the CIA and the White House. Roy was 
careful not to neglect Steinberg and Goldstein, He said Mister Ed had assigned 
them the code names "Purple Haze" and "Honeywell." 

Over a seven-year period Roy delivered to the LaRouchians dozens of "E to L" 
(Ed to LaRouche) memos. A typical memo included advice that LaRouche should 
try to work with Colonel Gaddafi, who supposedly was getting a raw deal from 
Zionist elements in the U.S. government and thus was being driven, against his 
will, into the Soviet camp. Roy also transmitted numerous verbal messages. 
LaRouche prepared the intelligence evaluations as requested, and his followers 
carried out the propaganda "assignments" suggested by Mister Ed. These 
assignments were often anti-Zionist, as when Roy told the LaRouchians that 
Mister Ed wanted them to spread the word that Israel had the A-bomb and was 
the main threat to world peace. Someone claiming to be Mister Ed also began to 
communicate directly with Paul Goldstein. Former NCLC members recall him 
rushing out of the office on West Fifty-eighth Street in Manhattan to answer the 
celestial ring at a street pay phone. 

The identity of Mister Ed became a subject of endless speculation. Defectors 
from the security staff stated in a report prepared in 1979 for The New York 
Times that they believed he was former CIA deputy director E. Henry Knoche, 
whose 1977 firing by Admiral Turner had been denounced by LaRouche. The 
LaRouche leadership also claimed Knoche was Mister Ed in 1987 court 
documents. Knoche in a 1988 telephone interview denied ever meeting Roy or 
LaRouche or anyone that he was aware had any connection to them. "If I thought 
I was ever duped into dealing with those people I'd commit hara-kiri on the front 
porch," he said. Referring to LaRouche's trial, he added: "I hope they nail him." 

Among journalists. Mister Ed became one of those unsolved puzzles-something 
like the tramps on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Lou Wolf, editor of Covert Action 
magazine, thought Mister Ed was "someone in Angleton's shop." Kevin Coogan 
argued that it was CIA renegade Ed Wilson, who was known in Libya as Mister 
Ed and held political views remarkably similar to those expressed in some of the 
E to L memos. Detroit journalist Russ Bellant thought it might have been one of 
Wilson's former superiors. In the mid-1980s the LaRouchians mocked such 
speculation with an advertisement in their publications for "Mr. Ed's Elephant 
Farm"~a Pennsylvania tourist trap-with a drawing of a charging elephant, 
presumably a rogue. 

Some cynics theorized that Mister Ed was simply Roy. But the E to L memos, 
although anti-Zionist and extremely right-wing, displayed a conceptual grasp of 
international politics beyond anything Roy would have written on his own. This 



anomaly was explained, at least in part, by former associates of Roy who 
testified in court that the memos had been plagiarized from defense and foreign 
policy journals. Nevertheless, Roy claims there were a number of people-fifteen 
of them--who used the Mister Ed channel. Although Roy's word alone is dubious 
evidence, it makes sense that someone in the zany world of ex-spooks, contract 
spooks, and private spooks would have linked up with Roy (who did have 
contacts in that milieu) to milk the LaRouchians. After all, here was a multimillion- 
dollar international intelligence and propaganda network just begging to be used 
by anyone claiming to be from the CIA. In their eagerness to be accepted in the 
spy world, the LaRouchians would prepare massive dossiers at the drop of a hat, 
and publish the most outrageous disinformation and slander in EIR~as long as 
they believed the request was coming from "down the way" (i.e., from Langley). 
Apparently word of this circulated, and various people on the far right decided to 
use the channel to unleash the LaRouchians on personal or political enemies~or 
simply to get a free dossier. There was little risk of exposure or embarrassment. 
Roy would take care of all direct dealings with the LaRouchians. And he himself 
had such a bizarre history that no one would believe him if he decided to expose 
the operation. 

For years Roy's personal prestige with the LaRouchians was tied to his role as 
Mister Ed's messenger boy. If the LaRouchians wanted to talk directly with a real 
spook, they went to someone like WerBell. But after WerBell's health declined, 
Roy had his chance to emerge as a full-fledged security guru. He did not 
accomplish this overnight. In 1982, when LaRouche was living in a Manhattan 
town house on Sutton Place, Roy was brought in merely to provide backup 
security under his code name "Clay." Phil Perlonga, a retired New York City 
police officer, was working at the time for Metro Security, a professional firm 
hired by LaRouche. Perlonga recalled how Roy gave the Metro men KKK belt 
buckles as gifts. But Perlonga became annoyed when Roy tried to interfere in his 
work. Roy once took charge of whisking Lyn and Helga LaRouche out of a 
meeting. "He ran them into a locked door," Perlonga said. 

Roy needed a sidekick with the physical presence and at least part of the 
expertise he lacked. He rekindled his acquaintance with Lee Pick, a Reading 
security guard who had been active on the far right. Pick had served in the 
Marines, mostly as an MP in California. When approached by Roy, he was 
unemployed and had a wife and children to support. He agreed to go to work for 
LaRouche as Roy's assistant, and Roy presented him to the security staff as an 
experienced operative. 

For Pick it was a chance to play James Bond for $500 a week. He drove 
LaRouche's armored Pontiac Bonneville limousine, accompanied him to a 
meeting at CIA headquarters, and became the object of amorous advances from 
one of Helga's German Amazons. He and Roy cadged a free trip to Europe on 
the Queen Elizabeth II to overhaul LaRouche's security in Wiesbaden. Traveling 
on to Rome, they told the LaRouchians they would meet with the CIA station 



chief to arrange security for a LaRouclie conference. "Tine IVIediterranean climate 
offered us seven days of springlike weather which added great comfort to our 
tour," reported an unsigned article in Dragonfire, a rightist newsletter published 
by Pick. 

When asked about Roy in a 1984 deposition, LaRouche described him as "an 
expert in security matters. ..he knows certain nasty people by sight or 
reputation...." LaRouche praised Roy's ability to keep his "pair of eyes" alert (so 
much for LaRouche's own powers of observation) and to "detect nasties by their 
wiggle." Roy's standing became even higher with the security staff. Steinberg 
and Goldstein marveled at his never-ending revelations from high-level sources 
inside the FBI, the CIA, the New York Police Department, and NBC-TV. 

There was a good reason for Roy's success as a secret agent: He was making 
up most of it. "It was bullshit," Pick said. "Roy would make up a source A, then a 
source B, C and D. I'd be sitting right beside him while he did it." Internal reports 
from LaRouche's security staff in 1984 confirmed Pick's story. They quote Roy as 
providing information from an alleged source inside NBC during its preparation of 
a Pirst Camera report on LaRouche. The allegations pertain to incidents that the 
show's producer, Patricia Lynch, says never took place. 

The LaRouchians asked Roy and Pick to provide them with a direct CIA channel 
in Reading. The two complied by introducing Paul Goldstein to "Nat" at a 
Reading motel. "Nat," a.k.a. "Nat Regnew," a.k.a. "Mister Nat," a.k.a. "N," was 
supposed to be Roy's control officer, a CIA covert operations specialist holding 
GS-1 5 or GS-1 6 rank. After Nat met with LaRouche, a flow of "N to L" memos 
began. Alas, Nat was just a neighbor of Roy's, actually named Monroe Wenger, 
who worked on an Army Corps of Engineers dredging barge. When the 
LaRouchians found this out years later, they naturally said the barge was a spy 
ship. 

Meanwhile Roy and Pick began to supplement these memos and the E to L 
memos with weekly "COMSTA-C" reports from an alleged high official, much 
higher than Nat, called "the Source." Whatever the truth regarding Mister Ed, the 
provenance of the Source is known: Roy dictated the reports to Pick, making 
them up as he went along. Pick then took them to a local copy center in Reading 
to be typed. 

Some high-level NCLC members, although not aware of the full depths of the 
deception, sensed that something was wrong, not just with Roy but also with 
Murdock and all the other security consultants. Steven Bardwell noted in his pre- 
resignation letter that the NCLC's "susceptibility to any information presented in 
clandestine form through a covert (or apparently covert) source is a serious 
vulnerability. The amount of garbage we have retailed because it came from 
'down the way' is quite remarkable." But this was a minority view. Most of the 



leadership believed that LaRouche had deep influence at Langley and that the 
Source was someone incredibly powerful. 

Because they believed this, they decided they must be invulnerable to 
prosecution. Their real if limited success in gaining meetings with CIA and NSC 
officials helped to feed this view, but it also was stimulated by phony reports from 
consultants, such as the following from early 1984: "LaRouche['s] prestige [is] 
highest ever on economy and terrorism. White House collective view is we can 
no longer ignore LaRouche....LaRouche is now magnet for anti-Kissinger forces." 
In addition, the COMSTA-C reports provided apparent evidence, week after 
week, that LaRouche had friends and sympathizers in the highest places. Only a 
few NCLC leaders ever viewed the COMSTA-C reports, but the general belief 
that LaRouche had powerful allies trickled down to the rank and file. In 1984 the 
NCLC's fund-raising methods became wildly reckless, and many fund raisers and 
security staffers seemed to have no fear of the law. They ran the risk of 
indictment because they believed there was no risk. 

Pick realized things were getting out of hand in the summer of 1984, when 
Goldstein approached him and Roy with a deadly proposition. As Pick later 
described it to NBC Nightly News, Goldstein's idea was "that we. ..go along with 
him and kill or assassinate Henry Kissinger." According to Pick, Goldstein said he 
knew where Kissinger parked his car in an underground garage, and that it would 
be "a relatively easy thing for us to do, to make a bomb, and strap it to his car." 

Although Goldstein was probably just trying to impress them, the proposal 
unnerved Pick, and it apparently also worried Roy. Shortly afterward, I received a 
series of phone calls from Roy, posing as "Special Agent Phillips" of an unnamed 
federal agency. The calls were intended to interest me in investigating Goldstein. 
Roy did not mention the plot against Kissinger, but he did say Goldstein was a 
menace who must be stopped. He said his own hands "were tied," but if I would 
write an article on Goldstein or communicate Phillips's information to the federal 
prosecutor's office in Boston, then it could help to avert serious criminal acts. 

In the fall of 1 984 a federal grand jury was convened in Boston to probe 
allegations of LaRouchian credit-card fraud. LaRouche ordered Roy and Pick to 
go to Boston and conduct a counterinvestigation. Instead, they went to a Star 
Trek convention in Scranton, although Roy called the security office and warned 
them there were "feds all over" in Boston. Jeffrey and Michelle Steinberg then 
asked Roy and Pick to contact E. Henry Knoche (whom they believed to be 
Mister Ed) and get him to "quash" or "fix" the investigation. How this was to be 
done, the Steinbergs weren't clear. But they felt the "cookie factory" (the CIA) 
owed them for their loyal services through the years. Pick's response was that if 
the CIA wouldn't go to the wall for Richard Nixon, it was unlikely to do so for 
LaRouche. Still the security staff believed the Boston investigation was an 
isolated and easily containable probe conducted by Kissinger-influenced PBI 
chumps. According to Pederal authorities, the Steinbergs and other security 



staffers set about destroying records and arranging for NCLC members wlio 
miglit be subpoenaed to move to Europe--to liide out, as IVIiclielle put it, "wliere 
tine sun doesn't sliine." 

Roy encouraged tliese efforts to obstruct tine grand jury's work. In a memo to 
LaRouclie lie commented on tine fact tliat "paper burns at 451 degrees 
Falirenlieit." Pick wanted no part of tliis, and stopped working witli Roy. Briefly he 
continued to do bodyguard work for LaRouche under the auspices of a New York 
private detective agency, but he still felt uneasy. He met with NBC's Patricia 
Lynch and then appeared on NBC Nightly News with the car-bomb story. As the 
Boston investigation heated up, the feds began to take his allegations seriously, 
and he became a key witness. 

Meanwhile the LaRouchians blithely continued with their credit card and loan 
schemes. They believed Roy's assurances of support from "down the way," the 
cumulative faith built up by a decade of transmissions from Mister Ed and the 
Source. When almost four hundred federal agents and state and local police 
officers swooped down on the NCLC's Leesburg headquarters in October 1986, 
the LaRouchians could blame it in no small part on the misleading advice of their 
Ku Klux Klan scout. 

Roy was indicted for obstructing justice, along with several of LaRouche's 
security honchos. When I met him at a hotel near La Guardia Airport several 
months later, he was scared, and with good reason. He was already a convicted 
felon. He had avoided a prison sentence on his first conviction, but this time he'd 
end up with the Black Muslims and Pive Percenters. Although he had sung "like a 
canary" (according to the PBI) the day after his arrest, the feds were no longer 
interested in cutting a deal. Roy had jerked them around, first promising to testify 
and then playing coy and claiming the feds had "tortured" him. The LaRouchians 
no longer trusted him, and wouldn't help with his legal expenses. 

Roy told me that LaRouche had ruined his life, and that his mother would lose 
her home. Anything illegal that happened was the LaRouchians' fault, not his. 
He'd never had anything to do with defrauding any old ladies. Indeed, the 
LaRouchians had ripped off his mother and his uncle for thousands of dollars 
behind his back. Pick, Wenger, and the Major meanwhile had all double-crossed 
him. The remark about 451 degrees Pahrenheit had merely been a literary 
reference to the Ray Bradbury novel; Pick had misinterpreted it because he was 
illiterate and stupid. Roy plucked out his glass eye, wiped it on his shirt, held it up 
to the light, and regarded it with his good eye, like Hamlet gazing upon the skull 
of Yorick. "Life is more than bullet holes," he said. In December 1986 he went on 
trial in Boston federal court. After hearing prosecution witnesses Pick, Wenger, 
Charles Tate, and others, the jury found Roy guilty of obstruction of justice. He 
was fined $50,000 and sentenced to three years in prison. 



CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 

Chapter Twenty-two 

Join the Spooks and Stay Out of Jail 

It would be all too easy to say that Frankhouser's manipulation of the 
LaRouchians proves them to be a band of naive kooks. Undeniably, top NCLC 
security staffers believed Frankhouser's tall tales. But the idea that LaRouche 
himself completely shared his followers' gullibility ignores his ability to operate on 
both rational and irrational levels at once. Again and again, he has given vent to 
paranoia and delusions of grandeur, only to end up achieving useful pragmatic 
results from such behavior. He attacked Kissinger in an apparently demented 
way, but reaped the reward of sympathy on the ultraright, greater fanaticism 
among his followers, and a fearsome reputation among liberals. He accused a 
vast range of enemies of plotting to assassinate him during the Chris White affair, 
but also used the episode to consolidate his control of the NCLC. 

Such behavior is not unlike that of many totalitarian leaders in whom madness 
and cunning have mingled inextricably. The seemingly paranoid Stalin accepted 
as truth the preposterous stories of his secret police about spies and saboteurs, 
but slyly used these concoctions to strengthen his power. It is easier to see this 
in a Stalin or Hitler, because they operated on a grand scale whereas LaRouche 
has been confined to a small stage. 

LaRouche is quite aware of this type of slyness. In two essays on Soviet history 
written in the mid-1970s, he discussed Stalin's "hysterical" and "propitiatory" 
beliefs--his "nonsense-theses"--and how they were basically an "expediency" that 
enabled Stalin to handle his own neuroses while getting other people to do his 
bidding. Stalin's incessant discovery of plots was a matter of "fantastic lying"; it 
worked because of the "wishful credulousness" of the Communist rank and file. 
At certain moments, Stalin "might have reached the point of almost believing his 
own rhetoric," but remained in touch with the "contrary knowledge" within himself 
(i.e., the knowledge that his rhetoric was ultimately just a manipulative device). 
LaRouche argued (in effect) that Stalin's craziness served his cunning in the 
interests of consolidating his power. In his own behavior, LaRouche carried out a 
refined version of the formula: Craziness serves cunning in the interests of 
staying out of legal trouble if you're too weak to seize power. 

All this is well exemplified in his relationship with Frankhouser. From the very 
beginning in 1976-77, there were pragmatic reasons for LaRouche to accept and 
promote Frankhouser's "fantastic lying," whether or not he believed it. The NCLC 
had begun its first wave of white-collar scams: kiting checks, welching on loans, 
taking advantage of wire-transfer errors in order to rip off banks, filing fraudulent 



matching-funds applications witli tine Federal Election Commission. This was 
low-level stuff, but it was more than enough to make anyone nervous who had 
never before engaged in illicit activity. LaRouche began to speculate at that point 
on how criminals gain immunity from prosecution. The key, he suggested in mid- 
1977, was to become useful to the CIA. His apparent model was Mitch WerBell: 
An early 1977 NCLC internal report on WerBell showed that the LaRouchians 
firmly believed the CIA and other intelligence agencies had helped him out of 
legal difficulties on several occasions. 

But LaRouche believed the successful use of this tactic hinged on the 
relationship of forces within the CIA or another protecting agency. He taught that 
the CIA was divided into opposing factions. The pro-"humanist" faction might 
protect a WerBell or a LaRouche, but what if the anti-"humanist" faction were in 
charge? LaRouche had the example of WerBell's 1975 indictment, when the 
Company didn't look after him. (We will examine this case later.) He also had the 
example of Frankhouser's indictment for transporting stolen explosives while 
working for the ATF. Both Mitch and Roy, and Bob Miles too, had been "hung out 
to dry" by antihumanist spooks (so the LaRouchians argued). What do you do 
when the antihumanists are out to get you? Or when the charges are so serious 
that even your allies can't intercede for you? 

The answer is to adopt the "national-security defense" (also known as the "CIA 
defense"). Whatever you're charged with, blame it on the CIA or the White 
House. Say you thought you were following secret orders from high up and/or 
that you were framed because you knew too much about embarrassing 
operations. If you can prove you've ever been involved with the CIA, many 
people will believe the rest of your story. Possibly even the jury will go for it. 
LaRouche apparently figured this tactic had worked for WerBell in his smuggling 
trial (backed up by the fortuitous death of the government's key witness) and that 
it may have helped Frankhouser avoid a prison sentence in the stolen-dynamite 
trial. 

But both WerBell and Frankhouser could establish that they had, indeed, worked 
for the intelligence or law enforcement community in some fashion. LaRouche 
built a comparable record for himself. First, he offered the CIA his services and 
did everything he could to be useful (so they would want to protect him). Second, 
he compiled a detailed record of dealings with presumed agents. If he had to go 
into court, he could use this record to establish that whatever he did was done 
under CIA orders, at arm's length if not directly. 

For the purpose of the CIA defense, it is not altogether necessary that one's 
dealings be directly with the CIA (since the agency won't reveal the identity of its 
agents anyway). The important thing is simply what a jury will believe. Thus, if 
one doesn't have a connection with real agents, one might as well use ex-agents, 
suspected agents, or even make-believe agents whom one can then staunchly 



maintain are real agents. Hence, tine large number of spookish consultants, 
including Frankhouser, that LaRouche surrounded himself with. 

Frankhouser and Fick both tell a revealing story about this. They would go to the 
Leesburg mansion to brief LaRouche on the latest scoop from the Source, but he 
never seemed interested. "He really didn't want to listen, he just wanted a captive 
audience," Frankhouser said. "Five minutes into the briefing, he'd cut us off and 
change the subject, doing most of the talking himself. He'd go into these amazing 
monologues, for hours, talking about a . . . lost civilization." Apparently LaRouche 
knew on some level that the reports were worthless, but went through the 
motions of meeting with Frankhouser and Fick anyway to build his record for his 
future CIA defense. (In 1 987-88 his lawyers would tell the court in Boston that the 
LaRouche organization sincerely believed Frankhouser and Fick worked for the 
CIA.) Meanwhile, LaRouche would acquiesce in Roy's deceiving of his own 
Security staffers, since they would work twice as hard if they thought they were 
involved in deep operations with real cutouts and real spooks. In other words, 
while Roy thought he was scamming LaRouche, it appears that the NCLC 
chairman had actually figured out a way to get his money's worth out of Roy--by 
using him to keep the Security staff brainwashed. 

Documents filed by LaRouche's attorneys prior to his 1988 Boston criminal trial 
shed much light on his multileveled approach to using alleged CIA connections to 
stay out of jail. First, they reveal that in early 1 982 he was definitely thinking in 
terms of gaining outright immunity via CIA intervention. At the time he had 
special reasons for anxiety. Several civil fraud suits were pending, the Federal 
Election Commission was probing his campaign finances, and a New York 
bankruptcy court judge had ordered an investigation of the NCLC's alleged 
looting of a computer software firm. Furthermore, the Detroit NCLC, including 
several people with detailed knowledge of the NCLC's ties to organized crime, 
had resigned en masse. Frankhouser suddenly popped up with a proposal from 
Mister Ed: In return for LaRouche's not exposing an alleged CIA involvement in 
the Detroit defections, LaRouche and his loyalists would be given immunity from 
federal prosecution for any events occurring prior to January 1982. Their 
immunity status supposedly would be worked out personally between the CIA 
director and the Attorney General! 

Doubtless this plan was a hoax, but it suggests that Frankhouser and/or Mister 
Ed had picked up on LaRouche's earlier writings on the CIA/immunity question. 
As to the request that LaRouche shut his mouth about Detroit, this had a real 
basis. He was engaging at the time in indiscreet talk about the NCLC's 
Teamster/racketeer connections and an alleged joint venture in the financial 
printing industry. Many people would have wanted to use the "Mister Ed" channel 
to quash such talk (for instance. Bob Miles, who knew many Michigan Teamsters 
from the days when he handled their insurance). The suggestion that LaRouche 
keep quiet about CIA involvement in Detroit can therefore be read as a reference 
to mob involvement. 



In the early 1980s, LaRouche appeared to have built a strong first line of defense 
by making himself genuinely useful to the intelligence community and the 
Reagan administration. He had personally met with Inman and several NSC 
officials. Yet he was not satisfied. In 1983 he requested a meeting at Langley 
with Inman's successor, John McMahon. Granted a half hour with two of 
McMahon's aides, he arrived like a head of state with Helga and an entourage of 
assistants and bodyguards. According to a CIA report on the meeting filed in 
Boston federal court, he had promised to reveal information on "drug trafficking, 
gunrunning, and terrorism," But instead of delivering the information promised, 
LaRouche came bearing a strange proposal for a mutually beneficial "continuing 
relationship" (i.e., regular meetings with no cutouts) between his organization and 
the CIA. He boasted of his good sources in the French presidential palace and 
among Spain's "old crowd." The CIA official (name redacted) who wrote the 
report was not impressed. 

What was really going on here? LaRouche had a dozen channels for his 
"continuing relationship" without embarrassing either the CIA or his own 
followers. They had kept up contact with Inman after he left the CIA, and WerBell 
was still friendly. Why should LaRouche show up on Langley's doorstep begging 
for what was not necessary and, if obtained, would only undermine his value in 
the realm of arm's-length intelligence operations? One could say it was his vanity 
or his hunger for life in the Inner Ring, but a more tangible motive may also have 
been involved. At the time, his organization was embarking on risky new fund- 
raising practices, such as the nationwide solicitation of allegedly fraudulent loans 
from senior citizens. Being indirectly useful to the CIA might not be enough to 
prevent indictments. The LaRouchians needed a record of direct dealings with 
the agency that would allow them to claim in court that they were a genuine 
"proprietary" following the orders not just of a cutout but also of high-ranking 
agency officials. More important, they needed leverage to force the CIA to protect 
them. What better weapon than the ability to hold a press conference at any time 
and "prove" the CIA was behind them? LaRouche believed this could create 
major problems for the CIA and within the executive branch generally. In his 
1987 review of Bob Woodward's Veil, LaRouche said that if Casey had ever met 
with him and knowledge of the meeting had leaked out, the result would have 
been a "major political explosion." The request he delivered to McMahon's aides 
apparently was an attempt to plant just such a bomb. 

How could LaRouche believe in 1983 that the CIA would fall into his trap? First, 
he was not as controversial then as before or since. Almost four years had 
passed since any major media had exposed him. His publications had become 
more artful in masking the NCLC's anti-Semitism, and Reagan administration 
officials who met with NCLC members in 1982-83 didn't seem worried about any 
fallout. Second, LaRouche had the example of Admiral Inman, who had 
compromised himself by agreeing to a seemingly unnecessary meeting with 
LaRouche while still CIA deputy director. Third, LaRouche knew that although 
some CIA officials might consider him embarrassingly extreme, several of his 



followers were respected for their intelligence analyses. (For instance, one of 
them gained consulting work from a prestigious Washington risk-analysis firm 
after defecting.) Fourth, the NCLC indeed had international sources such as 
LaRouche alluded to in the Langley meeting: He proved his boast about high- 
level French contacts by publishing a certain purloined letter a few months later. 
Given these factors, it was not beyond the realm of possibility for the CIA to 
decide to give LaRouche regular meetings as an easy concession to keep the 
flow of information coming. 

The CIA did not accept LaRouche's proposal, being either too smart or too 
careful. But if the CIA had agreed to give LaRouche regular meetings or some 
kind of quasi-proprietary status, the consequences would have been interesting 
indeed. He would have had a much stronger "CIA defense" in his 1988 trial, and 
he also could have exerted real pressure on the CIA to rescue him prior to the 
indictments. For instance, he could have threatened to create havoc regarding 
the February 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister and longtime 
LaRouchian smear target Olof Palme. Shortly after the Palme hit, Swedish police 
arrested a suspect who was identified as a LaRouche follower (although 
LaRouche denied it). Lacking sufficient evidence to indict this suspect, the 
Swedish authorities embarked on a wide-ranging probe of possible LaRouchian 
involvement. (For at least two years, the LaRouchians remained under 
investigation, although in December 1988 a suspect totally unrelated to them was 
arrested.) If LaRouche had gained his "continuing" CIA relationship, he would 
have been in a position to bring automatic suspicion on the CIA for involvement 
in Palme's death. False as the impression might have been, anti-American and 
pro-nuclear disarmament forces in Western Europe could have used it. Although 
LaRouche's followers claim to be pro-NATO, they would have justified the leftist 
propaganda bonanza as being necessary to save LaRouche, who in their view is 
more important to NATO than a bunch of missiles anyway. 

Much of the above is hypothetical (a hypothesis of the higher hypothesis, as 
LaRouche would say). But it is revealing to look at what happened when the 
Boston indictments came down. First, the LaRouchians retained Washington 
attorney Bernard Fensterwald who had previously represented Ed (the CIA made 
me do it) Wilson, James Earl (the FBI made me do it) Ray, James (Nixon made 
me do it) McCord, Mitch (the DEA made me do it) WerBell, as well as the former 
employees of Task Force 157, a kind of predecessor to the NCLC in the parallel- 
CIA game. The LaRouchians then began to put together their "CIA defense" in 
detail. They couldn't directly prove they were acting under CIA control, but they 
could present a circumstantial case by simply describing their wide dealings with 
all kinds of people in, around, and on the fringes of the intelligence community, 
(They also could lay out dozens of conflicting conspiracy theories to confuse the 
jury and the press, with each of these theories the pretext for one or more of the 
scores of delaying motions filed by their virtual army of defense attorneys.) 



A sanitized form of LaRouclie's CIA defense was filed with the court "under seal" 
(pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act) by Fensterwald's law 
partner, Daniel S. Alcorn. Although full of details about the antics of Frankhouser 
and Pick, the twenty-six-page report curiously neglected to mention Mitch 
WerBell, Admiral Inman, James Angleton, Ray Cline, Paul Corbin, Danny 
Murdock, Barney Cochran, Walt Mackem, Tom Miner, Lucien Conein, or 
numerous other interesting contacts. Nor did it mention any of the alleged 
meetings of LaRouche underlings with CIA officials that they had boasted about 
to their NSC contacts. 

Loudoun Times-Mirror reporter Bryan Chitwood thinks that LaRouche was doing 
a limited hangout. To use Eric Ambler's terminology, he was using his play 
material and signaling that if he didn't get relief fast he'd lay out something a bit 
heavier. Indeed, the report listed certain more sensitive matters that might be 
"raised during the course of Boston litigation" relating to "direct channels" 
between the CIA and the LaRouchians. What was briefly described appeared to 
be halfway between play material and reality. A bluff? Among the revelations 
promised was a detailed account of Jeffrey Steinberg's dealings with the 
Guatemalan Army and his alleged official debriefings by "CIA, Department of 
Defense, Drug Enforcement Administration, Joint Special Operations Command, 
Fort Bragg, N.C., and an official of the Vice President's National Narcotics Border 
Interdiction Service." Also promised was the history of the NCLC's alleged 
dealings with Colonel Frank Salcedo, an official at the time with the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. Since FEMA, headed in the early 1980s by 
right-wing cronies of Ed Meese, already was known for its contingency plans for 
a martial-law America in event of nuclear attack, this promised to be fun indeed. 
The LaRouche legal brief said that the defendants had presented FEMA with a 
"series of proposals for the establishment under FEMA of a special government 
intelligence organization at the direct service of the President," apparently a kind 
of Meesean precursor of Oliver North's Project Democracy. Next, the 
LaRouchians promised to tell the full story of their relationship with the National 
Security Council and of how Judge Clark had supposedly been provided with 
"written reports and paraphrase transcripts" of LaRouchian meetings with Soviet 
officials "as per guidelines from 'E'" (Mister Ed). 

The under-seal document was sent to the CIA and FBI, which both approved its 
release (not surprising, considering that the LaRouchians had precensored it 
themselves). The Justice Department, not wanting to give even the appearance 
of credibility to LaRouche's national security defense, made copies and passed 
them out to reporters under the eyes of stunned LaRouchians. 

But this was by no means the end of the defendants' obfuscation. They knew that 
the NCLC's dealings with the intelligence community had left a paper trail and 
that some people in government were intensely suspicious of them. All they had 
to do was use subpoenas and the Freedom of Information Act to uncover 
incidents in which various officials had suggested that they be investigated. 



Indeed, they had been collecting FOIA documents for years, such as Henry 
Kissinger's letters to the FBI when NCLC members were harassing him. They 
could weave such items into a pastiche to "prove" a vast government conspiracy 
against them. LaRouche, like Roy in 1975, would emerge as an Agent Hung Out 
to Dry. Naturally they went after the documents in Oliver North's safe. Since they 
had begun exposing Irangate six months before anyone else, it was reasonable 
to assume North would have taken at least a passing interest in them. Sure 
enough, a memo from General Richard Secord to North was found: "Lewis has 
met with FBI and other agency reps. . . .Our man here claims Lewis has collected 
info against LaRouche." Lewis, it turned out, was Fred Lewis, a former Army 
sergeant major who had served in a Delta Force counter-intelligence unit in the 
late 1970s and whose resume said that he was "skilled in special sensitive low 
visibility operations." 

Just what any of this had to do with alleged credit-card fraud at Boston airports 
was unclear, but it helped the LaRouchians drag out the trial and embarrass the 
prosecutors. When the defense attorneys demanded all CIA and FBI documents 
relevant to the case, the agencies were naturally reluctant to turn over materials 
that might compromise their security or simply set a dangerous precedent for 
future discovery motions in other cases. Thus they turned over some documents, 
withheld others, and simply failed to identify others because of the vast number 
of files that had to be searched. (Any half-clever defense attorney could have 
predicted this.) The prosecution had little choice but to accept the FBI's and CIA's 
solid assurances that they had fully complied with the discovery motions. 
Meanwhile the LaRouchians used the FOIA and various forms of snooping to 
turn up more documents (for instance, the one from North's safe). This created 
the appearance that the U.S. Attorney's office was involved in a cover-up. 
Relations between the FBI and the prosecutors became tense, with the 
LaRouchians demanding more documents and the FBI wanting to withhold one 
document even at the cost of jeopardizing the entire trial. (Strangely, the contents 
of this document were almost certainly innocuous.) The chief prosecutor, John 
Markham, asked to withdraw from the case during this altercation but later 
relented. The trial was held up for weeks while a search was conducted for more 
and more documents. The LaRouchians wanted millions of documents searched. 
Some of the press, smelling CIA blood, was verging on sympathy for LaRouche, 
and articles about the trial focused on North rather than credit-card fraud. 

By this point the trial had dragged on for five months, and promised to continue 
for at least six more. Several jurors complained of grievous hardship, and Judge 
Keeton declared a mistrial. The Boston Globe subsequently quoted three jurors 
as saying they would have voted for acquittal, based on the government's 
withholding of evidence. (In a memorandum and order the following August, 
Judge Keeton delivered what in effect was a stinging rebuke to the Reagan 
administration regarding the disclosure problem. The prosecutors, he said, had 
been "limited in their ability to fulfill [their disclosure] responsibility by lack of 



adequate support and assistance both within and beyond the United States 
Attorney's office.") 

IVIeanwhile, LaRouche, having planted doubts about the government's motives, 
came out with an accusation that best revealed his foresight in dealing with 
dubious former federal agents and/or informants through the years. Having once 
warmly welcomed them onto his payroll, he now depicted them as government 
moles who had intended all along to set him up. Ryan Quade Emerson, the 
Virginia-based publisher of a counterterrorist newsletter, proved to be the most 
useful example. In 1985, after the federal investigation had begun, the 
LaRouchians hired him as a part-time consultant. They knew he had once been 
an FBI informant, and they gave him $250 a week to tell them things they already 
knew. Bryan Chitwood, who has followed the investigation and trial more closely 
than any other reporter, states flat-out that "the LaRouchians were setting a trap." 
Indeed, it was inevitable that the FBI would get in touch with Emerson. After he 
stopped working for the LaRouchians, he even made a visit to their offices at the 
FBI's request. Although he had not functioned as an FBI plant while on the NCLC 
payroll, his murky activities gave the LaRouchians a wedge to suggest 
government misconduct. "They used it to foul up the trial pretty well," said 
Chitwood. "They knew exactly what they were doing." 

But during all the legal maneuverings in 1987-88, there was one factor LaRouche 
underestimated: The "CIA defense" is useful only if the judge rules it admissible. 
Markham, however, submitted a brief attacking the CIA defense at the root by 
pointing out that the CIA is not a domestic law enforcement agency. It has no 
power to grant immunity to citizens who commit crimes in furtherance of a 
criminal investigation. LaRouche's relationship to the CIA thus should be deemed 
irrelevant to the charges of obstructing justice and credit-card fraud. Concurring 
with this argument. Judge Keeton ruled that LaRouche's carefully prepared 
folderol about the CIA was inadmissible. 

Probably the LaRouchians should have tried to pin things on a domestic law 
enforcement agency from the beginning, as Jackie Presser did with the FBI and 
Mitch WerBell with his alleged White House drug busters. But when the 
LaRouchians went back into court claiming they had been mistaken-that the evil 
force hanging them out to dry was really the FBI, not the CIA~it was too late. 
Judge Keeton wouldn't buy it. 

No matter how much credit one gives to LaRouche's calculated maneuvers, 
there remains a substratum of naivete in his dealings with both the real and 
make-believe intelligence networks around him. In part this was a result of his 
conspiratorial view of history, which ascribes exaggerated powers to intelligence 
agencies in general and the CIA in particular/ LaRouche appears to have really 
believed that the CIA director, if he wanted to, could simply pick up the telephone 
and tell the Attorney General's office to "quash" an investigation of LaRouche. 



Also, LaRouche apparently believed at least a portion of the tips from 
Frankhouser and even more of the tips from the "General" and the "Major." But in 
this gullibility he was not unique. In the demimonde of informers, spies, cutouts, 
and control officers, even seasoned professionals get taken for a ride (for 
instance, ATF agent Slamon by Frankhouser in 1972). While Frankhouser and 
Fick were feeding reports from imaginary sources to the LaRouche organization 
in the early 1980s, an immigrant from El Salvador named Frank Varelli was 
running an even more elaborate scam on top FBI officials. Spinning tales of 
terrorist plots in return for $18,000 and a new car, he sucked the FBI into a five- 
year investigation involving thousands of man-hours in fifty-two of the FBI's fifty- 
nine offices. The target was a left-wing group that was agitating against U.S. 
policy in Central America but had no relationship to terrorism. 

Furthermore, the various seemingly harebrained "Mister Ed" schemes that 
LaRouche became involved in during the late 1970s and early 1980s also had 
their counterparts in the world of government spookery. The closest parallel is 
seen in the late CIA director William Casey's Project Democracy, Just as 
LaRouche set up his private intelligence news service, as a parallel CIA to do 
what the liberals wouldn't let the real CIA do, so Casey set up Project 
Democracy. Just as LaRouche operated through the naive Goldstein and 
Steinberg, so Casey chose the pliable Oliver North. Just as Goldstein and 
Steinberg believed in mystic spirals, so North belonged to a charismatic church 
whose members spoke in tongues. Just as Goldstein and Steinberg worked with 
the likes of WerBell and Murdock, so North used the services of General Secord 
(who was connected with some of the same rogue agents that WerBell knew). 
Just as the LaRouchians developed a relationship with General Manuel Noriega, 
so also did the Project Democracy crowd. Just as the LaRouchians spied on 
North and revealed his secrets, so North attempted to spy on the LaRouchians. 
Just as the LaRouchians raised money from wealthy old ladies to fight 
communism, so North's networks raised money from the same old ladies to 
supply the Contras. Just as LaRouche's ill-gotten fund-raising gains disappeared 
into a tangle of corporate shells, so Project Democracy funds became "lost" in 
numbered overseas accounts. Just as LaRouche came under federal 
investigation, so also did North. Just as aides to LaRouche shredded documents, 
so also did North's secretary. Fawn Hall. Just as LaRouche claimed his 
indictment was a plot by the Democratic Party and the KGB, so North claimed to 
be the victim of Democrats who don't understand the dangers of communism. 

One is forced to conclude that LaRouche is not just an aberration in the world of 
spookery. To a disturbing degree he is just one of the boys. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



PART SIX: The Security Staff 

" Of all passions the passion for the Inner Ring is most skilful in 
making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things." 

--C.S. LEWIS 

Chapter Twenty-three 
The School of Dirty Tricks 

Every totalitarian movement needs a special cadre for secret, illegal, and often 
violent activities. Heinrich Himmler and his SS played this role for the Nazis 
during their rise to power in the early 1930s. Depending on circumstances, such 
a cadre may organize assassinations, rob banks, infiltrate the police, or carry out 
a variety of tasks aimed at protecting the movement and weakening the enemy's 
will. 

When the NCLC shifted into a fascist mode in the mid-1970s, there was no class 
warfare raging in American streets. Hence what LaRouche needed as his special 
cadre were not storm trooper types but clever operatives skilled in primarily 
nonviolent covert activities, especially of the dirty tricks variety. To meet this need 
he set up a unit of "counterintelligence agents"--the NCLC security staff (referred 
to as "Security" by insiders). 

In a 1974 memorandum LaRouche explained the "psychological profile" of a 
good Security operative and how such a person can be controlled. This was 
ostensibly a discussion of CIA agents, but the description bore an uncanny 
resemblance to the elite security unit that LaRouche had already begun to create 
within the NCLC. Agent types, he wrote, are recruited out of university 
humanities and social studies programs "traditionally free of the obligation to 
demonstrate anything concerning reality in the outer world." (LaRouche recruited 
his original cadre among such students, chiefly at Columbia University.) For such 
individuals the CIA becomes an extension of academia where they can achieve 
"a sense of power without leaving the home and playground for the actual adult 
world." The typical agent thus lacks any "inner identity" except his dependence 
on the CIA. He is highly "suggestible" and plagued by "superstitious fears." Easily 
manipulated by arbitrary phrases and formulas, he has many features in common 
with a "synthetic zombie." 

Of course this description bore little, if any, resemblance to real CIA agents, but it 
did fit the NCLC as a cult and the type of tricksters LaRouche needed for his 
security work-individuals who could totally immerse themselves in petty forms of 



intrigue in obedience to liis will. Indeed, those he placed in charge of Security 
reflected the profile perfectly. 

Security began in 1973-73 as a small karate-trained team to protect NCLC 
members from alleged Communist Party bullying. It organized Operation Mop Up 
and began stockpiling weapons, but soon turned away from any truly risky 
confrontations with the outside world. It was far safer to harass LaRouche's 
enemies from a safe range via smear leaflets, anonymous telephone calls, and 
legal frame-ups. 

In the wake of the Chris White affair. Security took on the functions of an internal 
secret police. It watched members for signs of disaffection and harassed any 
dropout who publicly attacked the organization or tried to get others to leave. The 
members of Security developed a vested interest in discovering plots 
everywhere: The more assassins and other enemies they could report to 
LaRouche, the more power and prestige they gained. Former member Dan 
Jacobs writes that they effected a kind of "coup" within the organization, with 
LaRouche's blessings. Jacobs described this as the NCLC's "Thermidor 
Reaction." 

NCLC organizational director Warren Hamerman defined Security's mission in 
1976 as being "to detect and investigate enemy deployments against the 
organization, and to plan and execute offensive counterthrusts." The 
counterthrusts, generally called "counterpunch deployments," included attacks on 
public figures whom LaRouche accused of being part of the conspiracy against 
him, as well as genuine opponents such as journalists or rival extremist 
organizations. 

For years Security operated behind a reinforced steel door and bulletproof glass 
in the NCLC's Columbus Circle headquarters. The two Security chiefs, Jeffrey 
Steinberg and Paul Goldstein, maintained daily contact with regional Security 
officers in Detroit, Los Angeles, and other cities. 

Members of Security were responsible for the NCLC's earliest propaganda 
attacks on Israel and the "Zionist lobby." Major General John K. Singlaub, after 
several visits from them in 1 977, told The New York Times they were "the worst 
group of anti-Semitic Jews I've encountered." Former members say that Jewish 
Security staffers went out of their way to display the most fanatical loyalty-and 
engage in the nastiest harassment of outsiders-because they never knew for 
sure if they were really trusted by LaRouche and his top non-Jewish aides. 
Former Security staffer Charles Tate, a prosecution witness in the Boston trial, 
testified he never dared question NCLC policy in the presence of Steinberg and 
Goldstein. "They don't understand doubt. It's not a category that exists for 
them. ...So you just don't-unless you want to get in a lot of trouble, you don't say 
'I don't believe that'. ..to those people." 



Security's duties included providing bodyguards and servants for Lyn and Helga. 
Wlien tine couple moved to the Riverdale section of the Bronx in the late 1970s, 
Security staffers were assigned to sit with a shotgun at the apartment door. Many 
had never handled weapons before and presumably knew no more than to point 
it at any intruder and pull the trigger. A frequent visitor recalled that "LaRouche 
was waited on hand and foot by Security. They cooked for him, they made his 
bed, they did his laundry." 

LaRouche called for more and more protection during and after his 1980 
presidential campaign. A multitiered system evolved, including off-duty and 
former police officers operating through a New York private detective agency, the 
Reading nightriders, Mitch WerBell's mercenaries, and the Security staff itself. 
LaRouche claimed to be constantly threatened by such enemies as Mossad, the 
KGB, the Knights of Malta, the Yippies, the Freemasons, and Henry Kissinger. 
Helga decided that she too was a target of lethal intentions after a near traffic 
accident on an autobahn in Germany. The NCLC came to spend millions of 
dollars each year on the bodyguards who followed Lyn and Helga everywhere in 
both the United States and Europe. 

Ultimately the Security setup was a good investment, for it kept the NCLC 
membership in the paranoid frenzy that LaRouche had learned was most 
conducive to maximum results in fund raising. But protection bred more 
protection, as the outside hired guns encouraged increasingly wild fantasies in 
order to get more overtime. Although believing these fantasies, Steinberg and 
Goldstein were also swept up in the profiteering fever. They established two 
corporations, SSG International and Cincinnatus Associates, to receive 
payments for campaign security services, as well as to recycle reports on 
LaRouche's enemies to multinational corporations. 

When LaRouche moved to Loudoun County, Virginia, in 1983, he deployed as 
many as ten guards on each twelve-hour shift at his estate. Supposedly the 
guards, armed with Walther PPKs and MAC-IOs, were prowling their respective 
free-fire zones under all weather conditions. But LaRouche didn't seem to really 
care how vigilant they were. In cold or rainy weather, they just stayed in the 
guardhouse. The electronic alarm was routinely ignored, since branches 
brushing against the fence in a breeze would often trigger it. Any enterprising hit 
man could have slipped under the barbed wire that kept the neighbor's cows from 
fertilizing Lyndon's lawn. (Security precautions were tighter at LaRouche's villa in 
Stradecken-Elsheim, in West Germany, which was protected by a ten-foot-high 
wall topped with barbed wire, television monitors, electric grids, and floodlights- 
the very model of a high-tech bunker.) 

The major vendor providing guards with police backgrounds for the Leesburg 
estate was Metro Executive Protection and Security Consultants, Inc., a New 
York firm headed by former NYPD officer James Powers. According to Phil 
Perlonga, a former Powers assistant, LaRouche was the firm's principal client in 



the early 1980s. Its success in serving him helped it expand into other areas. For 
instance, it developed a clientele among Manhattan landlords by gathering 
evidence for eviction proceedings against tenants of rent-regulated apartments. 
(In 1986, Powers told The New York Times that his firm had prepared 
background reports on 5,000 tenants; many were for landlords planning co-op 
conversions.) 

Shortly after the move to Leesburg, several Security staffers set up Premiere 
Services, Inc., a front for obtaining firearms permits. Among the firm's officers 
was Robert Kay, who claimed to be a graduate of WerBell's counterterrorist 
school, as well as the American Security Training Institute in Chicago and the 
Lethal Force Institute in Long Beach, California. According to Loudoun County 
records, some of the Security staffers were walking arsenals; for instance. Rick 
Magraw, who owned a Colt Commander 45, a Sig-Sauer P. 380, a Browning 9 
mm, and a MAC-10 submachine pistol. 

When the permits came up for renewal in 1985, the sheriff's office was fed up 
with the NCLC's intimidation of local residents. Premiere Services said it needed 
the permits to protect LaRouche, but Deputy Don Moore told the court that the 
threats to LaRouche's life were "nebulous to the point of unreality," and "chiefly 
intended to promote a 'bunker mentality.'" Eventually the judge granted the 
renewals subject to restriction: LaRouche's armed guards would have to inform 
the Sheriff's Department whenever they planned to accompany LaRouche 
outside his estate. (In 1987 their request for renewal was denied outright.) 

Some members of Security were skeptical that LaRouche was really in danger 
from international assassins. But it was their job to provide the evidence, and 
they did so, for otherwise LaRouche would have removed them from their 
relatively cushy jobs and sent them back to field duty-the boring, low-status work 
of manning literature tables at airports or running boiler-room loan rip-offs. 
Charles Tate recalls often writing security reports or passing along rumors from 
informants that he knew to be nonsense, simply to avoid hassles. However, 
Steinberg and Goldstein spent long hours on the phone soaking up the latest 
preposterous tips from "Clay" (Roy Frankhouser), "the Major," "the General," 
"Leviticus," and assorted other paid "consultants." 

However, Security's work was not just a game (although even the make-believe 
part served a serious function in maintaining the NCLC's controlled environment 
and motivating the membership to work hard). Security developed imaginative 
and effective techniques for gathering intelligence and harassing enemies. Most 
important was the undercover phone call or interview. Although there were many 
variations on this tactic, basically it meant a staff member calling or visiting an 
outsider (usually an enemy) under false pretenses or using a false identity. It was 
first employed in 1973 when the NCLC was at war with black-nationalist Amiri 
Baraka. Paul Goldstein sent a directive to "all locals" urging them to set up 
meetings with "individuals of [the] Baraka type" in order to "pump them for 



information." He suggested posing as an "innocuous radical or interested 
sympatliizer." 

LaRouclie liimself, during liis 1980 New Hampsliire primary campaign, told the 
Associated Press that his followers used "all kinds" of covers and impersonation 
tactics to investigate their enemies. "Where a press is running a direct operation 
against us...," he said, "that's an open target. We can impersonate them all we 
want to because they are doing it to us. It's just an open field." Charles Tate 
testified he saw his fellow Security staffers make hundreds of undercover calls in 
the early 1980s, often with tape recorders running without the callee's 
knowledge. "They were pretending to be priests, ministers, rabbis, newspaper 
reporters, doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs," he said. 

The late Canon Edward West of New York's Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the 
Divine was the victim of two LaRouchian imposters posing as freelance writers. 
They interviewed him and took his picture while preparing a dossier on the 
Knights of Malta. Later, they wrote an abusive article suggesting he was a 
homosexual and saying his office reminded them of "Dracula's castle." The 
reason for the abuse was obvious from the text of the interview. Asked what he 
thought of the LaRouche organization. Canon West denounced it as "terribly anti- 
Semitic" and added, "I have violent feelings about anti-Semitism." 

The impostures sometimes were clumsy. Herbert Quinde called up NBC Nightly 
News producer Bob Windrem claiming to be "Herb Kurtz," a reporter interested in 
LaRouche. Windrem smelled a rat, and after meeting with Quinde was able to 
identify him from a Hartford Courant photo. (Quinde had run as a LaRouchian 
candidate in Hartford.) But Quinde once followed me onto the shuttle from New 
York to Washington, took the seat next to me, and convincingly introduced 
himself as "David Feingold," a fictitious AFL-CIQ researcher. 

In 1981 one "Jean-Claude Adam," an alleged French Defense Ministry official, 
gained interviews with William Bundy and Winston Lord at the Council on Foreign 
Relations. He also called several journalists who had written about LaRouche, 
trying to find out who their sources were. Photographed after one such meeting, 
"Jean-Claude" was identified as Laurent Murawiec, an EIR editor. 

The most sinister undercover efforts were directed against anti-Klan groups. 
According to Tate, collecting this information was a "regular fixation" and 
reflected the Security staff's friendly ties with violence-prone white supremacists 
such as Bob Miles. In 1981 an NCLC member pretending to be a civil rights 
activist infiltrated an anti-Klan conference at Howard University. The 
LaRouchians then published a list of the attendees, which must have been 
interesting reading for the Klan. Tate said that a Security staffer was assigned to 
make undercover phone calls every few days to the National Anti-Klan Network 
in Atlanta to "get snippets which would be given to Roy Frankhouser." He 
recalled a "swap" in which "we gave Roy all our files on the Jewish Defense 



League and we got from him in return a batcli of Klan publications." Tate said lie 
personally photocopied the files on the JDL for Frankhouser. In general, 
Frankhouser (who was in constant contact with Miles) had unrestricted access to 
Security's files, "If he said 'our people need to see such and such,' he'd be given 
it," Tate said. 

Security staffers sometimes claimed to be stringers for Intercontinental Media 
Service, with offices in the National Press Building in Washington. The operator 
of this shadowy outfit was Edward von Rothkirch, a friend of the Liberty Lobby. 
Charles Tate testified in the 1987 trial of Frankhouser that von Rothkirch, who 
was called "the Baron" by Security, "would accredit somebody with a press card 
to appear as though he was a real reporter working for real newspapers so that 
he could do interviews." According to former Metro employee Phil Perlonga, the 
Security staff in 1982-83 had "stacks of blank press cards" from IMS. When a 
card was needed, Goldstein would sign von Rothkirch's name. Perlonga was 
given an IMS card and instructed to use it to gain entrance to Henry Kissinger's 
birthday party and serve legal papers on him. Perlonga took the card, but says 
he managed to evade serving the papers. 

LaRouchian security and intelligence staffers often have impersonated real 
reporters. In 1 981 , U.S. News & World Report filed a $1 .5 million suit against EIR 
and New Solidarity after a LaRouchian posed in phone interviews as its White 
House correspondent, Sara Fritz. In 1983, pursuant to a settlement agreement, a 
federal district judge in Washington issued a permanent injunction barring staff 
members of EIR and New Solidarity from henceforth impersonating any U.S. 
News & World Report staffer. Jeff Steinberg later said the NCLC had stopped 
using this tactic. In fact. Security staffers gained interviews just as easily by using 
their own names and identifying themselves as freelance writers or college 
students working on a research project. Indeed, when they openly identified 
themselves as EIR reporters they sometimes received the same deference as 
members of the mainstream press. Some targeted persons would not have heard 
of EIR before and would assume it was a legitimate newsmagazine. Others 
would know of its LaRouche connection, but would talk anyway out of politeness 
or to demonstrate their broad-mindedness. (EIR gained a 1982 interview with 
Philip Klutznik, former World Jewish Congress president and Secretary of 
Commerce in the Carter administration; he commiserated with the interviewer 
over how people are sometimes unfairly accused of anti-Semitism.) Security 
staffers also openly called people they had previously harassed or were involved 
in litigation with. Such victims would stay on the phone, hoping to find out just 
what LaRouche was planning against them next. 

A brash and hardworking Security staffer can conduct a phone "sweep" of 
LaRouche's opposition in a single day. He may openly identify himself as a 
LaRouchian, use a fictitious identity, or pretend to be a real person, depending 
on the targeted person's vulnerabilities. A frequent pretense in the early 1980s 
was to be Chip Berlet, an anti-LaRouche journalist in Chicago. Since Berlet was 



a freelancer who did not keep regular office hours, it was difficult for the callee to 
check this out. 

By staying on the phone long hours and making one call after another with the 
speed of a telephone sales solicitor, Security staffers rapidly pick up large 
amounts of information-not only from what the victims say but also from what 
they don't say. For instance, a May 5, 1982, Security document entitled 
"Harassment Networks" summarized twelve phone calls to alleged LaRouche 
enemies across the political spectrum, all apparently made by the same person. 
Among those called were Berlet, Dana Beal of the Yippies, Arch Puddington of 
the League for Industrial Democracy, Jerry Eisenberg of the Jewish Defense 
League, Sheldon Ranz of The Generation After/Holocaust Survivors USA, Justin 
Finger of the Anti-Defamation League, and Fred Eiland of the Federal Election 
Commission. The list also included a National Jewish Community Relations 
Council staff member, Detroit financier Max Fisher's secretary, and a rabbi who 
deprograms Moonies. In most cases the caller elicited bits of information about 
the targeted person's whereabouts and/or current activities and/or contacts with 
other targeted persons-information which could then be "cross-gridded." When 
Berlet refused to talk, the caller gloated in his notes that "Berlet is currently 
paranoid as hell." In fact the encouraging of suspicious attitudes among 
LaRouche opponents was one of the benefits of the telephone sweeps. Some 
journalists simply would not discuss LaRouche with any caller unless they had 
time to thoroughly check his identity first. 

The LaRouchians also used the telephone as a psychological assault weapon. In 
1980, reporters in New Hampshire obtained a copy of a special LaRouche "New 
Hampshire Target List" of state political figures to be harassed. The names 
included the governor, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and the 
mayors and city clerks of several towns. "These are the criminals to burn-we 
want calls coming in to these fellows day and night," the instructions said. 
Attorney General Thomas Rath received about fifty phone calls at his home on 
the Sunday prior to primary day. The callers would say things like "We know 
where you live." 

When the Federal Election Commission was investigating LaRouche's 1980 
campaign finances, the LaRouchians made threatening phone calls to Charles 
Steele, the commission's general counsel. In federal court testimony in 1987, 
former NCLCer Tate recalled the Steinbergs arriving late at the Security offices 
one morning. "They said that the reason. ..was because [Mr. Steele] had been 
receiving late-night phone calls and had received threats on his life very, very 
late at night; and that even though they were kind of late that day, they were sure 
that Mr. Steele's day was going to be even worse and that he had slept even 
worse...." 

Another surrogate assault weapon is the LaRouchian printing press, which 
churns out smear leaflets and articles against journalists and other enemies. 



often featuring outlandish sexual charges. In this, LaRouche and his top aides 
have much practice-they have routinely accused their own rank-and-file followers 
of sexual misconduct, repressed homosexuality, etc., ever since the ego- 
stripping days in the early 1970s. The first public smear sheets were directed 
against a faction that quit in 1974. They had naively discussed details of their sex 
lives during NCLC psychological sessions. Upon their resignation. New Solidarity 
printed up a smear sheet that went into graphic detail. Much of it was taken from 
a "confession" written by a former member of the faction who remained with the 
LaRouchians and was pressured to prove his loyalty by tattling on his former 
comrades. Thousands of copies of the smear sheet were passed out on 
Manhattan's Upper West Side, where leaders of the faction lived. 

As Security became bolder, it ceased to worry about obtaining "confessions" 
from anyone. It simply made up the smears out of thin air. Russ Bellant, a Detroit 
freelancer, came home one evening in the late 1970s to find that his neighbors 
had received invitations to a "gay coming-out" party at his house, Marcie Permut, 
a twenty-two-year-old researcher for NBC-TV's Chicago affiliate, was working on 
a LaRouche story in 1 984 when leaflets appeared on car windshields on the 
block where she and her parents lived. The leaflets claimed she was a prostitute 
and gave her parents' phone number. 

The cynicism behind such allegations was revealed most clearly in the 1984 
deposition of Jeffrey Steinberg in LaRouche v, NBC. Asked by Phil Hirschkop 
(the attorney representing Chip Belet and myself) for proof of NCLC allegations 
that William F. Buckley was a "sodomist," Steinberg alleged that he had heard it 
in the mid-1970s from Gregory Rose, a Security staffer who later defected and 
incurred LaRouche's wrath by exposing the NCLC in a cover story for Buckley's 
National Review. Hirschkop then peeled away Steinberg's pretensions as an 
investigator: 

Q: In New Solidarity, are you familiar that Rose has been termed a 

"pathological liar"? 

A: Sure. 

Q: Would you agree that he is a "pathological liar"? 

A: Yes. 

Q: Why, then, would someone in your organization repeat the 

allegation made by Rose that Bill Buckley is a sodomist? 

A: I merely cited Rose as one source....We wouldn't have even 

probably considered the issue if he hadn't originally provided lurid 

detail to that effect and proposed that as an area to be considered, 

but there is other additional material- 

Q: What material? 

A: Information from confidential sources. 

Q: Name the sources. 



Steinberg's attorney directed liim not to answer tliis question on "national 
security" grounds. IHirsclikop tlien continued: 

Q: Tliese sources, did tliey give tliat information directly to you? 

A: No. 

Q: To whom did they give that information? 

A: To other people who maintained them as confidential sources. 

Q: Which people have told you that Bill Buckley is a sodomist? 

A: I don't recall. 

What Steinberg didn't "recall" was that much of his information about Buckley 
actually came from the Liberty Lobby, which hated Buckley because of his strong 
stand against allowing anti-Semites to infiltrate the conservative movement. 

The Security staff went beyond smear tactics in their 1980 attempts to intimidate 
Jon Presstage, then a reporter for the Manchester Union Leader in New 
Hampshire. LaRouche came to Presstage's office for an interview, bringing 
several bodyguards with guns. "They told me there were certain things I could 
not say in my stories," Presstage recalled on NBC's First Camera. LaRouche 
"told me that he would make it very painful for me if I wrote certain things. And I 
asked him, well, what do you mean by painful? And he kind of chuckled with the 
rest of the people there and said we have ways of making it painful beyond 
lawsuits." Presstage's family had three cats. "On successive days following the 
articles," he said, "the cats were found on my doorstep, dead." 

To assist in Security's harassment campaigns the NCLC maintains a staff of in- 
house paralegals and has brought in "hired gun" attorneys to assist with 
aggressive lawsuits. The extralegal motive of such suits was indicated by a 
Security memorandum sent out to local NCLC offices in 1984 under the heading 
"Make the ADL [Anti-Defamation League] Pay Everywhere." It called for filing 
libel suits and complaints to government agencies against the ADL in every part 
of the country: "Go to your best and most political [sic] well-placed contacts and 
have them recommend lawyers who have a reputation for competence, 
meanness, and who like a good brawl." The memo then ordered that calls be 
made to local news reporters, giving them an ultimatum to either divulge the 
"ADL source" of their anti-LaRouche "operation" or else face a libel suit. The goal 
would be to build a "massive national dossier" on the ADL and tie it down 
defending itself. 

Security waged elaborate counterintelligence campaigns (known among insiders 
as "damage control operations") to derail media exposes. When it found out The 
New York Times was preparing an article in 1979, Goldstein and an associate 
pretended to be defectors and arranged to meet with reporter Howard Blum, 
They brought along a concealed tape recorder and attempted to provoke Blum 
into saying something compromising. At the end of the conversation a third 
Security staffer snapped Blum's picture. The NCLC then called a press 



conference to announce that it would sue the Times. In fact, LaRouche did name 
the Times as a defendant in a suit he launched several weeks later against the 
Manhattan East Side weekly Our Town, which published a LaRouche series by 
me while the Times's story was still in preparation. Security launched a wave of 
harassing phone calls to Our Town's offices, while also attempting to jam lines at 
the Times. One caller to Our Town pretended to be a Times staff attorney 
seeking information about Our Town's legal strategy. Smear leaflets about Our 
Town publisher Ed Kayatt were circulated throughout the East Side. Our Town's 
advertisers and banks where the paper was distributed were threatened with 
lawsuits. A crude setup also was attempted: A man alleging to be an executive of 
LaRouche's computer company, Computron, dropped by the office and offered to 
sell the newspaper stolen financial records. The offer was declined. 

For the next few years Our Town experienced mysterious acts of harassment, 
including bomb threats, the disappearance of office files, and visits from 
imposters requesting information about LaRouche. In 1983, after hard-hitting 
anti-LaRouche editorials, the offices were broken into, the typesetting and 
copying machines and other equipment were smashed, and acid was poured on 
the wreckage. Although Kayatt could not prove the LaRouchians were behind 
these actions, he knew of no one else with a sufficiently strong motive. 

Security's trickery was used in tandem with legal action against NBC's 1984 First 
Camera report on LaRouche's ties to the Reagan administration. Prior to the 
show LaRouche filed a $150 million libel suit to delay or halt it. Security directed 
Roy Frankhouserto shadow NBC reporter Patricia Lynch around Manhattan, and 
picketers appeared in front of her office with signs and leaflets calling her a "KGB 
whore." While she was filming in the Washington, D.C., area, they found out she 
was scheduled to meet with Senator Moynihan. Pretending to be a Moynihan 
aide, a LaRouche follower called Lynch's researcher several hours before the 
interview-ostensibly to get background material for the senator-and probed for 
sensitive details about Lynch's sources. The LaRouchians then tried to intimidate 
Moynihan by threatening to publish defamatory material about his family. 

LaRouche became worried that his former chief of staff, Gus Kalimtgis, might be 
cooperating with NBC. Charles Tate has testified that one day in early 1984 
LaRouche "came downstairs to the security area in his home at Woodburn and 
he ordered members of the Security staff to call [Kalimtgis] at his home and 
threaten his life." Tate said that several staff members dutifully made the calls in 
LaRouche's presence. 

Kalimtgis has confirmed that he received several calls threatening himself, his 
wife and children. 

The damage control operation against NBC is closely documented by several 
hundred pages of Security printouts and notebooks which Tate kept after leaving 
the NCLC. A dossier on NBC reporter Brian Ross described efforts to obtain 



information from former targets of liis investigative journalism. "Calls [are] out to 
Teamster networks," it said. 

LaRouche's suit against NBC, Lynch, Ross, and the ADL went on trial in federal 
court in Alexandria, Virginia, in October 1984. The jury found for the defendants 
and awarded NBC $3 million in punitive damages on a counterclaim relating to 
Security's attempt to sabotage the interview with Moynihan. (The judge later cut 
the award to $200,000.) 

The outcome might have been quite different had an alleged Security attempt to 
buy a witness succeeded. One of the issues at the trial was whether NBC libeled 
LaRouche by reporting that he had urged the assassination of Jimmy Carter and 
other public officials in 1977. Lynch had several sources for the story, including 
New Orleans private investigator Gordon Novel. According to Novel, Jeffrey 
Steinberg offered him a large cash payment if he would recant his story and 
testify for LaRouche. Novel said he rejected the offer and promptly informed 
Lynch about it. Steinberg, in his deposition later that year, denied offering money, 
but said he did remonstrate with Novel over the phone, accusing him of telling a 
"bunch of lies." Although Novel had appeared on First Camera as an unnamed 
source with voice disguised, he was sufficiently incensed by Steinberg's tactics to 
allow the use of his name in a subsequent airing of the presidential death threat 
charge on NBC Nightly News. (Charles Tale, who served as the "liaison" 
between Security and LaRouche attorney Odin Anderson during the NBC suit, 
has testified that everyone in Security knew Novel was telling the truth about the 
kill-Carter incident.) 

In the autumn of 1984 a federal grand jury convened in Boston to hear evidence 
of credit-card fraud by LaRouche fundraisers and shell organizations. Security 
began yet another damage control operation, but this time it resulted in 
obstruction of justice indictments of four members of Security's steering 
committee-Steinberg, Goldstein, Steinberg's wife, Michelle, and Robert 
Greenberg-along with erstwhile adviser Frankhouser and LaRouche himself. 
According to the 1986 indictment and courtroom testimony, the Security staff 
orchestrated a multilayered conspiracy to derail the investigation. This effort 
allegedly included destroying records, harassing prosecutors, and sending 
witnesses to Europe to duck subpoenas. At the Steinbergs' bond hearing, FBI 
special agent Richard Egan testified that Michelle Steinberg had boasted of 
hiding witnesses "where the sun doesn't shine." Egan said the defendants had 
engaged in "hundreds" of conversations to plan the conspiracy and had 
repeatedly asked Frankhouser and prosecution witness Lee Fick to get the case 
fixed through pressure on the government. Egan also said that authorities had 
seized Security staff files on William Weld, the former U.S. Attorney for 
Massachusetts, who had initiated the credit-card fraud investigation. Egan said 
the files took up "at least two file cabinets" and included lists of names of Weld's 
neighbors, information on his family and in-laws, and even information on guests 
at his wedding. Egan quoted an alleged statement by LaRouche that Weld "does 



not deserve to live. He should get a bullet between the head-between the eyes." 
CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Twenty-four 

Law and Order, LaRouche Style 

The Security staff's approach to the FBI and local police in the late 1970s was 
similar to LaRouche's pitch to Langley. Just as the CIA had been weakened by 
media exposes and personnel cutbacks, the FBI had fallen on lean times 
because of the COINTELPRO scandal, a rash of citizen lawsuits, and a post- 
Watergate shift in legislative and judicial opinion regarding government snooping. 
In 1976 Attorney General Edward Levi issued guidelines prohibiting the FBI from 
conducting surveillance of domestic radical groups unless there was evidence 
that a crime had been or was about to be committed. By 1 983 the FBI was 
investigating about 50 domestic security cases, compared with over 20,000 a 
decade earlier. Local police no longer could rely on the FBI for wide-ranging 
political intelligence data, and were increasingly limited by their own 
departmental guidelines. 

Private organizations attempted to fill the vacuum. One was the Birch Society- 
linked Western Goals. Another was the NCLC Security staff, which crafted a 
synthetic law enforcement philosophy sharply opposed to its previous left-wing 
anti-police rhetoric. 

To begin trading information with local police, private outfits needed their own 
base of raw intelligence data. Fortunately for Security, hundreds of LaRouchians 
had belonged to leftist groups before joining the NCLC. Many wrote up reports on 
their former comrades. A 1977 Security field report stated that a new member, 
Roger M., had just been recruited in Hartford, Connecticut. He previously had 
been active with the Venceremos Brigade (a now defunct Maoist sect in 
California) and had known its founder, H. Bruce Franklin. Roger would write up 
his experiences, the report said, and if necessary would come to Security 
headquarters for a full debriefing. However, while Roger informed on Bruce 
Franklin, another Hartford comrade would keep Security informed about Roger. 

Many leftists, unlike Roger, were turned off by the NCLC's recruitment efforts. 
Even so, NCLC members would jot down anything derogatory they learned about 
these fleeting contacts. As early as 1974, reports from the Philadelphia office 
included thumbnail profiles of trade union and peace activists. Often included 
were rumors regarding sexual, marital, psychiatric, or alcoholism problems. 

The LaRouchians tried to keep secret their early efforts as police informers, but 
an NCLC telex intended for the organization's Midwestern regional office was 
sent by accident to the newsroom of a Minneapolis daily. Included in the 
transmission were instructions to "brief" various police officials. 



In Seattle the LaRouchians took to preparing their intelligence reports on forms 
similar to those used by U.S. military intelligence, stamped "Classified," "This 
Form for Internal Agency Use Only," and "This worksheet contains information 
affecting the National Defense of the United States within the meaning of the 
Espionage Laws." A report obtained by the Seattle Sun stated that NCLC 
members had briefed the Washington state attorney general's office on radical 
groups and would be briefing the Tacoma FBI office. The Sun quoted the head of 
the Portland, Oregon Police Department's Intelligence Division, who named a 
local NCLC leader as one of his best sources on local leftists. 

Any pretense of secrecy was soon dropped. Jeffrey Steinberg admitted in a 1977 
court case that he and his colleagues were in contact with police departments 
and FBI offices in dozens of cities. In 1978 they circulated a sample report on 
terrorism to police officers, together with a catalogue of reports selling for 
upwards of $25 on everyone from the Maoists through William F. Buckley. The 
catalogue also offered "Special Investigative Services" based on "extensive files 
of raw and semifinished material built up over a nine-year period." 

Security staffers were given sales quotas, which they met by calling up police 
departments and security-conscious nuclear power companies. They also set up 
literature tables at police and security-industry conventions. Jeff Steinberg 
attended the 1978 International Association of Chiefs of Police convention to 
circulate LaRouche's "National Strategy for Crime Control." 

The NCLC material targeting police used "terrorism" as a code word for any kind 
of left-of-center social protest. This enabled the LaRouchians to discuss fascism 
and police-state methods without unduly embarrassing their audience. In a 1978 
Security sales brochure, LaRouche advocated "surgically precise preventive 
action" against the controllers of terrorism. "It is essential...," he said, "to use the 
terrorism as justification for political penalties against the environmentalists," for 
in his view the environmentalists were part of the ideological "infrastructure" of 
terrorism. In a 1981 report he advised that the arrest and conviction of those who 
commit crimes is not enough for the "effective suppression" of crime. The 
problem is that under our "British" laws we can't arrest someone until he has 
actually committed the crime. What is needed is a system that can "control the 
crime before the fact," through "neutralization" of the infrastructure~"political 
machines, lawyers, support fronts and the like." 

While calling for a state of siege, the LaRouchians were quick to benefit from the 
civil libertarian climate they decried. Many of them applied for their FBI files 
under the Freedom of Information Act. LaRouche and thirteen aides sued the 
Justice Department for alleged violations of their civil rights during the NCLC's 
leftist days. By the early 1980s, members of the LaRouche organization had filed 
scores of civil rights and ballot access suits against local and federal authorities 
across the country. 



In 1980, Investigative Leads (IL), a newsletter for local police intelligence units, 
was launched as a spin-off from Executive Intelligence Review. It purported to 
give the latest scoop on terrorists, narcotics traffickers. Communists, 
environmentalists, black nationalists, leaders of Jewish-American and Arab- 
American organizations, and even elements in the Ku Klux Klan hostile to 
LaRouche's own Klan allies. Like EIR, the newsletter was a shopping window for 
intelligence items. Articles often included a list of the NCLC "reference files" 
consulted in preparing an article. The implication was that these files would be 
made available to interested police officers. 

An IL house ad boasted that the intent was to build "a network of law 
enforcement and security professionals and others who are committed to the 
eradication of terrorism and narcotics trafficking." Ryan Quade Emerson, a writer 
on extremist groups who served as a part-time "intelligence analyst" for the 
LaRouchians during 1985-86, claims that IL editor Robert Greenberg had 
sources in "dozens of police departments." "It was his full-time job to cultivate 
them," Emerson said. "I'd hear the calls coming in, and I'd listen to his pitch. He'd 
call some guys every day with information and say, 'Call us collect if you have 
stuff for us.' He was trying to compromise them. Some fell for it, some didn't. But 
if [Security] hooked a guy, they'd try to brainwash him with their conspiracy 
theories." 

One secret of the NCLC's success with police departments, as with Third World 
intelligence agencies, was the "pyramiding" of intelligence data. Through their 
phone sweeps Security members might find out, say, that the Revolutionary 
Communist Party was planning a demonstration in city X. They would call their 
favorite Red Squad detective in that city and offer him information from their files 
on the RCP. Next they would call a detective in city Y, pass on to him anything of 
interest they had learned from the detective in city X, and warn him that the RCP 
might be planning nationwide terrorism. Whatever this detective told them in 
return, they would swap along with the previous item to a third detective in city Z, 
thus rapidly building up their fund of tradable information without having to leave 
their desks. 

This tactic sometimes worked because the LaRouchians were at least pretending 
to meet a real need. Police intelligence officers in, say, Portland and Chicago 
didn't have the time or resources to systematically exchange esoteric background 
information on radical sects. The LaRouchians thus could offer their services as 
a clearinghouse, pretending to have vast resources of their own. 

When a civil liberties group sued the Los Angeles Police Department's former 
Public Disorder Intelligence Division (PDID), seeking to halt its alleged abuses, 
local NCLC members popped up as fanatical police supporters. They launched a 
smear campaign in 1980 against leaders of the Citizens Commission on Police 
Repression (CCPR), including its founder, Linda Valentino. The LaRouchians 
"made our lives miserable," she said, "They passed out, it must have been, a 



quarter of a million leaflets, accusing us of terrorism and drug pushing." The 
leaflets listed the home and work phone numbers of activists involved in the suit. 
"For days, we received harassing calls," Valentino said. "I got obscene calls at 
home in the early morning hours." 

The leaflets were filled with blatant anti-Semitism, charging that the Israelis, the 
Lubavich sect of Hasidic Judaism, the Jewish Defense League, Simon 
Wiesenthal, and a Jewish city councilman, Zev Yaroslavsky, were all in a plot to 
destroy the PDID so that "Israeli dopers" could take over. One leaflet bore the 
title "Smash the 'Kosher Nostra'-Defend the LAPD." Said another; "If your child's 
mind is eaten away by PCP provided to him by Meyer Lansky's drug runners, or 
if the mayor of your city has his legs blown off" by a JDL hit squad, "the person to 
blame is Zev [Yaroslavsky]." The leaflets were authorized and paid for by 
LaRouche's 1980 presidential campaign committee. Similar accusations were 
printed in IL, which solicited advance orders for an "in-depth special report" 
analyzing the backgrounds and motives of the plaintiffs in the CCPR suit. 
Meanwhile, Security prepared for the Los Angeles police a special dossier on 
Yaroslavsky, including blatantly false accusations against other local and national 
Jewish leaders. 

According to Jeff Cohen, the former ACLU attorney who represented the 
plaintiffs, the PDID had extensive direct dealings with the LaRouchians on 
intelligence matters. Cohen took the depositions of PDID officers who admitted 
that the NCLC's local Security man, Tim Pike, had given briefings at police 
headquarters. Cohen subpoenaed PDID intelligence booklets that included 
articles from IL and New Solidarity. 

Detective Arleigh McCree, head of the LAPD bomb squad, met frequently with 
Pike in the early 1980s and also chatted on the phone with New York Security 
staffers. McCree, who died while attempting to defuse a bomb in 1986, told 
reporter Joel Bellman in a 1981 interview that he provided the LaRouchians with 
tips as well as receiving information from them. 

A 1982 Security notebook, provided to federal prosecutors by Charles Tate, 
contains alleged tips about Israelis in southern California from a detective in the 
"Israeli mafia unit." The conversation is described under the heading "Calif. LAPD 
contacts." Mordechai Levy, a Jewish militant who infiltrated the LaRouche 
organization from 1980 to 1984, was working for Security in Los Angeles at the 
time. He says he examined copies of law enforcement files that Tim Pike kept in 
a cabinet in the NCLC's Vermont Street office. "Tim boasted he got them from 
the PDID," Levy said. The files related to radical groups of the 1960s and 1970s, 
including the May Day Tribe, the FALN, the Brown Berets, and the Jewish 
Defense League. "Pike had Xeroxes of the mug shots, surveillance logs, 
correspondence between the FBI and local law enforcement," Levy charged. 



The LaRouchians wooed former Los Angeles police chief Ed Davis when he was 
running for the state senate in 1 980. He spoke at a meeting of the NCLC's 
National Anti-Drug Coalition and gave interviews to LaRouche publications. An 
interview conducted by Jeffrey Steinberg appeared in War on Drugs. The 
headline called Davis the "Drug Fighter of the Month." He was quoted as saying 
that President Carter "philosophically was a drug pusher." Davis recalled in a 
1 988 phone interview that some California conservatives at the time regarded the 
LaRouchians as a "counterforce" against leftists. He said that a wealthy 
campaign contributor had urged him to meet with them, but that he cut them off 
upon realizing that they were not legitimate conservatives. 

Chicago's police department was another major target. In 1979-80 the 
LaRouchians waged a smear campaign against Mayor Jane Byrne, who had 
launched a reorganization of the department. "The police work is moving along 
extremely well," said a memo from the NCLC's Chicago office, indulging in typical 
exaggeration. "There is a recognition of the [National Anti-Drug] Coalition as the 
vehicle to destroy Byrne from the standpoint of countering her police shakeup." 
The memo then cited a "series of conversations" with police officials, including a 
top Narcotics Division cop who supposedly "hates Byrne's guts." It also described 
efforts to organize support within the police unions and fraternal organizations. 

The adopt-a-cop tactic backfired in New York City, where Security staffers sought 
out Detective John Finnegan of the Intelligence Division. Because of his 
reputation for dogged tracking of leftists in the 1960s, they figured he would be 
sympathetic to their rightward tilt. Finnegan recalled that "they'd like to talk to you 
all day, going back to the Renaissance.... I used to meet with them at Police 
Headquarters." But while dutifully maintaining contact, Finnegan and other 
members of his unit (who remembered quite well the era of Operation Mop Up) 
prepared reports on the NCLC's new psychology, tactics, and goals, including its 
anti-Semitism, Their reports were far ahead of what other law enforcement 
agencies and the media were saying about the LaRouchians. As the years 
passed, Finnegan (now retired) became increasingly concerned about their 
activities. It was he who first persuaded Patricia Lynch of NBC's First Camera to 
focus on the LaRouchians in 1983-84. Lynch describes Finnegan as an "unsung 
hero" in the unmasking of LaRouche's conspiratorial network. 

The LaRouchians in the early 1970s had the standard Marxist attitude toward the 
police. They were actually shocked when Communist Party members responded 
to Operation Mop Up's savage beatings by asking for police protection. New 
Solidarity said the CP represented "police socialism" reminiscent of Russia's 
Father Gapon during the 1905 revolution. 

But the LaRouchians themselves began to seek police help during clashes with 
United Auto Workers members in several states in 1975. The violence was 
mostly the NCLC's own fault. In a basic scenario repeated over and over, they 
showed up at plant gates with leaflets naming union officials or rank-and-file 



workers as drug pushers, homosexuals, or Communists. One leaflet said of a 
Buffalo UAW member: "He can't go home to his wife with the smell of sperm on 
his breath. ..so he sleeps in parks...." The NCLC leadership claimed this was a 
powerful new technique to appeal to the workers' unconscious minds, but the 
only result was dozens of assaults on the leafleters. 

In 1971-72 the LaRouchians had provoked similar assaults by standing in front of 
Communist Party meeting halls and calling those who entered CIA agents, 
counterrevolutionaries, and "house niggers." LaRouche had then goaded his 
followers into participating in Operation Mop Up to get even with their attackers. 
But the clashes at plant gates were something different: LaRouche hardly could 
mop up the giant UAW. However, his followers did the next best thing by running 
to the police to get their assailants arrested. This was justified by the belief that 
the latter were all fascists, social fascists, CIA agents, drug pushers, and 
terrorists. 

Robert Greenberg, later the editor of Investigative Leads, was allegedly involved 
in one attempt to set up UAW members for arrest. An affidavit filed by his 
comrade Theodore Held, in a lawsuit between the NCLC and the UAW, stated 
that when Held, Greenberg, and another NCLC member went to GMC Truck and 
Coach in Pontiac, Michigan, they expected trouble because of previous incidents. 
Held brought a camera. When several angry auto workers approached, 
"Greenberg motioned to me....As the men stepped into the street I photographed 
them." Held then described how the auto workers chased them off, with one man 
delivering a "flying kick" to their car. "I then drove to the Pontiac police station," 
Held continued, "and filed complaint No. 393271.... I developed the picture I had 
taken of the men and Detective Peters took it to the plant the following Tuesday 
and made the identification." 

Robert Greenberg and other Security staffers also developed a more 
sophisticated method for manipulating the police. They compiled hundreds of 
Investigative Leads articles, including false or exaggerated charges of illegal 
activity by their opponents. "They had this cynical attitude," Mordechai Levy said. 
"They thought, 'Why waste time going after an enemy when we can get the cops 
to do it for us?' A lot of what they put in Investigative Leads they knew was a total 
lie." In fact, it was just another example of LaRouche's hypothesis of the higher 
hypothesis, in which reasoning loses all touch with empirical reality in the service 
of a higher "natural law." 

The earliest documented example of this false-witness tactic occurred in 1974. 
The LaRouchians approached the FBI with a fabricated story about an NCLC 
opponent, James Retherford, who had taken his small daughter from her 
LaRouchian mother and fled New York to save the child from being raised in a 
cultish environment. Hoping to manipulate the FBI into searching for them, the 
Security staff falsely claimed that Retherford was in contact with Weather 
Underground fugitives. Although the FBI failed to take this story seriously, the 



LaRouchians tried again, targeting otiier opponents. FBI documents released to 
NCLC members under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that LaRouche 
emissaries made eleven visits or phone calls to FBI offices between May and 
July 1976 to present allegations about various leftists and that this was followed 
by further extensive contact. The FOIA documents, over 5,000 pages, proved so 
embarrassing that the NCLC went to court to get them removed from the FBI 
reading room. Yet the NCLC had to admit in court papers that it had "cooperated 
with the FBI and other federal and local law enforcement agencies" by providing 
information on the "terrorist activities" of persons associated with the Institute for 
Policy Studies, a left-wing Washington think tank, and the Repression 
Information Project, a research collective that had published a pamphlet critical of 
LaRouche. 

In mid-April 1977, two weeks before a mass demonstration against nuclear 
power at the Seabrook nuclear reactor site in New Hampshire, two Boston area 
NCLC leaders-Larry Sherman and Graham Lowry~met with Lieutenant Donald 
Buxton of the New Hampshire State Police to outline alleged plans for 
antinuclear violence by environmentalist groups. Buxton filed a report treating the 
allegations as worthy of serious consideration and described the two 
LaRouchians as "very well informed gentlemen." A copy was obtained by the 
Clamshell Alliance and made public shortly after the peaceful demonstration. The 
NCLC also took its allegations about the Clamshell Alliance to the FBI. But an 
April 28, 1977, FBI memorandum said the NCLC had apparently "fabricated" the 
information in an attempt to disrupt the demonstration "and cause New 
Hampshire officials unnecessary problems." 

The LaRouchians kept trying. One infiltrated a 1979 South Hadley, 
Massachusetts, planning meeting for another round of Seabrook demonstrations. 
He reported back to Security that it was "one of the most anal, turd-piling, hair- 
splitting New Left meetings it has been my displeasure to witness." Nevertheless, 
his report included a detailed account of the plans under discussion. Although the 
report contained no evidence of any plans for violence, the LaRouchians told the 
Boston Globe and law enforcement officials to expect violence. Once again, no 
violence occurred. 

The LaRouchians used the false-witness tactic in 1981 against an enemy they 
hated even more than the environmentalists-the Yippies. To the LaRouchians, 
the Yippies were the symbol of everything evil-long-haired potheads who hung 
out at rock concerts, had no respect for Beethoven, and made constant trouble 
for LaRouche. They had picketed his headquarters with the banner "Nazis Make 
Good Lampshades" and on several occasions placed crank calls to Steinberg 
and Goldstein from pay phones. Aron Kay, the Yippie "pie man," was plotting to 
land a mushroom pie in LaRouche's face at the earliest opportunity. Security 
prepared a series of "Dope Dossiers" on Kay, Abbie Hoffman, and other Yippies. 
A New Solidarity editorial, "Cleaning Up the Filth," described them as "gutter 
scum" and announced that the dossiers were "being supplied to the New York 



City Police Department and otiier law enforcement agencies." The contents of 
the dossiers were oriented toward inducing the police to investigate the Yippies 
for possession or sale of marijuana. The LaRouchians were well aware that 
marijuana possession was low on the police list of priorities, but suggested that 
the police would thereby find evidence of Yippie involvement in terrorism and 
other serious crimes. 

LaRouche already had developed a general philosophy about this. In a 1979 
memo addressed to "key police and security-intelligence agencies" on how to 
deal with supposed "terrorists" in the "rock-drug counterculture" (an allusion to 
the Yippies), he claimed that such people are "highly vulnerable" to arrest 
inasmuch as they live "in significant part in either a criminal or semi-criminal 
mode of life." He suggested that their activities as protesters and NCLC 
opponents could be countered by using "arrests for drug violations" to 
"destabilize" their "political infrastructure" and gather "most useful material" about 
their political activities. 

But in 1980 the tables were turned. A college student friendly to the Yippies 
decided to launch a one-man crusade to "destabilize" and gather "most useful 
material" about the LaRouchians themselves. Thus did the Security staff 
encounter Mordechai Levy, a kind of Prince of Provocateurs, who would cause it 
almost as much trouble as Roy Frankhouser. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Twenty-five 
An Agent of Chaos 

In the middle and late 1970s some NCLC members still worked at jobs in the 
outside world. Believing it to be dominated by the enemy, they naturally kept their 
eyes and ears open. Occasionally they gained useful information. A LaRouchian 
physician working at Lincoln Hospital in the Bronx in 1974 learned about earlier 
links between the Lincoln Detox Program--a drug-free acupuncture treatment 
facility for heroin addicts--and the Black Liberation Army. Subsequent NCLC 
reports on the BLA helped convince police departments that the LaRouchians 
might be worth listening to. 

A woman in the organization gained a job in Drexel Burnham's international 
economics division. While trying to ferret out information about its links to the 
mythical Dope, Inc. conspiracy, she picked up valuable information on gold 
trading that was incorporated into NCLC economic intelligence reports. She also 
acquired a knowledge of Drexel's economic models, which LaRouche and his 
aides reworked into the so-called LaRouche-Riemann economic model. 

Gail Goerner Kay, wife of Security staffer Robert Kay, used family connections to 
obtain a secretarial job with the Council on Foreign Relations. To the 
LaRouchians the CFR was one of the world's chief sources of evil, and Kay was 
encouraged to stay in the job for several years while concealing her NCLC 
connection. Her greatest coup was to attend a meeting of the secretive 
Bilderberg Society, an organization of top European and American bankers and 
industrialists that, in the eyes of conspiracy theorists, is even more sinister than 
the CFR. When William Bundy, editor of the CFR's Foreign Affair magazine, 
learned that Kay was a Mata Hari for LaRouche, he was astounded. "It's like the 
CIA getting an agent into the Politburo," he told The New York Times. 

But as life inside the NCLC became more tightly disciplined and prone to 
hysteria, it precluded any long-range infiltrations of the enemy camp. "Anyone 
who went undercover would be leaving the 'controlled environment,' " observed 
one former Security staffer. "LaRouche would lose his hold on them." Members 
gradually were withdrawn from outside jobs. Some top staffers became 
extremely nervous when the boss of the young woman at Drexel invited her to 
dinner. They feared he might be planning to turn her into a double agent by 
seducing her. Hysterical memos were circulated at NCLC headquarters, and she 
was removed from the danger zone. 

Ironically, the LaRouchians began to function in the outside world~as long as 
they took it in small doses-more effectively than ever. Some visited the National 



Security Council and made favorable impressions. Some comported themselves 
well on radio talk shows. But this was done only while they wore the persona of 
an NCLC "organizer" or "intelligence operative." When they attempted to pose as 
ordinary people, they weren't very good at it. Furthermore, their paranoid belief 
structure made some types of snooping almost impossible for them. Although 
they were skilled at making undercover calls to the Yippies, they were reluctant 
to spend much time hanging out with people whose lifestyles were radically 
different from their own. Thus they had to build a network of paid and unpaid 
informers. This brought them into association with the likes of Mordechai Levy. 
They were on the lookout for such people. 

Mordechai was a California State University undergraduate when he first 
encountered the LaRouchians in 1980. With a near-genius IQ, and vivid 
fantasies, he was bored with his accounting studies. His great passion in life was 
to fight Nazis. At the age of thirteen he had joined the Jewish Defense League. 
He became a great telephone-booth crank-call artist, attempting to strike terror 
into the hearts of Klansmen and Nazis across the country. White supremacists 
complained incessantly in The Spotlight and other hate sheets about the 
dangerous "terrorist" Levy. 

Soon after Mordechai began talking with the LaRouchians, they asked him to 
work for them as a secret operative. He jumped at the chance to become a mole 
in their ranks. Given the code name "Leviticus," he carried out various 
assignments in Los Angeles and made frequent trips to New York on direct 
orders from Steinberg, Goldstein, and West Coast Security chief Tim Pike, This 
relationship lasted for four years, with the LaRouchians paying tens of thousands 
of dollars for his meals, airfare, and hotel rooms. To maintain his cover. New 
Solidarity occasionally attacked him as a Zionist terrorist. 

Mordechai was supposed to collect intelligence on LaRouche's enemies and run 
operations against them. What he actually did was compose fictitious information 
for Goldstein and Steinberg while passing along tips about LaRouche's plans to 
journalists, the ADL, and Jewish community leaders. The tips sometimes weren't 
worth very much, for in espionage textbook fashion the LaRouchians tried to feed 
disinformation through him. But Mordechai developed a shrewd understanding of 
their psychology and began to provoke NCLC security alerts with his warnings of 
imaginary dangers. In 1982 he cooperated with the Manhattan district attorney's 
office in an investigation of them. After dropping his double-agent role in 1984 he 
agreed to be a witness in the Boston prosecution of LaRouche for obstruction of 
justice. 

The LaRouchians often pressured Mordechai for information on leftist sects. "I'd 
go off somewhere and pretend to make a phone call," he said. "Then I'd come 
back and tell them anything that popped into my head. I read a lot of leftist 
papers, so I could make it sound convincing." When they brought him to New 
York to run operations against various enemies, he set up a command post in a 



West Side hotel, and sat around chatting on the phone with friends under the 
guise of contacting "agents." He invited the Yippie "pie man," Aron Kay, to the 
hotel for a free meal at LaRouche's expense. This was supposed to be part of a 
deep operation against the Yippies. Aron couldn't show up, but Mordechai let two 
other Yippies crash in the hotel room. They had to leave at seven in the morning 
because Goldstein was expected at eight. Mordechai and Goldstein often met in 
Ratner's on Delancey Street or Bernstein's on Essex Street--the "mole" and his 
"control officer" plotting their next deployment against the ADL in a kosher 
restaurant! 

Hundreds of pages of NCLC Security documents from the years 1980-84 
describe debriefings of "Leviticus" and "Mark Levine." These documents confirm 
that the information he provided them was mostly innocuous or fictitious. He 
convinced Goldstein that he had a pipeline into Mossad, and told him to watch 
out for "Colonel Kiffel," "Henry Duvall," "Carlos the Jew," and other infamous 
assassins who had sworn to kill LaRouche. At one point he claimed to have seen 
a secret U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report on Helga, allegedly concluding 
that she was an East German agent. His description of the document was 
extremely convincing, and for good reason. He often stayed at the Bleecker 
Street apartment of investigative journalist A. J. Weberman, who had several 
filing drawers full of old Pentagon and CIA documents obtained under the 
Freedom of Information Act. Mordechai studied these and his imagination did the 
rest. 

Mordechai never met Roy Frankhouser and despised him as a racist. But he and 
Frankhouser inadvertently ended up in a curious indirect relationship as 
pranksters. According to Charles Tate's testimony in Frankhouser's 1987 trial, 
this was the result of their "bid[ding] up against each other about how much they 
knew." A Security staffer "would call Mr. Frankhouser and report what Mr. Levy 
had told them without saying it was from Mr. Levy. And Mr. Frankhouser, of 
course, in order. ..to show that he was not caught napping, would have to 
augment this fantasy with. ..yet more. If there were five assassins according to 
Mr. Levy's account, there had to be six according to Mr. Frankhouser's account. 
And this would go back to Mr. Levy, who would, you know, have a dozen." (This 
tactic was also adopted by "the Major," who apparently had figured out the magic 
equation: the greater the fear of assassination, the higher the consulting fees.) 

Some Security staffers were skeptical of Mordechai's stories all along. After he 
told them an especially wild fantasy, they demanded he come to the New York 
office for a lie detector test. Mordechai went to a private investigator to learn how 
to beat the machine. The PI told him to eat five orders of Chinese mustard, take 
antihistamines to dry out his nasal passages, then stay up all night. But 
Mordechai never had to try this method: The LaRouchians canceled the test. 

Mordechai's manipulation of Goldstein was the key to his success. It was 
Goldstein who bailed him out and restored his credibility whenever one of his 



stories didn't cliecl< out. IVIordecliai believed tliat Goldstein had "unconscious" 
doubts about the LaRouche organization and therefore needed him around as 
reassurance: "He would look at me, an Orthodox Jew with a yarmuike, and he 
would say to himself, 'If Mordechai can follow LaRouche, LaRouche must be 
okay.' " 

In dealing with Goldstein, Mordechai learned to pick up cues and anticipate 
expectations like a vaudeville mind reader. The transcript of a 1981 debriefing 
that the LaRouchians passed on to the NYPD Intelligence Division contains a 
good example: 

LEVY: And another [anti-LaRouche conspirator] named William.... 

GOLDSTEIN: Corey? 

LEVY: Greenberg. 

GOLDSTEIN: Greenberg, Maxwell Greenberg. 

LEVY: Maxwell Greenberg, that's right. I said William. ..the guy 

who's in the police commission, very big. See, everything's on 

levels, it's layers, you know.... 

Mordechai was forced not only to juggle contradictory stories but to control his 
temper when LaRouche aides told him that only a million and a half Jews died in 
the Holocaust or that the "rich Jews" would have to go into camps after 
LaRouche's ascent to power. (Charles Tate says Mordechai was not 
exaggerating about Security's anti-Semitic atmosphere. "I heard the most 
execrable things about rich Jews," Tate recalled. "They'd say the problem with 
World War II was that the wrong Jews were gassed.") 

In 1982 Mordechai broke with the JDL and formed his own Jewish Defense 
Organization (JDO). California newspapers published a photo of a scruffy gun- 
toting crew with Mordechai looking something like Captain Hook. He was soon 
too busy to continue his double life with the LaRouchians. In 1984 he revealed 
his deception and attacked them openly. This obliged Goldstein and Steinberg to 
settle ideological accounts with him, but they couldn't admit they'd been taken in 
so completely. 

Their rationalization took the form of a published report, "Mordechai Levy: The 
Profile of Mossad Hit Teams," contained in a larger study of the worldwide 
"Israeli mafia" conspiracy. According to this report, Mordechai had been sent into 
the NCLC as an ADL agent, but Goldstein had succeeded in partially "turning" 
him by teaching him about Rembrandt and Heinrich Heine. Mordechai had thus 
started giving the NCLC genuinely valuable information until the ADL put him 
through "severe trauma" to turn him again. Once this happened, once Leviticus 
the double agent became Leviticus the triple agent, he became "extremely 
dangerous," a walking time bomb of fanaticism and psychosis. Yet earlier, 
Goldstein had shown almost superhuman skill as his control officer: "The ability 
of EIR counterintelligence personnel to detect and utilize Levy's psychological 



conflicts," the report boasted, "produced a higher.. .accuracy of information from 
Levy than any other law enforcement or intelligence apparatus-even the Israeli 
Mossad--could have achieved without the use of mind-altering drugs or torture." 
The example given of this accurate information was Mordechai's account of a 
multileveled assassination plot against LaRouche, supposedly set for December 
31,1 981 , involving the Yippies, the ADL, the Israeli government, financier Max 
Fisher, a command post in London, and something called the AJEX/JWV Special 
Action Committee, or Group 62. Supposedly by revealing this plot Levy had 
saved LaRouche's life. 

But Goldstein showed a certain insight and even a hint of humor when he 
suggested that Mordechai could best be described as a "chaos agent." Goldstein 
listed the New York phone booths from which Mordechai supposedly made his 
crank calls. He pointed out, accurately, that the calls were mostly made from 
"booths in, or just outside," various kosher restaurants. 

Security also managed to attract informers who were motivated by grudges or 
cupidity and who possessed, or were willing to gather, information of real 
substance. One example of these not so golden souls was Bruce Bailey, a tenant 
organizer well connected among New York leftists and anti-Zionists. According to 
former LaRouchians (including Charles Tate, who dealt directly with him), and 
substantiated by court records and internal NCLC reports, Bailey had numerous 
secret meetings and phone conversations with Security staffers between 1979 
and 1984. 

The present author was the number one target. I had worked with Bailey in 
community politics in the 1970s, but ended up on his list of ideological enemies, 
A February 6, 1984, report of an interview with Bailey conducted by Tate 
(entered into the NCLC computer under the access name "King, Dennis," ID 
1044r, Code: Red, Sector: Security) suggests that once one becomes an 
informer it is difficult to restrict the range of one's informing. While discussing his 
grudge against me, Bailey ranged afield to gossip about his various past and 
present acquaintances on the left. His nastiest sexual slurs were leveled at a 
woman who had testified against him in a civil fraud proceeding several years 
previously. He also offered sexual gossip about a woman who had helped 
organize a picket line in front of his Columbia Tenants Union to protest its anti- 
Semitism, One person mentioned was the well-known civil rights activist and folk 
singer the Rev. F. D. Kirkpatrick. Although Kirkpatrick was one of Bailey's closest 
political associates, the report accused him of belonging to a "touchy-feely cult" 
and described him as a "bejeweled and dashikied" figure who "likes to think of 
himself as a local celebrity." Bailey's information was passed on to "Clay" (Roy 
Frankhouser) by Paul Goldstein, whose report (ID 0625m) of his daily chat with 
"Clay" noted that Bailey's information "provides [the] basis for cross-gridding" 
various political activists. 



Security also used the services of Grant Duay III, a writer of occasional pieces for 
the New York City News, an obscure Manhattan gay weekly. In late 1982, Duay 
first showed up at the League for Industrial Democracy, where I was working as 
a researcher. Duay asked to meet with the director. Arch Puddington, and 
showed him an article he had written attacking the NCLC as a right-wing political 
cult. Duay became a frequent visitor to the LID offices, and also showed up at a 
lecture I delivered on cult brainwashing, ostensibly to cover it for his newspaper. 

Puddington and I became suspicious when we heard that Duay was making calls 
to journalists on the LaRouche beat all over the country. Our suspicions 
increased after Michael Hudson, a creditor suing the LaRouchians for 
racketeering in New York federal court, received a call from Duay (a total 
stranger to him) just before an important court appearance. Upon learning from 
Federal Election Commission records that Duay had made donations to several 
LaRouchian election campaigns, we stopped talking to him. 

The full story of Duay's relationship with the LaRouchians was later revealed by 
Charles Tate, one of whose Security duties had been to supervise Duay. 
According to Tate, Duay's assignments included interviewing LaRouche 
opponents under false pretenses, gathering background material on them, and 
monitoring anti-LaRouche public meetings. Tate said that although Duay had 
been mildly sympathetic to LaRouche's ideas, he had never been willing to work 
for free. "He'd bring in a tape recording, we'd give him twenty bucks," Tate said. 
This was confirmed by an NCLC Security logbook containing handwritten reports 
of conversations with informants in the spring of 1984. The notebook had Duay's 
name and phone number on the cover and contained a distorted summary of an 
actual phone conversation between Duay and Puddington. 

In my own conversations with Duay he always seemed obsessed with 
uncovering what he said were secret links between various left-wing groups and 
the National Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). But the truth will out. On 
March 23, 1986, he was arrested as an alleged member of a sex ring that 
produced, sold, traded, and distributed child pornography. His arrest occurred at 
Gay Treasures, a Greenwich Village porn shop where he worked as a clerk, after 
undercover agents from a federal and local task force purchased videotapes of 
men having sex with young boys. Duay subsequently pleaded guilty to obscenity 
in the third degree, receiving a fine but no jail sentence. 

Members of the NCLC informer network, both fake and real, expected their 
identities to be kept secret, but the LaRouche organization demonstrated an utter 
disregard for their wishes. According to Tate, Bailey expressed a strong fear of 
public exposure, yet Jeffrey Steinberg (in a 1984 deposition in LaRouche v. NBC) 
gave away Bailey's name when it was clearly unnecessary to do so. (In the same 
deposition, he invoked "national security" to avoid naming several other sources.) 
Bailey became the target of newspaper articles that quoted from the deposition. 
Steinberg also neglected to protect Grant Duay's name. And LaRouche, in a 



subsequent deposition in tine same case, blabbed about botli IVIordecliai and Roy 
Frankliouser witliout forewarning tliem. IVIordecliai subsequently received 
physical threats from Jewish militants unaware of his double game. 

Those who "traded" information with the NCLC also experienced problems. 
There were lax security procedures about the handling of confidential reports, so 
that copies of documents describing secret conversations with police officers in 
various cities kept falling into the hands of journalists such as Chip Berlet or me. 
Also, Security staffers felt no compunctions about double-crossing people they 
traded with, by peddling information on them to third parties. For instance, in the 
early 1980s Security staffer Ira Liebowitz cultivated contacts in the Church of 
Scientology's Guardians' Office for the alleged purpose of exchanging 
information on mutual enemies. (Scientology, like the NCLC, has a long history of 
aggressive tactics against its opponents.) Arnon Harari, New York director of 
Scientology's Office of Special Affairs (the new name for the Guardians' Office), 
recalled meeting at least twice with Liebowitz. Meanwhile Investigative Leads 
produced a special report on Scientology for police intelligence units, while EIR 
misquoted from a Liebowitz-Harari conversation to falsely suggest links between 
Scientology and narcotics trafficking. 

The NCLC Security staff, through its remarkable range of deceptive tactics, has 
built up over a fifteen-year period one of the largest collections of private political 
intelligence data in the United States. According to defectors, these files contain 
blackmail-style information on public figures and details on the activities of both 
left-wing and right-wing political dissidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans 
are mentioned in these files, and thousands are profiled in some depth. Much of 
the information is false, malicious, and defamatory, but some of it is accurate and 
potentially devastating to the lives of the targeted persons. When the FBI and 
Virginia authorities raided LaRouche's headquarters in October 1986, they carted 
away more than 425 boxes of files. The media had the impression that these 
were mostly financial records, but the offices raided included those of the 
Security staff, and the files seized contained computer discs on which vast 
quantities of Security data were stored. The FBI thus came into possession of a 
major portion of the "LaRouche files." Apart from the details about political 
radicals and the rumors about the sex lives of public officials, these files contain 
evidence of extensive NCLC dealings with government and police officials and 
corporate executives throughout the country. Many of these individuals would be 
extremely embarrassed if their dealings with LaRouche should ever become a 
matter of public record. It is symptomatic of the media's curious blindness on the 
LaRouche issue that no one has raised the question of what the FBI intends to 
do with this intelligence bonanza. But whatever the answer, the seizure of these 
files represents a certain poetic justice. The LaRouchians set out to duplicate J. 
Edgar Hoover's infamous blackmail files, but their own files, once in the FBI's 
hands, led to the indictment of LaRouche himself for obstructing justice. 



CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Twenty-six 
To Roy Cohn, with Love 



Security's most amazing operation was its smear campaign against New York 
attorney and power broker Roy Cohn. It was a classic case of Freudian reaction 
formation — LaRouche, the Red-baiter of the 1980s, going after Cohn, the former 
aide to Joe McCarthy; LaRouche, the propagandist for organized crime, going 
after Cohn, its attorney and fixer; LaRouche, who lives like a millionaire but last 
paid income tax in 1973, going after Cohn, who evaded the IRS through similar 
tactics for most of his adult life. No two antagonists ever deserved each other 
more. 

The war on Cohn was triggered indirectly by an investigative series I wrote for 
the Manhattan weekly Our Town in 1979. These were the first articles to call 
attention to LaRouche's neo-Nazism. Former NCLC members say the series 
freaked out the national office staff. Especially affected were Jewish members, 
who had rationalized the turn to neo-Nazism via various self-deceptions, 

LaRouche moved quickly to blunt the psychological effect on his followers and 
launch a counterpunch. The first step was to announce that the articles signaled 
yet another assassination attempt against him. Previously, such announcements 
had led to security alerts and mobilizations, whipping up enough hysteria to keep 
his followers from thinking about things he didn't want them to think about. But for 
a security alert to be scary, the enemy must be scary — not just a neighborhood 
newspaper but a giant global conspiracy. Naturally that conspiracy had to include 
Jews and drug traffickers. In a broadside entitled "We'll Destroy the Zionists 
Politically," LaRouche announced: "I am a chief target . . . because I have had 
the guts to identify the enemy boldly and directly. Anyone attacking me in the 
way that the Zionist rag Our Town did is fully in cahoots with. ..Dope, Inc." 

LaRouche filed a $20 million suit against Our Town, which retained Roy Cohn as 
its defense attorney. When Security discovered that Colin had represented Our 
Town on several previous occasions, they blamed him for the articles. The NCLC 
issued a leaflet with a picture of Cohn and the caption: "Roy Cohn, the mobster 
who wants to see LaRouche dead." It described him as a major figure in the 
above-mentioned Dope, Inc. (a mythical Jewish drug cartel), and one of the 
plotters behind the assassination of John F, Kennedy. As the weeks passed, 
NCLC ascribed more and more importance to Cohn in their global conspiracies. 

This propaganda was too hysterically worded to have much effect on the general 
public, but inside the NCLC it effectively diverted attention. By constant repetition 



LaRouche linked Our Town's articles to the name, face, and odious reputation of 
Cohn, He even claimed Cohn had personally written the series. This was a trick 
LaRouche had described well in "Beyond Psychoanalysis" (1973): If one is faced 
with dangerous thoughts, one can "block the process of assimilation" by the 
"commonplace ruse" of slapping a nasty label on them. The Our Town articles 
called for a chain-reaction label: Cohn, McCarthy, Mafia, Faggot. This was 
effective because many of LaRouche's followers were former leftists with a gut 
hatred of McCarthyism, and Cohn was McCarthyism's premier living symbol. The 
NCLC members thus could regard themselves as the successors of the 
Rosenbergs, suffering jolt after jolt from Roy Cohn's Our Town, Roy Cohn's New 
York Times, and Roy Cohn's Anti-Defamation League. 

On another level the anti-Cohn rhetoric reinforced the NCLC's anti-Semitism at 
the very moment when outsiders were harshly questioning it. One of the oldest 
ploys of anti-Semites is to focus on an individual Jew who is genuinely sinister, 
and to describe his crimes in a manner which suggests that criminality is an 
innate Jewish trait. The LaRouchians had frequently railed against Meyer 
Lansky, the financial wizard of organized crime, and long-deceased Jewish 
gangsters of the Prohibition era such as Bugsy Siegel of Murder, Inc. But such 
figures had always been too remote from the mainstream Jewish community to 
be convincing symbols. Cohn, however, was a power in New York politics, with 
ties to many prominent and respectable Jews. The LaRouchians thus could 
allege that he represented both a Jewish conspiracy and behavior patterns 
typical of rich Jews. (In fact, Cohn was an aberrant personality who could have 
come from any ethnic group. Neither of his two historic partners in demagoguery, 
McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover, was Jewish, and his most sinister clients were 
Italians.) 

Cohn's unrepentant McCarthyism, his homosexuality, his role in selecting judges 
in New York, and his notoriously unethical behavior before the bar all became 
grist for the propaganda mill, topped off by his media image as the meanest man 
in New York — an image he carefully cultivated to enhance the price of his legal 
services and the effectiveness of his courtroom theatrics. LaRouche transformed 
this into Cohn, the meanest Zionist \r\ New York, the personification of the 
alleged inner meanness of Zionism itself. NCLC members then joined in the 
Cohn-hating much as the fictional denizens of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty- 
four ra\\\e6 for hate sessions directed at the scapegoat Emmanuel Goldstein. 
Critical thinking within the NCLC national office was almost completely blocked, 
and no defections occurred for over a year. 

But LaRouche's troubles in the outside world were by no means squelched. The 
New York Times echoed Our Town's findings in a frontpage series, and the story 
spread to newspapers in New Hampshire, where LaRouche was making his 
Democratic primary presidential bid. He tried to counter the reports by claiming 
he was being libeled by Cohn and "the mob" as a result of his antidrug stance, 
but such protestations were not effective with the general public, and he received 



only 2,300 votes in the primary. He tlius faced a new dilemma: He had built up 
Cohn as the enemy, but by the logic of this myth, Cohn had caused LaRouche's 
humiliating New Hampshire defeat. All LaRouche had been able to do to Cohn 
was fulminate. Some form of revenge would have to be extracted if LaRouche's 
reputation as a dangerous fellow was not to melt away. 

A stroke of luck gave LaRouche the means to extract his revenge in an 
extraordinary manner, boosting his followers' view of themselves as a potent 
force and sending a message to the Establishment: Don't mess with Lyndon 
LaRouche if you have anything to hide. This lucky event was the convergence of 
the LaRouchians' rage with that of Richard Dupont, a former lover, business 
associate, and law client of Cohn's. Richard was the co-owner of Big Gym, a gay 
health club that had been evicted from its Greenwich Village quarters in 1979. 
Previously Richard had dreamed of purchasing the property, but it ended up in 
the hands of a real estate developer. Richard blamed this on Cohn's having 
made a deal behind his back, and he started to talk to anyone who would listen. 
He said that Cohn had been the silent partner in Big Gym, and that Cohn's 
personal assistant, Russell Eldridge, had been assigned to skim off cash and 
procure young men from among the club's clientele to service Cohn's insatiable 
sexual needs. 

Through the years Cohn had double-crossed many clients, from rich elderly 
ladies through mobsters, and always with impunity. But in Richard he found a 
victim with an almost superhuman thirst for revenge and a cunning to match his 
own. Richard was determined to bring down his powerful betrayer, and was 
willing to run whatever risks were necessary. He contacted many of Cohn's past 
victims in preparation for a lawsuit. He waged a campaign of hundreds of crank 
calls to Cohn and various of his associates at their homes and offices. He wrote 
"Roy Cohn Is a Fag" up and down the sidewalk in front of Cohn's town house. He 
sent fire trucks and police on a false alarm to Cohn's Greenwich, Connecticut, 
estate, disrupting a dinner party that included Mr. and Mrs. Donald Trump, the 
Baron and Baroness di Portanova, and Mrs. S. I. Newhouse. When Cohn was in 
the hospital recovering from plastic surgery, Richard slipped into the room, 
wearing a white coat and with a stethoscope around his neck, to remonstrate 
with Cohn and give him a bouquet of wilted flowers. 

Richard also developed a remarkable network of informants in Cohn's office and 
among Cohn's lovers. He knew where Cohn was at virtually every moment. 
Secretaries, switchboard operators, and business underlings all helped him, as 
did Cohn's lovers. His most important source was George Dowling, who ran the 
skimming operations at Cohn's porn theaters and parking lots. Dowling despised 
Cohn and provided Richard with information of the most sensitive nature. Richard 
then called up the head of real estate at the Rock Island Railroad in Chicago and 
told him how Cohn's associates were skimming off and double-ticketing 
approximately $350,000 a year from parking lots leased from the railroad. The 
Cohnheads promptly lost the franchise. 



Said Kalev Pehme, a former Our Town editor wlio l<new Ricliard well and often 
dealt with Cohn on news stories: "Richard had a profound understanding of 
Cohn's closet homosexual self-hate. He constantly preyed on this and on Cohn's 
vanity. It was the cumulative effect, one little thing after another, and suddenly 
you had this powerful figure breaking down because Richard sent him wilted 
flowers. Richard just kept hitting him like a prizefighter, little blows, you're woozy, 
then you're gone." Pehme attributed Richard's success in gaining the cooperation 
of Cohn's lovers to this same psychological understanding. "Richard would help 
them get over Roy. They were often innocent types, not boys, but men, with 
battered egos, no self-esteem, completely dominated and used by Cohn. Richard 
would commiserate with them in the most astonishing compassionate way. He 
developed tremendous rapport with them, and they told him everything." 

In early 1980 a friend of Richard's was handed an NCLC anti-Cohn leaflet in front 
of Bloomingdale's. She passed it on to Richard, who asked Pehme about it. 

Pehme warned him that the LaRouchians were a cult, but Richard figured any 
enemy of Cohn was worth meeting. He soon recognized that, cult or not, they 
had the resources to do what he and other Cohn victims had not been able to do 
on their own. As to the LaRouchian ideology, it simply was of no interest to him. 

Over the next few months Richard met on numerous occasions with Paul 
Goldstein and other Security staffers, providing them with devastating information 
about Cohn's personal life, finances, and professional double-dealings. The 
result was collected and published in a magazine. Now East, whose two issues 
were devoted almost entirely to stories about Cohn and other attorneys at Saxe, 
Bacon, Bolan & Manley, as well as their clients. 

Goldstein, Richard, and members of the New Solidarity editorial staff plotted out 
the first issue and its follow-up at Richard's apartment on West Eighth Street. 
Richard insisted that there be no anti-Zionist rhetoric, which he knew would 
destroy the magazine's effectiveness. A LaRouchian staff artist drew 
pornographic cartoons depicting Cohn in flagrante, while other cartoons were 
plagiarized and adapted from The New Yorker. (Richard supplied the captions.) 
The advertisements were taken without permission from legitimate gay 
publications. The entire production was written, laid out, typeset, printed, and 
paid for by the LaRouche organization, under Goldstein's direct supervision. Yet 
its masthead listed a fictitious editorial staff and the address of a telephone 
answering service used by Richard. 

For Richard, it was sweet revenge. For the LaRouchians, it was a weird inversion 
of their experience with Our Town. The latter had dared to bare the LaRouchians' 
dark secret, their closet Nazism. Now the LaRouchians were laying out Cohn's 
secrets. 



As soon as the press run of the 52-page magazine was completed at LaRouche's 
PMR Printing Company, the bundles were whisked off to Staten Island and 
stored in George Bowling's garage. From there, Richard, his friends, and 
members of the Security staff distributed them around Manhattan. The first 
copies were passed out during New York's Gay Pride parade in June 1980. 
Copies of this and the subsequent issue were distributed to Cohn's clients and 
colleagues, to Manhattan's federal court judges, and to the city rooms of the 
metropolitan dailies. Stacks were left at East Side restaurants frequented by 
Cohn, such as "21" and P.J. Clarke's. Charles Tate recalls being assigned to 
pass out copies at a meeting of a conservative Catholic group attended by Tom 
Bolan, one of Cohn's law partners. 

The first issue's lead article was an "Open Letter to the Gay Community" bearing 
Cohn's name, in which he purportedly confessed his homosexuality and 
apologized for selling out Big Gym. Other articles provided details about the 
skimming operations at Cohn-linked businesses and a combination of real and 
fictitious stories about his glitzy clients such as Buddy Jacobson, Gloria 
Vanderbilt, Steve Rubell of Studio 54, Baron and Baroness di Portanova, and 
Gloria Steinberg, estranged wife of financier Saul Steinberg. In addition. Now 
East included the names of young men who allegedly had slept with Cohn, 
details about his health, and a drawing of a graveyard with his name on a 
tombstone. 

The second issue followed in November, with a cover drawing labeled "Roy Cohn 
. . . Fairy." It included articles about a male model alleged to be Cohn's latest 
lover, Cohn's tax-evasion methods, and how he double-crossed several clients 
including an organized-crime boss. 

Veteran Cohn watchers say that much of the information in the two issues was 
accurate, some was exaggerated, a few things were concocted. But even the 
false material bore an aura of believability (and hence a great capacity for 
embarrassing and humiliating Cohn) because of the skillful way in which it was 
interwoven with the factual material — the secrets that no one else had ever dared 
print about New York's vaunted "legal executioner." The reported incidents of 
professional misconduct were far more outrageous than those which would lead 
to Cohn's disbarment in 1986, shortly before his death from AIDS. In addition, the 
magazine discussed Cohn's silent partnership in a Staten Island parking lot 
skimming operation run illegally on city property by Enrico Mazzeo, former real 
estate manager for the city's Department of Marine and Aviation. Mazzeo already 
was the target of a Brooklyn federal strike force probe. In November 1983 he was 
found dead in a car trunk in Brooklyn, the victim of a gangland-style execution. 

Cohn was desperate to stop the flow of information to Richard, but there were 
just too many inside sources. When John LeCarre's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy 
was dramatized on television, Dupont and the LaRouchians began to refer to 
these sources collectively as "Geraldine" — after LeCarre's "Gerald the Mole." 



Cohn went to his old antagonist IVIanliattan District Attorney Robert IVIorgentliau 
witli a desperate request for lielp. In October 1980 Richard was indicted on 
thirteen criminal counts, mostly acts of petty harassment that, under ordinary 
circumstances, a district attorney wouldn't waste his time on. The Village Voice 
noted that Morgenthau and Cohn had seemed very chummy at a party the night 
before Richard's 6 A.M. arrest. The Voice believed the indictment said more 
about Cohn's power in New York politics than about Richard's criminality. 

Morgenthau's office was well aware of the involvement of the LaRouchians with 
Richard. Assistant DA Harold Wilson called Our Town about them on several 
occasions in August and September 1980. Yet none of them were indicted. 
Richard's attorney, John Klotz, believes a political decision was made to let them 
off: "Just after Richard's arraignment I went to Wilson, I said, 'Let's work 
something out, we'll help you get LaRouche.' Wilson said to me, 'After I convict 
Dupont, I will immunize him and put him in front of a grand jury. I don't need your 
help.' " 

That second grand jury was never convened. Former associates of Cohn and 
LaRouche say that an agreement was arrived at: LaRouche would stop 
harassing Cohn, and there would be no reprisals against LaRouche. Now East 
ceased publication, and New Solidarity scaled back its attacks on Cohn. 
According to Anne-Marie Vidal, a former member of the NCLC inner circle, 
LaRouche aides paid a substantial sum to Cohn to introduce LaRouche to 
important people and persuade the media to leave the NCLC alone. According to 
law enforcement sources, such a deal was indeed made, but Cohn never 
delivered what he had promised. 

Dupont's trial in the summer of 1981 lasted five weeks. Wilson never once 
mentioned the defendant's LaRouche connection or the involvement of the 
LaRouchians in Now East, although its distribution was included among the 
charges against Dupont. This was an extraordinary omission. LaRouche's 
probable involvement had been mentioned repeatedly in The Village Voice. 
Bringing his name into the case could only have strengthened Wilson's hand, 
especially with Jewish members of the jury. Nevertheless, the prosecution 
maintained that Dupont published and distributed Now East alone. Defense 
counsel Klotz's questioning of Richard brought out that he was dyslexic, never 
graduated from high school, had no experience in newspaper layout or any other 
aspect of newspaper work, and could not have produced the magazine on his 
own. This left a hole wide enough to run a bulldozer through. All Wilson had to do 
was ask Richard who his accomplices were, and then claim that Richard, far from 
being a little guy seeking justice, was a sinister ally of the infamous LaRouche. 
But this was no ordinary trial. It was a political trial in which the rea/ prosecutor 
was not Wilson but Roy Cohn, disguised as the star witness. And Cohn had 
gained a vested interest in keeping LaRouche's name out. 



Everything about the wilted-flowers trial was potentially explosive: a homosexual 
version of the TV series "Dallas," with Cohn as J.R., that provided a rare window 
into the profoundly disturbed world of power in New York. But Judge Bentley 
Kassal's rulings, the prosecution's tactics, and Cohn's influence with the media 
kept that window mostly closed. If it had been opened, the public would have 
learned much about high-level New York political corruption, foreshadowing the 
Donald Manes-Stanley Friedman-Mayor Koch scandals of the mid-1980s. But 
editors at the metropolitan dailies allowed the trial only minimal play. Even The 
Village Voice only nibbled at the edges. There were no TV cameras on the 
courthouse steps. People v. Dtvponf disappeared into the Memory Hole. 

The jury found Richard not guilty on both of the felony counts, but guilty of six 
misdemeanors. To convict him of crank phone calls to Cohn cost the taxpayers 
over $250,000. But when Michael Hudson, a victim of straightforward loan fraud 
by the LaRouchians, went to the DA's office in 1982, he was told his complaint 
was too complicated (unlike the sexually-politically-psychiatrically entangled 
Dupont case!). Indeed no prosecutor seemed to be willing to take on LaRouche. 
In 1979 a New York Times editorial had urged a probe of his nonprofit Fusion 
Energy Foundation. But the State Attorney General's office, which is in charge of 
monitoring nonprofit organizations, took no action. It was one of the few times 
this publicity-conscious office ever ignored The New York Times. 

Meanwhile, LaRouche's NCLC developed Manhattan-centered scams in the 
early 1980s that — according to subsequent indictments and civil RICO suits — 
would rip off the public for tens of millions of dollars. Even as this was beginning. 
The Village Voice and Our Town published articles pointing out LaRouche's 
financial improprieties and links to racketeers. Neither Morgenthau's office nor 
State Attorney General Robert Abrams' office nor the office of the U.S. Attorney 
for the Southern District of New York showed any inclination to look at these 
accusations. The first real probe in 1984 had to begin in Boston. Abrams only 
went after LaRouche in the summer of 1986, when Roy Cohn was safely on his 
deathbed and several state attorney generals from Alaska to Florida were 
already on the case — investigating a conspiracy that began in Abrams' own 
backyard. 

Charles Tate says the Security staff believed in the early 1980s that the soft 
treatment the NCLC received in New York — including Mayor Koch's speak-no- 
evil attitude toward LaRouche mayoral candidate Melvin Klenetsky in 1981 — was 
due to a fear of NCLC smear campaigns. The NCLC's negative personal 
information about political figures, he said, was actually in files "in alphabetical 
order" in the Security office. Tate added that he personally interviewed an alleged 
former intimate friend of Brooklyn DA Elizabeth Holtzman and also received 
information on her from a paid informant. The aim was to convince prosecutors 
and politicians that "they don't need an enemy of this type," Tate said. 



In the 1987 Frankhouser trial, Tate testified that whenever LaRouche couldn't 
find damaging information "he would invent something." Indeed the LaRouchians 
followed an age-old smear tactic: Look at a person's lifestyle and figure what 
might be true, then publish your speculations as fact. A certain percentage of the 
time you will hit the bull's eye, and the victim will freak out thinking you know 
more than you do. If it isn't true, much of the public will believe it anyway, and the 
victim will heartily wish you'd just shut up. If you're doing this in an exceptionally 
corrupt political environment like Koch's New York, where most public figures 
have secrets to hide, you're guaranteed a large measure of immunity from libel 
suits. To gain a powerful intimidating reputation, you just have to be right once in 
a big way. The LaRouchians were right in a stupendous way with Now East, and 
after that no one in New York seriously went after them for years. 

Following Dupont's trial but prior to sentencing. Judge Kassal received a letter 
from Roger Stone, regional director of Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential 
campaign. Sent at Cohn's request, the letter was apparently intended to urge a 
stiff sentence for Richard. Stone complained that Richard had once called to ask 
him about his "personal relationship" with Cohn, then sent him flowers and 
several copies of Now East. Kassal delayed sentencing while ordering Richard to 
seek psychiatric treatment. However, the following June he imposed a sentence 
of four consecutive years for Richard's nonviolent prankish misdemeanors — a 
punishment virtually without precedent in such a case and regarded as incredible 
by some journalists who covered the trial. A few months later, Kassal was 
elevated to the Appellate Division. 

While the case was being appealed, Richard was ordered to Rikers Island to 
begin serving his sentence. Believing accidents had been known to happen to 
enemies of Cohn, and that Rikers Island was a good place for such an accident, 
Richard went underground and spread the word that the DA's detective squad 
had better not come near him — he had AIDS. (This actually was not true.) 
Several months later Richard went to former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey 
Clark, who arranged for him to turn himself in. When the appeal came up, Kassal 
disqualified himself. The remaining judges agreed it was indeed peculiar that 
Dupont had been sentenced to jail for passing out a magazine on the street, a 
constitutionally protected activity. They dismissed that count, but let the rest of 
the conviction stand. 

The Cohn-LaRouche war might have ended after Richard was convicted, save 
for Helga LaRouche's car being involved in a near accident in West Germany. 
The LaRouchians smelled an assassination attempt. Frankhouser's Mister Ed 
gallantly offered to protect Helga and suggested that the CIA was taking the 
threat very seriously. Mordechai Levy said that the infamous assassin "Henry 
Duvall" was involved and that Roy Cohn was obviously behind "Duvall." The 
freak-out began when Goldstein went to Richard to ask if he could find out 
anything from inside Saxe, Bacon. Sensing an opportunity to resurrect Now East, 
Richard confirmed Levy's story. 



The LaRouchians were furious over Cohn's alleged "double cross." They 
responded with an attack even nastier than Now East — hundreds of thousands of 
copies of a bogus New York Times supplement, "Profiles of the Times," designed 
to look like the Sunday book review section but devoted to further exposing Cohn 
and his associates. Tate says it was Richard's "brainchild," and that Richard 
devised "what to say and how to say it." On a Saturday night in October 1 982, 
two members of LaRouche's Security staff took "Profiles" around to dozens of 
newsstands in Manhattan and Oueens in a rented van. Wearing dark glasses, 
they represented themselves as Times employees and instructed the 
newsdealers to insert the supplement in the Sunday papers. Before the Times 
management could react, it had reached tens of thousands of readers. 

"Profiles" contained alleged quotes from former lovers of Cohn, including three 
men who later died of AIDS. It also contained a fake Barbara Walters interview 
with Cohn in which he purportedly admitted his homosexuality and discussed in 
some detail his inner emotional life and illegal dealings with various business 
associates. The piece was written with subtlety and verve. After buying the Times 
that Saturday night, I was halfway into the Walters-Cohn interview before it 
dawned on me: Richard and the LaRouchians had struck again, 

A later edition of the Times carried a disclaimer, and many of the "Profiles" 
copies were never distributed. Yet the prank turned out to be far more effective 
than Now East. It was reported on the wire services and in daily papers across 
the country, raising the issue of Roy Cohn's homosexuality with millions of 
readers. New York's daily papers on Monday reported the indignant howls of 
eminent persons. Cohn declared "Profiles" a "total lie" and vowed to seek "every 
available" legal remedy "to see that something like this does not happen 
again. ..to someone less capable of self-defense." Republican gubernatorial 
candidate Lew Lehrman, himself a target in "Profiles" along with Mayor Koch, 
said that "so outrageous a personal attack has never occurred in an election in 
New York State politics." Leonard Harris of the Times said that it was "the poison 
Tylenol technique applied to newspapers," while another Times executive, John 
Pomfret, promised that the paper would "pursue vigorously an investigation of 
this outrage in consultation with law-enforcement authorities." 

The Times's veteran Nazi hunter Howard Blum was assigned to track down the 
LaRouche connection. Morgenthau announced the launching of an investigation 
by Harold Wilson and a team of detectives. A grand jury was convened to 
examine evidence that the LaRouchians had violated forgery laws. 

But all this turned out to be mere bluster. Although the district attorney's detective 
squad raided LaRouche's printshop on November 16, it failed to simultaneously 
raid the typesetting firm, located at another address. When the police arrived at 
the printshop, a member of LaRouche's legal staff was already there, 
forewarned. 



Part of the story came out in 1986 in tine Boston credit-card fraud case, wlien FBI 
special agent Richard Egan testified regarding information on the bogus Times 
supplement received from government informants. The NCLC Security staff had 
"managed to have some kind of leak of information from the district attorney's 
office which allowed them to destroy the [printing] plates" before the search 
warrant could be executed. Security chief Paul Goldstein, who was Morgenthau's 
chief suspect, had been sent on a "European vacation." Former LaRouche 
bodyguard Lee Fick had run into Goldstein in Wiesbaden, and Goldstein had told 
him, "Lyn wants me here because it's too hot in New York." LaRouche aide 
Jeffrey Steinberg had asked Klansman Roy Frankhouser to go to the printshop 
and "lean on" an employee whom Steinberg was worried might talk to the police. 

Former police officer Phil Perlonga, a Metro employee who served as a 
LaRouche bodyguard in 1982-83, says that the LaRouchians asked him to 
shadow Richard, whom they were fearful might make a deal to cooperate with 
the authorities. "I followed him all over the fur district," Perlonga recalled. He also 
said the LaRouchians asked him to conduct surveillance of the DA's office to see 
if Richard went in or out. 

For several weeks, the LaRouchians were extremely jumpy. LaRouche was living 
in a town house on Sutton Place. Perlonga, in charge of a security detail, recalls 
that someone phoned in with a report that Morgenthau's detective squad was on 
its way to arrest LaRouche. LaRouche's in-house Security people immediately 
"came downstairs, put on bulletproof vests, and checked their .45s. I took the 
Metro guys outside, and told them to stay there and if the police came, to tell 
them there were crazy people armed inside and that they should communicate 
through me. I then went back inside; I was prepared to blow LaRouche's guys 
away if they fired on police officers." But the DA's squad never arrived: The report 
was a concoction phoned in from Los Angeles by Mordechai Levy. "I made it all 
up," Levy said. "It was part of my plan to drive them crazy." 

In spite of their paranoia, the LaRouchians made some shrewd moves during the 
"Profiles" uproar. New Solidarity issued a threat as to what Cohn could expect if 
the case ever came to trial. The article began by noting that he had decided not 
to sue for libel. This supposedly reflected his "reticence to make himself and his 
business and sexual dealings the subject of what could only be one of the 
country's most highly publicized trials . . . especially given what this news service 
knows to be Cohn's many crimes." The article quoted LaRouche as saying that 
"Cohn has more enemies than a queen bee has eggs." If the DA ever brought 
the "Profiles" case to trial, the defendants would "drown [Cohn's] political career 
in a flood of publicity and gales of laughter." 

The LaRouchians also targeted Morgenthau. Security notebooks from November 
1982 show that they assiduously pursued negative information about the DA and 
his wife, former New York Times reporter Lucinda Franks. According to one 
notebook entry, a source at a drug treatment center told them a preposterous 



story that Morgenthau owned whorehouses. Another entry described an 
undercover phone call to one of Franks's colleagues. They then flooded 
downtown Manhattan with leaflets devoted to standard LaRouche charges — e.g., 
that Morgenthau was a tool of the "Israeli mafia" and that his wife was a "terrorist 
sympathizer." (She had indeed spent time with the Weather Underground, but for 
the purpose of writing a book about them.) 

One leaflet, passed out in front of Morgenthau's office to make sure he received 
the message, contained a LaRouche zinger transcending the usual NCLC 
rhetoric. It alleged that Morgenthau had "sat on the biggest banking scandal of 
the past decade, American Bank and Trust's 1976 failure," and that he had 
"prosecuted clerk-level fall guys while top bank officers and 
manipulators. ..received immunity in a $45 million rip-off of depositors." Details 
followed, based in part on long-forgotten articles in Barron's and New York 
magazine by Richard Karp, a freelance financial reporter. Karp told me the 
LaRouchians had called him at the time and questioned him closely about the 
American Bank scandal and related matters. He recalled that they seemed 
extremely well informed. 

The LaRouchians boasted in a December 10, 1982, New Solidarity article by 
Linda de Hoyos (who had been involved in the production of Now East) that they 
were engaged in an effort to "unnerve" Morgenthau and catch his office "off 
guard." A December 14 article by Security staffer Vin Berg in Executive 
Intelligence Review made the threat explicit: "Morgenthau has been involved in 
many covert operations against LaRouche in the past, but this one is the riskiest, 
because it is being conducted openly. ...By stepping into the light of day in this 
way, Robert Morgenthau has made himself, his financial and political associates, 
and his record in office matters for intense public scrutiny." 

By early 1983 the DA's office suspected that Goldstein and two aides were the 
chief culprits. Yet by December 1983 there was still no action. Harold Wilson, in a 
telephone interview, attributed the delay to a federal court lawsuit the 
LaRouchians had filed against the DA that year. But the investigation may simply 
have been spiked. John Klotz says he approached the DA's office with an offer 
that Richard would give testimony in exchange for some consideration on his 
own sentence but the DA spurned the offer. Was the DA's office once again 
letting the LaRouchians off the hook to protect themselves and other powerful 
people from further embarrassment? Wilson claims that his office didn't make a 
deal with Klotz because they didn't believe Richard could give "direct, competent, 
truthful evidence." But this statement is belied by Richard's competent and 
truthful (if rambling) testimony about Cohn in his 1981 trial, as well as the 
extraordinary accuracy of his published information on Cohn. The Village Voice 
quoted Klotz shortly after the "Profiles" hoax: "The last investigation [the Now 
East one] was botched by Morgenthau's office because they didn't go beyond 
Dupont to look at the financing and publication of Now East. The New York 
Times is paying the price for that with this [second] reprehensible publication." 



Certainly the DA's double standard for big guy LaRouche and little guy Dupont 
bore more than a little similarity to the double standard in the American Bank 
case. 

According to NCLC defectors and Security employees, LaRouche's top aides 
alluded to a new rapprochement with Cohn that supposedly resulted in the 
abandonment of the "Profiles" investigation. LaRouche and Cohn had associates 
in common who would have wanted this high-profile war stopped, even if Roy 
had to eat humble pie. Cohn was the attorney for Fat Tony Salerno, and Fat 
Tony, as would be alleged in a federal indictment in 1986, had his hooks deep 
into Teamster boss Jackie Presser, LaRouche's number one hoodlum ally. In 
fact, the LaRouche-Cohn war ceased for good. There were no more major 
revelations, although New Solidarity would gloat over Cohn's AIDS a few months 
before the major media dared mention it. Goldstein returned from his "vacation" 
to continue his trickster campaigns with greater impudence than ever. 
Meanwhile, The New York Times abandoned its own investigation of the 
"Profiles." With the exception of a brief item on the DA's raid, nothing more was 
ever published. The Village Voice noted that the Times "seems curiously reticent 
on a matter so deeply offensive to its own integrity." But the Times had also been 
curiously reticent in covering the Dupont trial or, for that matter, anything relating 
to Roy Cohn's corruption of the New York political process in the late 1970s and 
early 1980s. 

Nevertheless, LaRouche had played close to the edge with his "Profiles of the 
Times." Shortly after the DA's raid on the printshop, he packed up and moved to 
Virginia, although NCLC headquarters remained in New York for two more years. 
In a 1984 affidavit, he stated that he had not "travelled to New York since 
December of 1982 and will not travel to or visit New York City" because of the 
"security situation." However, he continued to dabble in New York political 
intrigues from the safety of his country estate. In 1983 a bitter enemy of 
Morgenthau, former New York City medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden, met 
with LaRouche in Leesburg. Baden had been removed as medical examiner in 
1979 in part because of pressure from Morgenthau. The LaRouchians had 
championed Baden in several articles, depicting him as a victim of machinations 
by the Dope, Inc. cartel. He was accompanied by his wife. Dr. Judianne Densen- 
Gerber, formerly of Odyssey House, who had spoken at LaRouchian anti-drug 
rallies, and by Dr. John Grauerholz, a former colleague of Baden's in the Suffolk 
County, New York, medical examiner's office. 

That same year Grauerholz and other medical professionals allied with Baden 
became involved in a campaign to discredit Morgenthau and Baden's successor. 
Dr. Elliot Gross, over their handling of the death in police custody of a young 
black graffiti artist, Michael Stewart. Grauerholz served as a source for The New 
York Times in a series critical of Gross and was later honored at a dinner held by 
a political coalition that was seeking justice for the Stewart family. The Times and 
the political coalition suffered considerable embarrassment when the New York 



Post revealed that Grauerholz was a full-time follower of LaRouche. The 
campaign against Gross and Morgenthau meanwhile developed anti-Semitic 
undertones in the black community, thanks to the newsletter of a group that 
called itself African Activists in America. The LaRouchians did their bit by alleging 
that Gross and Morgenthau were part of an anti-Michael Baden conspiracy 
headed by the "Israeli mafia." An article by LaRouche's Upper West Side snitch 
Bruce Bailey was circulated, alleging that blacks were held in a Zionist "death 
grip." (After multiple probes on the local, state, and federal levels. Gross 
eventually was cleared of any wrongdoing in the Stewart case. In October 1987, 
Mayor Koch dismissed him from his post, citing administrative ineffectiveness.) 

By June 1986 the LaRouchians were under investigation in over a dozen states 
for loan fraud. New York NCLC members had participated in soliciting many of 
these loans at a time when their organization's regional office was located right 
down the street from Brooklyn DA Liz Holtzman's office. But New York 
prosecutors, despite the strong sentiment against LaRouche in the Jewish 
community in the wake of his organization's Illinois campaign victories, lagged far 
behind states where public sentiment and the demands of justice were not nearly 
as strong. Our Town publisher Edward Kayatt ran an editorial calling for sacking 
both Morgenthau and Abrams if they didn't move on LaRouche. The untouchable 
Morgenthau ignored it. Abrams, however, spoke from the floor at a Jewish 
Community Relations Advisory Council gathering in Manhattan the week the 
editorial appeared, apologizing for his office's failure to exercise vigilance and 
asking anyone who had been ripped off by LaRouche to come forward. Shortly 
thereafter his office began contacting many victims of LaRouche's fund raising. 

The LaRouchians figured they could once again use their embarrassing- 
revelations tactic. On August 4, New Solidarity published an article about how 
certain Abrams aides were involved in the gay rights movement. A week later an 
article by Michelle Steinberg and LaRouche's chief spokesman, Ed Spannaus, 
suggested that the NCLC might be in possession of potentially embarrassing 
information received from Cohn shortly before his death. Pointing out that Cohn 
had wanted on his deathbed to pass on some information about public officials, 
they speculated that this information was from Cohn's "blackmail files" and that 
"Cohn's knowledge of the homosexual weaknesses of some. ..as-yet-unnamed 
public officials was not academic." They boasted about the devastating quality of 
some of the NCLC's past insider information from circles around Cohn ("some of 
the very charges published in the 'Profiles' insert sheet were the basis for a 
series of civil actions that led to Mr. Cohn's ultimate disbarment"). They also 
alleged that in my forthcoming book (this one) I would demonstrate that "Cohn 
and LaRouche ultimately reached a coming to terms" and that "Cohn became an 
unofficial legal consultant to LaRouche." Finally they suggested that "some of the 
infamous Cohn files" might have "quietly slipped into the hands of some of 
Lyndon LaRouche's closest associates in rural Virginia." 



But whatever information tine LaRoucliians possessed was not equal to quasliing 
a felony investigation in the 1986 atmosphere in which New Yorkers wanted 
something done about LaRouche. It had been easy to evade indictment for 
pranks like Now East and "Profiles," but loan fraud running into tens of millions of 
dollars was no prank. In March 1987, Abrams' office indicted fifteen LaRouche 
aides. Among them were Now East writer Linda de Hoyos, who had boasted in 
New Solidarity in 1982 about unnerving Morgenthau, and Edward Spannaus, co- 
author of the August 11,1 986, article about the alleged "Cohn files." 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



PART SEVEN: Conspiracies and 
Code Words 

If I were the head of the llluminati, I certainly would not call it by that 
name.... I'd call it the John Birch Society, and advertise it as an 
organization opposed \o the llluminati. That way I'd be able to rope 
in all the people who are against the llluminati and use them as 
unwitting dupes. 

This is such a plausible idea that if the llluminati do exist, they must 
have thought of it already. 

--ROBERT ANTON WILSON 

Chapter Twenty-seven 
LaRouche's Purloined Letter 

American journalists are generally unaccustomed to dealing with the subtleties of 
extremist ideology. Electoral contests between Republicans and Democrats do 
not reflect the range of views found in, say, French or Italian elections, which 
span the spectrum from Communist to fascist. Even mainstream ideologies in the 
United States have become little more than pieties accompanying the TV glitz. It 
is thus hardly a surprise that American journalists have difficulty understanding 
what LaRouche is about. They assume he will use ideas and words in as 
straightforward a way as they themselves do. When he doesn't, they become 
confused and tend to dismiss his ideas as a "puzzle," a "mystery," or "difficult to 
characterize," although they concede that he appears to be some kind of 
"extremist." They conceal their confusion and intellectual laziness with jokes 
about LaRouche the kook who thinks the Queen of England pushes drugs, 
entirely missing the real meaning of his quip about the Oueen. 

LaRouche knows that his writings mystify most readers, but he provides little 
hints for them. For instance, he suggests that they approach his writings in the 
spirit of Edgar Allan Poe's famous detective. Monsieur Dupin. "The 'secrets' of 
my actions," LaRouche says, "are of the same order as the purloined letter of the 
Poe tale, or the open secrets of nature-it is a matter of knowing not only where, 
but how to look." 

To learn how to look, one must begin with LaRouche's conspiracy theory of 
history, which highlights the role of deception and concealment in the 



transmission of ideology tlirougli tine centuries. In "The Secrets Known Only to 
the Inner Elites," LaRouche claims that he and his followers represent a 3,000- 
year-old faction of "Neoplatonic humanists" locked in mortal struggle with an 
equally ancient "oligarchy." To avoid repression by the dominant oligarchy, the 
humanists through the centuries have concealed their ideas in much the way that 
an espionage agent conceals his identity. Indeed, the humanist is a combination 
of spy and underground revolutionary organizer. LaRouche cites the example of 
St. Augustine, who supposedly adopted Christianity as his cover for organizing a 
united front against the oligarchy. 

The concept of "cover" is also the basis of LaRouche's views on philosophy and 
literature. The wisdom of the humanist conspiracy supposedly is concealed in the 
writings of Plato, Dante, Machiavelli, etc. Their method is like a play within a play, 
using one philosophy as a smoke screen for another. The disciple thinks he is 
studying harmless philosophy A, but he is subliminally absorbing subversive 
philosophy B. By the time he gains full insight, he is so firmly hooked that he 
won't betray the truth to outsiders. Of course, many students never gain full 
awareness, and indeed these may be the most useful: In LaRouche's theory of 
espionage the best agent is often the one who is unaware that he is an agent- 
the zombie agent, the Manchurian candidate. 

LaRouche believes poetry is especially useful as a means of communication 
among agents because it "disallow[s] any literal or ordinary symbolic 
significance" and "conjoin[s] predicates ambiguously so that only the 
preconscious transfinite for such conjoined elements can be intended." In plain 
English: If you use ambiguous language, you can always deny what you really 
meant if the authorities come after you. Meanwhile your message can reach the 
discerning few and you can continue to act on philosophy B while calling it 
philosophy A. As LaRouche, referring to his enemies, said in a 1978 speech: "It 
is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to 
be one." 

But LaRouche's theory of ideological deception also asserts something of a more 
subtle nature: Through ambiguity and code words, it's possible to appeal to the 
reader or listener's "preconscious mind" and thus lead him gradually into ideas 
his conscious mind would otherwise reject. So when LaRouche wrote in 1979 
about "Machiavelli's" success in outwitting the "donkey censors," the word 
"censor" was actually a pun referring both to political censors and to the censor 
(superego) of Freudian theory. A LaRouchian article in 1986, signed by none 
other than "Machiavelli," made this point clearly: Euphemisms or code words are 
"an artificial mechanism to avoid the moral shock effacing bestiality in its most 
degenerate forms." Although LaRouche portrayed this as a method used by 
oligarchs rather than his favored humanists, he himself utilized the basic principle 
in the mid-1970s to instill fascist ideas in his leftist followers. As most of them 
feared and loathed fascism, LaRouche could never have won them over without 



code words and ambiguity to sliort-circuit tine moral sliock tliey would have 
experienced if he had spoken frankly. 

LaRouche was quite aware of what he was doing. "Words and syntactical forms," 
he wrote, have customary meanings. To elicit something beyond those 
customary meanings, to express an idea that is "genuinely new," one must add 
"a new meaning"--however subtle--to the "existing medium." LaRouche made this 
observation in The Case of Walter Lippmann (1977), which gave new meanings 
to many "customary" terms. For instance, "republican" was used over and over to 
mean "fascist." Lippmann, LaRouche's major theoretical work, also abounded in 
multileveled puns that slyly alluded to various fascist and anti-Semitic ideas. For 
instance, LaRouche referred to the oligarchy as "nominalists." Nominalism was 
the medieval precursor of modern empiricism. For LaRouche, it is a synonym for 
"materialism"--the philosophy that anti-Semites accuse Jews of having developed 
as a weapon against Christianity and Aryanism. LaRouche's nominalism also 
designates materialistic values~the alleged money consciousness of the Jews 
and the alleged "bestial heteronomy" of the masses. On a deeper level the term 
refers to the "nominal Jews"~the "Jews who are not Jews." In addition, since the 
nominalist philosophy was closely associated with scholastic philosophers from 
England (especially William of Occam), LaRouche can use it to cross-reference 
his favorite anti-Semitic euphemisms: "British" and "British empiricist." Such puns 
aside, LaRouche has good reason to hate nominalism; It is a philosophy that 
argues that words are only signs for things and have no independent existence- 
it thus stands opposed to LaRouche's semantic tricks. 

Ambiguity and puns are okay for some purposes, but a serious political 
conspiracy also needs ideological precision. LaRouche refers to "the 'codes' of 
the Renaissance intelligence and conciliar networks." These were not developed 
as a mere academic exercise, he says. "Certain qualities of ideas cannot be 
communicated in any other fashion." Here LaRouche is describing real history, 
although in a distorted way. For centuries political writers have used code words 
or euphemisms to evade censorship and other forms of state repression. In the 
late nineteenth century, Russian revolutionaries employed an elaborate 
"Aesopian" language to evade the czarist censors. Poland's Solidarity trade 
union in the early 1980s used code words to criticize the Soviet Union. In the 
Soviet Union itself, dissidents have seized on Mikhail Gorbachev's term glasnost 
and transformed it into a euphemism for Western-style democracy. 

In the United States, code language is a convenient tool for advocates of racism 
and anti-Semitism. They don't have to worry about being jailed for their ideas, but 
they do have to use caution in communicating with those outside their ranks. 
While laying out their argument they must avoid triggering a premature revulsion 
or feeling of embarrassment in their audience. They must also protect 
themselves against the backlash from their ideas-negative press coverage, 
social ostracism, or even physical assault from members of the targeted ethnic 
groups. Racists thus talk about "states' rights" in the South and "law and order" in 



the North. Anti-Semites call themselves "anti-Zionists." Naturally, not all 
advocates of states' rights or law and order are racists, nor are all critics of Israel 
Jew-haters. This is precisely what makes the code words so convenient. 

West Germany outlaws overt neo-Nazi agitation. Yet hundreds of neo-Nazi, 
racial nationalist, and conservative nationalist groups have sprouted on German 
soil since World War II, each with an intense desire to communicate various 
forbidden or impolitic messages to the general public. They do so in large part 
through code words. Political scientist Kurt Tauber, in his 1,600-page Beyond 
Eagle and Swastika, describes the deceptive tactics of scores of such groups in 
the first two decades after the war. One militant youth league in the 1 950s was 
called the Schiller Youth, although it engaged in activities more appropriate to the 
Hitler Youth. It is significant that LaRouche has founded a Schiller Institute, and 
his wife speaks of bringing a SchillerzeitXo America. 

Former LaRouche followers believe that the planting of code terms in NCLC 
publications is a means of signaling old-style fascists around the world (the "old 
humanist networks," as some LaRouchians call them) that the NCLC is 
sympathetic to their aims. One way this is done is by using occult buzzwords like 
"Atlantis" and "Thule" to allude to the Aryan race and the Third Reich. The 
practice springs from the popular belief that Hitler and many of his top followers 
were motivated by occult doctrines. Cryptic references to this putative Nazi 
occultism are easily recognized by those active in the secretive world of Western 
European and South American neo-fascism as well as in U.S. white supremacist 
groups. 

LaRouche also has adopted various conspiracy theories of the Nazi and pre-Nazi 
era long forgotten by everyone outside of hard-core anti-Semitic circles. He uses 
these theories in a sly form, referring to the "Babylonians" and the "British" rather 
than the Jews. This is not just sending signals; it is LaRouche's version of what 
he calls the Renaissance intelligence "codes." It enables him to evade the 
"donkey censor" to discuss in print the core theories of Nazism: that the Jews are 
the ancient enemy of the human race, that they are a separate biological entity, 
and that they must be crushed in a final cataclysmic struggle. Through this code 
language, he is able to promote a neo-Nazi ideology in all but name yet remain 
sufficiently respectable to gain meetings with high-level Reagan administration 
aides and raise tens of millions of dollars a year from elderly conservatives. 
LaRouche has shown his fellow fascists around the world how to have your cake 
and eat it too. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Twenty-eight 
Babylonians Under Every Bed 



LaRouche's conspiracy theory of history is not just a means of indirectly 
expressing neo-Nazi ideas. It is also a psychological device that serves to 
deepen the political paranoia within the NCLC and ultimately within the public the 
NCLC strives to influence. A paranoid belief system, if it is truly a totalitarian one, 
strives to explain all of reality, since any holes in it would be a potential escape 
hatch for the captive mind to liberate itself. The paranoid ideology, whether 
serving a cult or a totalitarian regime, must be a block of steel, not a slice of 
Swiss cheese. 

This means that the conspiracy theory--the basis of political paranoia-cannot just 
focus on contemporary politics. Ideally it should extend into every field of thought 
and every period of history so that no matter what topic the captive mind thinks 
about, it can only think about it in paranoid terms of us versus them (with "them," 
of course, being infinitely evil). 

LaRouche's theory of the struggle between two secret elites is perhaps the 
closest thing to a system of total multidimensional paranoia ever invented in the 
United States. It extends backwards in time tens of thousands of years, and also 
forward into man's future among the stars. It extends into every sphere of culture: 
music, art, poetry, philosophy, science-indeed, into every aspect of human 
existence. It descends into sexuality and the unconscious mind and even deeper 
into the genes and chromosomes, the level of racial struggle. It also ascends 
above history into a neo-Platonic supersensible realm. It has its source in the 
geometric structure of reality. If one is a LaRouchian, one's belief system literally 
cannot be escaped; the struggle is everywhere. 

The lynchpin of LaRouchism, as of more primitive systems of paranoia, is the 
fear and hatred of an evil and secretive force. Although LaRouche calls this force 
the oligarchy, he really means the Jews. Given the total paranoia of the system, 
the fear and hatred veers into neo-Nazism. The latter is not an acceptable 
ideology in today's America and so must remain partially disguised to evade the 
"donkey censor." LaRouche's conspiracy theory therefore becomes a double 
system: First, it extends the NCLC's paranoia and hatred into every aspect of 
thought; second, it attacks the supposed forces of evil in a euphemistic manner. 
This dual nature of the theory should be kept in mind as we step by step 
"decode" the bizarre formulations in which it is couched. 

If LaRouche had been a traditional anti-Semite, he might have based his 
conspiracy theory on the Protocols of the Elders ofZion, the infamous forgery 



that purports to document a nineteenth-century conspiracy to establish a Jewish 
world government through various diabolical intrigues. But the Protocols is too 
narrow in scope for the purposes of total paranoia and also is too thoroughly 
discredited by scholars for practical use among most educated people. 
LaRouche hesitated, however, to reject out of hand one of the most effective Big 
Lies of the first half of the twentieth century. So he compromised: The Protocols, 
he said, has a "hard kernel of truth" but is only of limited significance-it 
represents only a small piece of the real conspiracy of the "oligarchy." 

LaRouche's oligarchy makes the Elders of Zion seem mild. It supposedly has 
dominated the world for tens of thousands of years with unremittingly evil 
motives. Indeed, LaRouche accuses it of periodically killing off a large portion of 
the human race through famines and plagues. Today it is supposedly plotting a 
New Dark Ages, which will include nuclear holocaust, the massive spread of 
AIDS, Zero Growth, and total bestial heteronomy. 

Why the oligarchs should want a return to the Dark Ages when they obviously 
could accumulate more wealth and live more comfortably under conditions of 
modern capitalism is not quite clear. But LaRouche assures us that they 
destroyed all past societies they captured, from Atlantis through Rome. Three 
thousand years ago their headquarters was in Babylon. After they engineered its 
fall, they shifted their command post westward to Rome, then Venice, and finally 
to London. Again and again their poisons and daggers have defeated their 
valiant opponents, the "humanists," who champion productive investment, 
science, technology, and "citybuilding." 

Unable to stop humanist networks, led by Benjamin Franklin and Friedrich 
Schiller, from launching the Industrial Revolution, the oligarchs struggled to slow 
it down through their control of Speculative Capital, which allegedly feeds like a 
vampire on Productive Capital. But the oligarchs today are extremely worried 
because Productive Capital has begun to link up with the powerful streamlined 
humanist conspiracy represented by the NCLC. 

It is unlikely LaRouche believes all this, but it provides him with the necessary all- 
encompassing framework for his anti-Semitic mythology, giving it, even in a 
disguised form, a virulence far more intense than if he had based it on the 
Protocols alone. As to the true identity of the oligarchs, this is revealed in 
LaRouche's "Solving the Machiavellian Problem Today": They are the "anti- 
human bestialists" and "parasites" who "cooked up the hoax called the Old 
Testament." In a subsequent article he openly calls them the "Jewish usurers"~a 
"continuous and often dominant element" in oligarchical rule from Babylon 
through the Middle Ages. (LaRouche then throws up one of his characteristic 
smoke screens. Some people, he writes, have misinterpreted this dominant role 
of the Jews in order to promote anti-Semitism. Although he does not wish to be a 
party to spreading such misguided views, he can't help it that the hoax is 



bolstered by the "fact" that "some of the worst poisonings of the Catholic Church 
were accomplished by converted Jews representing such families of usurers"!) 

"The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites" is LaRouche's most thorough 
account of his version of world history. Apart from his schema of oligarchs versus 
humanists, this work and other NCLC pseudo-historical treatises appear to 
borrow heavily from the anti-Semitic "classics": Houston Stewart Chamberlain's 
Foundations of the Nineteenth Century {^ 899), Oswald Spengler's Decline of the 
l/Vesf (1918-22), Hitler's Mein Kampf {^ 925-26), Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the 
Twentieth Century {^930), and Francis Parker Yockey's Imperium (1948), as well 
as assorted British and American Nazi tracts from the interwar years. 

LaRouche's attacks on the evil "Babylonians," for instance, strongly resemble 
theories found in Chamberlain, who claimed that the Jews of the Babylonian 
Captivity rose to great influence over their captors, and that Babylon rather than 
Jerusalem was the real headquarters of the ancient Jews. Chamberlain even 
remarked on the "Rothschilds" of Babylon. This theory is popularized for 
American white supremacists in pamphlets sold by the Louisiana-based Sons of 
Liberty~for instance. The l\/lerchants of Babylon by Rev. Bertrand L. Comparet, 
which features a photograph of four bearded rabbis on the cover. When 
LaRouche denounces the "Whore of Babylon," the Ku Klux Klan knows exactly 
what he means. 

LaRouche also rails against the "Persian Empire" and "Persian agents" who 
supposedly destroyed the ancient world. Again this is not new. Both Spengler 
and Chamberlain claimed that the Jews and the Persians were linked in a 
common conspiracy. Spengler said the Jews actually dominated much of the 
Persian empire, while Chamberlain described them as Persian puppets. In 
LaRouche's view the chief instruments of Persian-Babylonian infiltration of the 
West (Greece and Rome) were the Dionysian cults and Isis worship. (One 
LaRouche disciple wrote that modern Israel is the "Zionist bastard" of Isis.) Alfred 
Rosenberg, Hitler's "philosopher" who was executed at Nuremberg, brooded over 
Dionysius and Isis in a similar manner sixty years ago. The Dionysian cults, he 
said, were "racially and spiritually alien" to Aryanism, encouraging a frenzy based 
on that of the "insanely possessed" King Saul of Israel. As to Isis, Rosenberg 
associated her with Africa, sexual promiscuity, and race mixing. 

Approaching modern times, LaRouche shows more originality. In the Middle 
Ages the center of power moved to Rome, whose "merchant-usurers" were Jews 
or converted Jews. Led by the Pierlioni family, they supposedly seized control of 
the papacy and squeezed Europe dry. Next the Venetian oligarchy took its pound 
of flesh during the Renaissance, after the decline of the Vatican oligarchy but 
before the rise of the "British." 

Throughout these long centuries, LaRouche teaches, the humanist forerunners 
of the NCLC fought back continuously. Many famous thinkers and poets were 



secret members: Plato, Dante, Machiavelli, and Edgar Allan Poe, as well as 
Franklin and Schiller. But most important were the warlord humanists, the 
champions of the Grand Design. Not surprisingly, most of them marched their 
conquering armies east. The LaRouchians praise the legendary Pharaoh 
Sesostris, who supposedly marched east to subjugate evil Babylon; Alexander 
the Great, who marched east to crush evil Persia; and Timur the Great, who 
carried out an early version of the Final Solution against the medieval 
descendants of the ancient Persians and Babylonians. LaRouche also expresses 
reverence for the memory of Hassan ibn Saba, the "Old Man of the Mountain," 
who headed a medieval cult of assassins. Hassan didn't march east, but he did 
live in a castle called the Eagle's Nest--the same name as Hitler's mountaintop 
lodge in Bavaria. LaRouche wrote in 1 978 that if only the Old Man of the 
Mountain were alive in Germany, he'd mop up left-wing terrorists in short order. 

Of special significance in LaRouchian mythology is Frederick Barbarossa, the 
medieval German emperor who marched east against the Slavs (and in whose 
memory Hitler named his invasion of the Soviet Union "Operation Barbarossa"). 
The Wiesbaden branch of LaRouche's European Labor Party evoked Frederick 
Barbarossa's memory in its 1978 manifesto calling for a new type of state in 
Germany-- Der Rechtsstaat. The NCLC's theoretical organ. The Campaigner, 
illustrated its translation of this document with a map of Central and Eastern 
Europe labeled "Frederick Barbarossa's Great Design." On the opposite page 
was a map of the entire area included in the European theater in World War II, 
with dotted lines going just about everywhere the Nazi armies went or dreamed 
of going. The caption underneath discussed the German Drang nach Osten 
(drive to the east), but identified it with the German emperors rather than Hitler. 
The dotted lines were said to be "European and Mediterranean Trade Routes." 

LaRouche finds certain recurring patterns in history--the result of the oligarchs 
using the same strategy of control again and again. Ancient Babylon (dominated 
as it was by rich Jews) concocted the "synthetic" religion of the Old Testament, 
brainwashed the Jewish masses with it, and then sent them back to Judaea to 
serve as a strategic military colony. In the twentieth century, Britain (the new 
Babylon, also dominated by rich Jews) brainwashed the Jewish masses with the 
synthetic ideology of Zionism and sent them back to Palestine to serve as a 
garrison state. 

Another case is the career of Alexander the Great, who was reared as a Persian 
agent but rebelled against his masters and took vengeance on them. Likewise, 
according to LaRouche, Hitler began his career as a "British" agent--and indeed, 
as the German correspondent for The New York Times--but rebelled against the 
British and drove them to Dunkirk. Unfortunately, he lacked Alexander's humanist 
resolve to finish the job. 

A final example is the medieval Jewish usurers who purportedly used the Vatican 
as their cover. LaRouche says they charged such high interest rates that they 



drove Europe into utter penury. Weakened by starvation, tine masses succumbed 
to tine Blacl< Plague. In the same manner, the London-controlled International 
Monetary Fund supposedly is driving the peoples of the Third World into 
starvation, causing them to succumb to AIDS. 

In his gloomier moments LaRouche worries that Western civilization will suffer 
the fate of the Atlanteans, who supposedly showed great promise under the 
leadership of scientist-astronomers until their society was subverted and 
destroyed by the ancestors of the Babylonians~the evil magician-astrologers. 
Although LaRouche nowhere refers to the hapless Atlanteans as the "Aryan" 
race, he strongly suggests that this is what he means. They came, he says, from 
sunken lands in the North Sea, spoke a language akin to old Hessian, and 
roamed the Atlantic in "copper-sheathed" long ships. Alfred Rosenberg promoted 
a similar theory, only his blond and blue-eyed Atlanteans made their forays 
against the Untermensch in Wagnerian "dragon ships." (LaRouche does not 
offer, nor did Rosenberg ever offer, the slightest scientific evidence for the 
existence of this lost civilization.) 

It can be said that LaRouche's version of history not only begins with Nazi and 
proto-Nazi ideas (the Atlanteans from the North) but ends with them. His theory 
of the contemporary struggle between parasitic bankers and productive factory 
owners is suspiciously similar to the views of Hitler's early economics adviser, 
Gottfried Feder. The latter likewise urged the crushing and expropriation of 
speculative capital on behalf of industrial capital. Oswald Spengler, in a 
somewhat different version, hailed the "mighty contest between the two handfuls 
of steel-hard men of race and of immense intellect-which the simple citizen 
neither observes nor comprehends." Like LaRouche, SpengJer claimed that the 
"battle of mere interests" between capitalists and workers is insignificant in 
comparison. 

With all the above, it is still a long step to the conclusion that LaRouche's 
historical writings are genuine neo-Nazism. He does discuss the "British" as the 
racial enemy of humanity that must be crushed, destroyed, eliminated. But is he 
clearly referring to the Jews when he uses the word "British"? 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Twenty-nine 
Elizabeth, Queen of the Jews 

When LaRouche says the Queen of England pushes drugs or that Britain is the 
chief enemy of the United States, he is not merely indulging in eccentricity or a 
Freudian dislike of female authority figures. These statements have a serious 
meaning to anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in West Germany and the United States. 
They are eccentric only to those who have not studied the history of modern anti- 
Semitism, in which the theme of Jewish-British race mixing and Jewish 
domination of the British Empire looms large. 

The original Nazis popularized this theory. In Mein Kampf, Hitler complained that 
the Jews in England exert an "almost unlimited dictatorship" through their 
manipulation of public opinion. Heinrich Himmler speculated in his unpublished 
notebooks on the "Jewish blood" of the English and Scots. Alfred Rosenberg's 
Myth of the Twentieth Cen^L/ry discussed the alleged identity of the policies of 
"Jewish high finance" with those of Great Britain and claimed that the British 
government had "handed over control of all financial transactions to Jewish 
bankers such as Rothschild, Montague, Cassell, Lazard, etc." Expressing a 
theory that the LaRouchians later would repeat in Dope, Inc., Rosenberg said 
that England had "allowed the opium trade to fall increasingly into Jewish hands." 

Once Nazi Germany and Britain were at war, the Nazis developed a more 
exaggerated version. World-Battle, an official propaganda organ, depicted 
"English high finance" as Judaism incarnate. England's aggression against 
innocent Germany, it said, was the result of the Jews buying Churchill with piles 
of gold. Meanwhile Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, came to regard 
the Jews and the British upper classes as virtually one racial entity. He wrote in 
his diary in 1 942: "Rothschild. ..took the floor [of the British House of Commons] 
and delivered a tearjerker bemoaning the fate of the Polish Jews....AII members 
of Parliament rose from their seats as a silent tribute to Jewry. That was quite 
appropriate for the British House of Commons, which is really a sort of Jewish 
exchange. The English, anyway, are the Jews among the Aryans. The perfumed 
British Foreign Minister, Eden, cuts a good figure among these characters from 
the synagogue. His whole education and his entire bearing can be characterized 
as thoroughly Jewish." 

The Jewish-British theme was popular among American anti-Semites as early as 
the 1890s. According to historian Richard Hofstadter, "anti-Semitism and 
Anglophobia went hand in hand" in populist writings of that decade. One tract 
included a map of the world with an octopus squatting on the British Isles, its 
tentacles stretching across the seas. The octopus was labeled "Rothschilds." 



Another tract denounced President Grover Cleveland as a tool of "Jewish 
bankers and British gold." Gordon Clark's Shylock; As Banker, Bondholder, 
Corruptionist, Conspirator {^ 894) accused the Rothschilds of bribing the U.S. 
government to deliver the American people "into the hands of England, as 
England had long been resigned into the hands of her Jews." The leading anti- 
Semite of the period, William Hope ("Coin") Harvey, called for war with Jewish- 
dominated England to "blot her name out from among the nations of the earth." 

LaRouche's version most closely resembles War! War! War!, a Nazi tract 
published in 1940 under the pseudonym Cincinnatus to convince Americans that 
Hitler was right and that the United States should stay out of the war. (The 
pseudonym was apparently borrowed from the Society of the Cincinnati, an early 
American patriotic league named after Cincinnatus, hero of the ancient Roman 
republic.) Cincinnatus called the British Empire the "British-Jewish Empire." The 
United States, he argued, should not come to the aid of "a mongrel England, 
ruled not by Britons of the blood, but, largely, by a galaxy of Jews, half-Jews, and 
quarter-Jews." He added: "The England which. ..beseeches us to come to her 
rescue is little more than another segment of the Jewish 'nation.'" Just like 
LaRouche, Cincinnatus said that the real enemy of the United States is a "New 
York City, New England, Anglophile, Jewish plot." 

There are many other parallels: LaRouche says the British are plotting to starve 
"billions" of people to death in the Third World. Cincinnatus said, "The starvation 
of men, women and children has been the most approved English method of 
warfare since the Jews became dominant there...." LaRouche says Henry 
Kissinger and Ariel Sharon are "British agents." Cincinnatus quoted the British 
anti-Semitic author Hilaire Belloc as saying "the Jew might almost be called a 
British agent upon the Continent of Europe and still more in the Near and Far 
East." LaRouche calls the British philosopher Bertrand Russell the most evil man 
of the twentieth century. Cincinnatus devoted several pages to Russell as the 
alleged purveyor of "Jewish" immorality. LaRouche claims that the British- 
Rothschild establishment (and the Queen) controls the international drug traffic. 
Cincinnatus devoted a chapter to "The Chinese Opium Wars and British-Jews." 
LaRouche and his followers write about the alleged hereditary taint of the British 
aristocracy, its congenital brain damage, etc. Cincinnatus quoted Belloc: "[W]ith 
the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families 
in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception. In nearly all of them was 
the strain more or less marked; in some of them so strong that though the name 
was still an English name. ..the physique and character had become wholly 
Jewish and the members of the family were taken for Jews whenever they 
traveled...." With all of these similarities, it is not surprising that LaRouche's New 
Solidarity includes a column by one "Cincinnatus" (although the alleged author of 
the 1940 tract is long dead) and that LaRouche's Security staff once applied for 
concealed weapons permits under the name of Cincinnatus Associates. (Of 
course the LaRouchians would claim they merely are identifying with the patriotic 
society of George Washington's day.) 



The Jewish-British conspiracy theory is popular today with hate groups like the 
Ku Klux Klan. You can purchase dozens of pamphlets on this theme from the 
Sons of Liberty in Louisiana. Mostly written by British fascists in the 1930s, the 
titles include The Jews and the British Empire, Our Jewish Aristocracy, and How 
Jewry Turned England into a Plutocratic State. The latter says that the Jews 
regard "the British Empire only as a stepping stone towards a coming Jewish 
World-Empire" and that "the English government is only the British facade for the 
Jew. ...The English statesmen are the well-paid dummies of Jewish-English 
finance-capitalism." The pamphlet also describes the alleged "judaising" of the 
English aristocracy through intermarriage. Because of these "blood-ties," it 
concludes, "Jewish finance-capital is identical with British finance-capital." 

In 1984 the Sons of Liberty republished War! War! l/1/ar.'with an introduction by 
Eustace Mullins, a scholarly anti-Semite who is friendly with the LaRouchians 
and attended their 1984 annual convention. The Sons of Liberty also launders 
LaRouche's neo-Cincinnatus doctrines into white supremacist circles via the 
pamphlets of the Christian Defense League's Dr. John Coleman. Scores of 
Coleman's pamphlets have titles similar to those of LaRouchian articles or books 
and contain identical analyses. They never mention LaRouche's name, yet the 
ideas are his. Mullins, who is a contributing editor of Coleman's World Economic 
Review, says that Coleman "claims to have mysterious connections in British 
intelligence, but for the last ten years all he's done is copy LaRouche's stuff." 
Thus does the LaRouchian message circulate in the swastika-and-bedsheet 
crowd, while LaRouche, the self-styled friend of the White House, is spared 
unnecessary public embarrassment. 

LaRouche himself has admitted the true meaning of "British" on at least two 
occasions. In The Case of Walter Lippmann, in his discussion of the slave trade 
in early-nineteenth-century America, the word "British" is immediately followed by 
"Rothschild" in parentheses. In "Anti-Dirigism Is British Tory Propaganda" (1978) 
he expanded the "British" to embrace a network of wealthy Jewish families. "The 
policy-shaping kernel of the enemy forces centered in the British monarchy is a 
group of private banking families," he said. "These are notably the family 
interests of the Lazard Brothers, Barings, N. M. Rothschild, Hill Samuel, and 
other small private banking houses." He then added: "Britain-these same 
families' interests-has controlled the international opium traffic since early during 
the 19th century." Although LaRouche threw in a single non-Jewish family, the 
definition was essentially the same as Alfred Rosenberg's. 

The British-Jewish theory was given symbolic expression in New Solidarity in 
1978 by a Star of David with Queen Elizabeth at the top flanked by Henry 
Kissinger and economist Milton Friedman. The caption alluded to "satanic 
connections." Thus was made clear the real meaning of LaRouche's accusation 
that the Queen pushes drugs. 



In "How to Analyze and Uproot International Terrorism," a 1 978 tirade against the 
alleged British controllers of European terrorist cells, LaRouche discussed how 
the British oligarchy reflects the "national interest" and national "state of mind" of 
a network of wealthy families "embedded in various institutions of each nation." 
Traditional anti-Semitism regards the Jews in precisely this way: the 
cosmopolitan nation living parasitically off other nations. LaRouche implicated 
wide strata of Jews in the conspiracy. Around the Rothschilds and other leading 
families, he wrote, there is gathered a "secondary layer of plebeians. 
These. ..include leading intelligence and political families going back a generation 
or two, certain families with a legal professional tradition, and so forth....Around 
these there is an outer layer of agents, trusted, deemed useful....Around these 
strata, another layer of agents, and so down to the pathetically demented 
individual environmentalist and terrorist." 

LaRouche was not only speaking of Jews; the secondary agent layers included 
non-Jews such as the Churchill family. But in LaRouchian propaganda Zionism is 
the chief international tool of the British, and Zionists are usually British agents. 
Since most Jews are Zionists, the implication is that most Jews must be British 
agents. In attempting to make this connection, the LaRouchians seized on 
General George Brown's infamous 1974 statement about the alleged excessive 
influence of Jews in Washington. In 1977 LaRouche wrote that it was time to 
"kick every 6r/Y/s/?-loving son-of-a-bitch out of Washington." With a deft touch, the 
article took the form of an open letter to Defense Secretary Harold Brown but the 
picture was of George Brown. A New Solidarity editorial then accused the entire 
leadership and most of the membership of American Jewish organizations of 
being part of the treasonous British conspiracy: "Their loyalties lie not with the 
United States but with the Zionist-British organism." 

Through the years. New Solidarity has fleshed out this theory in hundreds of 
articles. The first wave in 1978 included headlines like "British to Sell World 
Short," "Brits Run Spy Hoax to Push Cold War Clime," "British Launch Drive to 
Break Up the EEC," and "Expel Britain's Kissinger for Treason." When describing 
British machinations. New Solidarity referred to mostly Jewish names 
(Oppenheimer, Montefiore, Meyer, Weill, Warburg, as well as Rothschild). If the 
name weren't obvious, they'd add a tag~e.g., "Lord Crewe, a Rothschild family 
cousin." When non-Jews in the British Establishment were mentioned, there was 
often a different kind of tag. Former Prime Minister Harold Wilson was referred to 
as a "Rothschild agent," while Conservative MP Winston Churchill III was said to 
live up to his grandfather's "reputation for sycophantic. ..braggadocio in the 
service of the Rothschilds." 

The LaRouchians listed what they believed to be the key institutions of British 
power in the twentieth century~the Fabian Society, the Round Table group, the 
Royal Institute for International Affairs, the British Secret Service, etc. Each was 
said to be under "Rothschild" control. In a pamphlet on the British aristocracy, 
LaRouche aide Chris White wrote that the scions of the Rothschild family 



"preside over" the British organs of power: The "evolution of the Rothschild family 
and its outlook" has determined the "evolution and outlook of the British political 
system." 

The LaRouchians concocted a pseudo-history of England to bolster this. The 
Norman Conquest in 1066, they said, was instigated by converted Jews around 
the papacy as a flanking maneuver against the Teutonic peoples, (That the Jews 
were later driven out of England by the Norman kings was irrelevant to this 
theory. The oligarchy doesn't always need to rule directly on the spot. Indeed, it 
may sometimes prefer to rule from afar, using ideology as its control mechanism. 
Was not Oxford University in the Middle Ages a nest of bestial nominalists?) 

The reestablishment of direct Jewish control of England supposedly began in the 
late seventeenth century when William and Mary allowed a few to settle in 
London. A Dutch Jewish banker, Solomon Mendoza, fastened on the Churchill 
family as the chief oligarchical agents for the centuries ahead. Ideological 
brainwashing of the English upper classes was accelerated through such 
mechanisms as the Anglican Church, the Freemasons, the Knights of Malta, 
Humean empiricism, utilitarianism, Fabian socialism, and most recently the 
Tavistock Institute. The vigorous English aristocrats of the Neoplatonic Tudor era 
were transformed step by step into effete puppets. Hence the frequent 
LaRouchian quips about homosexuality and genetic deficiency in the British royal 
family and top aristocracy: How can the British be real men if they've never stood 
up to the Jews? 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Thirty 

The War Between the Species 



For an ideology of total paranoia to work properly, it must create an unbridgeable 
gulf between the forces of good and the forces of evil; they must be regarded as 
having nothing in common and as being in total antagonism. This state of mind is 
difficult to achieve. In the Cold War, for instance, the antagonists have never 
gone this far. Although sharply disagreeing on the questions of democracy and 
human rights, neither side totally denies the humanity of the other side. There is 
always the perception of a common interest-in preventing a nuclear war, if 
nothing else. 

What LaRouche did in the late 1970s was to create an unbridgeable-gulf theory 
of extraordinary emotional intensity. Buttressed by the already existing NCLC 
paranoia, it stimulated the most fanatical of his followers to reject totally the 
humanity of a specific portion of the human race--the so-called British oligarchy. 
This created a state of mind~in theory if not in practice-akin to that of the Nazis. 
And as with the Nazis, it hinged on a racial doctrine. The enemy was defined as 
a separate species, totally alien, totally incapable of any common moral or 
intellectual ground with LaRouche's own Prometheans, totally hostile to the latter 
because of an inbred hatred going back thousands of years. 

It was this viewpoint that enabled LaRouche to project his paranoid conspiracy 
theory into every aspect of his followers' thinking. The oligarchy, he taught, 
largely controls the world. This means it determines most of the science, 
philosophy, religion, art, and so on that we imbibe. But since the oligarchy is 
totally inhuman and hostile, anything it creates is hopelessly tainted. There 
cannot be any common ground between humanity and the cultural values of the 
oligarchical order. Their artifacts and ideas therefore must be combated 
wherever we find them-in the latest rock song, in the oldest medieval parchment, 
in our own thought processes. It is cultural war to the end, with no quarter 
possible. One side is totally right and the other side is totally wrong, and the 
wrong side cannot be won over because it is biologically incapable of 
understanding what is true and good. 

LaRouche first expressed the racist underpinnings of this unbridgeable-gulf 
theory in Dialectical Economics (1975), published as a vanity-press textbook by 
D. C. Heath & Co. It portrays the American economy as a battleground between 
two breeds of capitalist-the industrial capitalist and the usurer. To LaRouche 
their struggle is not merely economic. The two classes are "primarily 
distinguished by methods appropriate to the differentiation of biological species." 
To explain this he adopted the theory of Stalin's agronomy czar, Trofim Lysenko, 



that an organism's heredity can change within a single generation as a direct 
result of environmental stimuli. LaRouche gave Lysenko a racialist twist by 
suggesting that human intelligence is a result of a "general genetic alteration of 
the physiology of mentation after birth." His evidence was that the "quality of 
intelligence" differs from society to society. 

So far LaRouche was merely indulging in speculation. But in "The Secrets Known 
Only to the Inner Elites" (1 978), he asserted flatly that changes within a species 
can be "induced 'environmentally' without genetic variation." Thus, he said, the 
"hominid stock" can be artificially altered to produce a "new variety" (i.e., a new 
race). If the alteration is great enough, the new race will actually be a "new 
species. "[FN1] 

LaRouche argues that the ingrown social and cultural environment of the 
"British," bolstered by their inbreeding, has transformed them into precisely such 
a genetically separate "species." He suggests that this is nature's way of 
punishing them for engaging in usury and the opium trade, for it hereditarily cuts 
them off from the ability to grasp spiritual truths. "There is a higher reality, which 
the British are incapable of comprehending," LaRouche argues. It "exists 
beyond" the bestial "domain of deduction" to which the British mind is limited. 

Essentially, LaRouche regards the British as having a relationship to the human 
race similar to that of parasite to host. In his own words: "The ruling British elite 
are like animals--not only in their morality, but in their outlook on knowledge. 
They are clever animals, who are masters of the wicked nature of their own 
species, and recognize ferally the distinctions of the hated human species." He 
has returned to this idea again and again: "I know the British mind very well--it is 
a lower order of mentality, which I can study as I watch the fish in an aquarium." 
It is the "mind of a species inferior to myself." The British are "a pack of animals" 
and "a different alien species." They are the "avowed enemies of the entire 
human species" who "shamelessly declare war on the human species." As for 
their Zionist philosophy, it emphasizes the "sensual appetites of impulsions of a 
racial group, making that racial group self-defined as in moral likeness to a lower 
beast." 

LaRouche disciple Chris White echoes these sentiments. The British are a 
"specific form of lower life," "not human," "the end product of a specialized 
process of genetic engineering" that produced "congenital deficiencies and brain 
damage" as early as the 17th century. 

In "The Elite That Can't Think Straight" LaRouche portrays the biological struggle 
as a relentless personal contest between himself and the top oligarchs. Their 
"inner circles," he says, recognize him as "the ancient and feared adversary of 
their own evil species" and as their "potential destroyer." When they see the 
influence of his work, "they tense, growling such phrases as 'potential danger,' 
'more dangerous than Hitler,' 'kill it before it succeeds in getting a real foothold in 



shaping events.'" Whether or not LaRouche actually believes himself to be the 
new Hitler as implied, he approved the publication of Chris White's pamphlet The 
Noble Fam/Vy (1978), which said just about everything left to be said: "Let us 
speedily expedite the urgently necessary task of freeing humanity from the grasp 
of that specific form of lower life before we are destroyed by them or enslaved by 
them. Let us joyfully ensure that the representatives of the British system are 
destroyed so that humanity might live...." And White concluded: "Those of us who 
should know better have been tolerant of such creatures for far longer than has 
been good for the rest of us. Let us, with ruthlessness, ensure that the job is 
done correctly now." 

LaRouche's racialism, like Hitler's, doesn't just target the British. In a softer form 
it applies to most of the human race, which LaRouche accuses of being mired in 
sheeplike bestiality and thus requiring close surveillance by LaRouchian 
shepherds. 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, elevating 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 wealth 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 "hypothesis 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. 

The 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, fuhrer 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 etiinic groups, liis liumanist 
devotion to raising bronze souls out of their 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 "goddamn 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 discussing 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~forthe 
same reason." And the underlying principle? "We do not regard all cultures and 
nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or survival." 

How do the Russians fit into the LaRouchian racial theory? In the late 1970s and 
early 1980s, LaRouche tended to see the Soviet Union as being like the United 
States~a country influenced by networks of "British" agents but not fully 
dominated by them. For instance, these agents didn't dominate the great "nation 
builder" Leonid Brezhnev, But they have been present in Russia for many 
centuries as a conspiratorial force and are every bit as evil, in LaRouche's eyes, 
as Henry Kissinger or Queen Elizabeth. They are "morally subhuman," 
"incapable of creative thought," and addicted to "the lowest form of thought, 
Baconian swinish groveling, rooting and sniffing of objects." They reek with the 
"hideous stench of subhuman Black Guelph breed." Ivan the Terrible should 
have wiped them out~he tried, but couldn't reach them all. 

In 1984, LaRouche reworked his rhetoric against the Soviet Union's "British" 
agents into a form that attacked the Russian culture and people as a whole- 
apparently to bolster his argument for a crash program to develop SDI. The 
Russians, he said, have been completely dominated for over a thousand years 
by an evil culture, descended, like the British, from Babylon. The Russians 
developed by way of Byzantium and the evil Orthodox Church. Like their British 



cousins, they aim at establisliing a liideous form of world domination. Tliey want 
IVIoscow to be tine Tliird Rome, ruling all the earth. 

Does the Third Rome theory take the Jews off the hook? Not at all, for the Jews 
and Orthodox Christians are really just two aspects of the same enemy: a single 
underlying racial-cultural bacillus. Here LaRouche apparently borrows an idea 
from Oswald Spengler's Decline of the l/1/esMhat there is a Semitic "Magian" 
culture common to Jews, Arabs, and Orthodox Christians, a culture of folks who 
like to hang out in caves (like Istanbul's Hagia Sophia and New York's Grand 
Central Station). Spengler regarded this culture as backward and superstitious in 
comparison with the cathedral-building Promethean/Faustian civilization of 
Germany. 

LaRouche calls the Magians the "magicians." When he talks about the 
unspeakable evil of the Russian Orthodox Church, he is alluding to the theory 
that the Slavic peoples and especially the Russians are culturally an extension 
(thanks to the Orthodox Church) of the Magian culture-that of the "Babylonians" 
and "Persians" who wrote the Old Testament. This Magian culture is deeply 
engrained in the Russian soul. And it is a culture that ultimately comes, 
LaRouche suggests, from a specific racial type: dark-skinned Dravidians related 
to those who fled India at the time of the Aryan invasion and supposedly settled 
near Babylon. 

If Russia has been under the domination of Magian Orthodoxy for the past 
thousand years, then according to LaRouche's cultural mutation theory the 
Russians~or at least the Russian oligarchy-must have evolved like the "British" 
into a separate species. The LaRouchians thrill to an almost mystical hatred of 
this ultimate enemy. And they can say about Mount Athos, the center of 
Orthodox spirituality: "It is about time someone bombed the Holy Mountain, its 
monks, its monasteries, and everything in it. Bomb it thoroughly, systematically, 
and completely so that nothing of its evil legacy survives." In context, the writer 
was referring to the Soviet Union, not Mount Athos. 

On close inspection, LaRouche's racialist universe appears to have three species 
unknown to zoology: the Western oligarchs (the British-Jewish branch of 
Dravidian Babylon); the Eastern oligarchs (the Russian Orthodox branch); and 
the bestial masses. The human species, it would appear, is a fourth species 
composed solely of LaRouche and his followers. 

Yet LaRouche dreams of a fifth species~the racial superman~the true goal of his 
life. The Platonic hierarchy of bronze, silver, and golden souls thus becomes a 
metaphor expressing the biological transmission of Acquired Characteristics. As 
LaRouche wrote in his autobiography. The Power of Reason: "The objective of 
my life is to contribute to bringing men and women out of the wretched condition 
of sensuous donkeys and incompletely human 'silver souls' to contribute to 
making of our species a race of 'golden souls.'" 



If the mutant race is to survive and prosper, liowever, tine two Babylonian species 
have got to go. LaRouche would hasten their departure through the Grand 
Design described earlier in this book. The Grand Design and LaRouche's racialist 
theories, put together, include a// the elements of Nazism. 



[1] LaRouche follower Carol Cleary, with an undergraduate degree in biology, 
tried to develop an underpinning for this. She argued in a 1 980 Fusion article that 
evolution and mutation occur on the chromosomal level rather than the genetic 
level, but that the evil Darwinians had suppressed this fact, Cleary's article was 
denounced as "hogwash" in a letter from Professor James F, Bonner of the 
California Institute of Technology. Fusion printed Bonner's letter with an abusive 
reply from Cleary that essentially said that working hard for LaRouche will 
produce chromosomal changes resulting in a higher species. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



PART EIGHT: LaRouche, Inc.: The 
Tycoon 

One knows perhaps a child who, hand caught in the cookie jar and 
mouth full of cookies, will swallow quickly and insist with the 
"sincerest" of expressions, "Oh, you shouldn't have startled me. I 
just caught a mouse that had run into the jar; if you hadn't come in 
just now, he wouldn't have gotten away. " 

—LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR. 

Chapter Thirty-one 
The Root of All Evil 

While dreaming in tine early 1960s about becoming America's Trotsky, LaRouche 
had another dream — to become a capitalist. In a report on the shoe industry, he 
gave a hint of this ambition. The business world "has got to get back to 
management by tycoons" — that is, by strong leaders who will "manage the 
business as a whole" instead of viewing it "as a collection of semi-autonomous 
parts." In the true tycoon's conglomerate, divisions should dovetail into one 
centralized system. LaRouche thus conceived of a business empire much as his 
NCLC would become — in which money would be shuttled around from entity to 
entity, with no regard for ordinary accounting procedures, to meet the needs of 
the moment as determined by LaRouche himself. 

In the following years LaRouche frequently railed against speculative capital. He 
contrasted Wall Street's "Levantine gnomes" with the upright patriotic "productive 
capitalists," the industrialists who make wheels turn. One therefore might infer 
that when he set out to make the NCLC into a money machine, he would have 
steered his followers into some kind of productive activity — machine tools, 
aerospace, or even hamburgers. Instead, he steered them into the least 
productive activity imaginable — a grotesque distillation of the speculative capital 
he so harshly denounced. He became a financial pyramid-scheme promoter, only 
with a political twist: He built a web of political fund-raising fronts that fraudulently 
borrowed as much money as possible — by some estimates close to $200 
million — from as many people as possible and then, according to law 
enforcement officials, simply refused to pay it back. None of this loaned money 
was invested in anything even indirectly productive such as stocks, bonds, or 
money market accounts. Instead it was mostly pumped into NCLC political 



propaganda to build up LaRouche's name recognition and create tine conditions 
for yet more borrowing. 

Tliese loan scams were an extension of the systematic deceptiveness found in 
LaRouche's ideology, propaganda, electoral activity, and intelligence gathering. 
Operating as a combination NICPAC and junk-bond entity, his money machine 
targeted senior citizens and gullible professionals possessing liquid assets. 
Telephone solicitors appealed to their patriotism and conservative beliefs, also 
promising 20 percent annual interest. Some lenders mortgaged or sold their 
homes and whatever other assets they possessed. But when the NCLC fund- 
raising entities inevitably defaulted on the loans, the lenders found themselves in 
an almost helpless situation, facing an impenetrable network of corporate shells, 
dead-end paper trails, and endless legal delaying tactics. 

Ironically, the NCLC began in the late 1960s as a quasi-ascetic organization. The 
idea of making money seemed a diversion from the real world of ideas and 
revolutionary organizing. Yet step-by-step LaRouche urged upon his followers 
the role of cash in building a movement, and the necessity of raising as much 
money as possible by any means necessary. He steered them first into small 
deceptions, more unethical than illegal, then into individual acts of flagrant 
deception, and finally into actions that would lead to their indictment for large- 
scale white-collar crime. 

LaRouche alluded to this transformation of his followers in a 1978 article dealing 
ostensibly with political cults other than his own. Such organizations, he said, 
"condition" their members to commit criminal acts, while also being on the 
lookout for recruits with preexisting criminal tendencies. Members are taught to 
view the outside world as "not real" and to treat its inhabitants as mere 
projections of the cult member's childhood emotions. Thus, the cult member 
becomes in some respects like a "disturbed but functionally effective" small child. 
In another article, LaRouche explained that this syndrome includes a 
"pathological lie pattern" as in the case of the child caught with his hand in a 
cookie jar. 

This was not armchair theorizing. The conditioning of the NCLC membership for 
predatory acts had begun as early as 1974, with the leadership practicing rip-off 
skills on the rank-and-file members. The latter were pressured to turn over their 
savings and other assets. Several trust funds were netted from wealthy 
members, who overnight became poor members after turning over every penny 
in defiance of their parents' wishes. They were told this was for the socialist 
revolution, just as senior citizens would later be told their contributions or loans 
were for the Reagan revolution. Once all immediately available assets of the 
members had been looted, the leadership set out to exploit their credit — to get 
each member to borrow to the maximum of his or her credit line. Hundreds of 
members borrowed all they could from banks, finance companies, and via their 
credit cards or any other available source of credit, and turned the proceeds over 



to the organization. Some took out federal loans for college studies they never 
intended to pursue, knowing they would be able to evade repayment for many 
years, perhaps forever. Many borrowed heavily from relatives and friends. A 
favorite tactic was to tell their parents that they needed money for dental work. 

According to a former highest-level LaRouche aide, at least 30 percent of NCLC 
operating revenues in the mid-1970s came from members' loans. The leadership 
was "like a pack of hyenas," he recalled. "Members would be induced to get one 
loan, then a second, then a third." The organization would promise to pay them 
back, but rarely returned more than token amounts. Although these practices 
netted millions of dollars, the real payoff was psychological: The membership 
was compromised ethically, and became inured to further sharp dealings. This 
made it easier to persuade them to bilk elderly widows during the 1 980s. It also 
bound them tightly to the organization, for those who owed thousands of dollars 
to credit card companies knew that if they ever quit the NCLC, it would never 
help them pay off these debts. 

In the short run, most NCLC members didn't have to worry about credit collection 
agencies very much, because of their rootless lifestyles as political activists. 
They were moved from city to city, often housed in semi-communal apartments 
where the phone, mailbox, and lease were in someone else's name. Even when 
a creditor did manage to track them down, they had no assets to be seized, for 
they had already given everything to the NCLC. 

But the cannibalizing of the members' credit soon reached a point of diminishing 
returns. They became known as deadbeats and were unable to obtain any 
further loans. Their parents and relatives became furious at them, and former 
friends avoided them. (This bound them all the more closely to their NCLC 
surrogate family and political friends, and to their surrogate father, LaRouche.) 

If LaRouche couldn't get any more loans from them, he could get something even 
more valuable — their full-time labor. Many members were pressured to quit their 
jobs or drop out of college to work for the NCLC twelve to sixteen hours a day, 
seven days a week. Members assigned to the national office in New York moved 
into low-rent neighborhoods such as Washington Heights, where they survived 
on tiny stipends. Members not regarded as important enough to have stipends 
found part-time jobs as typesetters or proofreaders, but spent the majority of their 
time working free for the NCLC. 

This type of labor exploitation was typical of cults in the 1970s. Newly recruited 
members of the Unification Church sold flowers on the street or worked on the 
Rev. Moon's fishing boats, while living in church dormitories and wearing used 
clothing provided by the church. LaRouche's version was the sale of NCLC 
literature at airports and other public places. New recruits were expected to 
undergo a testing period of up to two years in which they spent most of their time 
in this "field organizing." They were trained in adversary techniques to bind them 



more closely to the NCLC. When greeted with a less than friendly response from 
a passerby, they would insult him, often calling him a tool of Great Britain or 
Rockefeller. Occasionally the targeted person was intrigued or amused, and a 
sale would result. But more often he reacted angrily and walked away. 
Sometimes matters escalated. As a defector told The New York Times: "They get 
two inches from a person's face and [verbally] cut them to pieces. They can get 
anybody to hit them in a second." 

After a long day of such confrontations and rejection, an NCLC field worker 
would internalize more deeply than ever LaRouche's vision of a Promethean elite 
besieged in a hostile world. Their anger would also increase — an important part 
of the conditioning. If one spends one's day insulting perfect strangers, it is not a 
large step to begin ripping them off. 

LaRouche found it was not cost-efficient to keep a majority of his followers at the 
airports. Unlike the average flower-selling Moonie, many NCLC members had 
advanced degrees and highly marketable skills. LaRouche was able to utilize this 
extraordinary labor pool for a variety of ends. The staff of his intelligence news 
service and EIR mostly was composed of individuals with backgrounds in the 
humanities and social sciences. He founded the FEF and his computer software 
company, Computron, with those who had training in engineering, science, and 
business. Such members had sacrificed conventional careers and salaries but 
were nevertheless intensely ambitious and competed savagely with each other to 
rise within the NCLC's internal Chain of Being so as to get as close as possible to 
the Godhead (LaRouche). 

LaRouche explained the economics of his business empire in a 1981 report: The 
NCLC membership's "voluntary and semi-voluntary labor" reduced the labor 
costs of the NCLC business fronts way below the equivalent costs in the outside 
business world. "If a person whose skill and activities are competitively worth 
$35,000 performs those services for $10,000," he wrote, "the activity has the 
implicit value of the same work done at $35,000." LaRouche cited members 
whose competitive worth would be $70,000 a year, "To sacrifice part of such 
income levels for a purpose related to a world-historical purpose," he said, "is 
morally acceptable, and worthwhile." 

For Linda Ray, who joined the NCLC after dropping out of college in 1974, being 
"world-historical" meant working as a typesetter sixteen hours a day. "They'd pay 
me $100 a week, but if there was a cash-flow problem I'd get nothing," she 
recalled. One couple that worked full-time on the NCLC editorial staff had a 
combined 1982 income of under $5,500. They lived from hand to mouth, months 
in arrears on their semi-slum apartment rent and incessantly threatened by utility 
turnoffs while leaving a trail of bounced checks with neighborhood merchants. 

Meanwhile, the NCLC's internal discipline became totalistic. Members were told 
what kind of music to listen to. Spouses informed on one another to the 



leadership. Wives wlio became pregnant were marclied to tine abortionist by tine 
"coat-lianger brigade" (politically reliable women from the national office). 
Anyone who performed poorly at assigned tasks was denounced in psychological 
sessions. The cement holding this together was the frequent "crisis 
mobilizations" during which members were stimulated to work extra hours and 
raise giant sums of money to rescue the world from impending nuclear war or 
save LaRouche from the latest Zionist hit squad. The personal satisfactions were 
few and far between. To be allowed an evening off to sing in the NCLC choral 
group or listen to a lecture on Dante was the LaRouchian equivalent of a 
Caribbean cruise. 

In the few moments available for reverie, many members felt desperately 
trapped. But their years of total dependence on the organization for their social 
life and livelihood had eroded their self-confidence to the point where they 
couldn't imagine living on their own or succeeding in the outside world. Breaking 
away meant losing their closest (and usually their only) friends. It meant having 
to learn all over again how to make decisions for oneself. Thus, the majority 
remained, year after dreary year, developing to a fine pitch the specialized skills 
necessary to LaRouche's goals. 

Under these conditions the NCLC intelligence staff, editorial department, printing 
and typesetting businesses, telephone boiler rooms, and field operations became 
a smoothly functioning profit machine. The national office "sectors" worked 
together to produce a wide range of books, magazines, and intelligence reports, 
LaRouche field workers sold them at major airports to affluent Americans waiting 
for a flight. Their tables were festooned with signs like "Feed Jane Fonda to the 
Whales" — a magnet for conservatives, but a filter device to keep away all liberals 
except for those spoiling for an argument. The books and magazines, such as 
Fusion and Executive Intelligence Review, had colorful, well-designed covers. 

The field organizers accepted Visa and MasterCard, and hundreds of names 
were collected each day. Telephone solicitors at national headquarters and the 
regional offices followed up with calls urging the purchase of an EIR subscription 
($396 a year) or a special EIR report ($250 and up). Purchasers also were asked 
to donate to LaRouche's campaigns or the Fusion Energy Foundation. In 
addition, the telephone fundraisers called people cold from lists purchased from 
conservative organizations. 

By 1977 airport sales and telephone fundraising were bringing in over $40,000 a 
week. Defectors who left during that period recall having raised $300 a day on 
the phone. By 1 980, according to a former top LaRouche aide, fundraising was 
producing $1 90,000 a week (about $1 million for the year). In mid-1 981 
LaRouche announced in a memo that he was upping the quota to "$225,000 
weekly in organizing-income of gross sales." Anything less, he warned, would be 
a "disaster." 



The airport tables were sponsored by the FEF, conveniently making the 
purchases tax-deductible for the customer and tax-free for the LaRouchians. 
Actually, the LaRouchians sent all the money to NCLC headquarters, not the 
FEF, and the NCLC finance officers stashed it in the accounts of any front group 
they pleased. Some businessmen bought EIR or Fusion subscriptions to humor 
the solicitor or as a gesture of support for nuclear power, writing off the purchase 
as a corporate expense. These purchasers included officers of major 
corporations such as ITT and TRW. By 1 984 EIR claimed 1 1 ,500 paid 
subscribers — if true, this would have yielded $4.5 million. EIR also offered 
customized reports and "retainer-contract" intelligence services. 

The publications were produced with state-of-the-art printing and typesetting 
equipment at the NCLC-controlled PMR Printing Company and World 
Composition Services in New York City and at Renaissance Printing Company in 
Detroit. Thanks to their low-cost labor, these firms were able to bid successfully 
for outside clients. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, World Comp's clients 
included the United Nations and the Ford Foundation, while PMR handled jobs 
for Harper & Row, New York University, and the YWCA. Many clients were 
unaware of the LaRouche connection. Renaissance Printing worked for the 
Teamsters union, which was aware of the link, and soon expanded into financial 
printing, obtaining several Wall Street investment houses as clients. This gave it 
access to the type of confidential data that is sometimes used in insider trading, 
although there is no evidence that such information was misused. 

Some LaRouchians began to dream of long-term business collaborations on a 
high level. Ian Levit of the NCLC Security staff went to Houston in 1980 to meet 
with oilmen who had been contacted through EIR and Fusion, and who 
supposedly had access to a "tremendous amount of venture capital." After 
drawing up profiles of some of the most promising contacts, Levit concluded that 
the trip was "proof that we can successfully mix our political and business 
activities directly" and thus "strengthen both dramatically." EIR and the FEF, he 
said, "can and must become the center of trade deals." The same attitude was 
seen in a 1979 letter from Chicago NCLC leader Mitchell Hirsch to Robert Malott, 
chairman of the FMC Corporation, It was carefully worded to suggest that the 
LaRouche organization was an integral part of the business community: "We 
[businessmen] face competition for key markets worldwide....Unless the decline 
of the dollar. ..is quickly reversed, we shall face a most dangerous international 
situation." The writer enclosed a copy of EIR and invited Malott to meet with 
LaRouche. 

The most successful LaRouchian commercial business, Computron 
Technologies Corporation, grew out of a collaborative relationship with Wang 
Laboratories. Computron was a software house founded by NCLC members in 
1973. At its inception it received equipment, encouragement, and software 
development contracts from Wang, and later became a Wang turnkey vendor. 



Wang steered many of its own hardware customers to Computron for specialized 
software. 

Tine cliief founders of Computron were NCLC cliief of staff Gus Kalimtgis and liis 
close friend Andy Typaldos. Kalimtgis was the silent partner, although his wife 
was the office manager and signed the checks. In the computer world Computron 
seemed to be just another business, and Typaldos just another hustling 
salesman. But Typaldos was a member of the NCLC national committee, where 
he used the pseudonym "Andreas Reniotis." His wife, Rene, was one of the 
LaRouchians arrested for allegedly kidnapping Alice Weitzman in 1974. His 
sister-in-law, Janice Hart, later became briefly famous as the LaRouchian 
candidate who won the Illinois secretary of state primary in 1986. 

Computron established an excellent reputation. Many of its bright LaRouchian 
programmers received top-flight training from Wang but continued to work for 
Computron at salaries well below industry standards, Computron thus became 
one of the largest software houses in the New York area. By 1979, its revenues 
topped $5 million a year, and its clients included AT&T, Citibank, Mobil Oil, 
Colgate-Palmolive, Bristol-Myers, Weight Watchers International, and Benton & 
Bowles Advertising. Its NCLC connection was a carefully guarded secret from 
most clients and non-LaRouchian employees. Use of its computer facilities for 
political purposes took place at night, after the regular employees had left. 

The secret was exposed in the Manhattan weekly Our Town in September 1979. 
When Computron denied it. Our Town published a second article showing that 
most top Computron executives were NCLC members and had made 
contributions to LaRouche's presidential campaign, and that LaRouche had lived 
in a company apartment and used a company car. Computron's LaRouche 
connection also was noted in a New York Times article. Wang, although well 
aware of these facts, continued its profitable association with Computron. 

According to former Computron employees, the software firm covered upwards 
of 20 percent of the NCLC's operating expenses in the late 1970s, when at least 
$750,000 was skimmed from company revenues at a rate of $5,000 to $10,000 
per week. This skimming sharply increased to pay for LaRouche's 1980 
presidential campaign. In addition, Computron extended heavy credit to 
LaRouche's campaign committee for computer services. This was done although 
LaRouche had not yet paid back Computron's loans-in-kind to his 1976 
campaign. (The treasurer of the 1980 campaign, Felice Merritt Gelman, was 
married to a top Computron programmer.) 

Late in 1980, Typaldos and Kalimtgis protested that LaRouche was destroying 
the company with his incessant demands for cash. LaRouche called them KGB 
agents, forced them out of the organization, and ordered all loyal NCLC 
members at Computron to quit their jobs. Several executives and employees 
rebelled and sided with Typaldos and Kalimtgis, but most followed LaRouche's 



orders. LaRouche also circulated memos accusing the Computron chiefs of using 
NCLC funds to subsidize their firm. Kalimtgis argued that the opposite was the 
case, and that Computron's management had "repeatedly tried to sell off future 
business assets and business ventures" to meet the NCLC's needs. Kalimtgis 
warned LaRouche of possible "legal jeopardy" if he didn't shut up. "Unlike you, 
Lyn, I do not say to myself that 'even if I were put before ten grand juries I would 
tell them that I knew nothing....'" 

In March 1 981 , Computron filed for reorganization under the Chapter 1 1 
provision of the Bankruptcy Act, listing obligations of $3 million, including almost 
$400,000 owed to Wang, When the creditors' committee took the depositions of 
company officers, it learned that financial records for the period of LaRouche's 
campaign had disappeared. Subsequently the bankruptcy judge, upon receiving 
copies of the NCLC internal correspondence in which Kalimtgis and LaRouche 
accused each other of fraud, ordered the creditors' committee's attorneys to 
launch an investigation of LaRouche's alleged looting of the company. Several 
subpoenas were issued and depositions taken, but the investigation was 
terminated rather abruptly. An affidavit in the court record, signed by the 
accountant for the creditors' committee, states that Wang's Allen Vogel, chairman 
of the committee, "informed counsel that the investigation should be discontinued 
and that the committee wanted to get on with the plan [for reorganization]." 
Earlier Vogel had written that he strongly resented Computron trying to cover up 
problems with a "legal or political smoke screen." But now, Wang apparently 
feared the possible negative publicity from any airing of Computron's past, which 
would inevitably have called public attention to Wang's own dealings with the 
LaRouchian firm. 

LaRouche had learned from the Computron split that his Neoplatonic humanism 
didn't mix too well with traditional capitalism. The problem, he decided, was that 
treacherous NCLC members had put business before politics, and private 
fiefdoms before the interests of the NCLC as a whole. He cracked down fast on 
PMR and World Comp executives who had displayed similar signs of "liberalism," 
but he was too late with Renaissance Printing in Detroit. In the fall of 1981 the 
entire staff and management quit the NCLC in one giant walkout. 

LaRouche had to face the real problem — not treachery, but burnout. As he 
explained it to his loyalists: "Frightened people past thirty realize, 'I'm not a kid 
any longer.' Sexual anxieties become more insistent. The lure of 'inner 
psychological needs' and lusts of 'earthly paradise' become stronger in every 
person of middle years who has lost his or her moorings in the larger reality. 
Frightened people become 'little people,' and 'little people' are like rats, like the 
Jew in the concentration camps...." 

Much of the burnout and associated discontent at Renaissance and Computron 
resulted from the 1980 campaign — the largest effort in the NCLC's history. In the 
desperate scramble to meet campaign needs, LaRouche and his closest aides 



turned to questionable financial practices on a bolder scale than ever before. 
They began to discuss the targeting of senior citizens for large loans, a practice 
that would flower during the subsequent 1984 campaign. 

They also played fast and loose with federal matching funds in 1980, building on 
a scheme worked out during LaRouche's 1976 campaign. The law requires that a 
matching-funds applicant raise a minimum of $5,000 in each of twenty different 
states in contributions of no more than $250 each. The NCLC tactic in 1976 was 
to get a member to make a donation in, say, Oregon, often with money provided 
from one of the NCLC's many corporate shells. The donation would then be 
recycled by "expensing" it to one of the NCLC's in-house vendors, who would re- 
donate it in Connecticut in the name of another NCLC member. The donor 
sometimes was not even an actual resident of the state, but an itinerant volunteer 
sent in for a few weeks. In the face of such abuses and bogus donations, the 
Federal Election Commission turned down LaRouche's 1976 application after 
conducting a thorough field audit. LaRouche's response was to sue the FEC in 
federal court, charging a conspiracy to violate his civil rights. 

In 1980 LaRouche managed to obtain over $500,000 in matching funds. This 
was partly because he had moved to the right and thus could attract a greater 
number of legitimate donations than was possible in 1976. It was also because of 
false reporting of literature sales and FEF donations. According to Anne-Marie 
Vidal, who worked in the national office during the 1980 campaign: "A contributor 
would give money to the FEF to promote nuclear power. Unbeknownst to the 
contributor, the money would be listed as a contribution to LaRouche." The 
Federal Election Commission audited LaRouche's campaign finances and ruled 
that he must pay back $1 12,000. LaRouche claimed political persecution by the 
commission, and again filed suit in federal court. He eventually paid a reduced 
assessment of $56,000, plus a $15,000 penalty, and the FEC refrained from 
recommending criminal prosecution. In 1984 and 1988, the FEC again awarded 
LaRouche matching funds, making a total of over $1 .7 million for all three 
elections. 

What LaRouche had discovered was a virtually prosecution-proof scam. The 
FEC often sues for the return of money, but it almost never refers cases to the 
Justice Department for criminal prosecution because of the potentially chilling 
effect on the electoral process. 

Also during the 1980 campaign the LaRouchians carried out several swindles 
targeting private citizens. The biggest was the alleged looting of Computron, 
which filed for Chapter 1 1 and thus forced Wang and other creditors to indirectly 
help pay for LaRouche's campaign. The LaRouchians also presumably benefited 
from an imaginative scheme involving an alleged Italian Renaissance painting. A 
LaRouche financial adviser, Stephen Pepper, who ran an art dealership on the 
side, persuaded several investors to put up $50,000 to purchase what Pepper 
claimed was a major work of art. Carlo Maratta's Marriage of the Virgin. Pepper 



promptly turned the money over to the campaign, leaving the investors to 
discover that their newly acquired asset was a fake having negligible value. They 
spent years in litigation chasing their money. 

Pepper and several others, including LaRouche himself, cultivated a Wall Street 
economist. Dr. Michael Hudson, author of several works in economic history. 
They told him that their New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House would like to 
republish several important nineteenth-century economists that he had cited in 
his scholarship. They also asked him for money, offering 20 percent on a three- 
month loan secured by the publishing house and two top LaRouche aides. 
Hudson had his lawyer draw up the notes and with some trepidation turned over 
$75,000. But the only books that were published were by or about LaRouche. 
The latter met with Hudson two months later and asked him to convert his loan 
into stock in the publishing company, promising him an administrative post. 
When Hudson turned the offer down, his NCLC contacts dropped all pretenses of 
friendliness. They explained that LaRouche had told them he was politically 
unreliable. Franklin House defaulted on the notes, then sought to stretch out the 
payment period. Its checks bounced, and when Hudson demanded return of his 
principal, he was told that the money was needed to pay for LaRouche's 
bodyguards. If he persisted in asking for his money back, they would have to 
conclude he was part of the world plot to kill LaRouche. Hudson filed a federal 
racketeering suit and was promptly attacked by the LaRouchians in an article 
calling him a KGB agent. It took him four years in court to obtain a judgment 
against them, only to find there was no practical way to collect. Franklin House 
had been stripped to a bare shell. 

When Hudson's legal efforts were discussed inside the NCLC, LaRouche 
Security aide Michelle Steinberg said (according to FBI testimony at her 1986 
bail hearing): "Piss on him. Fuck him. That's what he gets for lending us money." 
The victimizing of Hudson was the first well-documented case of fraud in what 
prosecutors allege was the defrauding of thousands of other lenders. And 
Hudson, for his part, cured of any illusions about the LaRouchians, became a 
prosecution witness in criminal proceedings against them. 

In addition to overt loan fraud, NCLC corporate shells ran up huge bills with 
vendors. When the latter came to collect, they were usually offered stretched-out 
payments. But even these checks bounced. Plaintiffs found that the fronts had 
few fixed assets. For instance, they typically leased rather than purchased 
typesetting equipment and other machinery. New York County judgment dockets 
show that in the late 1970s and early 1980s LaRouchian business and political 
entities were hit with over a million dollars in judgments and tax liens, most of 
which have still not been satisfied. 

NCLC bookkeeper Richard Welch described the practice of stiffing vendors as 
the " 'jettison' principle." He recommended it as a way to handle financial 
shortfalls. The trick was first to build up credit and then jettison the vendor for a 



new one. Welch suggested this be done with copying machine rental companies, 
telephone companies, landlords, and suppliers of office equipment, as well as 
with members' credit cards. 

Defectors recall a variation on the jettison principle practiced at NCLC 
headquarters in New York in the early 1980s. Dozens of members began using a 
check-cashing business near the West Fifty-eighth Street office. Things went 
smoothly for a while, but suddenly one week all the checks (which were drawn on 
a NCLC payroll shell with no assets) bounced, leaving the check-cashing 
company holding the proverbial empty bag. Shortly thereafter, LaRouche's 
headquarters moved to Leesburg, Virginia. 

Of course, not all vendors can be jettisoned or skipped out on. Sooner or later an 
organization heavily dependent on telephone fundraising has to pay the phone 
company. But there are still ways to delay payment and thus in effect get an 
interest-free "loan." When New York Telephone threatened to turn off the NCLC 
phones during the 1976 presidential campaign because of nonpayment, the 
NCLC filed suit, charging political harassment. It claimed the phone company 
was in cahoots with the FBI and the Rockefellers. 

Not many people who receive a turnoff notice think of depicting it as a political 
plot. But LaRouche seemed to be learning from Third World countries, which use 
political rhetoric and demonstrations as a tactic to delay paying the interest on 
their bloated loans from "imperialist" banks. The NCLC suit against New York 
Telephone probably cost the company more in legal fees than the LaRouchians 
owed. Again, the principle is well known in the Third World: If American bankers 
know that IMF austerity will cause guerrilla warfare in country X and result in the 
United States having to underwrite an expensive counterinsurgency campaign, 
then they will ease off temporarily while trying to persuade Washington to help 
country X with its debt payments. 

The LaRouchians supplemented their vendor stiffing with check kiting, a tactic 
that essentially works like this: You write a check to someone in New York drawn 
on an out-of-state account that has insufficient funds to cover it. Depending on 
whether or not the recipient of the check deposits it immediately, you have a 
shorter or longer period before sufficient funds must be present in the account to 
avoid the check's bouncing. This period corresponds to what the banks term 
"float." It can be extended several days by letting the check bounce, then asking 
your creditor to wait before re-depositing while you check your records and/or 
straighten out a temporary unforeseen cash-flow problem. 

Average citizens take advantage of check kiting whenever they write a check 
prior to depositing the money to cover it. But it does not become really profitable 
unless a business kites large numbers of checks on out-of-state banks. 
Companies that have specialized in this — say, by keeping an amount equal to 
their average kited amount in money market accounts they could not otherwise 



maintain — liave made millions of dollars in profits before being prosecuted and 
having to pay heavy fines and make restitution. 

An attorney who once worked for the LaRouchians says he brought up the 
question of float and check kiting with the NCLC finance sector in 1974 after 
having read a banking report on it. This was at a time when, to all appearances, 
the NCLC was still relatively unsophisticated about money. To his amazement, 
they not only knew all about float but also described to him how they were kiting 
checks all over the United States using dozens of accounts. That this was 
continued and expanded is suggested by records of a 1984 suit by LaRouche's 
Campaigner Publications against Chemical Bank. In answering pretrial 
interrogatories. Campaigner furnished lists of hundreds of its checks that 
bounced over a three-month period that year. Most of the checks were written to 
individuals and companies in Virginia on a Chemical account in Manhattan. Of 
course, the LaRouchians blamed their problem on the bank's alleged negligence. 

Today's NCLC has grown into a vast cash-in/cash-out business with tens of 
millions of dollars a year in revenue, most of which is kept in constant circulation. 
With hundreds of accounts all over the world, disguised under dozens of 
corporate names or held in the names of individual NCLC members, it has the 
ability to write checks against insufficient funds. This has the effect of a 
constantly self-renewed interest-free loan of huge proportions. The LaRouchians 
are getting interest-free use of the money of everyone around them — money 
which, with good luck and clever legal maneuvering, they may never have to 
repay. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Thirty-two 
The Shell Game 

How did LaRouche get away with so flagrantly defying his creditors and violating 
federal campaign financing laws? How did he and his followers evade scrutiny by 
the IRS? To answer these questions, one must understand the financial structure 
that LaRouche has built to protect himself: an interlocking network of over thirty 
entities, seemingly independent of one another but actually controlled centrally 
through informal mechanisms. This business-political "empire" is an elaborate 
shell game. Cash is always in motion from one shell to another, disguising 
questionable transactions and avoiding court judgments. The entities include 
corporations, partnerships, individual NCLC members operating under business 
names, political action committees (PACs), electoral campaign committees, and 
the tax-exempt (until 1987) Fusion Energy Foundation. At any given moment the 
money in the bank accounts of these various entities has little to do with their 
actual operating receipts and expenditures. Funds are shifted around to meet the 
needs of the LaRouche organization as a whole. Considerable amounts 
sometimes will be in the personal bank accounts of trusted but appropriately 
obscure NCLC members. Large reserves are reportedly held in offshore banks 
where U.S. claimants and authorities cannot gain access. In the mid-1980s, there 
were well over one hundred bank accounts involved in these transactions in the 
United States alone, while LaRouche's European Labor Party had its own 
interlocking shells and cash was moved between the United States and Europe 
by courier. 

At the center of this financial web sits an unincorporated political association, the 
National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), of which LaRouche is the 
chairman. The NCLC has no assets, and keeps no bank accounts; in effect, it is 
judgment-proof. LaRouche controls it through a kind of politburo, the National 
Executive Committee, which meets almost every day. The most important 
financial decisions are made at these meetings, and LaRouche's approval is 
always required. Even when he is out of the country, he keeps in close daily 
communication. 

To insulate LaRouche and prevent the entities from being liable for each other's 
debts, the NCLC denies any controlling role. Its leaders today describe it as 
merely a "philosophical association" which meets occasionally to discuss Plato's 
Timaeus and similar refined topics. But in 1974, LaRouche described it as a 
"vanguard political organization." And in 1976, the NCLC director of organization, 
Warren Hamerman, declared in a financial report that the "budget and 
deployment of funds" proceed from a unified strategy. His report used charts and 
figures to illustrate the flow of money to and from the various entities, including 



the nonprofit FEF. The NCLC's total resources, he said, are "centrally deployed 
internationally to achieve maximum concentrated political firepower." 

From the beginning, all entities were headed by a tiny coterie of trusted 
LaRouche aides. The incorporators, officers, or directors usually included Nancy 
or Ed Spannaus and Kenneth or Molly Kronberg. Most entities shared the same 
offices, telephone switchboard, lawyers, computer services, bookkeepers, in- 
house payroll company, and printing and typesetting facilities. This made it 
extremely difficult for creditors of any entities to foreclose, unless their judgment 
was against several shells at once. 

The personnel of the entities were as interchangeable as the equipment. 
Fundraisers would claim to be from the FEF one day and from Campaigner 
Publications or Caucus Distributors the next. The money that poured in rarely 
stayed in the account of the entity to which the check was made out. Indeed, 
weekly financial reports going back to the mid-1 970s show the cash from all 
LaRouche's entities going into one kitty. Using CIA jargon, LaRouche referred to 
the NCLC's "proprietary" relationship to the entities. In a 1979 speech he called 
them the "predicates, the shadows, the footprints" of the NCLC. In a 1981 
pamphlet he said the NCLC "participates as a 'mother' or significantly as a 
'partner' component." The incorporation papers of Caucus Distributors, Inc. — the 
most successful of LaRouche's telephone fund-raising entities — affirm outright 
that its purpose is to promote the "political ideas and beliefs" of the National 
Caucus of Labor Committees. 

Some of the entities are just fancy names for the NCLC's own internal sectors. 
For instance. New Solidarity International Press Service, Inc., is the NCLC 
intelligence sector in its guise as a commercial producer of intelligence in 
published form or as confidential reports for private clients. 

Businesses run by NCLC members are expected to put the NCLC's needs first. 
Former LaRouchian Eric Lerner found this out when he and several comrades 
formed a company to promote a water desalinization invention. After leaving the 
NCLC, he stated in a 1979 lawsuit that NCLC leaders had pressured him to 
funnel the firm's profits to the U.S. Labor Party, the electoral arm of the NCLC, in 
violation of election laws. Lerner charged that this was standard policy with other 
NCLC-controlled businesses. 

The practice extended to the nonprofit FEF with its multimillion-dollar annual 
revenues. Bank records show that in the early 1980s the FEF transferred large 
amounts to several profit-making LaRouche entities. Many large checks were 
simply made out to "cash." 

The NCLC's policy of keeping no assets in its own name dates back to 1978, 
when a $90,000 judgment against the NCLC was obtained by the Bank of Nova 
Scotia, The NCLC simply shut down its accounts and transferred its assets to 



controlled entities. An NCLC internal memo boasted that these assets had gone 
"underground." 

LaRouche handles his personal finances in the same way. He holds no property 
in his own name, maintains no personal bank accounts within the United States, 
and receives no salary, ostensibly living off the charity of his followers. His 
residences are always owned or rented by associates, so that he appears to be a 
guest in his own house. In 1984 he testified in a lawsuit that he hadn't paid a 
penny in income tax for twelve years, and had no idea who paid for his food, 
clothing, attorneys, and other necessities. "I have not made a purchase of 
anything greater than a five-dollar haircut in the last ten years," he said. 

LaRouche's attorney, Odin Anderson, claimed that in living this way LaRouche 
was following the example of Mahatma Gandhi. In the early 1970s, when "Lyn 
Marcus" the Marxist ideologue lived in a small, rundown apartment, the 
comparison would not have been so absurd. But LaRouche's standard of comfort 
changed dramatically after he married Helga Zepp. The Sutton Place town 
house, a villa in Germany, hired bodyguards, armored limousines, and frequent 
world travel all became necessities. Anne-Marie Vidal recalled the resentment 
that Helga's shopping sprees stirred up among NCLC women: "She'd put down 
more for a blouse than most members would spend on clothes in a year." 

After Ronald Reagan became President, LaRouche and his top lieutenants 
discussed moving the organization to the Washington area. The first stage came 
in 1983, when LaRouche, Helga, and several top aides moved to the vicinity of 
Leesburg, Virginia, an affluent community thirty minutes from Washington in 
Loudoun County (fox-hunting country). They rented an estate with a three-story 
house and a barn for Helga's horse. 

Moving hundreds of NCLC members and the national office to Virginia required 
massive sums. Homes and office space had to be found. Real estate had to be 
purchased as well as rented. All this coincided with LaRouche's 1984 presidential 
campaign, which included lavish plans for television advertising. 

To cope with the heavier demands, the NCLC fundraising system was 
reorganized in the spring of 1984. Until that time, fund raising had been left 
largely to the regional NCLC organizations. It was henceforth centralized at the 
national headquarters' telephone banks. Scores of NCLC intelligence and 
editorial staffers were reassigned to full-time fundraising. Anyone who balked 
was accused of elitism. A California NCLC leader, William Wertz, was brought in 
to oversee the revamped system. 

According to federal court testimony, Wertz's philosophy was simple: There was 
no such thing as a loan, and money borrowed should not be repaid. An exception 
might occasionally be made for lenders who were politically important or 
threatened to launch a major legal battle. But that was for the NCLC leadership 



to decide. The rank-and-file fundraisers were expected to get on tlieir assigned 
pliones, work tlirougli tlieir stacks of contact cards, and milk the lenders at top 
speed. 

Soon the phones were being worked fourteen to sixteen hours a day by as many 
as 120 people in the national office and upwards of 300 people in the regional 
offices. Telephone fundraising became "the one and only activity for which 
people lived and breathed," according to federal witness Charles Tate, himself a 
former fundraiser. New York regional NCLC leader Phil Rubinstein supervised a 
telephone operation that floated like a crap game from apartment to apartment in 
upper Manhattan, the Bronx, and New Jersey, leaving a trail of victims, (While 
involved in this, Rubinstein ran for mayor of New York in the 1985 Democratic 
primary, promising to weed out corruption,) 

The national office boiler room developed a boot-camp atmosphere. "There'd be 
a roll call in the morning," Tate said. "Wertz would call out each name. You were 
given these gargantuan quotas, and you were expected to work from 9 A.M. until 
you met the quota, even if that was eleven or twelve at night," Members who 
didn't meet their quotas were yelled at, denied any days off, or accused of 
homosexuality or drunkenness. When one party leader's wife failed to meet her 
quota, her husband beat her up. It worked — she became the most ruthless of 
fundraisers. 

Wertz interrupted work twice a day for pep talks. "He would describe us as being 
like Patton's army," Tate testified. "If we didn't make the landing like at 
Normandy.. .all of civilization would come tumbling down." (Wertz also concocted 
little motivational poems, such as: "Here's to St. Martin, the Roman, who offered 
his cloak to a beggar...." In a harsher frame of mind he wrote: "Armageddon is 
coming. ..if thou fail'st to act as the right arm of the Lord." And: "Killer instinct is 
needed in him who would wage righteous warfare. ..kill with the weapons of art.") 

According to federal investigators, the LaRouche organization's income soared to 
more than $30 million in 1984. During a four-month period a single Manhattan 
bank account of Campaigner Publications handled credits of more than $4.5 
million. This was only one of many Campaigner accounts, and Campaigner was 
only one of many fund-raising entities. Although a substantial portion of the 
revenues came from legitimate literature sales or donations, investigators say 
that a larger amount was the result of two intertwined scams: unauthorized 
charges to credit cards (there were thousands of such charges) and the 
solicitation of loans which the NCLC had no intention of repaying. 

Whenever airport travelers purchased literature or made a donation to the FEF or 
LaRouche's presidential campaign via credit card, they allegedly were at risk of 
additional, unauthorized charges. There was an art behind this, according to 
records in a suit filed by a bank against the LaRouchians. A fundraiser in the 
LaRouche boiler room would phone the National Data Corporation to verify how 



much could be charged. When told the requested charges exceeded the 
cardholder's credit limit, the fundraiser would call back requesting a lower charge, 
and repeat this process until the cardholder's credit limit was determined. The 
fundraiser would then decide how much to rip off, perhaps a small amount that 
might go unnoticed by the cardholder, or sometimes an amount that would clean 
out the account. 

When the victim discovered the loss on his monthly statement, one of two things 
would happen. Sometimes the LaRouchians would apologize profusely, blaming 
it on a clerical error, and eventually return the money, having enjoyed an interest- 
free short-term loan. But more often, having withdrawn the cash through one of 
many LaRouchian credit-card merchant accounts, they stonewalled both the 
bank and the credit-card holder. Ultimately the bank would gel fed up and freeze 
the merchant account, but the money in it would total only a fraction of the 
unauthorized charges. The bank would be out the difference. 

Two banks hit hard were Chemical Bank and New Jersey's First Fidelity. After 
they froze the LaRouchian accounts they were sued for allegedly being part of a 
political conspiracy against LaRouche. First Fidelity eventually spent more on 
legal expenses than it would have lost by writing off the debt. In New Jersey, 
LaRouche's harassment machine went into high gear, with press conferences 
and hundreds of thousands of leaflets calling First Fidelity a Mafia money 
laundry. The bank responded with a federal court racketeering suit against 
LaRouche, twenty-one associates, and twenty organizations. (The suit, 
eventually settled out of court, produced detailed information about LaRouche's 
financial empire.) 

Vendors who suffered included Sans Souci Travel in New York City. The 
LaRouchians paid for airline tickets via unauthorized charges to the American 
Express cards of people who had previously made donations or purchases. 
When these people protested, American Express invalidated the charges, for a 
loss to the travel agent amounting to $106,000. 

Thousands of 1984 loans were solicited through LaRouche's two presidential 
campaign committees, which spent a total of $6.3 million. The FEC filings of 
Independent Democrats for LaRouche (IDL) listed almost 2,600 loans totaling 
over $1 .2 million. By October 1 985 almost all these loans were past due, and 
only $139,000 had been paid back. An FEC official described this as "highly 
unusual — I don't recall anything quite like it in any other filing." As of mid-1987 
LaRouche's campaign debts totaled $2.6 million, more than any of the major 
1984 candidates except John Glenn. 

Additional loans were solicited in the name of Caucus Distributors, Campaigner 
Publications, and the FEF. Fund-raising quotas were set at $400,000 a week in 
1984, and then were upped to $500,000 and $600,000 in 1985 and 1986. 
Fundraisers increasingly targeted the most vulnerable people they could find — 



elderly widows living alone, stroke victims, and terminal cancer patients. 
CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Thirty-three 

The World's Most Expensive Glass of Sherry 

Millions of senior citizens live alone. Often desperate for companionship, they are 
prone to manipulation by younger people who pretend to show interest in them. 
They also are easily intimidated or frightened. Some are in the early stages of 
senility, no longer able to make wise decisions about money, yet unprotected by 
a financial guardian. Others have clouded judgment because of illness or the 
recent death of a spouse. They may have substantial assets in the form of their 
life savings in stocks or bonds. They also may own their homes or other property, 
which can be borrowed against or even sold outright. They are thus ripe for the 
pickings, as LaRouche's followers perceived. 

Anne Cresson, seventy-seven, of Princeton, New Jersey, was living alone when 
contacted in 1985. Her husband was in a nursing home with Alzheimer's, and her 
son lived in California. She was not wealthy, but from time to time she had 
donated to the Republican Party and various conservative causes. This put her 
on the New Right's fundraising lists. The LaRouchians obtained her name from 
one of these lists and called her. They said they were patriots fighting for Ronald 
Reagan's policies. They asked her if she would like to personally help the 
President of the United States. They didn't ask her to donate money. Instead, 
they asked her if she had any property that could be used as collateral for loans. 

Mrs. Cresson told them she owned a coin collection appraised at $75,000. A 
LaRouche fundraiser offered to pay her 12 percent interest for the use of it as 
loan collateral — seemingly a generous offer given the low loan-to-value ratio on 
coin collections. Mrs. Cresson consented, and a man from the LaRouche 
organization came to her house and picked up the coins. He gave her an 
unsecured promissory note — a printed form on the letterhead of Caucus 
Distributors. The address on the letterhead was the former NCLC headquarters 
on West Fifty-eighth Street in Manhattan, which by this time was an empty 
building slated for demolition. (The LaRouche organization had moved out 
several months earlier.) 

Mrs. Cresson had second thoughts the next day. She called LaRouche 
fundraiser Joyce Rubinstein and asked that the coin collection be returned. Mrs. 
Rubinstein refused, saying the coins had been sent to Chicago for appraisal, but 
offered to visit Mrs. Cresson to discuss the matter further. Mrs. Cresson 
happened to speak to her son on the phone that day and told him the story. He 
called the Princeton police. They arrested Mrs. Rubinstein at Mrs. Cresson's 
home. She was charged with theft by deception and held at the police station. It 
was one of the rare occasions when someone took a tough line with the 



LaRouchians. Several hours later, Mrs. Rubinstein's comrades meekly returned 
the coin collection to Mrs. Cresson. 

Not all schemes had such happy endings for the intended targets. Margaret 
Beynen, eighty-three, of Berkeley, California, suffered more than a year of 
trauma to get back a portion of her money. LaRouche fundraisers began calling 
her in late 1 985. They told her America's banking system was about to collapse. 
Her money would be safer if she lent it to them, and they would pay 1 percent 
interest. The loan would be used to fight drugs, which otherwise would destroy 
America. Then began the subtle intimidation: "Through long and frequent 
telephone calls," Mrs. Beynen later told the court, the LaRouchians "probed 
deeply" into her personal and financial affairs, pressuring her for money. Over a 
two-month period she made four loans to them totaling $60,000 — a substantial 
portion of her life savings. They sent Federal Express couriers to pick up the 
checks. 

Next, the LaRouchians began urging her to convert the loans into gifts. When 
she refused, they called her a selfish old woman. Interest payments on the loans, 
which had been intermittent, ceased altogether. In May 1986 she received a form 
letter from Caucus Distributors, Inc. (CDI), asking all its lenders to extend or 
forgive their loans. "If you have not been repaid according to schedule," the letter 
said, "you may be angry. You have a right to be angry." However, the letter 
suggested the anger should be directed at the Justice Department, the Eastern 
Establishment, and the drug lobbyists, who had launched "financial warfare" 
against LaRouche and CDI. The letter also warned about certain liars who were 
going around saying that "LaRouche preys on old people," and urged any lender 
contacted by such a person to alert CDI immediately. 

Mrs. Beynen wrote to CDI requesting the interest due on her loan. Weeks passed 
before she received a brief reply: "We are winning the war — stay with us." But 
still no money came. In August she sent another letter. This time there was no 
reply at all. Mrs. Beynen realized that she might never see her money again and 
that she had jeopardized the financial security of her only heir, her blind and 
diabetic son. 

A San Francisco attorney, Dan Bookin, was willing to take Mrs. Beynen's case 
pro bono, and filed a racketeering suit on her behalf in federal court. Mrs. Beynen 
eventually obtained a court order to seize the assets of two LaRouche front 
groups. 

Thousands of elderly people have not been so lucky. Most cannot obtain free 
legal counsel, and even those who can afford a lawyer at the going rate are often 
too frightened, confused, or embarrassed to sue. Many are in such poor health 
that even if they did take legal action they probably would not live to see the suit 
and the collection process through to the end. 



The amount of personal trauma has been enormous. As of mid-1987 Virginia 
state investigators listed 4,500 questionable LaRouchian loan transactions 
totaling $30 million in all fifty states and twelve foreign countries. Of the 3,000 
victims in these transactions, about 75 percent are senior citizens, Virginia 
Commonwealth attorney Mary Sue Terry told CBS-TV: "We don't know of a 
single instance in which the terms of a note have been met in full by one of the 
entities that borrowed the money." (Federal investigators believe that the total 
amount bilked from the public may be much higher than $30 million.) 

Occasionally a LaRouchian fund-raiser hits the jackpot with a genuinely wealthy 
senior citizen. In 1986 the NCNB National Bank of Florida, trustee for eighty- 
year-old retired steel executive Charles Zimmerman, sued the LaRouchians to 
recover $2.6 million. Zimmerman had been induced to loan cash to the Fusion 
Energy Foundation and Caucus Distributors, transfer stock to the FEF, and 
purchase a limited partnership in a Maryland radio station controlled by the 
LaRouchians. 

Some victims were disoriented by painful illnesses. Norman Flaningam, seventy- 
four, a Washington attorney dying of cancer, had turned over more than 
$100,000. In return, the LaRouchians gave him free copies of EIR special reports 
and a box of chocolates on St. Valentine's Day, with a handwritten note "to a 
wonderful patriot." His daughter recalled coming into his room near the end and 
finding him in a distraught state, begging the LaRouchians on the telephone to 
return his money. 

Carl Swanson, sixty-one, a stroke victim, was taken for $7,000 in credit-card 
charges. His wife and son told the Baltimore Sun how he had received calls from 
LaRouchian fundraiser Rochelle Ascher every five or ten minutes for hours at a 
time. His wife first learned about it when she discovered him "crying and 
trembling" on the phone. She picked up the receiver and heard Ascher tell him it 
was "his patriotic duty" to give money. Mrs. Swanson told Ascher not to call 
again, but Ascher persisted, disguising her voice and giving false names. 

Elizabeth Rose, an eighty-four-year-old widow who lived alone in a Pennsylvania 
retirement village, was relieved of over $1 million, mostly in stocks. Her daughter, 
Nancy Day, explains that Mrs. Rose had made large contributions to Ronald 
Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign. In February 1986 the LaRouchians 
contacted her, saying they had obtained her name from a fundraising list. They 
told her about the drug menace, the AIDS menace, the Soviet menace, and the 
various plots against Lyndon LaRouche's life. Soon they were at her doorstep 
with videotapes of LaRouche's speeches. Cautiously at first, they induced her to 
donate money via her credit card, a thousand or two thousand dollars at a time. 
Don't tell your children, they warned her. Your children don't care about you, they 
just want to put you on a shelf. "It all happened very fast, in less than a month," 
said Mrs. Day. "They opened my mother up like a flower." 



When the LaRouchians learned that Mrs. Rose was a major stockholder in 
Church & Dwight (the manufacturers of Arm & Hammer baking soda), they 
induced her to turn over 92,000 shares that had been passed down in the family 
for generations. Her daughters found out and intervened. Although the 
LaRouchians had sold much of the stock as soon as they received it, the family 
was eventually able to retrieve about a third. "My mother clearly didn't know what 
she was doing," says Mrs. Day. "In the middle of all this I was talking to her, right 
in her bedroom. She said, 'All my stock belongs to you kids.' She was not aware 
she had given it away." 

When Mrs. Day and her two sisters went to court in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 
to seek a guardian for their mother, the LaRouche organization urged Mrs. Rose 
to fight them. When the court case began, her behavior became increasingly 
erratic. "Some days I was a friend, other days the enemy," says her daughter. 
"She told me the LaRouchians had promised to send her to the moon and that 
she hoped to be the first grandmother on Mars," The LaRouchians introduced 
Mrs. Rose to a nationwide telephone support network of elderly LaRouche 
followers, all of whom were in conflict with their children regarding donations to 
LaRouche, "When the trial began, she got calls from old people as far away as 
Alaska," said her daughter. Mrs. Rose's attorneys called as their expert Dr. 
Judianne Densen-Gerber, the former Odyssey House director who had spoken at 
LaRouchian anti-drug rallies. She testified that Mrs. Rose was perfectly able to 
conduct her own affairs. The judge was unconvinced, especially after Mrs. Rose 
told the court her views on the Rockefeller family and dope dealing. He ruled that 
Mrs. Rose had been the victim of "designing persons" and appointed her 
daughters as guardians of her financial affairs. 

The LaRouchians then sent Mrs. Rose on a tour of Italy, presenting her to the 
media as a victim of an American "reign of terror" against the elderly. NCLC 
literature described how happy she fell to give money to LaRouche. New 
Solidarity made her into a heroine with headlines like "Elizabeth Rose Inspires 
Audiences" and "Patriotic 84-Year-Old Begins Tour for Seniors' Rights." 

Back from Italy, Mrs. Rose began her political career in earnest. She went to 
cadre school once a week, and counseled other elderly LaRouche contributors 
by phone. She testified before LaRouche's fact-finding commission set up to 
prove that he and other indicted members of the NCLC were victims of a political 
witchhunt. She went to a "thank you" reception in Leesburg where elderly donors 
were served sherry and allowed to chat briefly with LaRouche. Prosecutors in the 
loan fraud cases say that LaRouche's mansion serves "the world's most 
expensive glass of sherry." 

"My mother used to have a great sense of humor," said Mrs. Day, "but she hasn't 
laughed since she met those people. They've filled her with hate. They told her 
we only want her money." In effect, the LaRouchians had become her mother's 
"surrogate children." Seducing her first with flowers and attention, they had 



offered her an illusory sense of personal fulfillment as an "organizer" of other 
vulnerable senior citizens. "They'd suck out her eyeballs if they could," Mrs. Day 
said. 

NCLC defector Charles Tate, a federal witness in the Boston case, said the 
treatment of Mrs. Rose, Mrs. Beynen, and other senior citizens reflects an 
increasing recklessness within the LaRouche organization, Tate recalls the first 
months of the big fund-raising push in 1 984. "It was crystal clear to every single 
member. ..that the organization would never be able to pay back [the] gargantuan 
amounts of loans...." he said. "And quite frankly, nobody really cared." 

Internal NCLC memos seized by federal authorities in their October 1986 raid on 
LaRouche's headquarters reveal the predatory mentality of the fundraisers. A 
May 1986 memo described how a Louisiana oil worker took out a $90,000 
mortgage on his home and lent the organization over $100,000 during a period 
when three LaRouche fundraisers were courting him. But he started asking for 
his money back because of the influence of his girlfriend (described as a "raving 
witch"). The memo examined ways to avoid full repayment. "If we are going to 
offer him a schedule which we can't keep," it suggested, "we might just as well 
call his bluff now and get it over with." It also speculated that it might be best to 
pay him $2,000 a week for several weeks just to cool him off. 

The memos dealt with what were called "hardship" cases, such as a man in 
Alaska who "lent us his life savings and is dependent on us to a high degree," or 
the elderly woman "who did everything, including selling her house," and thus 
had "no means of support except our beneficence." In the Orwellian semantics of 
the NCLC, these victims were transformed into welfare loafers who should be 
grateful to the LaRouchians for grudgingly returning a tiny fraction of their money. 
Often there was a steely insensitivity to their plight. One woman who lent 
$60,000 was ridiculed as "the famous hardship case. ..going crazy as usual." A 
man who lent $17,000 and was having his wages garnished by the IRS was 
described as "going bananas." One destitute lender was said to have "nowhere 
to go besides us to cover living expenses and the mortgage on his house....He's 
hysterical." Another was called a "psycho" and a "troublemaker" because she 
demanded her money back. 

Meanwhile, the massive sums raised were being used to build up LaRouche's 
real estate and other commercial holdings in Leesburg. The organization spent 
millions of dollars on industrial lots, a summer camp, a radio station, a weekly 
newspaper, and a 4,550-acre paramilitary training facility in the Blue Ridge 
Mountains as the bulk of the NCLC national staff of about two hundred people 
moved into Loudoun County in 1984-85, When Lyn and Helga decided they 
needed a larger estate, the organization persuaded David Nick Anderson, an 
Oklahoma oilman, to put up $400,000 and finance $900,000 for the purchase of 
Ibykus Farm, a 171 -acre estate with a fourteen-room manor house. Three 



LaRouche fundraising entities tlien kicked in almost $1 million for improvements, 
which included a swimming pool, riding ring, horse barn, and landscaping. 

But the LaRouchians, with all their aspirations to public influence and eventual 
mass leadership, were unable to win many minds and hearts in Loudoun County. 
At first they provided jobs for local residents, but the paychecks soon began to 
bounce and many employees quit. Hundreds of checks to contractors and 
merchants also bounced. Although a few local ultraconservatives were willing to 
deal secretly with LaRouche, most residents were soon fed up. If the 
LaRouchians were not squabbling with the sheriff's office over their applications 
for concealed-weapons permits, they were battling with the local zoning board 
over their right to operate a children's day camp. Their newly founded Loudoun 
County News tried to whip up hysteria among local small businessmen over a 
nonexistent plot by county officials to drive them out of business. The 
LaRouchians threatened the life of a female attorney (who promptly fled town), 
sued a jeweler for libel, and published smears against families who had lived in 
the county for generations. The nadir probably was reached when LaRouche 
called the local Garden Society a nest of KGB agents. 

The move to Leesburg turned out to be the biggest miscalculation the 
LaRouchians had yet made. In New York they had been protected by the 
anonymity of big-city life, their power over Roy Cohn, and the reluctance of 
prosecutors to tangle with them. But in Leesburg, population 8,000, their 
intimidation tactics and deadbeat attitude toward paying bills were much more 
conspicuous, "It was like they moved into a fishbowl and turned on the lights," 
says Loudoun Times-Mirror reporter Bryan Chitwood. Before long, the Times- 
Mirror and a member of the county board of supervisors, Frank Raflo, were 
raising public question about the antics of LaRouche and his followers, while a 
wide range of citizens contacted the sheriff's office with varied complaints. Don 
Moore, the deputy sheriff in charge of the investigation, began to sense the 
nationwide and international scope of the swindles emanating from the NCLC 
headquarters in downtown Leesburg across from the colonial courthouse. A 
Vietnam veteran, he looked at the office building filled with LaRouche entities and 
thought that the time to take that hill had come. But he ran into the usual 
stonewall when he tried to interest the FBI and other federal authorities. 

The first breakthrough came in Massachusetts. In the fall of 1984 the Boston FBI 
had received complaints that suggested a pattern of credit-card fraud by 
organizations linked to LaRouche. A federal grand jury was convened in 
November. At first, the investigation proceeded slowly: The FBI and the U.S. 
Attorney's office had no idea of the magnitude of LaRouche's fundraising 
operation or its bewildering network of corporate shells. The LaRouchians 
allegedly sent potential witnesses to hide in Europe, destroyed documents, and 
refused to honor subpoenas. But when LaRouche followers scored big in the 
1986 Illinois Democratic primaries, newspapers around the country began to pay 
more attention to LaRouche's finances. Elderly victims and their relatives read 



these articles and came forward with complaints. Authorities in state after state 
launched investigations. 

Meanwhile, First Fidelity Bank's civil racketeering suit against LaRouche pierced 
his corporate veil, while U.S. Attorney William Weld in Boston appointed an 
assistant with special qualifications to prosecute the credit-card fraud case. This 
prosecutor, John Markham, had once represented in private practice a wealthy 
California cult, the Process Church of the Final Judgment. Markham knew how 
cults operate and how their members think. He also knew the key to cracking a 
case against a cult-like organization: Find defectors, offer them immunity, and get 
them to lead you to more defectors. 

The LaRouchians seemed unaware that they had passed into the danger zone. 
After all, had they not outwitted the authorities a hundred times and always with 
impunity? Their sense of invulnerability was so brazen that when they brought a 
New Jersey attorney to Boston to defend them in the credit-card fraud 
investigation, they paid for his airline ticket via an unauthorized credit-card 
charge. (He resigned from the case when the Justice Department informed him 
of this fact.) In Leesburg every Wednesday evening, a shredding machine at 
LaRouche headquarters destroyed bank statements, canceled checks, and other 
documents — as many as ten thirty-gallon bags' worth each week. But no one 
thought to destroy the Security staff notebooks and financial memos that 
described and gloated over the NCLC's machinations in extraordinary detail. The 
NCLC leadership was preoccupied with raising as much money as possible, as 
fast as possible, seemingly regardless of the risk. In an August 1986 briefing, 
Helga LaRouche ordered members to raise $750,000 in five days by focusing on 
"money questions as the absolutely necessary logistics" to defeat the evil 
oligarchy. "For us," she said, money represents "the bullets, the guns, laser 
weapons, and other kinds of weapons, which we absolutely need." 

The LaRouche organization would need criminal lawyers more than laser guns. 
In October 1986, ten LaRouchians, including four of LaRouche's top aides, were 
indicted in Boston federal court for credit-card fraud and obstruction of justice. 
Several more LaRouchians were subsequently added to the Boston indictment, 
and in February 1987, a Virginia grand jury indicted sixteen for securities fraud. 
In March, New York State indicted fifteen for securities fraud, grand larceny, and 
conspiracy, including LaRouche's closest lieutenants, Ed and Nancy Spannaus. 
At least twelve states meanwhile obtained cease-and-desist orders against 
LaRouche fund-raising entities. On July 2, 1987, LaRouche himself was indicted 
in Boston for obstruction of justice. 

The first conviction was obtained in December 1987: Roy Frankhouser, tried 
separately from the other Boston defendants, was found guilty of obstructing 
justice. That same month the main Boston trial began. Although it ended in a 
mistrial, a replay was scheduled for early 1989. Meanwhile, a federal grand jury 
in Alexandria was considering massive evidence of loan and tax fraud, and the 



LaRouchians themselves predicted it would hand down a "grand slam series of 
indictments." In October 1988, after a probe lasting almost two years, LaRouche 
and six followers (including Ed Spannaus and chief fundraiser William Wertz) 
were indicted on thirteen counts of mail fraud, income tax fraud, and conspiracy. 
The indictment charged them with obtaining over $34 million in fraudulent loans 
between 1983 and 1987 (they denied all charges, claiming that harassment and 
seizure of records by authorities prevented their repaying loans). If convicted, 
LaRouche faced up to sixty-five years in jail and fines of $3.25 million. 

If LaRouche were the head of an ordinary criminal conspiracy, motivated simply 
by greed, he would have been washed up long before the 1988 indictments. His 
associates would have offered to cut deals with the prosecutors to inform on 
each other and the boss himself. But the LaRouchians are an ideological 
movement with an intense collective spirit. Such movements often function most 
vigorously when under attack, even when their top leaders are in jail or exile. By 
early 1988 most law enforcement officials no longer believed the LaRouchian 
leadership would collapse under fear of jail sentences. In an update report on the 
NCLC, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith noted its "resilience" and 
"quick recovery." Whenever NCLC members were indicted, authorities found that 
within days many of the indicted people were back on the phones raising money. 
Their bravado was expressed in comparisons between their fundraising methods 
and those of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. The Founding Fathers, 
NCLC publications maintained, had resorted to a prototype of "credit-card fraud" 
to save the American Revolution! 

The adaptability of the LaRouchians was also seen when the Justice Department 
brought involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against three entities that had 
refused to pay contempt-of-court fines of over $16 million. (The fines had been 
accruing daily for over a year, ever since the entities defied a Boston grand jury 
subpoena of their financial records.) A federal judge in Alexandria placed them 
under the control of interim trustees, but when U.S. marshals seized the firms' 
sixty-five known bank accounts, all but $20,000 was gone. And when the 
marshals seized the firms' offices and publications, the latter just reopened under 
new names: New Solidarity as The New Federalist, and Fusion as Twenty-First 
Century Science and Technology In addition, the firms moved their telephone 
boiler rooms to private apartments also to operate under new names. In late 
1987, federal authorities estimated the LaRouche money machine was still 
raising $2.5 million a month. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



PART NINE: LaRouche, Inc.: The 
Underworld Connection 

Inspector MacDonald smiled, and his eyelid quivered . . . "I won't 
conceal from you, Mr. Holmes, that we think in the C.I.D. that you 
have a wee bit of a bee in your bonnet over this professor 
[Moriarty]. " 

-The Valley of Fear 

Chapter Thirty-four 

The War on Drugs, So Called 

LaRouche may not have originally intended to build an organization resembling 
an underworld enterprise, but he certainly took steps tending in that direction. 
First, he gathered a band of ruthless lieutenants, who acknowledged that he was 
the "boss" and defined their identities in terms of his approval. Second, he found 
out how the underworld actually works (money laundering and drug smuggling, 
for instance) from former government experts and by studying the careers of 
master criminals such as Meyer Lansky. Third, he constructed a good cover story 
that seemed to explain that what he was doing was quite legal. Fourth, he built 
up alliances with established organizations, such as the Teamsters union, which 
had the connections, resources, and expertise he lacked. 

Like Sherlock Holmes's great adversary. Professor Moriarty--the fictional 
prototype of an intellectual underworld leader-LaRouche approached his 
activities with the mind of a strategist and grasped the key problem: how to 
develop an in-depth shield against prosecution, including a fail-safe system for 
times when the ordinary deceptions no longer suffice by themselves. 

The solution he most favored was to associate himself with the U.S. intelligence 
community. It was well known that the CIA and other federal agencies had long 
collaborated with and protected crooks so long as the latter were useful in 
fighting communism (for instance, Santos Trafficante, Jr., against Fidel Castro). 
In The Case of Walter Lippmann, LaRouche observed that the most successful 
narcotics traffickers are those linked to government agencies responsible for 
investigating the drug trade. These agencies, to protect their criminal associates, 
use "the 'under investigation' fiction" to steer "regular, unwitting police agencies" 
away from any "interference with the drug-network operations." Although 
LaRouche buried this point in a critique of both the crooks and the intelligence 



community, he soon proceeded to hire as his adviser the often arrested but never 
convicted IVIitch WerBell, who boasted of using his Langley connections to gain 
immunity. Years later, under investigation for credit-card fraud, LaRouche's 
followers would allegedly attempt a variation of WerBell's method--to persuade 
the CIA, through intermediaries, to quash a federal investigation of LaRouche. 

The development of a smoke screen for LaRouche's activities can be traced back 
to the founding of the National Anti-Drug Coalition in 1978-79. The NADC's 
LaRouchian organizers talked tough. They were going to lead the American 
people in a campaign to "shut down the drug traffic" lock, stock, and barrel. They 
staged rallies and seminars at inner-city churches and high schools, lobbied state 
legislatures, held briefings for congressional aides, and published the monthly 
War on Drugs. The apparent sincerity with which they approached this crusade 
won them the respect of some law enforcement experts. An alliance was forged 
with Dr. Gabriel Nahas, the anti-pot expert who later became prominent in Nancy 
Reagan's crusade against drugs. Dope, Inc., a 500-page book written by three 
LaRouche aides, became a kind of underground bestseller. 

The anti-drug rhetoric continued into the 1980s, with LaRouche hurling the 
epithet "drug lobbyist" at any reporter who criticized him. This was his most 
audacious deception. For while conducting his so-called war on drugs, he and his 
followers sought alliances with individuals allegedly close to the heroin and 
cocaine traffic, including Midwest racketeers and Panama's General Manuel 
Noriega. To facilitate such ties, the LaRouchians surrounded themselves with 
consultants, attorneys, business partners, and political allies from the 
underworld's fringes. For instance, when the Illinois attorney general began a 
probe of the National Anti-Drug Coalition's fundraising in the early 1980s, the 
LaRouchians hired Chicago attorney Victor Ciardelli, reportedly at the 
recommendation of the late Roy Cohn. Ciardelli was later indicted along with 
over forty co-conspirators for his involvement in a vast cocaine- and pot- 
smuggling operation in the South and Southwest, He was accused of being in 
charge of laundering the profits, but received only a year in jail after turning 
state's witness. 

To develop their own financial operations, the LaRouchians needed detailed 
background knowledge. In 1978 over a dozen NCLC members did library 
research for the authors of Dope, Inc., studying the activities of criminal 
innovators such as Meyer Lansky and Robert Vesco, whose expertise included 
money laundering. But some things can't be learned from books and 
congressional reports. One of LaRouche's earliest gurus with direct knowledge of 
the drug underworld was WerBell. Although he was touted to the NCLC rank and 
file as a veteran government anti-drug fighter, this was a half-truth at best. His 
career as CIA contract employee, private spook, mercenary soldier, and arms 
dealer had brought him into tempting contact with criminal elements in the 
Caribbean and Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle. In the early 1970s he achieved 
notoriety as the manufacturer of the Ingram MAC-10, which became the 



preferred weapon of cocaine traffickers tlirougliout tine Western Hemispliere. In 

1975 a federal grand jury in Miami indicted him as the kingpin of a conspiracy to 
smuggle 50,000 pounds of Colombian marijuana a month into Florida--to be 
distributed in Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago. His co-defendants were John 
Nardi, a Cleveland Teamster official and crime boss; Morton Franklin, a 
Cleveland insurance man with close ties to organized crime; Gerald 
Cunningham, a Florida arms dealer; and William Bell, a former arms salesman. 

The investigation began when Kenneth Burnstine, a major Florida cocaine 
smuggler facing a seven-year prison sentence, agreed to become a government 
informant and impresario of "sting" operations. Burnstine had formerly been an 
arms salesman for WerBell He offered to sell WerBell his smuggling business in 
return for a $100,000 commission on each 5,000 pounds of pot. WerBell 
expressed interest, and Burnstine introduced him to DEA agents posing as 
smugglers with Colombian connections. Thus began a seven-month operation 
involving twenty-seven federal agents with planes and yachts. 

Although the DEA collected fifty-five hours of audiotapes and videotapes linking 
WerBell and his cronies to the smuggling plot, the government case was 
undermined by the mysterious death of its chief witness. Only weeks before the 

1976 trial, Burnstine was killed when his private plane crashed during a Mojave 
Desert air show. The FBI suspected Nardi, but couldn't prove it. Without 
Burnstine's sworn direct testimony, federal and state prosecutors had to drop 
over sixty marijuana- and cocaine-smuggling cases. The result in the WerBell 
trial was a ruling that most of the DEA's tapes of conversations in which 
Burnstine was a participant could not be played for the jury. 

The defense conceded that WerBell had recruited Bell, who in turn recruited 
Cunningham, who brought in Franklin and Nardi. However, the defense argued, 
the purpose hadn't been a smuggling conspiracy at all, but an anti-drug 
operation. The five defendants had played along with Burnstine in their capacity 
as drug busters for a government agency so secret that it had no name. (The 
LaRouchians used a variation of this defense in their 1988 Boston trial for credit- 
card fraud, claiming their activities had been directed by government agents so 
secret they were known only by code names.) 

The brunt of the defense was borne by WerBell, whose connections with 
government agencies provided the hook on which to hang the drug-fighter 
argument. (His chief attorney was Edwin Marger of Atlanta, who would later 
represent LaRouche in a libel suit against Jack Anderson.) Franklin and Nardi 
offered no defense, preferring to rise or fall with WerBell. Former Nixon aide Egil 
Krogh was called as a defense witness, but testified that he'd never heard of the 
supersecret drug busters. Former CIA contract agent Gerald Patrick Hemming, 
called to attest to WerBell's commitment to the war on drugs, was himself 
arrested during the trial for allegedly smuggling cocaine and marijuana. 



Still, the government fought a losing battle without Burnstine and the tapes. After 
ten hours of deliberation, the jury found the defendants not guilty. The drug- 
fighter defense was not the chief factor in this decision. As prosecutor Karen 
Atkinson told the jury: "There's not one scintilla of evidence that. ..any of these 
men were working for the U.S. government." 

WerBell's attorneys said their client had been unacquainted with the Cleveland 
men prior to the indictment, but this argument was rendered dubious by a 
separate indictment of Franklin and Cunningham on gunrunning charges. The 
guns were Ingrams purchased from WerBell and were to be smuggled out of the 
country via a private Florida airstrip. Also indicted in the arms case were 
Cleveland mobsters Dominick Bartone and Henry ("Boom-Boom") Greece. 
Bartone later became a suspect with Morton Franklin in an Ohio bank fraud case. 
Greece, described in FBI documents as a "cold-blooded killer," was a close 
associate of Nardi. 

In addition to Burnstine's death, an extraordinary amount of violence surrounded 
these two cases. One midnight in July 1975, while the sting operation was in 
progress, WerBell's partner in the arms business, retired Army Colonel Robert 
Bayard, was found dead in an Atlanta shopping center. He had been executed 
with a single shot to the head. The murder was never solved. In May 1 977, Nardi 
was killed by a dynamite blast in the parking lot of the Cleveland Teamsters' joint 
council. Local media attributed the slaying to mob infighting. That same month 
Boom-Boom Greece was gunned down in his car after visiting the Italian- 
American Citizens Club in Cleveland. (Convicted of the crime was Joseph 
Bonarrigo, who had killed Greece after the latter declined to help him make a 
bomb to blow up a local businessman who had ordered a mob vending machine 
taken off his premises.) In 1984, Morton Franklin was arrested in Cleveland after 
paying $28,000 to an FBI undercover agent for a kilo of cocaine. Before pleading 
guilty to the narcotics charge, he forfeited bail because he allegedly attempted to 
hire a hit man to kill the FBI agent, offering to supply plastic explosives and a 
silencer as well as to pay $10,000. If LaRouche planned to associate with such 
circles, it was no wonder he felt he needed round-the-clock bodyguards! 

A window on WerBell's Southeast Asian and Caribbean connections was opened 
in the early 1980s after the collapse of Australia's Nugan Hand Bank, the 
suspicious death of one of its two founders, and the disappearance of the other. 
Australian authorities launched several probes uncovering links between Nugan 
Hand and the CIA, organized crime and heroin traffickers. The March 1983 report 
of the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking 
listed twenty-six alleged traffickers, several of them former U.S. military officers 
and intelligence agents. Like WerBell, they had been active in the Golden 
Triangle during the Vietnam War, 

When task-force investigators traveled to Washington they interviewed WerBell 
about a consulting fee he had received from Nugan Hand in 1979. WerBell told 



them he had met with Earl Yates, a retired admiral and president of Nugan Hand 
International. They had discussed a plan to resettle Meo tribesmen from Laos on 
a small island off Haiti. The Meo, famed as poppy growers and anti-Communist 
fighters, were to become peaceful fishermen. (Tom Naylor in Hot Money 
suggests they really would have become the equivalent of Gurkhas for the 
cocaine traffic.) WerBell said he refused to get involved because the scheme was 
"unrealistic." 

The LaRouchian inner circle was well aware of WerBell's checkered past. A 1977 
Security staff dossier outlined his involvement with fugitive financier/cocaine 
trafficker Robert Vesco and speculated about his possible ties to Florida drug 
kingpin Santos Trafficante, Jr. The dossier described his smuggling trial and 
speculated that one of the attorneys had CIA ties. The Security staffers were 
doubtless well aware of the boast made by WerBell (after the government 
dropped an earlier case against him for violation of neutrality laws) that the 
Company looks after its own. 

For the LaRouchians WerBell became a fount of tall tales as well as tips about 
the drug traffic. He also opened doors. On visits to his Georgia estate, they could 
meet key personalities of the violent, semi-psychotic world of gunrunners, drug 
smugglers, and CIA rogues-men like Gerald Hemming, who summed up the 
WerBell milieu to author A.J. Weberman as "nigger killers in bed with the Mafia 
and the Mafia in bed with the FBI and the goddamn CIA in bed with all of them." 

In 1978 LaRouche commissioned the writing of Dope, Inc., which purported to be 
a study of how the drug traffic worked. Over a dozen NCLC Security and 
intelligence staffers were assigned to the project, which furnished a rationale for 
gathering as much technical information as possible about smuggling and money 
laundering, WerBell personally provided much of the background on Southeast 
Asia. The LaRouchians also drew on the knowledge of Walt Mackem, a WerBell 
crony and former CIA narcotics expert. Mackem regarded the LaRouchians as 
crazy but was willing to take their money. 

Another tutor in the late 1 970s was Mafia drug banker Michele Sindona. After the 
collapse of his Franklin National Bank, he talked to many reporters about his 
woes. Members of the Security staff would stroll down the street from NCLC 
headquarters to chat with him at the Pierre Hotel, where he lived while awaiting 
trial. Vivian Syvriotis, LaRouche's former mistress, was the NCLC member 
delegated to meet most often with Sindona. "To the [NCLC] leadership," writes 
Kevin Coogan, a former member of the intelligence staff, "Sindona was the very 
model of a 'pro-development banker.' They continued to tell us he was a good 
guy even when it became obvious he was involved in the heroin trade." (In 1980, 
Sindona was found guilty of fraud and embezzlement and was sentenced to 
twenty-five years in prison. Extradited to Italy on a murder charge, he died in his 
cell of cyanide poisoning. The Sicilian Mafia is widely believed to have ordered 
his death.) 



The research for Dope, Inc. also enabled the LaRouchians to gather insights 
from law enforcement experts and to profile them in the process. One such 
source was Jack Cusack, former head of international operations for the Drug 
Enforcement Administration. Cusack had numerous meetings and phone 
conversations with the LaRouchians, especially with Marilyn James of the Dope, 
Inc. project, between 1978 and 1981. He recalled them as being "well informed" 
about the narcotics traffic, with excellent law enforcement contacts. "Sometimes 
they told me things I didn't know, but it turned out it was true," he said. 

As a result of their research, the Dope, Inc. authors zeroed in on Resorts 
International, the leisure conglomerate best known for its casino in Atlantic City, 
New Jersey, and its Paradise Island resort in the Bahamas. "Resorts 
International equals big-time drug trafficking," alleged the 1979 first edition of 
Dope, Inc., which also attacked Intertel, a Resorts-linked private spook outfit 
headed at the time by rivals of WerBell. Some of the research was turned over to 
New Jersey state investigators. Willis Carlo's Spotlight, which carried the NCLC 
findings in a 1978 series, boasted that the material had helped to persuade the 
state attorney's office to issue findings sharply critical of Resorts (although the 
LaRouchian allegation of links to the drug traffic were never substantiated). 

When New Jersey authorities were considering a permanent license for the 
Resorts casino in 1979, the NCLC staged a protest rally in Trenton and vowed a 
statewide campaign. This effort petered out after the NCLC-controlled 
Computron Technologies Corporation landed a contract with Resorts to design 
software for its development division. A Resorts spokesman, contacted in 1980, 
said Resorts had been unaware of Computron's connection to LaRouche and 
that the contract was in no sense a payoff. Yet a number of individuals involved 
in the Computron contract (or their spouses) had previously been involved in the 
anti-Resorts publicity campaign and intelligence gathering. Gus Kalimtgis, 
founder and chief stockholder of Computron, was the senior author of Dope, Inc. 
and had been the keynote speaker at the Trenton rally. Yoram Gelman, the 
Computron systems analyst who wrote the programs for Resorts' Wang VS-2200 
computer, was the husband of LaRouche campaign treasurer Felice Merritt 
Gelman, who co-authored a purported expose of Resorts ("Organized Crime 
Goes Legit") in the December 12, 1978, Executive Intelligence Review. The 
article attempted to prove that Resorts controlled many top politicians in New 
Jersey. Mark Stahlman, a Computron vice president and its registered agent in 
New Jersey, was formerly the NCLC Security staff's electronics specialist. He 
was thanked in the acknowledgment section of Dope, Inc. for unspecified 
"contributions" to the book. Fletcher James, Computron vice president in charge 
of systems, was the husband of Marilyn James, Jack Cusack's contact. Dope, 
Inc.'s authors listed her as one of three key researchers who "supplied the core" 
of the book. 

But the main benefit of the Dope, Inc. research perhaps lay not in finding out 
juicy facts about this or that corporation but in learning the methods of organized 



criminal activity--metliods tliat could be useful in building a white-collar empire. 
For instance, the year after Dope, Inc.'s publication, one of its authors, NCLC 
staff economist David Goldman, published a New Solidarity article based on 
information not included in the book. It was a technical discussion of how drug 
money is supposedly passed "directly through the commercial banking system," 
and how the intelligence community allegedly participates in covering up such 
practices. "The international narcotics bosses' agents-in-place in the wire transfer 
and computer rooms of major banks 'switch' the funds into special 'dummy 
accounts' at these banks," wrote Goldman. He added that "we know the names 
of these agents at several large banks, but choose not to name them at this 
time." 

Goldman described the techniques of wire transfer fraud as being "simple- 
mindedly easy." Curiously, the LaRouche organization had previously been sued 
by the Bank of Nova Scotia and Chase Manhattan Bank because of mysterious 
errors in wire transfers between various LaRouchian accounts. In each case the 
decimal points had been shifted to the right, transforming hundreds of dollars into 
tens of thousands of dollars. The error happened twice with Chase in a four-day 
period. The litigation involved instances in which the LaRouchians withdrew the 
money from the receiving account before the bank discovered the error, and then 
refused to return it. An affidavit by LaRouche aide Warren Hamerman indicated 
that many such wire transfer glitches had occurred to LaRouchian accounts 
across the country, Hamerman said the NCLC should not be required to repay 
the money, because the errors were really donations by individuals who did not 
wish their identities known. He also charged that the lawsuits were political 
warfare against his organization instigated by powerful persons. The political 
wrapping to LaRouche's financial manipulations was already coming in handy. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Thirty-six 
Fishing for Piranhas 



No sooner was the ink dry on Fitzsimmons' letter in Tine International Teamster 
than the peekaboo game started again. The Local 299 leaders in Detroit who had 
supported the anti-LaRouche (really, anti-McMaster) resolution continued to 
allow stacks of New Solidarity in the union hall and copies of EIR in the waiting 
room of the business office. McMaster continued his support of LaRouche, 
although in a low-profile way. In a January 1980 telephone interview, he 
described LaRouche as "the most intelligent of all the [presidential] 
candidates. "As for Fitzsimmons' letter, McMaster said that "individual locals can 
support whoever they like. ...The Teamster union is one of the most democratic 
goddamn outfits in America." He claimed that some locals were considering an 
endorsement of LaRouche and that he personally had discussed it with union 
officials in Florida. "People like it that he's in the Democratic Party now," 
McMaster explained, referring to LaRouche's decision in the fall of 1979 to 
jettison the U.S. Labor Party and enter the Democratic primaries. 

McMaster's support for LaRouche may have had self-interested motives. A 
Federal Election Commission schedule of receipts and expenditures filed by 
Citizens for LaRouche (CFL) shows that a few days after opening LaRouche's 
New Hampshire campaign headquarters in September 1979, CFL began making 
payments to Project Consulting Services Co. of Southfield, Michigan. The firm 
was headed by John R. Ferris, McMaster's closest friend and~according to The 
Hoffa Wars--h\s reputed business partner in several ventures. CFL paid Project 
Consulting over $96,000 during 1979-80 to oversee LaRouche's New Hampshire 
primary bid. One of the experts sent in by Ferris was a former Michigan state 
senator, Edward J. Robinson, who had just been sentenced to six months in 
federal prison for his role in a $3 million Florida land swindle. While appealing his 
case (he lost the appeal in 1 981 ), he directed CFL's volunteer operations and 
handled press relations. 

Ferris says he was reluctant to get involved with the LaRouche campaign but 
they offered him a fee so high he "couldn't say no," He previously had done 
consulting for other candidates, but set up Project Consulting exclusively to work 
for LaRouche, However, the latter adopted tactics that alienated the voters 
instead of following Ferrisi pragmatic advice. After New Hampshire, Ferris 
stopped working for LaRouche. He said that CFL owed him $200,000, although 
he doubted he would ever collect. (The CFL's FEC filings never listed this debt.) 

Ferris and Robinson were not the only colorful characters attracted to the New 
Hampshire campaign. According to a former top LaRouche aide, the NCLC 



leadership paid $100,000 to IVIancliester businessman George Kattar to attempt 
to fix tine election in Dixville Notch, traditionally the first place in the state to have 
its election returns reported. The FBI regards Kattar as a leader of organized 
crime in New Hampshire. At a U.S. Senate hearing in 1 971 , a witness identified 
him as a loan shark and said that his business was nicknamed the "Piranha 
Company." 

LaRouche later referred to the vote-fixing idea as the "have a hundred-dollar bill" 
plan, and blamed its failure on an aide. NCLC defectors say it had to have been 
LaRouche's own idea, pointing out that no policy decisions were ever made in 
the NCLC without his approval. The cash to pay Kattar supposedly came from a 
Bank Bumiputra Malaysia loan involving several LaRouche business fronts. In 
1981 the bank filed suit in New York State Supreme Court after the LaRouchians 
defaulted on the notes-just the beginning of what would be a decade of loan 
defaults. Kattar was interviewed about the incident for NBC-TV's First Camera in 
1984, and acknowledged that the LaRouchians had asked him for help in the 
primary. He said two of his employees worked for LaRouche for a month, but quit 
when they were not paid the full amount promised. He denied personally 
receiving any money from LaRouche. In 1986 Kattar was indicted in Boston on 
extortion charges; the victim, ironically, was the cult-like Church of Scientology. 
The FBI then raided Kattar's home and office as part of an arms-smuggling 
probe, seizing ammunition and weapons. 

The Federal Election Commission audit division reported in 1981 that LaRouche 
had overspent his allowable maximum in New Hampshire and should pay back 
$1 12,000 of his matching funds to the U.S. Treasury. Several matters regarding 
LaRouche's campaign financing were forwarded to the FEC's general counsel for 
further investigation. Citizens for LaRouche (CFL) counterattacked with a suit in 
federal court in Manhattan seeking to stop the FEC from questioning LaRouche 
contributors. CFL's attorney in this action was Mayer Morganroth of Southfield, 
Michigan. According to The Hoffa Wars, Morganroth is a former business partner 
of Ferris and has represented McMaster in legal matters. In the mid-1970s 
Morganroth and Ferris (with McMaster allegedly as a silent partner) owned 
Leiand House, a Detroit hotel where they provided living quarters and part-time 
jobs for two of McMaster's muscle men during the months of fierce Teamster 
infighting prior to Hoffa's disappearance. 

In 1977 Morganroth's name surfaced in connection with a Miami Organized 
Crime Strike Force investigation into a dubious loan by the mob-controlled 
Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund to the Indico Corporation, a financially 
ailing Florida real estate firm in which Morganroth was a principal stockholder. 
This investigation was a spin-off from a strike force probe into the business 
dealings of the Southeastern Florida district council of the Laborers International 
Union. (One upshot of the Laborers union probe was a racketeering indictment of 
Santos Trafficante, Jr., and fifteen co-conspirators, including a Miami lawyer who 
had helped arrange the Indico loan.) According to The Wall Street Journal, 



Morganroth was also under investigation in 1977 by tine Detroit Strike Force, as 
part of a probe into "alleged organized crime proceeds being tunneled from 
Canada into the U.S." He denied any wrongdoing. 

Morganroth became one of the LaRouche organization's chief lawyers. He 
defended them in the 1983 anti-racketeering civil suit brought by creditor Michael 
Hudson, helped them incorporate a number of fundraising fronts, and was part of 
their defense team in the Boston credit-card fraud trial in 1988. 

Apart from the "Southfield, Michigan, advisers," as LaRouche called them, a 
number of Teamster officials continued to work with LaRouche. The president of 
an Illinois local was reported by New Solidarity to have run on LaRouche's 
delegate slate in the state's 1980 Democratic primary, and a "Special Teamster 
Edition" of CFL's Campaign News that spring showed a picture of LaRouche with 
Bill Bounds, president of Illinois' Joint Council 65. Bounds was quoted as saying, 
while introducing LaRouche to a monthly council meeting: "I want you to meet my 
dear friend Lyn LaRouche, who's been a friend of labor and of the Teamsters for 
years....He deserves your support for the Presidency." The back of the newsletter 
contained a picture of Rolland McMaster and the full text of his May 1979 
endorsement. 

LaRouche also sought campaign support from the mob-dominated Laborers 
Union. In his initial approach he addressed the legitimate economic worries of the 
Laborers and other construction unions, as well as the special problems of 
indicted leaders. As in his support for the Teamsters on the question of trucking 
deregulation, he seemed to make sense in a demagogic way. He talked about 
the slump in housing starts due to high interest rates (chairman of the Federal 
Reserve Board Paul Volcker's fault) and the slowdown in nuclear power plant 
construction (the fault of hippies, Yippies, Quakers, and Communists). LaRouche 
suggested he'd string up Volcker, crush the environmentalists, and build 
hundreds of nuclear plants. Several weeks before the Democratic convention, a 
group of California building trades officials, including several from the Laborers, 
announced their support for LaRouche and launched a campaign committee. 
New Solidarity reported a similar committee being formed in Ohio. This triggered 
a memo from Alexander E. Barkan, national director of the AFL-CIO's Committee 
on Political Education (COPE), to union leaders around the country. Noting the 
reports that "some local union and local council officials not only have attended 
meetings convened by LaRouche, but have permitted their names to be used," 
Barkan warned that the LaRouche organization was "anti-labor, anti-Catholic, 
anti-Semitic and anti-minorities." 

However, LaRouche had a way to get around Barkan~by providing aid to 
indicted labor racketeers whom the AFL-CIO had washed its hands of. In 1980- 
81 the Justice Department closed in on a number of top labor leaders from coast 
to coast. Building trades officials, including Laborers president Angelo Fosco, 
were indicted, as were a number of the most notorious Teamster leaders. In New 



York, International Longshoremen's Association vice president Anthony Scotto 
was indicted and convicted. The bribery sting operations code-named Brilab 
(bribery-labor) resulted in indictments in the South and Southwest of union 
leaders, public officials, and major crime lords such as Trafficante (Florida), 
Carlos Marcello (Gulf coast), and Anthony Accardo (Chicago). This gave 
LaRouche an opportunity to expand his connections. His followers could do 
publicity work for the defendants-encouraging a political fight-back against sting 
operations on civil liberties grounds~and also cadge investigative assignments to 
probe the backgrounds of Federal witnesses and prosecutors. According to ex- 
NCLC members, some LaRouchians began to talk not just to Teamster 
hoodlums but also directly to the organized crime families. They had now 
established the possibility of a real alliance. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Thirty-seven 

How to Win Friends and Influence Hoodlums 

To maintain contacts witli persons linked to organized crime. LaRouclie liad to 
justify it first to liis own followers. This turned out to be not very hard to do: 
LaRouche simply announced that "many of the persons and circles which are 
reputed to be associated with the Mafia are good people." These "good" 
mobsters, he explained, personally disapprove of the drug traffic but are infected 
with a pragmatism that causes them to continue to make deals and keep peace 
with the Zionist ("Drug Mafia") wing of organized crime. LaRouche claimed to 
have met with a "top official" of the Laborers Union to convince him to break with 
the Zionist drug pushers, but without success. This official, along with other 
members of the "good" faction, refused to understand that the Brilab 
prosecutions were an attempt by the "bad" Mafia in alliance with the government 
to destroy the good Mafia and take over the latter's empire. The good Mafia 
could defeat this Zionist plot only by taking the offensive--by turning the 
courtroom fight into a political fight. But because of its pragmatism, the good 
Mafia was reluctant to do this. The NCLC therefore would have to do it for them. 
Indeed, the NCLC was their "last political bastion of resistance." If it should fail in 
its historic task, then the "honest trade-unionists" linked to the good Mafia (e.g., 
the Laborers and Teamsters) would "be picked off by [Justice Department] task- 
forces like flies." 

This was all for internal NCLC consumption. Doubtless the proposition was put to 
the organization's new "Sun Belt allies" in a more businesslike fashion. Certainly 
in the NCLC's public attacks on Brilab there was no mention of good or bad 
Mafias, only of honest trade unionists. This was most noticeable in the two cases 
involving really big organized crime figures: the New Orleans indictment of 
Marcello for conspiring to bribe public officials and the Miami indictment of 
Trafficante, Accardo, Fosco, and thirteen co-conspirators for labor racketeering. 
New Solidarity carefully avoided mentioning the names of Marcello, Trafficante, 
and Accardo. Instead, it mentioned only the indicted union officials, whom it 
described as victims of "the most widespread witch-hunt ever attempted against 
American labor." 

Once again, LaRouche was using code language~"labor" for Mafia, just as 
earlier he had used "British" for Jewish~to sanitize a morally repulsive message. 
He was also borrowing Jimmy Hoffa's old tactic of depicting racketeering 
prosecutions as an employer attack on the labor movement, akin to 
strikebreaking and lockouts. This pseudo-militant dodge used class-against-class 
rhetoric in an attempt to divert the labor movement's (and the public's) attention 
away from the real issues at trial. 



In March 1981, New Jersey Teamster boss Tony Provenzano's brothers, Sammy 
and Nuncio, went on trial in Newark federal court for racketeering. Despite the 
massive evidence of Mafia control of many New Jersey locals, and irrespective of 
Tony Pro's multiple convictions for murder, extortion, and racketeering (he was 
serving a life sentence). New Solidarity portrayed all three brothers as labor 
martyrs. The trial of Sammy and Nuncio was a "shocking farce." The Justice 
Department was "attempting a classic frame-up." The jury was presented with 
the "spectacle" of "bought-and-paid-for" witnesses. When Nuncio was convicted, 
this was proof of the "near impossibility" of labor leaders receiving a fair trial in 
the face of the Justice Department's "politically motivated" vendetta. (Nuncio was 
sentenced to ten years, Sammy Pro was found guilty in a subsequent 
racketeering trial and sentenced to four years. In 1984, federal judge Harold 
Ackerman ordered that their Local 560 be placed in the hands of a trustee. The 
Provenzanos had engaged, he said, in "a multifaceted orgy of criminal activity.") 

Another of New Solidarity's alleged witch-hunt victims was Frank Sheeran, 
president of Teamster Local 326 in Wilmington, Delaware. This was the same 
Frank Sheeran who, according to federal investigators, drove to the Pontiac, 
Michigan, airport on the morning of July 30, 1975 (the day Jimmy Hoffa 
disappeared) to pick up three Genovese crime family enforcers. In September 
1979 a Philadelphia grand jury charged Sheeran with two murders, four 
attempted murders, embezzlement, and a bombing, naming Pennsylvania crime 
bosses Russell Bufalino and Angelo Bruno as unindicted co-conspirators. 
Although Sheeran was acquitted in this trial, he was indicted shortly afterward in 
Wilmington on labor racketeering and mail fraud charges. New Solidarity 
denounced the Delaware prosecution as a "frame-up attempt" and the chief 
government witness as a "rat." Failing to inform its readers of the substance of 
the charges in either the Philadelphia or the Wilmington case. New Solidarity 
hailed Sheeran as "a labor leader committed to policies of growth and 
development for the United States." Sheeran and NCLC Baltimore leader Larry 
Freeman held a press conference. After complaining about the alleged frame-up, 
Sheeran gave Freeman the floor to attack the International Socialists, a small 
non-Communist sect active in the TDU. Freeman accused the group of plotting 
with the government to undermine Sheeran and other "respected and traditional 
labor leaders." But in October 1981 a federal jury found Sheeran guilty on eleven 
counts, including conspiracy, labor racketeering, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, 
and taking bribes from an employer. He was sentenced to eighteen years in 
federal prison. 

While engaging in this dubious propaganda campaign in 1981, the LaRouchians 
were gaining Executive Intelligence Review interviews with cabinet members and 
top Republican lawmakers in Washington. EIR obtained an interview with 
Senator Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), chairman of the Senate Labor Committee. The 
interviewer asked Hatch leading questions about Brilab in an attempt to elicit 
answers that could be useful to the anti-Brilab campaign or that would show that 



the LaRouchians had clout with the senator. But Hatch artfully ducked the 
questions and gave innocuous answers. 

The NCLC launched the Committee Against Brilab and Abscam (CABA) to solicit 
funds from people with a vested interest in stymieing the federal strike forces. 
(Abscam, short for "Arab scam," was the code name for a series of FBI bribery 
sting operations targeting members of Congress and utilizing an FBI agent 
dressed as an Arab sheikh.) A press statement by the Detroit-and-Houston- 
based committee announced that a "prestigious roster of labor leaders" had 
joined CABA's advisory board. Heading the list was Rolland McMaster, followed 
by IBT Joint Council 65 leader Bill Bounds (who later said his name had been 
used without permission) and several construction union officials. 

The advisory board's "Statement of Principles" included an affirmation of support 
for a CABA "Trust" which would solicit funds to provide defendants with legal 
assistance and to "research background material and provide investigators for 
attorneys and publications." (The "investigators," naturally, were to come from 
the NCLC Security staff in New York and the McMaster-linked Detroit NCLC.) 
The first public advocacy pamphlet was entitled Brilab-Abscam: Union-Busting in 
America. Filled with vigorous denunciations of "snitches" and "stool-pigeons," it 
warned that Brilab was part of an undeclared war against the "American 
System," orchestrated by the Trilateral Commission and other Eastern 
Establishment forces. "The targeted victims. ..are America's unionized workers 
and their friends in business and politics--the machinery that makes America 
work," the pamphlet claimed, adding that "no crime in America. ..is more 
organized than that run by the U.S. Justice Department [and] its 13 Organized 
Crime Strike Forces." Ironically, this pamphlet was a reprint from Investigative 
Leads, a newsletter produced in the same offices as the National Anti-Drug 
Coalition's War on Drugs magazine. The editor of Investigative Leads at the time, 
Michelle Steinberg, doubled as an editor of War on Drugs. 

One of CABA's first public activities was an October 1980 press conference in 
New Orleans, a city where the LaRouchians had never been active before. The 
event can be seen as a gesture of support for Marcello, the most important local 
Brilab defendant. NCLC member Tim Richardson told reporters that CABA 
already had raised $35,000, mostly from national labor unions. He declined to 
say if any of the New Orleans defendants had accepted the group's offers of aid, 
but apparently they had, because a second New Orleans press conference was 
staged in March 1981. Richardson was again the spokesman, and called on 
President Reagan to end Brilab. He also called the Justice Department's principal 
witness a "pathological liar." The following August a federal jury found Marcello 
guilty of conspiring to bribe a public official to gain millions of dollars in state 
insurance contracts. He was sentenced to seven years in prison. New Solidarity 
complained that he had been "entrapped." 



Marcello's co-defendants included his longtime friend I. Irving Davidson, who was 
acquitted on all counts. Davidson, a self-described Washington "door opener and 
arranger," had been in touch with the LaRouchians since the mid-1970s and was 
regarded by them as a key contact. But he recalls being surprised when they 
showed up in New Orleans. "I never introduced them to people there," he 
asserted, adding that neither he nor Marcello became involved with the Brilab 
committee, which he said was financed by "a certain branch of the Teamsters." 
Davidson said his own frequent meetings with the LaRouchians were merely to 
pick their brains and purchase intelligence reports. He admitted that Mitch 
WerBell had occasionally been present at these meetings, but only in a security 
capacity. 

Although Davidson denied ever introducing the LaRouchians to anyone big, he 
was a useful contact simply to chat with. He knew the Teamsters well, having 
been Jimmy Hoffa's public relations man. In 1959, he joined with Hoffa and Bill 
Presser to sell arms to Fulgencio Batista on behalf of the CIA. In the 1960 
presidential election, he served as Hoffa's emissary to top aides of Richard Nixon 
and Democratic vice presidential candidate Lyndon Johnson. He later received a 
$13.5 million real estate loan from the Central States Pension Fund. 

The LaRouchians also offered their services to Brilab defendants in Houston. An 
indicted Operating Engineers Union official accepted, and his attorney told the 
Houston Post that information gathered by CABA against a prosecution witness 
would be used in the defense. Other defendants turned them down. A 
spokesman for the Harris County (Houston) AFL-CIO denounced CABA as the 
tool of "cheap muscle people." By the summer of 1981, CABA's Houston phone 
number was disconnected and the group henceforth was run solely out of Detroit, 
where its phone number was listed under the name and address of one Larry 
Sherman, an NCLC leader who had just moved from Boston. Sherman was a 
strange choice to lead a campaign against alleged government frame-ups and 
vendettas. Four years earlier, the Boston media had exposed how he tried to 
frame members of the Clamshell Alliance, an antinuclear group, by feeding the 
New Hampshire State Police reports of nonexistent terrorist plots. 

The Detroit NCLC began publishing the American Labor Beacon, a pro-CABA 
newsletter. Edited by Sherman, the first issue was mailed free to Teamster and 
AFL-CIO locals throughout the country. Union leaders were then called and 
asked to subscribe. The Beacon asked its readers to donate to CABA. It said that 
although direct contributions to CABA could not lawfully be made from union 
funds, such funds could be applied lo the purchase of "educational materials." 
Potential contributors were assured that CABA was "not obligated to report 
donors" to the government. 

The Beacon featured a "Rat of the Month" column targeting prosecutors such as 
Thomas Puccio of the Brooklyn Organized Crime Strike Force and various 
witnesses from the Federal Witness Protection Program (collectively referred to 



as "slime from the gutter"). The newsletter also announced a "Rat of the Decade" 
award for Walter Sheridan, former chief investigator for the McClellan 
Committee. Quoting Jimmy Hoffa, the Beacon called Sheridan a "slimy, sleazy 
rat." 

CABA and the Beacon were closely linked to Renaissance Printing, the Detroit 
firm incorporated by the NCLC's local leader, Kenneth Dalto, and two associates. 
For several years Renaissance had done printing work for the NCLC and the 
Michigan Anti-Drug Coalition, as well as the Teamsters and other outside clients. 
Gradually, the Detroit LaRouche network had been drawn into the activities of 
Rolland McMaster, developing what New Solidarity would later allege were an 
"array of mafioso connections." The various McMaster-Dalto-NCLC forays into 
Teamster politics were the surface manifestation of this alliance. The president of 
Renaissance, Scott Elliot, had been the treasurer of the "Teamster" Committee to 
elect LaRouche President, which circulated McMaster's 1979 endorsement of 
LaRouche. Elliot later worked with Larry McHenry, a McMaster sidekick, on a 
scheme to get TDU leader Pete Camarata expelled from Local 299 for allegedly 
violating its bylaws; they succeeded in getting him placed on probation. The two 
also appeared on local television to attack the TDU. 

In 1980, Renaissance obtained a major infusion of capital that LaRouche later 
alleged came from organized crime. Elliot and his associates then launched a 
national financial printing operation under the name Computype, with 
headquarters at Renaissance. They opened branches in seven cities, leased 
state-of-the-art equipment for facsimile transmission, and began soliciting 
business from energy companies in the South and Southwest. Like other 
financial printers, much of their work included circulating confidential drafts of 
tender offers and stock prospectuses to principals involved in the transactions. 

As of 1981, Renaissance claimed 150 accounts, but its growth proved to be a 
disaster for LaRouche. It gave Dalto and his associates a large degree of 
independence from the NCLC national office. They began to chafe under political 
directives from New York that seemed always to clash with their new interest in 
getting rich. They bought new cars and affected the flowery shirts popular among 
Teamster officials. They studied books on franchising. Elliot even asked his 
attorneys for a crash course in offshore banking. 

LaRouche became suspicious in the summer of 1981. He had cracked down on 
Computron six months previously for placing profits before politics, and he now 
had some probing questions to put to Dalto and Elliot. The Detroit LaRouchian 
leaders could see the handwriting on the wall. They decided to break away from 
the NCLC before LaRouche could drive a wedge between them and the Detroit 
rank and file. It is not known if McMaster provided them with advice based on his 
vast experience in the Byzantine world of Teamster politics. But so well did the 
Detroit faction plan its revolt that LaRouche and his vaunted Security staff were 
taken totally by surprise. In late October, LaRouche received a letter signed by 



almost the entire membership of the Detroit organization and by Computype 
employees in Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, and Boston--a total of 1 17 NCLC 
members-announcing their resignation from the NCLC and "all other LaRouche- 
affiliated organizations." 

LaRouche responded with a flurry of internal memos intended to whip up his 
loyalists for a counterpunch against the Detroit "country and western" faction, so 
named because of their alleged fondness for popular instead of classical music. 
He claimed that Jewish financiers and mobsters, including, above all, the Detroit 
financier Max Fisher, had instigated the split. Using the vampire imagery so 
beloved by anti-Semites everywhere, LaRouche depicted the "Fisher-centered 
banking apparatus" as sinking its "dope-soaked teeth" into the Dalto group. Also 
blamed was the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith: "We know how the ADL 
officials and others have been playing the game....We now know exactly how to 
proceed to crush this murderous filth." 

LaRouche's memos that fall included amazingly indiscreet revelations about the 
1980 New Hampshire campaign and the alleged mob role at Computype. 
LaRouche mentioned the hiring of Ferris in New Hampshire, the scheme to 
influence voters through a policy of "have a hundred-dollar bill," the pressure on 
the NCLC of "'advisers' in Southfield, Michigan," and alleged contacts with "'wise 
guys' assets" in Atlanta. He also discussed how the NCLC had deliberately 
developed a "'Mafia Connections' self-image" during the 1980 campaign and had 
used threats of Mafia violence to keep the membership in line. LaRouche said 
this policy had been a mistake, but he blamed it all on Dalto and Gus Kalimtgis. 
(NCLC defectors say it really was LaRouche's idea.) LaRouche was a bit nervous 
about the long-range consequences: "Under no circumstances discuss. ..the use 
of the 'Mafia Violence' aura outside of the ranks of the membership...," he 
instructed NCLC members. "If you were to discuss this publicly, we would 
prematurely trigger [the] possibility of legal action." 

However, LaRouche and his followers continued to use the very rhetoric he was 
criticizing. An NCLC memo boasted of a scheme to make trouble for Dalto with 
the Mafia. "It has been learned," the memo said, "that. ..Dalto was keeping a 
double set of [Computype] books to rip off a business contact in Chicago." The 
latter was described as a "so-called Mafia boss" and Dalto's "partner." LaRouche 
himself said: "Let the 'Mafia' rub out Ken....Naturally, we shall not be reticent in 
mentioning to certain circles certain facts now documented in our possession. Let 
the creep sweat. Let him run. Let him choose his hiding place." 

Associates of Dalto say the double set of books was a LaRouche fabrication, 
although they worried at the time that LaRouche might have concocted false 
evidence. No physical harm came to Dalto either from mobsters or from the 
LaRouchians. Yet there can be no doubt of the ferocity of LaRouche's fantasies 
as reflected in various jokes included in the NCLC daily briefings. In one joke 
Dalto ends up committing suicide. In another the "Chicago Mafia" plants a bomb 



under his "Lincoln Continental." In a third he arrives at the gates of Hell "wearing 
a new, custom-fitted pair of cement overshoes." 

LaRouche also warned his loyalists that they'd better stay loyal: "Anyone who 
opposes my orders will, in the moral sense, be shot on the spot for 
insubordination.... I am the 'boss.'" The statement confirmed the observation by 
NCLC defector Dave Phillips, in a document earlier that year, that LaRouche, 
with his emphasis on personal "fealty" and "'ecumenical'. ..Sun Belt ventures," 
had transformed the NCLC into a comic-opera version of a "Sicilian family 
business." 

The Dalto faction's enterprises flourished after the split. Renaissance expanded 
to almost a hundred employees and attracted Drexel-Burnham and other Wall 
Street investment firms as clients. It also continued to print Teamster smear 
literature, although no longer a unionized shop. Dalto and his partners bought out 
"Frank Edwards" (the Chicago investor), but their unofficial deprogrammer, 
McMaster, remained as a behind-the-scenes influence. Renaissance executives 
went on vacations with him, and the firm eventually moved into a building he had 
purchased, where he kept his eye on the accounts. But there were also 
problems. Elliot and two other former LaRouchians sued Dalto for control. Two 
satellite offices had to be closed. Finally, in 1985 Renaissance entered Chapter 
1 1 bankruptcy and had to lay off a majority of its staff. 

The Dalto faction found it difficult to break with the old compulsive deceptiveness, 
which was as much a habit of their hoodlum friends as of the NCLC. When the 
Beacon editors received a letter from a building trades official asking them to 
"clarify" their relationship to LaRouche, their answer, published in the first 
Beacon issue after the split, blithely ignored their ten-year history of participation 
in the NCLC. "The Beacon has been dedicated to defending labor from its 
enemies within and without," they wrote. "After investigating [!] the LaRouche 
organization for a period of time [!], we have come to the conclusion that he and 
his organization fall into the category of 'enemies without.'" 

Soon thereafter close cronies of Dalto began to feed investigative reporters 
tidbits about LaRouche, but avoided any revelations about their own faction's 
past. Although they claimed they were through with extremist politics and only 
wanted to operate their commercial enterprises in peace, they continued to run 
smear campaigns against union reformers. These activities were conducted 
through a variety of pre-split and post-split fronts: the Beacon News Service, 
Inform America, Environmental News Service, the Parity Foundation, Union 
Communications, and Intellico (the latter a self-styled private intelligence 
organization). 

In 1982 Larry Sherman prepared an Intellico report for United Mine Workers 
Union president Sam Church regarding the latter's opponent in the upcoming 
union election, Richard Trumka. Purportedly based on a trip through the coal 



district and interviews witli people in and around Trumka's campaign, tine report 
included unsubstantiated allegations that he was linked to Communists. The 
report helped Church gain support from gullible outsiders, including the Moral 
Majority and Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione. A major role in soliciting this 
outside support was played by Michael Doud Gill, a member of the Republican 
National Committee and a prominent Washington power broker. Meanwhile, 
Senator Orrin Hatch announced an investigation of charges (apparently 
Intellico's) of alleged subversive influences in the UMW and other unions. All this 
had no impact on the union rank and file, which gave Trumka a resounding 
victory. 

The Dalto group became involved in Detroit Teamster elections in 1983, when 
international vice president Robert Holmes, a former rival of Rolland McMaster, 
faced a stiff election challenge from the TDU for control of his power base. Local 
337. Holmes hired Richard Leebove, a Dalto/McMaster crony and former NCLC 
member, as a thousand-dollar-a-week "communications" aide. Leebove's 
specialty had always been the heavy-handed smear. In the late 1970s he had 
traveled around the Midwest delivering tirades against the TDU at meetings of 
Teamster locals. He had also displayed his talents as the spokesman for Citizens 
for Chicago, a LaRouchian front group that circulated scurrilous leaflets against 
Chicago mayor Jane Byrne in 1979-80 (the leaflets accused her of being 
controlled by the mob and of being married to a gigolo). 

Leebove's role in the 1983 Teamster elections showed that the Dalto faction was 
still practicing LaRouchism without LaRouche, Smear articles appeared in the 
Local 337 News repeating previous NCLC charges against the TDU~for 
instance, that the Rockefeller family was funding it. One article implied falsely 
that Senator Hatch intended to launch an investigation of the TDU for subversive 
activity. Indirect attacks were leveled against the local's secretary-treasurer, TDU 
member Jerry Bliss, who was denied equal space to respond. Forged handbills 
appeared in Local 337 shops purporting to be from the TDU but containing 
material intended to embarrass the TDU candidates. 

The hiring of Leebove underscored the opportunism that was always at the root 
of the Teamster/NCLC connection. In 1979, Holmes, as head of the Teamster 
joint council in Detroit, had supported the resolution condemning McMaster's so- 
called Teamster Committee to Elect LaRouche President, in which Leebove had 
been active. Now, in a situation in which Leebove's usefulness appeared to 
outweigh any potential embarrassment. Holmes was willing to deal, 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



Chapter Thirty-eight 

Senators, Cabinet Members and Dictators 

LaRouche's message that racketeering is twentietli-century Americanism was 
useful to strol<e tine egos of Teamster officials. To Mafia dons, it might have been 
interpreted as a signal that LaRouche wanted a niche in organized crime. But it 
was hardly the stuff of which effective publicity campaigns are made. For that, he 
needed something less obvious — an issue that could give a veneer of legitimacy 
to his "hands off the mob" propaganda. 

He found this issue in Abscam's civil liberties implications. FBI undercover agents 
had solicited bribes from congressmen who, unlike the Brilab defendants, had 
not previously engaged in a pattern of illegal activities. Targets such as Senator 
Harrison Williams (D.-N.J.) were widely perceived as victims of prosecutorial 
tactics outside the legitimate mandate of law enforcement. Williams had a 
distinguished legislative record and staunchly maintained his innocence. 
Although a jury found him guilty in May 1 981 on nine counts of bribery and 
conspiracy, he had the potential to gain public sympathy — something a Carlos 
Marcello or Frank Sheeran could never hope to achieve. 

In the fall of 1 981 , when Williams' case was on appeal and he was facing 
expulsion from the Senate, the LaRouchians adopted him as their latest victim of 
political persecution by evil FBI agents. Lacking support from his fellow senators, 
Williams was ready to grasp at straws. When LaRouche's National Democratic 
Policy Committee launched a petition campaign among trade unionists to stop 
the Senate expulsion proceeding, Williams consented to be interviewed for a 
half-hour NDPC-produced videotape that was later shown at gatherings of labor 
officials and politicians in New Jersey. The NDPC also sponsored a fundraising 
event for Williams at New York's Statler Hilton. A Williams aide commented to the 
Passaic Herald-News that the NDPC had "a rather broader following than is 
generally thought," especially among "auto dealers and construction people." As 
the expulsion vote approached. New Solidarity claimed that the NDPC was 
rallying the Laborers, Teamsters, and other unions to defend Williams. NDPC 
speakers had been sent, the paper said, to Democratic clubs and union locals 
around New Jersey to "explain the broader threat to the Constitution and to labor 
and constituency organizations..." 

In February 1982 the NDPC joined with officials from the Teamsters and the 
construction trades to found the National Labor Committee to Defend Harrison 
Williams. The LaRouchians promised to launch an "immediate lobbying 
mobilization across the country to press for a full investigation of Abscam 
illegalities." The founding meeting was held in Atlantic City, The committee's 



statement of policy suggested that the defense of Williams was really a cover for 
defending FBI-targeted labor racketeers: "We. ..regard the case of Sen. Harrison 
Williams. ..as being a turning point for the labor movement. We either rise to his 
defense in a unified fashion, across the nation, from the bottom to the top of 
labor, or we ourselves should not be surprised to hear the knock at the door 
saying we're next." Support for this statement came mostly from local New 
Jersey union officials. The AFL-CIO leadership refused to have anything to do 
with it. New Solidarity then accused AFL-CIO chief Lane Kirkland of being pro- 
Abscam. In fact, Kirkland spoke out strongly against the sting operations, as did 
many civil libertarians and trade unionists totally unconnected to LaRouche's 
committee. 

The high point of the NDPC's campaign to defend Williams was a Washington 
rally at which a message, supposedly from the senator, was read out: "I think that 
the entire American people will one day thank and commend Lyn and Helga 
LaRouche...for bringing to light the facts of police state methods, and organizing 
the resistance to them. ...Our tradition is not to give in to Gestapo methods but to 
fight them." 

Another beneficiary of the LaRouche organization's crusade against FBI 
entrapment tactics was auto tycoon John DeLorean, who was indicted in 1982 on 
charges of cocaine trafficking. According to Gordon Novel, who worked as a 
private investigator for the defense, LaRouche aide Jeffrey Steinberg provided 
research materials on how the British government allegedly was out to get 
DeLorean. Former NCLC security staffer Charles Tate recalls: "I wrote a big 
paper on Jeff's instructions. I was told I'd get to meet with the DeLoreans but that 
fell through." Former NCLC security consultants Roy Frankhouser and Lee Fick 
also say they were assigned to this project. DeLorean, who was acquitted by a 
jury in 1984, has said that he received information from the LaRouchians but 
never paid them any money. 

The LaRouchians also attempted to help out beleaguered Labor Secretary 
Raymond Donovan when a federal special prosecutor investigated allegations 
that his firm, Schiavone Construction Company in Secaucus, New Jersey, had 
paid bribes to labor racketeers and that Donovan was himself an associate of 
organized crime. According to LaRouche defectors, a Teamster-linked attorney 
asked the NCLC's Security staff to gather information on behalf of Donovan and 
Schiavone. LaRouche's Security chief, Jeffrey Steinberg, personally handled the 
investigation, A June 18, 1982, Investigative Leads memo from Steinberg to 
Morris Levin, Schiavone's house counsel, outlined the progress of Steinberg's 
work and mentioned plans for a meeting with Robert Shortley, a private 
investigator also working on behalf of Schiavone. Levin recalled this memo in a 
1984 phone interview and said he had talked to Steinberg "from time to time." He 
also said the firm's president, Ronald Schiavone, had met with Steinberg. 



Copies of the Steinberg memo and otiier private investigative documents were 
obtained by a University of Oklalioma graduate student, Frank Smist, from 
Robert J. Flynn, a Wasliington attorney wlio liad been liired by Scliiavone to find 
out wlio was spreading tine allegations about Donovan. In 1984 Smist turned the 
documents over to the Brooklyn Organized Crime Strike Force. This set off an 
investigation of whether unauthorized disclosures from government sources 
(suggested by the documents' contents) might have triggered the murder of Fred 
Furino, a former official of Tony Pro's Local 560. Furino, whose body was found 
in a car trunk in mid-June 1982, had been a prospective federal witness 
regarding alleged Schiavone payoffs to the mob. He had appeared before the 
grand jury several months previously. 

The Steinberg memo, written several days after Furino's disappearance, 
mentioned that the Teamster official had been a topic of conversation between 
an NCLC staff member and an NBC television reporter. The NCLC member 
pumped the reporter to find out if he knew anything about the contents of the not 
yet released special prosecutor's report. Steinberg claimed his associate learned 
from the reporter that the special prosecutor's office had given Furino a 
polygraph test. 

In 1984 Ronald Schiavone told The New York Times that he had hired private 
investigator Shortley to find out who on the Senate Labor Committee staff was 
spreading allegations about himself and Donovan. NCLC defectors say that 
Steinberg and other members of Security did research on similar lines. In fact. 
Executive Intelligence Review published at least two articles in 1981 by a 
Steinberg assistant purporting to describe a conspiracy by Senate Labor 
Committee staffers to embarrass the Reagan administration by bringing down 
Donovan. 

Although the special prosecutor's report concluded that there was "insufficient 
credible evidence" to indict Donovan, an investigation subsequently launched by 
the Bronx district attorney's office resulted in the September 1984 indictment of 
Donovan and seven others, including Levin, Schiavone, and Genovese crime 
family member William {"the Butcher") Masselli. The defendants were charged 
with 137 counts of larceny and fraud in relation to contracts on a New York City 
subway tunnel. It was the first time in American history that a sitting cabinet 
member had been indicted on criminal charges. Donovan resigned after taking a 
leave of absence. New Solidarity said it was all part of a plot by the KGB, Henry 
Kissinger, and the AFL-CIO to take over the Labor Department. (As matters 
turned out, Donovan and his co-defendants were all found innocent in 1987 after 
an eight-month trial.) 

LaRouche's allies in Teamster Local 282 on Long Island were also feeling the 
heat. Business agent Harold Gross, McMaster's old associate, was indicted in 
1981 on charges that included extorting a no-show job from Schiavone 
Construction for his chauffeur. Local 282 president John Cody was indicted for 



racketeering in January 1982. Tliat spring tine New York Times publislied a 
series on corruption in tine local construction unions. A major problem, the series 
charged, was Cody's conduct as head of Local 282, representing 4,000 building 
supply truckers. Rushing to Cody's defense came LaRouche follower Mel 
Klenetsky, a candidate in the Democratic primary against U.S. Senator Daniel 
Patrick Moynihan. Klenetsky issued an appeal to the labor movement to unite 
behind Cody. He also printed up copies of a letter from a prominent builder taking 
issue with the Times's criticisms of Local 282. Cody's name subsequently 
appeared along with those of several Laborers Union officials in an 
advertisement in New York City's Amsterdam News endorsing Klenetsky. In 
October 1982 Cody was convicted of seven counts of racketeering and income- 
tax evasion. One contractor testified he had handed Cody $100,000 in a 
shoebox. The guilty verdict was obtained in spite of the disappearance of several 
witnesses, including Carpenters Union chief Ted Maritas (federal investigators 
believe Maritas was murdered). When Cody was sentenced to five years in 
prison. New Solidarity said this was more proof of selective prosecution. The 
case was simply a "frame-up engineered by The New York Times and its 
organized crime gestapo," allegedly to punish Cody for supporting LaRouche. 
"The word is that the Times wants to see John Cody dead, because he dared to 
oppose their friends," said the LaRouche paper. A subsequent article by 
Klenetsky said the Cody case demonstrated the need for a "national citizens' 
mobilization to strip the FBI of its funds until its lawlessness is checked." The 
LaRouchian arguments regarding the Cody case were quite similar to those 
LaRouche himself would use in his 1988 trial for obstruction of justice. 

The LaRouchian relationship to the national Teamster leadership had its ups and 
downs in the early 1980s. Roy Williams became IBT president in 1981 after 
Fitzsimmons' death. Jackie Presser moved up to number two, and was widely 
expected to soon replace Williams, who was indicted for bribery shortly after 
assuming office. To demonstrate his capacity for aggressive leadership, Presser 
decided to go after the TDU and isolate it as thoroughly as possible prior to the 
1981 national convention in Las Vegas. A wave of bogus TDU fliers and other 
forgeries began to circulate in the union. The TDU's newspaper charged that the 
NCLC was producing them. The nastiest was a letter purporting to be from the 
National Right to Work Committee, an anti-labor lobbying group, to TDU leader 
Pete Camarata. "Pete, you are going to have the NRWC's total. ..support in your 
upcoming effort to disrupt the Teamsters' Convention," the letter said. Copies 
were mailed to Teamster locals in plain envelopes with no return address. The 
TDU promptly denied any connection between Camarata and the NRWC, and 
pointed out the preposterous references in the letter to such LaRouchian 
bugbears as the Mont Pelerin Society and the Heritage Foundation. However, 
many Teamster officials used it, just as they had used The Plot to Destroy the 
Teamsters in 1977-78. Reports began to pour into the TDU national office from 
rank-and-file Teamsters who had received copies of the letter. The president of 
an Alabama local mailed it to members at union expense. Teamster local officers 
in St. Louis, Toledo, San Antonio, and other cities also distributed the pamphlet. 



"It is clear," the TDU's Convoy said, "that a national distribution of the Big Lie is 
underway." 

Meanwhile, Presser set up two paper organizations, TRUTH (Teamster Ranks 
United to Help) and BLAST (Brotherhood of Loyal Americans and Strong 
Teamsters), spreading standard LaRouche smears about "Commie-Rat-A" 
(Camarata) and "Ayatollah Mel" (TDU trustee Mel Packer). Goons claiming to be 
from TRUTH and BLAST created an atmosphere of intimidation at the 
convention, roughing up Camarata while LaRouche intelligence operatives 
roamed the floor with guest passes from Midwest locals. 

The LaRouchians struck out, however, with Roy Williams. They denounced his 
indictment with the usual litany about witch-hunts, frame-ups, squealers, and 
Gestapos, but Williams, the creature of Kansas City crime lord Nick Civella, 
showed little interest. This coolness and Rolland McMaster's continued 
friendliness with the Detroit defectors apparently were the reasons for a 1982 
editorial in New Solidarity entitled "Teamster Stupidity." For once, the 
LaRouchians revealed their true feelings about their blue-collar allies. The 
Justice Department, the editorial argued, could be "easily defeated" if the IBT 
would organize its nearly two million members for a political counterattack based 
on LaRouche's ideology. "Unfortunately for this nation," the editorial complained, 
"the leadership of the Teamsters has thus far proven itself to be of two types 
when it comes to acting upon this reality: corrupt or stupid." Yet when Williams 
was convicted of bribery, the LaRouchians attempted to commiserate with him. 
The decision was, they said, "nothing less than Nazi justice." 

When Presser ascended to the Teamster presidency, the LaRouchians finally 
seemed on the brink of becoming the brain trust of labor's hoodlum wing, in spite 
of their setback in Detroit. Presser continued the aggressive posture against the 
TDU that had given the LaRouchians their initial entree to the union leadership. 
When a TDU convention in Michigan was violently disrupted by thugs in October 

1983, Presser stated at a Cleveland joint council meeting: "We should be doing 
more of that.... I'm not going to let up on these people." But in late 1983 and early 

1 984, as the media began to probe for the first time the relationship between 
LaRouche and the Reagan administration, Presser followed other Reagan allies 
in distancing himself from the NCLC. 

The LaRouchians suffered a shock when the Los Angeles Times revealed in mid- 
1984 that Presser had been selectively providing information to the FBI since the 
early 1970s. It took no clairvoyance for them to realize that providing the FBI with 
information on LaRouche, as well as on minor hoods like John Nardi, Jr., may 
have been Presser's way of keeping the FBI off his back while he rose to the 
Teamster presidency. After all, the LaRouchians themselves had been feeding 
information to the FBI almost as long as Presser had — on Communists, Yippies, 
and arms merchants — in hopes the FBI would overlook their own improprieties. 
(In 1987 the Justice Department officially acknowledged Presser's informant role 



in motions pursuant to a racl<eteering prosecution of tine Teamster cliief. 
Presser's attorney tlien confirmed tliat Presser liad liad "continuous contact" witli 
tine FBI for more tlian a decade.) 

LaRouclie aide Edward Spannaus filed a Freedom of Information Act request 
with the FBI for documents in Presser's informant file "insofar as such documents 
mention or discuss Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. ...or associates of [his]." When the 
FBI turned down the request, Spannaus filed suit in federal court in Alexandria, 
Virginia. After a government motion for summary judgment was denied. New 
Solidarity gleefully announced that it hoped to "lift the veil on Presser's real rise 
to power in the Teamsters." By this time. New Solidarity was no longer calling 
Presser a heroic Teamster "nation builder," but simply an "accused embezzler." 

If the NCLC's alliance with the highest levels of the IBT had turned a cropper, 
LaRouche simply raised his sights higher — from hoodlums who control unions to 
those who control nations. After numerous trips to Central America, his 
intelligence aides latched on to the plight of General Manuel Antonio Noriega. 
The Panamanian strongman had begun to attract harsh criticism from the U.S. 
government and media in 1985-86, primarily because of his role in the cocaine 
traffic. The LaRouchians began to vigorously defend him, just as they had done 
with the Teamsters. 

In early 1986, Senator Jesse Helms (R.-N.C), a member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, raised the issue of Noriega's links to Fidel Castro, 
involvement in drug trafficking, and responsibility for the murder of Dr. Hugo 
Spadafora, a former Panamanian Health Minister who had been critical of the 
regime. Helms stated flatly that Noriega was "head of the biggest drug trafficking 
operation in the Western Hemisphere." 

These charges were not right-wing paranoia. DEA, CIA, Pentagon, and State 
Department reports dating back to the early 1970s had documented Noriega's 
involvement in drug trafficking. A 1985 House Foreign Affairs Committee report 
characterized Panama under Noriega's rule as a "drug and chemical 
transshipment point and money-laundering center for drug money." In a 1 986 
New York Times article, James LeMoyne compared Noriega's army to the Mafia, 
because it "skims funds, takes kickbacks, engages in smuggling and has a 
political structure resembling a racketeering network in which loyal henchmen 
share in the spoils." An equally good analogy would have been the Teamsters 
union. Indeed, the parallels between the leadership style of Noriega and the most 
corrupt Teamster bosses are uncanny. Just as Jimmy Hoffa indulged in the 
rhetoric of class struggle at union meetings, so Noriega affected a militant 
populist and anti-imperialist rhetoric to manipulate Panamanian workers. Just as 
Jackie Presser became an FBI informer in the early 1970s to divert federal 
authorities from his own misdeeds, so Noriega became a source for the U.S. 
intelligence community at that time to facilitate his long-range ambitions. Just as 
Presser had his TRUTH and BLAST — and Tony Pro his team of enforcers — 



Noriega had his death squads. Just as Rolland IVIclVI aster issued denunciations 
of the evils of drug trafficking for the IVIichigan Anti-Drug Coalition, so Noriega 
went to an international anti-drug conference in Vienna, where he described 
drugs as the "scourge" of mankind. Just as Presser and the Teamsters were 
willing to deal with the extremist LaRouchians, so Noriega developed ties with M- 
19, the pro-Castro guerrilla group in Colombia, and with Castro's secret service, 
the DGI. Just as certain Teamster leaders were rumored to have encouraged the 
murder of Hoffa, so Noriega was believed to have bumped off his predecessor, 
General Omar Torrijos Herrera. 

In the mid-1980s, NCLC operative Carlos Wesley made several trips to Panama, 
where the organization already had a number of contacts (for instance, a top 
official of the national construction workers union had lent his name to 
LaRouche's Schiller Institute). After meeting with a pro-Noriega group of 
businessmen, Wesley announced that these individuals represented "patriotic 
and nationalist tendencies" and were in substantial agreement with the economic 
development/anti-IMF program of the Schiller Institute. Soon the LaRouchians 
had become Noriega's public relations flacks in Washington. As students of Mitch 
WerBell's classic defense in the 1 976 pot-smuggling trial, they knew just how to 
defend the indefensible. They circulated a white paper on Capitol Hill and other 
documents that accused Senator Helms of being the "point man" in a State 
Department conspiracy to overthrow Noriega because of the latter's opposition \o 
drugs. Noriega, they said, was being set up by the real "drug Mafia," which had 
learned he was planning a "military War on Drugs." This drug Mafia was in 
league with narco-terrorists, and thus wanted not only to stop Noriega from 
cracking down on drugs but also to destabilize Panama so the Soviets could gain 
control of the Canal. Just why the State Department and Helms should want this 
was explainable only in terms of LaRouche's theory of secret oligarchical control 
of the Western world. Not a very convincing scenario to anyone in Washington, 
but that wasn't the point: The LaRouchians knew that a cover story based on 
absurd premises, as long as it is internally consistent, can be useful as a smoke 
screen and a delaying tactic. 

The Panamanian embassy in Washington had nothing more convincing to offer 
the media, especially after Noriega forced figurehead President Nicolas Ardito 
Barletta to resign at gunpoint for urging an independent investigation of the 
Spadafora slaying. The embassy suggested that journalists call the 
LaRouchians, who said that Barletta's resignation was a cause for rejoicing. Was 
he not a wretched agent of Henry Kissinger and those "who lend their souls to 
the institutions of usury"? LaRouche followers demonstrated outside the Senate 
hearings on Panama, with signs suggesting that Helms was in the pay of Israel's 
Mossad. Executive Intelligence Review reprinted a speech by Noriega discussing 
the "transcendental role" of the military in Central America. When the United 
States suspended aid to Panama in July 1987, the LaRouchians compared the 
regime's plight to their own problems with federal prosecutors. 



Most grotesque was New Solidarity's attitude toward tine Spadafora murder. Tine 
former government liealtli official had been tortured for several hours and then 
decapitated. His head had been placed in a U.S. postal bag and dumped over 
the border in Costa Rica. New Solidarity treated this as a case of good riddance 
to bad rubbish, claiming that Spadafora had been a left-wing narco-terrorist 
plotting to launch a Sandinista-style movement in Panama. These charges, made 
in the context of ridiculing the Spadafora family's grief, were totally untrue. 
Spadafora was an opponent of the Cuban-backed Sandinista regime, had served 
with Eden Pastora's Contra forces, and had supported the Miskito Indian 
resistance movement. He had been an informant for U.S. intelligence agencies 
on vital matters of national security. Only days before his murder he had met with 
a DEA official to supply details about Noriega's trafficking. 

The relationship between LaRouche and Noriega was touched on in February 9, 
1988, testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee's 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations. Jose I. 
Blandon Castillo, Panama's former New York consul general, stated that "Mr 
LaRouche works for Mr. Noriega" and that LaRouche's followers had given 
Noriega intelligence reports on several U.S. senators. "When [the senators] 
arrived in Panama, we had the information and published it in the papers before 
they arrived." Blandon added that the LaRouchian propaganda cover story on the 
death of Spadafora (that he was a left-wing terrorist) was the "official version" of 
Noriega's G-2 (military intelligence). Blandon also revealed that Mario Parnther, a 
Panamanian politician close to Noriega, was one of the links to LaRouche. 
Parnther "came to the States to speak in favor of Lyndon LaRouche. ..he spoke to 
me of LaRouche's role in connection with Panama, and said that he, Parnther, 
met with LaRouche in Boston." 

The LaRouchians had not kept Parnther's trip a secret. EIR had reported on it in 
September 1987, noting that he addressed the Commission to Investigate 
Human Rights Violations in the United States, an organization set up to protest 
the federal prosecutions of LaRouche and his followers. Identifying Parnther as a 
member of the national directorate of Noriega's party, EIR had quoted him as 
praising LaRouche's "unyielding commitment to the truth about Panama" and 
asserting: "We are fortunate that men emerge such as Lyndon LaRouche...." 

In reporting on Blandon 's testimony, EIR implied that LaRouche had advised 
Noriega, via Parnther, to reject the State Department's plan that the dictator 
resign in exchange for immunity. EIR suggested that LaRouche had helped to 
influence Noriega's decision to adopt a hard line against the United States (a line 
that sent U.S. policy in Central America into a tailspin). Whether or not 
LaRouche's role was really so crucial, he had apparently indeed suggested that 
Noriega emulate what he himself was doing in the Boston case: Delay and hang 
tight until the enemy gets exhausted; in the meantime, create as much 
ideological obfuscation as possible and threaten to expose everybody in 
Washington who has ever secretly dealt with you. In early 1988 the Panamanian 



government produced a 300-page report that backed up the LaRouchian claim 
that Noriega was Latin America's premier anti-drug warrior. It was a pathetic 
record of arrests of mules, spraying of marijuana plantations, and seizures of 
cocaine from small dealers who hadn't made the proper payoffs. Most of the 
arrests described were a result either of DEA arm-twisting or else of Noriega 
enforcing the Medellin cartel's control of the action. But the report showed that 
Noriega, like his apparent adviser LaRouche, had a certain embarrassment 
potential: Included was the text of a 1 984 letter from DEA chief Francis Mullen, 
Jr., to Noriega, hailing the dictator's "long-standing" and "very meaningful" 
support for the DEA and thanking him for "the autographed photograph." Wrote 
Mullen: "I have had it framed and it is proudly displayed in my office." 

In establishing ties with persons like Noriega and Jackie Presser, LaRouche was 
not just being a crime groupie. He was developing meanwhile his own operation 
on the grand scale — an effort that eventually raked in over $200 million, much of 
it via credit-card and loan fraud, while spinning off numerous secondary scams 
involving federal matching funds, nonprofit foundations, and election campaign 
committees. Many LaRouchians who participated in these operations developed 
a predatory frame of mind not just through LaRouche's psychological 
manipulation but also by associating with convicted felons such as Michele 
Sindona and Rolland McMaster and idolizing the likes of Tony Provenzano. This 
outlook, coupled with the NCLC's eleven-year history of shifting alliances with 
various underworld figures, suggest that LaRouche is neither just a political 
extremist nor simply a white-collar criminal in the Bernie Cornfeld mold. Rather, 
he is the "boss" (as he puts it) of an organization with striking resemblances to a 
traditional racketeering enterprise. 

In this aspect of his work, LaRouche has revealed the same genius for innovation 
as in his political organizing. He constructed his businesses on the basis of 
cultism and ideology rather than ethnic ties and blood oaths. He maximized 
profits by persuading his followers to devote every waking hour to the 
organization — and without even having to give them a cut of the action. He 
operated within the constitutionally protected framework of electoral activity (the 
first such entrepreneur to do so). He utilized an unincorporated political 
association that is everywhere and yet nowhere, permeating a bewildering 
network of corporate shells. Most important, he developed a unique system for 
warding off prosecutors — not a Maginot line of mob attorneys, but a multi-layered 
defense in depth. 

Studying the plight of the Teamsters union, LaRouche observed how intimately 
prosecutorial initiatives are linked to investigative journalism and the media 
spotlight. He was able to break that link by aggressive libel suits and various 
other forms of pressure on people with media influence, thus diverting the media 
away from any serious pursuit of him for years. Even though he lost every libel 
battle, he won the war (at least for a few years) by making exposes of LaRouche 
too expensive for the media chains. 



But LaRouche took things a step further: When law enforcement agencies did 
begin to investigate him, he immediately counterattacked with civil liberties suits 
in federal court, charging a conspiracy to undermine his constitutional rights. He 
kept the FBI tied down for ten years with a suit, still pending in Manhattan, that 
has cost the government heavily in pretrial litigation costs. 

In the early 1980s he also used this technique to keep the Manhattan DA's office, 
the Illinois state attorney general's office, and Federal Election Commission 
investigators at bay. When NCLC member Joyce Rubinstein was arrested in 
1 985 on misdemeanor theft charges in Princeton, New Jersey, the LaRouchians 
launched a federal suit against the arresting officers and the municipality. (This 
type of suit makes local police departments think twice about tangling with people 
who can make more trouble than their arrest seems worth.) 

LaRouche and his followers also developed a reputation as monumental extra- 
courtroom nuisances. Any prosecutor who went after them — or any politician who 
took a public stand against them that might encourage prosecutors — could 
expect to be picketed and to become the target of a smear campaign and/or 
harassing phone calls. In wielding the weapon of the Big Smear, LaRouche had 
four advantages: the means of gathering intelligence and nasty gossip, the 
means of distributing smear materials, freedom from fear of libel suits, and 
freedom from having to worry about his own reputation. His publishing entities 
could crank out leaflets and brochures on a moment's notice, and his followers 
could pass out hundreds of thousands of copies within days. His publications 
were meanwhile protected by the NCLC corporate shell game and thus were 
virtually judgment-proof against libel suits (in fact they were rarely sued — most 
targeted persons didn't know what else LaRouche might have on them). 
Likewise, LaRouche didn't have to worry about upholding an image of 
moderation. He could play the mad-dog publisher with impunity, laying out the 
smears no one else would touch (but occasionally seeing his material picked up 
by the major media once he had done the spadework). All this served as a 
powerful incentive — just like his civil liberties suits — for prosecutors to go after 
easier targets, as well as for politicians and media figures to leave him alone. In 
New York City in the early 1980s, as we have seen, this tactic protected him as 
effectively as payoffs and rubouts protect Mafia dons. 

Finally, LaRouche used his intelligence community gambit. Although this was far 
from being a new idea, his attempts to compromise the CIA included new twists. 

LaRouche's system was not infallible, and by 1988 he and his followers were 
embroiled in multiple indictments. Yet for over a decade he had conducted his 
questionable operations with virtual impunity, thanks to his creative tactics. And 
what ultimately was this defense-in-depth set up to protect? The full scope of 
LaRouche's financial activities is only beginning to be known. Veteran LaRouche 
watchers believe there are still huge gaps in the puzzle of where the money 
came from to pay for his empire of political, intelligence-gathering, and 



propaganda fronts in over a dozen countries. As yet, neitlier law enforcement nor 
investigative reporters liave probed liis operations in Colombia, Peru, Panama, 
and Mexico, his close ties with military officers and members of the landowning 
elite in Thailand, and his organization's alleged use of offshore bank accounts 
and couriers to move cash around the world. It is quite probable that the 
intelligence agencies of more than one country would prefer that these matters 
never be probed. 

CLICK HERE FOR THE REFERENCE NOTES TO THIS CHAPTER. 



AFTERWORD: 

Why LaRouche Was Not Fought 

Following the LaRouchian victories in the March 1986 Illinois primaries, some 
observers argued that the Democratic Party's immune system had broken down. 
In fact, the problem went far beyond the Democrats. The major media had failed 
over the years to vigorously unmask LaRouche. Jewish and black organizations 
and the left had largely ignored his dramatic political inroads in the early 1980s, 
blithely allowing him to operate his international network of hate from midtown 
Manhattan with nary a protest. Reagan administration aides, GOP operatives. 
Teamster leaders, and others on the right had treated him as just another 
political ally, to be used as needed. 

This see-no-evil attitude contrasted sharply with the opposition that both liberals 
and conservatives displayed toward traditional hate groups such as the Ku Klux 
Klan and Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. The double standard was revealed 
most clearly in the 1984 presidential campaign. When the Klan endorsed 
President Reagan, it immediately received a blistering denunciation from him. 
But when NBC exposed the administration's ties to LaRouche (while also 
pointing out LaRouche's ties to the Klan), the White House response was that it 
would continue to meet with whomever it pleased. Not a single Jewish or black 
organization condemned this response, nor did the media take issue with 
Reagan. Yet the connection between Jesse Jackson and Farrakhan meanwhile 
became front-page news. Reagan and Bush used the Farrakhan issue to hound 
Walter Mondale, who was entirely innocent of any links to or sympathy with the 
Chicago radio preacher. Mondale and the Democratic Party, however, failed to 
make an issue of the administration's dealings with LaRouche, whose statements 
against the Jews over the years had been more extreme and much more 
systematic than Farrakhan's. Furthermore, the Democrats failed to take any 
steps against LaRouche's massive infiltration of the party primaries that year. 

Fundamentally, the political structure's immune system against the ultra-right is 
geared only to oppose overt hate groups led by demagogues who speak their 
minds frankly. The LaRouchians, like a clever virus, evaded the immune system 
by mixing rightwing and leftwing ideologies and by using code words and a 
studied kookiness. These tactics made it difficult for the public — and for harried 
news reporters on deadline — to define LaRouchism. And if one cannot define 
some-thing, how can one fight it? The NCLC's anti-Semitism did become widely 
known, but it stirred up little visceral indignation because LaRouche often used 
Jewish aides to express it. (They would meet with reporters and Reagan 



administration officials to tell them the NCLC was really only "anti-Zionist," that 
LaRouche had been misinterpreted, and so on.) Whenever such methods 
stopped working, LaRouche fell back on his kook act, as if to suggest that even if 
he were a fascist and a bigot he was a singularly harmless one not worth fighting. 
This tactic turned out to be his strongest defense. When he came under media 
attack after the 1 986 Illinois primaries, he gave a rambling speech before the 
National Press Club about assassination plots, and later announced on network 
television a plan to colonize Mars. The level of opposition to him dropped, 
enabling his followers to make further grassroots electoral inroads and to 
continue raising tens of millions of dollars a year. 

The middle-class veneer of LaRouche's movement also helped to shield him 
from serious criticism. The Klan easily elicits opposition because its members are 
perceived as ignorant "rednecks." Farrakhan, of course, is widely regarded as a 
gutter bigot, appealing mostly to low-income blacks. But LaRouche speaks on TV 
in a cultivated New England accent reminiscent of William F. Buckley's. His 
followers wear three-piece business suits and often sport degrees from major 
universities. Several are from prominent families. Thus they often are treated not 
as hate-mongers at all but as misguided idealists or as victims of cult 
brainwashing. Some media reports have implied that although a Klansman might 
deserve harsh condemnation, the proper response to a LaRouchian — even one 
convicted of felonies such as loan fraud — is to offer him psychotherapy and a 
scholarship to get back into graduate school. (In fact LaRouche's NCLC is no 
more or less cultish than Farrakhan's Nation of Islam or the Klan-linked Aryan 
Nation. Indeed, the LaRouchians, with their higher education levels, would seem 
to have even less excuse for anti-Semitism.) 

The LaRouchians' ability to hide behind middle-class "educated" standards is 
best illustrated by what happened when their Humanist Academy rented a hall at 
Columbia University for a public gathering in 1980. If they had worn bed sheets 
and burned a cross, an uproar would have ensued. Instead, they staged 
Elizabethan dramatist Christopher Marlowe's The Jew of Malta, featuring a 
Jewish villain who strangles a friar, poisons several nuns, betrays his Christian 
neighbors to the Turks, and meets his end in a cauldron of boiling water. The 
audience, composed of NCLC members and friends, had been instructed that the 
play was a weapon in the fight against the international "oligarchy." They hissed 
and laughed when Barabas the "rich Jew" appeared on the stage. In essence, 
this was no different from a cross burning, but a university spokesman defended 
renting the hall to them. He explained that the LaRouchians, unlike the Klan, fell 
into a "gray area." 

In spite of LaRouche's multileveled smoke screen, his movement would have 
found fewer allies and more opponents except for the array of positive and 
negative incentives he offered. This was intelligent fascism in action. Alone 
among American ultraright bigots, LaRouche could offer potential allies 
something of value: his prowess at intelligence gathering, his sophisticated dirty 



tricks, and the sometimes formidable efforts of liis Fusion Energy 
Foundation/Executive Intelligence Review think tank. Furthermore, those who 
accepted his help ran almost no risk of being publicly embarrassed: Since 
LaRouche was not portrayed as especially sinister by the media, those who met 
with him could always explain it away. The LaRouchians were sensitive to the 
needs of their allies in this respect. If they had a relationship with a GOP 
operative, they kept it secret. If they ran a smear campaign against a particular 
political candidate, they would also throw a few harmless punches against the 
candidate who was being aided by their smears. For instance, when LaRouche 
spread rumors about George Bush and the Trilateral Commission during the 
1980 New Hampshire primary, he also issued some pro forma criticisms of 
Reagan. 

On the negative side, LaRouche demonstrated that he could make life miserable 
for powerful people if they crossed him. His smear campaigns against Henry 
Kissinger and Roy Cohn made this clear. Such prominent figures had always 
been beyond the reach of the traditional type of hate group, but LaRouche 
carried the battle to their doorsteps. As a result, other powerful people became 
extremely reluctant to tangle with him. This was not because they were all 
cowards at heart. Many of them would have denounced him if they had felt an 
important matter of principle was at stake. But the media's portrayal of LaRouche 
as a kook--and the silence of most Jewish organizations about him in spite of the 
massive quantity of anti-Semitic literature he was disseminating--sent a message 
that it simply wasn't worth the effort to oppose him seriously. 

But even on the infrequent occasions when vigorous opposition to LaRouche did 
emerge, there was an astonishing ability on the part of many people to evade the 
issue of principle. When the Manhattan weekly Our Town published a series 
attacking LaRouche in 1979, NCLC members went around to advertisers and to 
stores that freely distributed the paper and threatened them with legal action. 
Four major banks. Consolidated Edison, and the New York Telephone Company 
gave in immediately and either canceled advertising in Our Town or withdrew 
permission for its circulation on their premises. (Four years later, the telephone 
company still banned Our Town.) Such was the response of the business 
community; what about the labor movement? In 1980 a top official of the 
Pennsylvania Federation of Teachers gave several donations to LaRouche's 
presidential campaign. When Jewish teachers urged the union's board to pass a 
resolution criticizing the official, the board — reacting to factional problems in the 
union — instead voted to commend h\rr\ and later censured a union leader who 
had supported the original resolution. 

In neither case were the people who caved in suffering under any great illusions 
about LaRouche. In the fall of 1979, his followers deluged the streets of New 
York with leaflets calling for the crushing of the "Zionists." In the PFT situation, 
the protesting teachers provided abundant documentation of LaRouche's anti- 
Semitism. As the LaRouchians developed their deceptive tactics to higher levels 



of sophistication, sucli incidents multiplied. Each time, the evasion of the issue of 
principle merely made similar evasions easier in the future. And for some 
politically astute people, the smoke screen became something they could hide 
behind along with LaRouche while they conducted their business with him. It 
provided the basis for them to pretend \ha\ they didn't know what he was about 
and pretend \ha\ they regarded him as a kook. 

In fact the LaRouche movement's fascist character and its dangerous (non-kook) 
side were not really difficult to see. As early as 1976-77, recognition that 
LaRouche had gone fascist could be found in places as diverse as the newsletter 
of the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade and the Op-Ed page of The 
Washington Post. In 1980, Lionel Abel suggested in Dissent that LaRouche was 
America's "first serious fascist," while the Anti-Defamation League's Michigan 
spokesman, Richard Lobenthal, described the NCLC in 1981 as the "closest 
thing to an American fascist party that we've got." Several writers focused on the 
neo-Nazi elements in LaRouche's ideology. 

If this viewpoint — easily proven by LaRouche's writings, his alliances with ex- 
Nazis and international neo-fascists, and a simple comparison of his tactics with 
those of classical fascism — had been adopted and widely publicized by the major 
media and other opinion makers, LaRouche would have been stopped dead in 
his tracks in the early 1980s. There would have been no chats with National 
Security Council officials, no alliance with top Teamsters, no deals with shadowy 
GOP operatives, no grassroots candidates' movement of significant proportions, 
no passive sufferance by the Democratic Party, and certainly no Illinois primary 
victories in 1 986. All that was needed was for opinion leaders to draw the same 
clear line they had drawn against the Klan, name LaRouche for what he really 
was, and declare his movement beyond the bounds of decency. 

The confusion on this point, and the inability to draw a clear line, is best 
illustrated by the role of the major media and especially the major daily 
newspapers. The media were certainly not the only lax institution, but their 
response both reflected and molded that of all other aspects of the political 
immune system. For instance, from the beginning of LaRouche's rise most major 
newspapers shied away from analyzing his organization in any but the most 
superficial terms. They avoided the terms "fascist" and "neo-Nazi," which alone 
could adequately express his aims and methods. The New York Times in its 
1979 series on LaRouche at least kept the concept, expressing it through 
euphemisms and vivid examples, but soon even the euphemisms were dropped. 
In the early 1980s, some newspapers began to describe LaRouche as a 
"conservative Democrat" or to adopt other totally misleading labels. 

The major media became silent about LaRouche's political actions as well as his 
ideology. The electoral breakthroughs of his followers were almost totally ignored 
in the early 1980s. No one in the media sought to find out where the two 
thousand LaRouche candidates in 1984 had come from. Major newspapers that 



normally jump on any scandal involving the Teamsters union ignored the 
LaRouche-Teamster connection even though it had been exhaustively 
documented in Our Town, the Village Voice, Mother Jones, and Teamster 
dissident publications. Prior to 1986, the Baltimore Sun was the only major paper 
to have probed LaRouche's finances, even though court cases involving 
LaRouche corporate shells offered an easy score for any investigative reporter. 

One reason for the laxness was the fear of libel suits. In the late 1970s, 
LaRouche and his followers sued the Anti-Defamation League and Our Town for 
libel. At the time, religious and psychological cults were filing numerous libel 
suits, and many editors assumed LaRouche would be equally aggressive. 
Although the ADL suit was dismissed and LaRouche quietly dropped the Our 
Town suit (and filed no serious new libel suits until 1984), his followers 
maintained his litigious reputation by calling up reporters and editors at the drop 
of a hat to threaten legal action. A Catch-22 resulted: Newspapers toned down 
their coverage of LaRouche by using "soft" labels and avoiding mention of the 
nastier aspects of his movement. This soft approach then developed a life of its 
own. No longer was LaRouche perceived as the dangerous character portrayed 
by The New York Times in 1979. Hence there was no incentive for editors to call 
his bluff. 

LaRouche made what turned out to be one of his shrewdest moves in early 1 984. 
He learned that he would be the subject of an expose on NBC's First Camera. 
This threatened to undermine his ties with the Reagan administration and the 
intelligence community. But LaRouche must have known that First Camera had 
relatively low national viewer ratings. If other media could be prevented from 
repeating the charges, the damage could possibly be contained. Thus he sued 
NBC for $150 million prior to the show. The result was that some NBC affiliates 
didn't air it and many newspapers didn't report on it. Most Americans never 
learned that the Reagan administration had been meeting with neo-Nazis who in 
turn were in bed with racketeers, and that the leader of these neo-Nazis had 
discussed assassinating Jimmy Carter and other government officials in 1977. 
Furthermore, the major media failed to follow up First Camera's work, even 
though it was a presidential election year in which the news value of the story 
was potentially very great. 

One thing the national media did report was the outcome of the LaRouche v. 
A/SC trial that fall. Finding that NBC had not libeled LaRouche, the jury awarded 
it $3 million on a counterclaim (later knocked down to $200,000 by the judge). On 
the surface, this appeared to be a major defeat for LaRouche, but it was arguably 
a victory for him on a deeper level. The suit had squelched negative media 
coverage of him earlier in the year that might have cost him millions of dollars in 
loans and donations. And in spite of the trial's outcome, the media remained 
super-cautious. For instance, the jury had found that the defendants were not 
liable for calling LaRouche a "small-time Hitler," but this did not loosen the taboo 
against hard labels for LaRouche. The Washington Post finally followed up the 



LaRouche-Reagan story (the only major paper to do so), but reporter John Mintz 
was apparently not allowed by his editors to deal forthrightly with LaRouche's 
political views. The result was that Mintz's excellent series was left with a gaping 
hole: who, what, when, but no why. This omission was seen in all subsequent 
major media coverage. LaRouche, it appeared, had established a state of affairs 
almost strange beyond belief: He was able to run for president of the United 
States, gain over a million dollars in matching funds, force TV networks to sell 
him millions of dollars of prime time for his scurrilous campaign ads — and 
meanwhile deny to the public the opportunity to hear strong criticisms of his 
policies and program. 

After the 1986 Illinois primary, it was more important than ever to give the public 
accurate information about LaRouche. At first it appeared that blunt, accurate 
terms might become acceptable. The media did quote Adiai Stevenson III as 
calling the LaRouchians neo-Nazis. Senator Moynihan likewise used this 
designation in a Manhattan speech. Many journalists were aware of the truth, but 
the major media, Jewish organizations, and the Democratic Party decided to 
stick to soft terms that wouldn't disturb anyone (the Times went so far as to 
censor out the forbidden word in its coverage of Moynihan's speech). Some 
newspapers continued to call LaRouche a "rightist," but conservatives began to 
object. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial suggesting that LaRouche 
was really still leftwing (the evidence it cited was conspiracy theories that actually 
originated on the right). Suddenly the fact that U.S. and West German ultra- 
rightist networks had nurtured LaRouche and provided him with ideas, money, 
and allies (not to mention weapons training) for the previous ten years became 
too controversial to dwell on. Newspapers avoided giving offense to the right by 
adopting the neutral term "political extremist" or by saying LaRouche had a 
"mixed" philosophy. The New York Times called him "eccentric" and a 
"conspiracy theorist" while announcing that he somehow defied classification in 
conventional terms. Meanwhile most of the media promoted the kook theory, by 
reminding the public over and over that LaRouche believes the Queen of 
England pushes drugs. The only serious analysis of LaRouche appeared in 
smaller unorthodox weeklies such as the Chicago Reader, the Boston Phoenix 
and In These Times. LaRouche watcher Chip Berlet recalled his frustration at the 
time: "I talked with dozens of reporters. I'd send them LaRouche's writings. Then 
I'd lead them step-by-step through it on the phone, to show them it was classic 
fascism. I'd cite chapter and verse from Hannah Arendt's Origins of 
Totalitarianism— hoy^ LaRouche fit like a glove. They'd say, 'That's nice,' then 
turn to their word processors and crank out some quip about Queen Elizabeth." 

But behind the media's "soft" view of LaRouche there was often the rankest 
hypocrisy. While newspapers portrayed him as a kook they made editorial 
judgments based on the assumption that he was indeed potentially dangerous — 
so dangerous that his activities must be concealed from the public lest the truth 
help his movement grow. Jerome Chasen of the National Jewish Community 
Relations Advisory Council, in a 1986 memorandum on LaRouche's Illinois 



electoral victories, raised questions about this bizarre "quarantine" policy. 
Inquiries by the NJCRC, he wrote, had uncovered that "the media in Illinois did 
know that [Democratic primary candidates] Fairchild and Hart were LaRouchites, 
and chose not to headline this information, based on a judgment that to do so 
would give LaRouche a platform in statewide politics he did not deserve." 

This attitude — don't write about an important story because we, the journalists, 
believe the public can't handle it — would be regarded as downright unethical in 
every area of journalism except the coverage of extremists. Indeed, in other 
areas it would be called a cover-up. In this case it also involved an almost 
comical inconsistency: The Chicago and national media had shown no such 
restraint in the case of Farrakhan, the obscure Chicago preacher whom the 
Republican Party and the media transformed in 1984 into America's most 
celebrated anti-Semite. 

The "quarantine" policy toward the LaRouchians persisted after the flap over the 
Illinois primaries. NDPC candidates continued to get high vote percentages in all 
parts of the country, yet none of the media reported on this in depth. In the fall of 
1986, the ADL published a study of the LaRouche grassroots primary vote 
nationwide. Many reporters glanced at the figures, noted that the LaRouchians 
had not won any more major primaries, and declared them to be defeated. It was 
the double standard once again: If Farrakhan's Nation of Islam or the Ku Klux 
Klan had run 330 candidates of whom nearly 50 percent received over 10 
percent of the vote (the actual statistics in the ADL report) both the ADL and the 
media would have sounded the alarm from the rooftops. For the media in this 
case, it was also part of the continuing lack of curiosity about anything beneath 
the surface relating to LaRouche. The Washington Journalism Review did a 
piece, "Letting LaRouche Off," which commented on the lack of vigorous 
reporting. It had no effect. When Senate hearings in 1988 unearthed LaRouche's 
ties to General Noriega, most of the media didn't mention it, much less follow it 
up, even though anything relating to Noriega was supposedly important news at 
the time. Again, when the LaRouchians were identified in the summer of 1988 as 
being behind the false rumors of Michael Dukakis's undergoing psychiatric 
treatment, no one in the media bothered to look at their antecedent political 
trickery, and the rumor was thus presented as an isolated incident. 

The confusion and see-no-evil attitude toward LaRouche was often far worse in 
political circles than in the newsrooms. This spell was broken temporarily after 
the Illinois primary victories. Democrats in several states did vigorously oppose 
LaRouchian candidates, although they were not always successful in preventing 
them from receiving sizable votes. As we have seen, the two LaRouche AIDS 
referendums in California gained very large vote totals. But the issue of just how 
vulnerable to manipulation the electorate can be, and just how poorly society's 
early-warning system functions, never had to be seriously addressed. In October 
1986, federal and state authorities raided the LaRouche organization's Virginia 
headquarters and the indictments began. Many observers figured that the 



downfall of LaRouche was not far off and that the NCLC would revert to nuisance 
status. A resurgence of high vote percentages for LaRouche candidates in 1988 
was thus largely ignored, and when LaRouche was convicted of loan fraud that 
December it indeed appeared possible that the end was near for his remarkable 
political career. 

If so, it will be a victory on the cheap. It will not have resulted in any sense from a 
strengthening of the grassroots resistance to his far-right extremism. On the 
contrary, it will be a direct result of the weakness of that resistance. LaRouche, 
facing so little opposition and attracting so many closet collaborators in the early 
and mid-1 980s, came to regard himself as invulnerable. For this reason alone, he 
became reckless in his fundraising methods, eliciting massive complaints to the 
authorities from fraud victims. The result was deep legal trouble for his 
movement and a situation in which his opponents could tell themselves that it 
was no longer necessary to fight him politically. The problem of strengthening the 
political immune system was thus postponed until either the LaRouche 
movement refurbished itself and launched a counterattack or some new ultra- 
right organization emerged to ape LaRouche's brilliant political innovations while 
avoiding his financial mistakes and his excessive paranoia. 

In the meantime, the relief with which the Democratic Party, Jewish 
organizations, the left, and the media resigned the problem of LaRouche into the 
hands of the FBI bore more than a touch of Weimar Republic decadence, all the 
more so since it was nof political pressure that led to the indictments but simply 
LaRouche's out-of-control fundraising. One prosecutor in the LaRouche cases 
described his annoyance at calls from reporters asking such questions as "Do 
you think this will destroy LaRouche?" (as if it were the Justice Department's 
business to wage political battles rather than simply enforce the law). 

Those who would project a political role onto law enforcement, hoping it will do 
what political leaders are unable or unwilling to do, only prove that the moral 
flabbiness on which demagogues thrive is still with us. Given this fact, the 
lessons of LaRouche's rise and apparent fall are important. If we study them 
seriously and act on them, it may turn out that the LaRouche phenomenon was a 
blessing in disguise — a dry run, under relatively safe conditions, that revealed our 
hitherto unsuspected weaknesses without our having to pay a heavy price for this 
knowledge. One thing seems certain: America is too violent and diverse — and 
too vulnerable to economic crisis — to avoid forever a major internal challenge 
from some form of totalitarian demagoguery. When that test comes, the story of 
Lyndon LaRouche may provide the key to an effective and timely response. 



Dedication 



To those journalists with whom I have worked mostly closely on the 
LaRouche story: Russ Bellant, Chip Berlet, Bryan Chitwood, Ed 
Kayatt and Patricia Lynch. Without their input, this book could never 
have been written. 



Acl<nowledgments 



The uncovering of the LaRouche conspiracy in America has been a collective 
endeavor in which many journalists and editors have made important 
contributions. Chip Berlet, the dean of LaRouche watchers, has tracked the 
NCLC in dozens of articles since 1975. Patricia Lynch of NBC-TV first cracked 
the story of LaRouche's White House connection. Bryan Chitwood was the 
reporter on the scene in Leesburg, Virginia, who did the most exhaustive work in 
1986-88 on the LaRouchians' financial misdeeds and attempts to obstruct justice. 
Russ Bellant probed their relations with the Republican Party and their activities 
in Detroit. Ed Kayatt, publisher and editor of the Manhattan weekly Our Town, 
fought LaRouche for over eight years, in the teeth of lawsuits and harassment 
which would have caused many publishers to back off. 

In addition, this book draws upon the work of John Rees, Greg Rose, Joe 
Conason, Joel Bellman, Jude Draft, John Mintz, Chuck Eager, Harvey Kahn, 
Paul Valentine, Mark Arax, Howard Blum, and Paul Montgomery. Journalists who 
gave generously of their time on various research points include Bob Windrem, 
Bruce McColm, Jim Hougan, and Linda Hunt. Dan Moldea's classic investigative 
work The Hoffa l/1/arswas a source of inspiration as well as a gold mine of facts. 
University of Chicago graduate student Daniel Messinger provided information on 
LaRouche's electoral activities. The late Ered Christopher of the New York 
Conservative Party gave me an initial orientation about LaRouche's conspiracy 
theories without which I could never have understood them. Eormer High Times 
news editor Bob LaBrasca strongly encouraged my probe of LaRouche's 
connections to the Teamsters union. 

This book includes materials from interviews and joint investigations conducted 
with Patricia Lynch, Ronald Radosh, and Kalev Pehme, who have my gratitude. 
Where John Mintz of The Washington Post re-interviewed persons that Radosh 
and I earlier interviewed for The New Republic, I have sometimes quoted from 
the Mintz interviews with his permission, 

I owe a special debt to Kevin Coogan for allowing me to use findings from his 
unpublished manuscript, "The Mystery of Lyndon LaRouche." Especially, I am 
indebted to him for digging out the writings of LaRouche's father and illuminating 



the murky circumstances surrounding Roy Frankliouser's 1975 trial. His 
manuscript delves into many fascinating areas which my book does not deal 
with, and I hope it will find a publisher before long. 

In the years I worked the LaRouche beat, I was without the protection of a large 
news organization. I wish to thank the attorneys who represented me pro bono in 
lawsuits initiated by the LaRouchians: Steve Bundy and Frank Barron of Cravath, 
Swaine and Moore in 1980-81; Phil Hirschkop in 1984; and Randolph Scott- 
McLaughlin, Raphael Lopez, and Morton Stavis of the Center for Constitutional 
Rights also in 1984. In addition, I am grateful to attorneys Weldon Brewer, 
Ramsey Clark, Jerry Nadler, and Eli Rosenbaum for their advice at various 
points. 

Financial help in writing this book was provided by the Smith-Richardson 
Foundation, the Stern Fund, and the League for Industrial Democracy, I 
especially thank Arch Puddington and Gail Wolfe of the LID for their generous 
assistance. 

For research help, I am deeply indebted to the staff of New York University's 
Tamiment Institute and to the research and fact-finding divisions of the Anti- 
Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Gail Gans at the ADL chased down scores of 
documents for me over the years, while ADL fact-finding director Irwin Suall 
offered invaluable advice at many points. For help on LaRouche's early career I 
thank the staff of the Prometheus Library. 

The following individuals provided vital encouragement over the years this book 
was in preparation: John Ranz, Sheldon Ranz, Lenny Lopate, the late Mannie 
Goldstein, Guy Hawtin, David Hacker, Rita Freedman, A. J. Weberman, Linda 
Ray, Dave Phillips, Anne-Marie Vidal, Arnold Sperber, Aron Kay, Bob Roistacher, 
Stanley Pinsley, Vanessa Weber, John Train, John Hitz, Lyn Wells, Lenny 
Zeskin, Jack Newfield, Dave Pollock, Marvin Sochet, Frank Touchet and Jack 
Finn. 

For their special personal support, I thank my father Arnold King, Denise Beck, 
Kevin Coogan, Michael Hudson, Katy Morgan, Kalev Pehme, Leslie Smith, and 
"Simon," as well as my five colleagues to whom this book is dedicated. 

Michael Hudson and Kalev Pehme did invaluable editorial work on the final 
manuscript and also provided many insights into LaRouche's financial empire. 

Finally, I am deeply grateful to my agents, Peter Miller and Laurie Perkins, and 
my editor at Doubleday, Patrick Filley, without whom this book would not have 
been possible. 



CHAPTER REFERENCES for Lyndon 
LaRouche and the New American 
Fascism 

The following abbreviations are used throughout the notes section: 

EIR: Executive Intelligence Review 

ICLC: International Caucus of Labor Committees 

LHL: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 

LM: Lyn Marcus (pen name of LHL prior to 1976) 

NCLC: National Caucus of Labor Committees 

NDPC: National Democratic Policy Committee 

NS: New Solidarity 

NSIPS: New Solidarity International Press Service 

TC: The Campaigner 

USLP: United States Labor Party 

CHAPTER ONE 

"NASTY DUCKLING": Paul L. Montgomery, "How a Radical-Left Group Moved 
Toward Savagery," New York Times, Jan. 20, 1974. 

CHILDHOOD ISOLATION AND BULLYING: LHL, The Power of Reason: A Kind 
of an Autobiography {b\e\N York: New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House, 
1979), pp. 38-39. 

FAMILY SECTARIANISM: LHL, The Power of Reason, pp. 35-39; Hezekiah 
Micajah Jones (Lyndon H. LaRouche, Sr.), Present Day Quaf<erisnn in New 
England, privately published pamphlet, 1937; Vin McLellan, "Meet Lyn Marcus: 
The Marxist Messiah," Boston Phoenix, Jan. 29, 1974. 

THE "WITCH MOTHER" THEME: LM, "The Politics of Male Impotence," NCLC 
internal document, Aug. 16, 1973; LM, "Mothers' Fears," NCLC internal 
document, Sept. 11, 1973; LM, "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach," TC, Dec. 1973. 

RESENTMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL: LHL, The Power of Reason, pp. 55-56; LHL, 
"How the Classics Were Lost," and "Mrs. Babbitt Destroyed the U.S.A.," TC, Oct. 
1981. 

LIFE IN CPS CAMP: LHL, "American Friends of Sodomy Committee," Part II, NS, 
Nov. 10, 1978. 



ARMY ENLISTMENT: LM, "The Conceptual History of the Labor Committees," 
TC, Oct. 1974, p. 9; LHL, The Power of Reason, pp. 58-59. 

MARXIST ACTIVITIES IN INDIA: LM, "The Conceptual History of the Labor 
Committees," p. 9; EIR ed., LaRouche: Will This Man Become President? (New 
York: New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House, 1983), pp. 44-46. 

SANITIZED VERSION OF LEFTIST BACKGROUND: EIR ed., LaRouche: Will 
This Man Become President?, p. 46. 

MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE: LHL, The Power of Reason, pp. 31-34. 

"NO REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT.. .UNLESS I BROUGHT IT INTO BEING": 
Paul W. Valentine, "The Newest Left," Washington Post, Feb. 17, 1974. 

CHAPTER TWO 

BACKGROUND ON THE SDS YEARS: LM, "The Conceptual History of the 
Labor Committees," TC, Oct. 1974; "The History of the Labor Committee," 
intermittent series in Solidarity (later renamed New Solidarity), Dec. 18, 1970, 
through Apr. 12, 1971 (various authors). 

PLANS FOR CADRE ORGANIZATION: LM, "How the Workers League 
Decayed," NCLC internal document, June 27, 1970, p. 18. 

LEAVING THE TROTSKYIST "SEWER": LM, "The Conceptual History of the 
Labor Committees," pp. 12-13. 

NCLC CLAIMS THAT IT PENETRATED SDS FOR THE GOVERNMENT: "Anti- 
Semitism" Libel Against Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr., NDPC pamphlet, Jan. 
25, 1983, p. 10. 

FBI AND POLICE HARASSMENT: LaRouche v. Webster, U.S. District Court, 
Southern District of New York, 75 Civ. 6010, Plaintiff's Second Amended 
Complaint, Apr. 2, 1982; Edward Spannaus, "The Documentary History of FBI 
Operations Against Lyndon LaRouche and the NCLC," NS series beginning July 
11, 1983. 

CYNICAL VIEW OF LEFT-WING FACTIONALISM: LM, "How the Workers 
League Decayed," pp. 1, 9. 

CHAPTER THREE 

LAROUCHE ON FASCISM: LM, "Growth of Fascist Movements," Part II, 
Solidarity (later renamed New Solidarity), June 1 4, 1 971 . 



MOP UP DOCUMENTS: "Deadly Crisis for CPUSA," NS, Mar. 12, 1973; "Death 
of tine CPUSA," NS, Apr. 9, 1973; "Operation Mop-Up: Tine Class Struggle Is for 
Keeps," NS, Apr. 16, 1973; "The CP Within Us," NCLC internal document, Apr. 
22, 1973; "Their Morals and Ours," NS, Apr. 23, 1973; "CP Recruiting 
Pallbearers for Its Own Funeral," NS, Apr. 30, 1973; "Mop-Up Has Changed the 
Way You Think," NS, May 21 , 1 973. 

PHILADELPHIA MOP UP: Mark Manoff, "NCLC: The 'Flesh and Bones' 
Approach," The Drummer, May 29, 1973. 

FBI INTERVENTION IN MOP UP: Socialist Worl<ers Party v. Attorney General of 
the United States, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 73 Civ. 
3160, Final Report of the Special Master (Judge Charles D. Breitel), Feb. 4, 
1980. Printed as pamphlet: What the FBI Spies D/c/(New York: Political Rights 
Defense Fund, 1980). 

CHAPTER FOUR 

TAKING AWAY BEDROOMS: LM, "The Politics of Male Impotence," NCLC 
internal document, Aug. 16, 1973. 

THEORY OF SUDDEN PERSONALITY CHANGE: LM, "'Trotskyism' As 
Organized Sexual Impotence," NCLC internal document, Aug. 20, 1973. 

DEFECTORS' DESCRIPTIONS OF NCLC PSYCHOLOGICAL TECHNIOUES 
AND SESSIONS: Christine Berl and Henry Weinfeld, open letter to NCLC 
membership, Apr. 2, 1974; Marian Kester, "Thinking the Unthinkable," NCLC 
factional document, Aug. 15, 1974. 

THE ALLEGED BRAINWASHING OF WHITE: Christopher White, "On the Track 
of My Assassins," TC, Feb. -Mar. 1974; LM, "Uncover CIA-Police Plot to Take 
Over U.S. -Discover Method to De-program Victims of CIA and Soviet Psycho- 
Sexual Brainwashing," NS special supplement (includes text of LHL's Jan. 3, 
1974, speech describing alleged tortures). 

WITCHES AND HISSING SOUNDS: Carol White, "Intake Procedure for 
Suspected Brainwashing Cases," NCLC internal document, 1974. 

PARANOIA ABOUT CHRISTINE BERL: LM, "Why Christine Berl Could Be 
Turned into a Zombie," NCLC internal document, Apr. 1, 1974. 

TECHNIQUES OF BRAINWASHING AS ALLEGEDLY PRACTICED BY CIA 
AND OTHER NCLC FOES: LM, "The Real CIA~the Rockefellers' Fascist 
Establishment," TC, Apr. 1974; M. Minnicino, "Low Intensity Operations: The 
Reesian Theory of War," TC, Apr. 1974; LM, "Rockefeller's 1984 Plot," TC, Feb.- 
Mar. 1 974; LM, "Uncover CIA-Police Plot to Take Over U.S." 



CHAPTER FIVE 

THEORY OF ETHNIC FASCISM: LM, "Growth of Fascist Movements," Part II, 
Solidarity (later renamed New Solidarity), June 1 4, 1 971 . 

"PURE RAGE" SPEECH: LM, "Build a Revolutionary Youth Movement!," NS, 
June 10, 1973 (excerpts). 

DRILL-INSTRUCTOR METHODS, RESPONSE OF GANG MEMBERS: Howard 
Blum, "Marx and the Outlaws: Recruiting in the Ghetto," Village Voice, June 6, 
1974. 

ATTACKS ON BARAKA: Costas Axios (Konstandinos Kalimtgis) and Nikos 
Syvriotis (Criton Zoakos), Papa Doc Baraka: Fascism in Newark, NCLC 
pamphlet, 1 973; "Answer to the CIA: Destroy Baraka!," NS, Aug. 1 7, 1 973. 

BLACK MEMBERS INTERNALIZE NCLC RACISM: Allen Salisbury and Dennis 
Speed, "The Fight Against Black Magic," NS, June 22, 1974. 

CALL FOR ANTI-ZIONIST UNITY: LaRouclie Tells Black Leaders: We'll Destroy 
the Zionists Politically, USLP leaflet, Aug. 23, 1979 

CHAPTER SIX 

STRATEGY FOR INFILTRATING THE RIGHT: Gregory F. Rose, "The Swarmy 
Life and Times of the NCLC," National Review, Mar. 30, 1979. 

LAROUCHE EMBRACES THE SPOTLIGHT'S VIEW OF ZIONISM: LHL, "Walter 
Mondale British Agent," NS, Sept. 2, 1977. 

"GIDEON'S ARMY": LHL, What Every Conservative Should Know About 
Communism (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, 
1980), p. vi. 

EARLY EXAMPLES OF NCLC ANTI-SEMITISM: LM, "The Case of Ludwig 
Feuerbach," TC, Dec. 1973, p. 37; Nancy Spannaus, "Israeli Psychosis: 
Rockefeller's Solution to the Jewish Ouestion," TC, Aug. 1975, p. 59. 

VIENNESE REFUGEES, CHOLERA CULTURE, "PUS": LHL, The Case of 
Walter Lippmann (New York: Campaigner Publications, 1977), p. 121. 

CHRIST KILLERS: LHL, "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism," 
NS, Dec. 8, 1978. 



"KOSHER NOSTRA": Mark Burdman, "Begin Gov't Links to Crime Publicized in 
France," War on Drugs (magazine), Nov. 1980. 

"PURE EVIL": LHL, "Zionism and the 'Zionist Lobby,'" NS, Aug. 22, 1978. 

"NATIONAL SECURITY RISK": "Register the Zionist Lobby as Foreign Agents!," 
NS, Sept. 5, 1978. 

"ZOMBIE-NATION": LHL, "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism." 

"NAUSEATING JEWISH HYPOCRISY": "For Peace in the Mideast, Dump the 
Jewish Lobby!," NS, Mar. 17, 1978. 

PASSIVITY OF LOWER-LEVEL NCLC MEMBERS: Linda Ray, "Breaking the 
Silence: An Ex-LaRouche Follower Tells Her Story," In These Times, Oct. 29, 
1986. 

ONLY ONE AND A HALF MILLION KILLED IN HOLOCAUST: LHL, "New 
Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism"; "LaRouche Reaffirms '1 .5 
Millions' Analysis," NSIPS news release, Jan. 1 7, 1 981 . 

"MORAL ANAESTHETIZATION" AND THE VOLKSWAGEN JOKE: Alice and 
Don Roth, "A Method in the Madness," open letter to NCLC members, Feb. 3, 
1981. 

JEWS ALLEGEDLY PUT HITLER IN POWER: LHL, "Hitler: Runaway British 
Agent," NS, Jan. 10, 1978; LHL, "The Truth About 'German Collective Guilt,'" 
Parti, NS, Oct. 10, 1978. 

"SOUND AND INTENSE. ..ENTHUSIASM" OF NAZIS TO CRUSH BRITAIN: LHL, 
"Hitler: Runaway British Agent." 

HITLER'S CRIMES A "SLIGHT MISTAKE" IN COMPARISON TO PLANS OF 
ZIONISTS: LHL, speech to Michigan Anti-Drug Coalition, May 20, 1979, 
published in NS, June 8, 1979; see editorial correction, June 15, 1979. 

WARNING TO JEWISH NCLC MEMBERS: LHL, "New Pamphlet to Document 
the Cult Origins of Zionism." 

CHAPTER SEVEN 

INSURRECTION FANTASIES: LM, "The Art of Insurrection," NS, June 5, 1972. 

DOCTRINE OF PARTISAN WARFARE: Uwe Parpart, "Deploying a 
Revolutionary Army: The Model of Yugoslav Proletarian Brigades," and Warren 
Hamerman, "The Development of Tito's Revolutionary Army," NS, Aug. 31,1 974. 



DENUNCIATION OF DEMOCRACY: LHL, "Creating a Republican Labor Party," 
NS, June 22, 1979. 

FASCISM BECOMES A MASS MOVEMENT ONLY IF SOCIETY'S "LEADING 
STRATA" DECIDE TO SPONSOR IT: LM, "The Conceptual History of the Labor 
Committees," TC, Oct. 1974, p. 25. 

HOW TO BUILD A COALITION AND FUNCTION AS THE VANGUARD WITHIN 
IT: LHL, "Creating a Republican Labor Party"; LaRouche, "A Machiavellian 
Solution for Israel," TC, Mar. 1978, esp. pp. 29-31. 

THE DEBT CRISIS: LHL, Operation Juarez, EIR special report, Aug. 2, 1982. 

RIDDING THE EARTH OF OLIGARCHS AND CREATING THE "GOLDEN 
SOULS": LHL, The Power of Reason {Ne\N York: New Benjamin Franklin 
Publishing House, 1979), pp. 194-95. 

SUPPRESSION OF POLITICAL DISSENT: LHL, "Creating a Republican Labor 
Party." 

REJECTION OF ELECTIONS AND PARLIAMENTS: LHL, "NATO in Caesar's 
Foolish Footsteps," NS, Nov. 1, 1977. 

DICTATORSHIP OF MONETARISTS VERSUS DICTATORSHIP OF 
INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISTS: LHL, The Case of Walter Lippmann (New York: 
Campaigner Publications, 1977), pp. 92, 97, 142. 

UNITY OF LABOR AND CAPITAL AGAINST THE MONETARISTS: LHL, 
Lippmann, p. 92; LHL, "Creating a Republican Labor Party." 

DICTATORSHIP BY AN ELITE: LHL, Lippmann, pp. 91, 144. 

ONLY THE ELITE CAN SHAPE LAWS: "The German Constitutional State and 
Terrorism," TC, Feb. 1978, p. 24. 

DEFINITION OF FREEDOM: LHL, Lippmann, p. 68; also see p. 91. 

GOOD AND EVIL THOUGHTS AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST EVIL 
THOUGHTS: LHL, Lippmann, pp. 129, 140. 

RIGHT TO LIVE AS A FREE MAN DEPENDS ON OBEDIENCE TO STATE: 
LHL, Lippmann, p. 69. 

THE CRIMINAL MIND: LHL, Lippmann, pp. 94-95; "The German Constitutional 
State and Terrorism," pp. 40-42. 



SURGICAL POLICE OPERATIONS: LHL, U.S. Labor Party Security Services 
(sales brochure), July 15, 1978; "Two Approaches to the Law Enforcement 
Crisis," EIR, Apr. 14, 1981. 

THE MULTITIERED ENEMY CONSPIRACY: LHL, "How to Analyze and Uproot 
International Terrorism," NS, Feb. 17, 1978; "Register the Zionist Lobby as 
Foreign Agents!," NS, Sept. 5, 1978. 

PURGING THE JEWS: "Register the Zionist Lobby as Foreign Agents!"; "A War- 
winning Strategy," NS, Mar. 21, 1978. 

DENIAL OF CITIZENSHIP TO THE MASSES: LHL, "Creating a Republican 
Labor Party." 

CRITIOUE OF HITLER'S VERSION OF TOTAL MOBILIZATION: LHL, 
Lippmann, pp. 8-9. 

THE NCLC'S TOTAL MOBILIZATION: LHL, "Free Naval Policy from Geopolitics," 
EIR, Aug. 4, 1981 ; LHL, "American Rearmament Potential: Why a 'Ouick Fix' 
Won't Work," EIR, July 29, 1 980; LHL, "What Are Economic Shock Waves?," 
EIR, Dec. 14. 1982; LHL, IVIilitary Policy of the LaRouche Administration, Citizens 
for LaRouche campaign pamphlet, 1979; LHL, "Peace-Through-Strength 
Disorientation," NS. Aug. 15, 1978; LHL, "A Return to Federalist-Whig Military 
Policy," Parts I and II, NS, Sept. 8 and Sept. 12, 1978; LHL, "The Political 
Economy of Military Posture," NS, Feb. 11,1 977. 

IN-DEPTH WAR-FIGHTING PYRAMID, TRANSFORMATION OF 
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, "SOLDIER-CITIZENS": LHL, IVIilitary Policy of tine 
LaRouche Administration, pp. 4, 10-13. 

WAGE WAR, ESTABLISH GLOBAL HEGEMONY, BRING FORCES OF EVIL 
UNDER "FIRM-HANDED" RULE: LHL, "The Disorienting Heritage of Clausewitz," 
NS, June 16, 1978. 

"PROGRESSIVE LIOUIDATION," VICTORY OVER LAST ENEMY BASTION: 
LHL, "A Return to Federalist-Whig Military Policy," Part II, NS, Sept. 12, 1978. 

CRITIOUE OF HITLER'S TWO-FRONT STRATEGY: LHL, "A Return to 
Federalist-Whig Military Policy," Part II. 

BACKHANDED PRAISE OF HITLER ("LONDON'S MOST DEADLY ENEMY") 
AND CRITICISM OF HIM FOR NOT COMPLETING THE CONOUEST OF 
BRITAIN: LHL, "Hitler: Runaway British Agent," NS, Jan. 10, 1978; LHL, "The 
Truth About 'German Collective Guilt,'" Part I, NS, Oct. 10, 1978; LHL, "London 
Pushes Toward World War III," NS, Mar. 3, 1978. 



DENIAL OF THE FULL SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS: LHL, Lippmann, pp. 170- 
71. 

U.S. SHOULD DECLARE WAR ON BRITAIN: LHL, "Peace-Through-Strength 
Disorientation"; "A War-winning Strategy." 

TOTAL WAR AND "ABC" WARFARE: LHL, "Harold Brown Is Nuts!," NS, Jan. 31 , 
1978; LHL, "London Pushes Toward World War III." 

ESTIMATE OF LOSSES: LHL, "London Pushes Toward World War III"; LHL, 
Military Policy of the LaRouche Administration. 

OCCUPATION POLICY AND CITYBUILDING: LHL, "A Return to Federalist-Whig 
Military Policy," Part II. 

TIMUR AS ROLE MODEL: "Marlowe's Tamburlaine: The Will to Win," NS, Jan. 
17, 1983. 

CHAPTER EIGHT 

EARLY LAROUCHIAN SUPPORT FOR STAR WARS WEAPONRY: Sputnik of 
tfie Seventies: Tfie Science Behiind tfie Soviets' Beam Weapon, USLP pamphlet, 
1977. 

A. P. ALEKSANDROV: "Soviet Science Chief Rebuts 'Greenies,'" Fusion, Feb. 
1980. 

CHAPTER NINE 

LAROUCHE'S RESPONSE TO REAGAN'S STAR WARS SPEECH: "Prominent 
Democrat Praises Reagan Strategic Policy," NS, Apr. 1, 1983. 

LAROUCHIANS PUBLISH WINTERBERG ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS: 
Friedwardt Winterberg, "Some Reminiscences About the Origins of Inertial 
Confinement," Fusion, Nov. 1979; Winterberg, The Physical Principles of 
Thermonuclear Explosive Devices (New York: Fusion Energy Foundation, 1981). 

LAROUCHE'S SDI "SPILLOVER" THEORY: LHL, "National Academy of Science 
Wonders: Is Lyndon LaRouche Also a Scientist?," NS, Sept. 22, 1986. 

ATTACK ON RICHARD PERLE AS "MOSSAD-LINKED" AGENT: "Japanese 
Elite Hear Strategic, Economic Dimensions of SDI," EIR, May 2, 1986. 

CHAPTER TEN 



BARDWELL SPEAKS OUT: Steven Bardwell, "Third Rome Hypothesis," ICLC 
internal document, Jan. 13. 1984. 

RECURRENT PHOTOGRAPH SUGGESTING A SWASTIKA: Fusion, May 1978, 
p. 40; NS, Sept. 3, 1984; NS, Feb. 22, 1985; Fusion, July-Aug. 1985, p. 25. 

LIVING SPACE OF THIRD REICH: Deutsche-Bergwerks Zeitung, March 8, 
1942, cited in Jean-Michel Angebert, The Occult and the Third Reich (New York: 
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1974), p. 227. 

MADOLE'S SWASTIKA MYSTICISM: "NRP Leader Gives Lecture on The Occult 
& Fascism' at New York's Warlock Shop," The National Renaissance Bulletin, 
June-July-Aug. 1977. 

LAROUCHE'S GRAND DESIGN, SDI-STYLE: LHL, "Wassily Leontief Acts to 
Block Effective Implementation of the SDI," Fusion, July-Aug. 1985. 

ZENKER'S DEFENSE OF NAZI WAR CRIMINALS: Kurt P. Tauber, Beyond 
Eagle and Swastika: German Nationalism Since 1945 (Middletown, Conn.: 
Wesleyan University Press, 1967), Vol. I, pp. 309-10; Vol. II, pp. 1152-53 (nn. 
VIII, 173-75). 

SCHERER'S DEFENSE OF LAROUCHE: "Poison Weapons of Psychological 
Terror Against Lyndon LaRouche," testimony of Brig. Gen. Paul-Albert Scherer at 
LaRouchian hearings, Sept. 1987, published in EIR, Sept. 25, 1987. 

NAZI SCIENTISTS ABSOLVED OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROLE IN 
WORLD WAR II: LHL, "The Lesson of Nazi Jet Aircraft Development," EIR, Aug. 
11, 1981. 

GLORIFICATION OF PEENEMUNDE: LHL, "The Lesson of Nazi Jet Aircraft 
Development"; Marsha Freeman, "The Truth About the German Rocket 
Scientists: The Men Who Built America's Space Program," NS, four-part series. 
May 20, 1985-June21, 1985. 

LAROUCHE'S FRIENDSHIP WITH EHRICKE: Ken Kelley, "The Interview: The 
World According to Lyndon LaRouche," San Francisco Focus, Nov. 1986, p. 155. 

LAROUCHE PUBLICATIONS DEPICT RUDOLPH AS INNOCENT VICTIM: "ADL 
Spews out Smear Against Eminent German Scientist," NS, Apr. 1985. 

OPPOSITION TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NAZI HUNTERS: "Stop OSI Assault 
on German-American Scientists!," NS, July 1, 1985; "Schiller Meet: Drop OSI, 
Start Crash SDI Effort," NS, June 24, 1985; "Disband the OSI!," NS, July 1, 1985. 



LIST OF MARTYRS EXPANDS: "Demjanjuk Frame-up Flounders as New 
Evidence of KGB Fraud Emerges," EIR, Feb. 5, 1988; "Brief Case Histories of 
Some Recent Examples of KGB Justice Against Some Other American Citizens," 
fact sheet of the International Human Rights Commission, c/o Schiller Institute, 
Nov. 1986. 

PROCEEDINGS OF KRAFFT EHRICKE CONFERENCE: Colonize Space! Open 
the Age of Reason {b\e\N York: New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House, 1985); 
see esp. LHL, "Krafft Ehricke's Enduring Contribution to the Future Generations 
of Global and Interplanetary Civilization," pp. 27-54. 

CITYBUILDING IN SPACE, COSMIC SPIRALS, INSPIRATION FROM NAZI 
SCIENTISTS: LHL, "Design of Cities in the Age of Mars Colonization," EIR, Sept. 
11, 1987. 

DEATH-RAY SEMINAR IN MUNICH: LHL, "Nonlinear Radiation: The True Total 
War," EIR, Sept. 18, 1987. 

CHAPTER ELEVEN 

DEBRA FREEMAN'S 1978 CAMPAIGN: U.S. Labor Party's Freeman Goes to 
Congress: Ending 200 Years of Zionist Trade in Blaci< Commodities, TC special 
report, 1978. 

LAROUCHE'S PLANS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY: "New Hampshire 
Primary Is a Test for the War on Liberalism," NS, Aug. 24, 1 979. 

EARLY SPLASH IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: "'Menace' or Best Bet in N.H.?," Boston 
Globe, Nov. 20, 1979. 

BIZARRE BEHAVIOR DURING PRIMARY: "LaRouche 'Times' Series 'Lies and 
Distortion,'" Manchester Union Leader, Oct. 12, 1980; "LaRouche Says They're 
Trying to Murder Him," Manchester Union Leader, Feb. 2, 1980. 

TARGETING SENIOR CITIZENS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: "LaRouche's N.H. 
Campaign Tactics Assailed," Washington Star, Feb. 23, 1980. 

THEORY OF "CONTAINMENT WALL": LHL, "Keeping a Fixed Identity in a 
Changing World," NCLC internal document, undated, late 1970s. 

CHAPTER TWELVE 

MAYOR KOCH, THE LAROUCHIANS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 
"Barbaro Criticizes Koch for Refusing to Hold One-on-One Debates," New York 
Times, Aug. 27, 1981; U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Lyndon H. 



LaRouche and the Democratic Party," text of speech delivered at IVIount Sinat 
Jewish Center, New York City, IVIar. 23, 1986; IVIoynihan, "The Links Between 
LaRouche and New York Corruption," Op-Ed, New York Times, Apr. 1 , 1 986; 
"For Koch, a Glowing Day," New York Times, Sept. 23, 1 981 . 

NEW YORK TIMES'S TREATMENT OF KLENETSKY: "Klenetsky Calls Koch a 
Special-Interest Tool," New York Times, Aug. 30, 1981 ; "Candidates for Mayor 
on the Issues," New York Times, Sept. 20, 1981 ; "On the Edge in Politics," New 
York Times, Sept. 21 , 1 981 ; "Mad Melvin: The Cult Candidate," Village Voice, 
Sept. 2, 1981. 

NDPC IN BALTIMORE, 1982-83: "Debra Freeman Unmasked," editorial, 
Baltimore Evening Sun, Dec. 9, 1982 (commenting on three-part Evening Sun 
series by Mark Arax on Freeman and the NDPC); Phyllis Orrick, "Gearing for 
Smears: A Look at Local Labor Party Candidates," City Paper (Baltimore), May 
27, 1983. 

NDPC NATIONAL ELECTION ACTIVITY AND INROADS, 1982-1983: What Is 
the NDPC?, NDPC pamphlet, 1983; Warren J. Hamerman, "The LaRouche 
Factor in U.S. Politics: 20%-40% Showing in the Elections," EIR, Jan. 4, 1983; 
Warren J. Hamerman, "Run with the LaRouche Campaign! A Call for Tens of 
Thousands of Citizen Candidates," NS, Oct. 7. 1983. 

NEW YORK SCHOOL BOARD RACE, 1983: Stanley E. Michels and Franz S. 
Leichter, "How New Yorkers Defeated LaRouche," Op-Ed, New York Times, Apr. 
3, 1986. 

SURVEY OF GRASS-ROOTS LAROUCHE SUPPORTERS: John C. Green and 
James L. Guth, "'Who Really Controls Us': A Profile of Lyndon LaRouche's 
Campaign Contributors," unpublished report (Furman University), May 1986. 

LAROUCHE TARGETS THE SPOTLIGHT'S READERSHIP AND OTHER 
RIGHT-WING POPULISTS: LHL, What Every Conservative Should Know About 
Communism (New York: New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House, 1980), pp. v- 
xiii. 

CHAPTER THIRTEEN 

NDPC CAMPAIGNING IN ILLINOIS PRIOR TO PRIMARY: "NDPC Begins 1986 
Campaign with Illinois Slate," NS, Dec. 23, 1985; "Warrior Angels Campaign for 
NDPC in Illinois," NS, Jan. 31, 1986; "LaRouche Illinois Drive Focused on Rural 
Areas," New York Times, Mar. 31, 1986; "Farm Pitch: LaRouche Cultivates Rural 
Support," St. Louis Post Dispatch, Apr. 7, 1986; "The Last Days of the Illinois 
Campaign," NS, Apr. 14, 1986. 



ANALYSIS OF THE LAROUCHE VICTORIES: "Ultraright Victories Scrutinized: 
Voter Frustration May Explain Results," Washington Post, Mar. 26, 1986; "Voters 
Responded to the Economic Issues," NS, Mar. 31,1 986; Tom Johnson, "A 
Report on The LaRouche Factor' in Selected Downstate Counties in the 1986 
Illinois Primary Election," unpublished study prepared for American Jewish 
Committee, Mar. 31, 1986; Rhodes Cook, "LaRouche and His Followers: Angry, 
Noisy and Persistent," Congressional Quarterly, Apr. 5, 1986; "Lyndon LaRouche 
Tackles the Drug Lobby's Media," EIR, Apr. 18, 1986 (text of LHL's Apr. 9, 1986, 
speech before the National Press Club); Robert B. Albritton, "The LaRouche 
Victory in Illinois: An Analysis of the 1986 Democratic Primary Election Returns," 
report commissioned by American Jewish Committee, June 1986. 

CHAPTER FOURTEEN 

NATIONWIDE NDPC RESULTS IN 1986: The 1986 LaRouche Primary 
Campaign: An Analysis, ADL report, Oct. 1986. 

WHITE SUPREMACISTS HAIL LAROUCHE ILLINOIS VICTORIES: Robert 
Miles, "USLP Rides Again," From the Mountain (newsletter), Mar.-Apr. 1986; 
"Populists Hail 'Out Group' Victory," The Spotlight, Mar. 31, 1986. 

OTHER RIGHT-WING GROUPS LEARN FROM LAROUCHE: Leonard Zeskin, 
"Watch for Far Right to Try a Larger Strategy in '88 Elections," The Monitor 
(newsletter of Center for Democratic Renewal), Aug. 1987. 

CHAPTER FIFTEEN 

DUKAKIS MENTAL HEALTH SMEAR: Rowland Evans and Robert Novak, 
"Dukakis Depression Rumors Backfire on Bush Campaign," syndicated column. 
New York Post, Aug. 8, 1988; Anthony Lewis, "The Low Road," New York Times, 
Aug. 28, 1988. 

COALITION CHALLENGES CARTER'S 1976 VICTORY: "U.S. Labor Party, GOP 
Join Forces in 4 Vote Challenges," Washington Post, Nov. 28, 1976. 

SYSTEMATIC ATTEMPT TO WOO GOP AND CONSERVATIVES IN 1976: 
Morton Blackwell, The Right Report, Nov. 19, 1976. 

LAROUCHE'S 1978 POLITICAL PUNDITRY: "LaRouche to Reagan: Build a 
Strong Whig Force," NS, May 19, 1978. 

SAYS REAGAN IS BEST CANDIDATE, ATTACKS BUSH: LHL, "The 
Incompetence of George Bush," front-page editorial, NS, Feb. 2, 1979. 

PREDICTS CONSERVATIVE GROUNDSWELL: NS, Sept. 7, 1979. 



RECOGNIZES THAT REAGAN IS REPUBLICAN FRONT-RUNNER IN NEW 
HAMPSHIRE: NS, Aug. 24, 1979. 

FEARS THAT REAGAN WILL MAKE A "FATAL" PLUNGE INTO THE 
MAINSTREAM: "LaRouche Begins First National Campaign Tour," NS, Aug. 28, 
1979. 

LAROUCHE'S ATTACKS AGAINST BUSH IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: LHL, Is 
Republican George Bush a "Manchurian Candidate"?, Citizens for LaRouche 
campaign leaflet, Jan. 12, 1980; George Canning, "The Bones in Bush's Closet," 
EIR, Jan. 22, 1980. 

IMPACT OF TRILATERAL/SKULL AND BONES ISSUE: James M. Perry, 
"Conspiracy Theorists Point Darkly to Bush as a Trilateralist," Wall Street 
Journal, Feb. 26, 1980. 

"BORAX" SALESMAN. .."MINCEMEAT": LHL, open letter to Democratic National 
Committee, Jan. 4, 1980. 

PAUL CORBIN AND "BRIEFINGATE": Jody Powell, The Other Side of the Story 
(New York: William Morrow, 1984). 

LAROUCHIANS OPPOSE PROBE: Briefingate: The KGB-FBI-Manatt Plot to 
Destroy the U.S. Presidency NDPC pamphlet, 1983. 

EIR INTERVIEWS WITH HIGH OFFICIALS: "Agriculture Secretary Block 
Foresees U.S. Farm Export Push," May 12, 1981; "DOD's DeLauer Talks About 
Technologies," Aug. 25, 1981 ; "Commerce Undersecretary Olmer on Trade and 
Foreign Investment," Aug. 11,1 981 ; "Norman Ture Muses About an Industrial 
Recovery Under Reagan," Aug. 4, 1981 ; "Justice Department's D. Lowell Jensen 
Blasts Drugs and Domestic Terrorism," Apr, 7, 1981 ; "Weidenbaum: 'We Are All 
Monetarists and Supply-Siders,'" Apr. 7, 1981 ; "Senator Hatch Talks About Brilab 
Approach," Mar. 1 0, 1 981 ; "Senator Tower on Military Policy," Jan. 27, 1 981 . 

ATTACKS ON HOLTZMAN AND THE OSI: "The OSI: How Criminals Cloak Their 
Crimes," NS, Aug. 14, 1979; "Justice Dept.'s Bogus Nazi-Hunters," NS, July 31, 
1979. 

ANTI-JERRY BROWN SMEAR CAMPAIGN: Will Wertz, Tom Hayden's CED: 
Brownshirts of the 1980s, Wertz for Senate campaign pamphlet, 1982. 

ARTICLES FROM THE LANDMARK: "Secret Democratic U.S. Senate 
Candidates Revealed," Mar. 29, 1984; "Ouotes from Hunt's New York City 
Fundraisers," Mar. 29, 1984; "Jim Hunt Is Sissy, Prissy, Girlish and Effeminate," 
July 5, 1984; "The Hunt for Senate-Homosexual Connection Is Very Real," Oct. 
25, 1984. 



ATTACKS ON MONDALE AND PASTOR: Worse Than Jimmy Carter? The Facts 
About Mondale, Grenada, and the KGB, NDPC pamphlet, 1983. 

TESTIMONY AT LIBEL TRIAL: LaRouche v. National Broadcasting Company, 
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Civ. Docket No. 84-01 36-A. 

INNIS'S OPINION ON HITLER: Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, The 
New Anti-Semitism {Ney\/ York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), pp. 185-87. 

CHAPTER SIXTEEN 

LAROUCHE'S VIEWS ON PROPAGANDA: LHL, "Woodward's Book on Casey: 
A Blend of Fact and Fiction," EIR, Oct. 16, 1987. 

CALLS REAGAN "PUSSYWHIPPED": James Ridgeway. "Secret Agent Man," 
interview with LHL, Village Voice, Oct. 13, 1987. 

INDIRECT ALLUSIONS TO THE SO-CALLED JEWISH OUESTION: LHL, The 
Pestilence of Usury, NDPC pamphlet, 1981 ; "Bring the Usurers to Justice!," NS, 
Jan. 21, 1983; "Does U.S. Mean Uncle Shylock?," NS, Aug. 12, 1985; "Milton 
Friedman Finally Gets His Pound of Flesh," NS, May 3, 1985. 

CALLS SCHLESINGER "IMP OF EVIL": LHL, "A Ouery to the President: Is 
Jimmy Carter Truly a Christian?," NS, Oct. 13, 1978. 

DRUG-PUSHING ALLEGATION: Konstandinos Kalimtgis et al.. Dope, Inc.: 
Britain's Opium War Against the U.S. (New York: New Benjamin Franklin 
Publishing House, 1978); Moscow's Secret Weapon: Ariel Sharon and the Israeli 
Mafia, EIR special report. Mar. 1, 1986, see esp. pp. 12-21. 

POLLARD PORTRAYED AS TYPICAL OF JEWS IN U.S. GOVERNMENT: 
"Pollard Case: Soviet-Israeli Spies Will Be Exposed," NS, June 13, 1986. 

PURGE OF JEWS FROM U.S. GOVERNMENT DEMANDED: "Pollard Should 
Be Only the Beginning," NS, Mar. 16, 1987. 

JEWS AS POLITICAL AGENTS, NOT JUST SPIES: "Register the Zionist Lobby 
as Foreign Agents!," NS, Sept. 5, 1978. 

ISRAEL "MAIN INTERMEDIARY" IN STEALING SECRETS FOR SOVIETS: 
"Pollard Talks: Mossad Agents in U.S. Govt.," NS, June 16, 1986. 

LAROUCHIANS DENIGRATE THE HOLOCAUST: LHL, "New Pamphlet to 
Document Cult Origins of Zionism," NS, Dec. 8, 1978; Helga Zepp-LaRouche, 
"The Zionists' Holocaust Today," NS, Jan. 26, 1979; Carol White, "Will There Be 
a Next Generation?," NS, Sept. 15, 1978. 



SOOBZOKOV DEFENDED: "Who Is Tscherim Soobzokov, and Who Wants Him 
Dead?," NS, Aug. 26, 1985; "Soobzokov Dies; Blood on Hands of FBI, ADL," NS, 
Sept. 13, 1985. 

WALDHEIM SUPPORTED: "LaRouche Calls Waldheim Affair 'Gigantic Hoax,'" 
EIR, June20, 1986. 

COMMENTS ON BITBURG: "Victory in Germany," NS, May 13, 1985; "The 
Shocking Truth about Simon Wiesenthal," EIR, May 14, 1985. 

ATTACK ON KISSINGER: LHL, Kissinger: The Politics of Faggotry, NCLC 
leaflet, Aug. 3, 1982. 

SAYS HOMOSEXUALITY WAS "ORGANIZED" BY THE OLIGARCHY: LHL, 
"The End of the Age of Aquarius?," EIR, Jan. 1 0, 1 986. 

ALLEGES THAT "SHYLOCKS" ARE BLOCKING ACTION AGAINST AIDS: LHL, 
"Baker Learns Lesson of Merchants of Venice," NS, Oct. 28, 1985. 

HITLER ON SYPHILIS: l\/lein Kampf, trans. Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton 
Mifflin, 1943), pp. 246-57 

AIDS THE SPRINGBOARD FOR A NEW NATIONALISM: "New Solidarity Hits 
100,000 Subscriptions," NS, Aug. 22, 1986. 

HANGING AND BURNING SUGGESTED: LHL, "The End of the Age of 
Aquarius?," pp. 40-41. 

GARY BAUER'S VIEWS ON OUARANTINE: "How to Make America Safe for 
Families," interview. New York Newsday, Aug. 19, 1987. 

LAROUCHE COMMENTS ON GAY-BASHING: LHL, "Teenage Gangs' 
Lynchings of Gays Is Foreseen Soon," NS, Feb. 9, 1987. 

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN 

LAROUCHIAN POLICY OF NAMING NAMES, SUCH AS KISSINGER: "A War- 
winning Strategy," NS, Mar. 21, 1978. 

THE "ZIONIST-BRITISH ORGANISM": "Register the Zionist Lobby as Foreign 
Agents!," NS, Sept. 5, 1978. 

REVIEW OF THE WHITE HOUSE YEARS: LHL, "Henry Kissinger as a Novelist," 
EIR, Nov. 4, 1980. 



KISSINGER'S MASTERS "FAR WORSE THAN HITLER": LHL, The Pestilence of 
Usury, NDPC pamphlet, 1981. 

LEADING NEO-NAZI PRAISES LAROUCHE'S ANTI-KISSINGER CAMPAIGN: 
Robert Miles, From the Mountain (newsletter), May-June 1984, p. 5. 

KISSINGER WATCH ANNOUNCED; AIM IS "CONTROLLED AVERSIVE 
ENVIRONMENT": Mark Burdman, "Dr. K.'s Career Takes a Turn for the Worse," 
EIR, Jan. 4, 1983. 

SURVEILLANCE, PRANKS, AND DEMONSTRATIONS: "The Growing 
Tribulations of Henry Kissinger," NS, Nov. 18, 1982; "From Kissinger's 
Appointment Book," NS, Nov. 12, 1982; "Does Henry Kissinger Have AIDS, at 
60?," NS, June 6, 1983; "Does Dr. Henry Kissinger Still Exist?," NS, June 20, 
1 983; "Henry K. Hops a Catering Truck to Flee Protest," New York Post, Aug. 21 , 
1982; "Briefly," EIR, Nov. 2, 1982; "'Kissinger-Never Again,'" NS, Sept. 26, 1983. 

THE ULTIMATE SMEAR: LHL, Kissinger: The Politics of Faggotry, NCLC leaflet, 
Aug. 3, 1982; "LaRouche Challenges Kissinger to Sue Him," EIR, Aug. 17, 1982. 

KISSINGER INFLUENCE IN WASHINGTON ATTACKED: "Kissinger Behind 
White House Purge," NS, Oct. 21, 1983; Kissinger's Drive to Take Over the 
Reagan Administration, EIR special report, 1983; "Want to Save Lives? Bury 
Kissinger!," NS, June 28, 1985. 

DEATH WISH FOR KISSINGER: "Briefly," EIR, July 6, 1982; Mark Burdman, "Dr. 
K.'s Career Takes a Turn for the Worse"; "Is Henry Going off the Deep End?," 
NS, June 10, 1983; "Koestler Takes His Own Advice; Kissinger to Follow?," NS, 
Mar. 14, 1983. 

ALLEGED CAR-BOMB SUGGESTION: NBC Nightly News, Apr. 7, 1986. 

KISSINGER AND ZIONISM: "Kissinger Mafia Pollute the Holy Land," NS, Mar. 
18, 1983. 

LAROUCHIANS BELIEVE KISSINGER IS OUT TO GET THEM: "Kissinger 
Behind Attacks on LaRouche Organization," NS, Aug. 8, 1983; "Kissinger Seeks 
Revenge," NS, July 13, 1984. 

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN 

SCHERER'S VIEW OF LAROUCHE AS SPYMASTER: "Poison Weapons of 
Psychological Terror Against Lyndon LaRouche," Brig. Gen. Paul-Albert Scherer, 
EIR, Sept. 25, 1987. 



EIR ON IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR: Jeffrey Steinberg, "Billion-Dollar Arms Bust 
Blows Israel's Khomeini Connection," EIR, May 9, 1986; Moscow's Secret 
Weapon: Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Mafia, EIR special report. Mar. 1, 1986. 

LAROUCHE'S 1971 PLAN: LHL, "A Comparative Analysis of Intelligence 
Services," EIR, Dec. 4, 1979. 

SECRET FRENCH GOVERNMENT MEMO: Milton R. Copulos, The LaRouche 
Network, Heritage Foundation report, July 19, 1984. 

RATING OF WORLD SPOOK AGENCIES: LHL, "A Comparative Analysis of 
Intelligence Services." 

"PLODDING PHILISTINES," POETRY vs. SPOOKERY, OUARKS: LHL, "The 
Day the Bomb Went Off," TC, Sept. 1 981 . 

HACK NOVELISTS AS SPOOKS: LM, "Rockefeller's 'Fascism with a Democratic 
Face,'"TC, Nov.-Dec. 1974. 

REVIEW OF THE BOURNE IDENTITY: "The Robert Ludlum Formula," NS, June 
18, 1981. 

POE AN AGENT: LHL, Urgent Reforms of the Criminal-Justice System, NDPC 
report, Feb. 9, 1981. 

SIMILARITIES TO THE IPCRESS FILE: LM, "Rockefeller's 1984 Plot," TC, Feb. 
1974, p. 8. 

CHAPTER NINETEEN 

THEORIES ON GANDHI SLAYING: EIR eds.. Derivative Assassination: Who 
Killed Indira Ganc//?/? (New York: New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House, 
1985). 

VISIT TO TURKEY: "LaRouche Expresses Solidarity with NATO Ally Turkey," 
EIR, Aug. 14, 1987 (includes text of his Ankara press conference). 

LAROUCHE ON MARCOS: Bob Grant Show, WABC-AM Radio, Oct. 8, 1986. 

BLAMING MARCOS'S PROBLEMS ON THE ZIONISTS: Paul Goldstein, 
"President Marcos and General Ver Wage War on Drugs and Terrorism," EIR, 
Jan. 17, 1986. 

POLAND: LHL, "Poland: A Trotskyite Insurrection?," EIR, Sept. 16, 1980; "Don't 
Meddle in Poland," NS, Jan. 25, 1982; "Poland Targeted by Terror Networks," 
EIR, Aug. 17, 1982. 



GUATEMALA: Jeffrey Steinberg et al., Soviet Unconventional Warfare in Ibero- 
America: The Case of Guatemala, EIR special report, Aug. 15, 1985. 

SOUTH AFRICA, MID-1980S: "The Fraud of the New Anti-Apartheid Drive," EIR, 
Jan. 8, 1985; "Botha: 'Apartheid Is Outdated, and We Have Outgrown It,'" EIR, 
Feb. 14, 1986; "So. Africa Strikes at ANC Terrorists," EIR, May 30, 1986; "South 
Africa's Great Task: A 'Grand Design' for All of Africa," EIR, June 20, 1986. 

NCLC ASPIRES TO AN ALLIANCE WITH THE BROEDERBOND: "The 
Rembrandt Factor," NCLC internal document, Oct. 19, 1977; "Interim Report on 
Humanist and Pro-Development Tendencies in South Africa," NCLC internal 
document, Jan. 19, 1978. 

PROMOTING SOUTH AFRICA'S INTERESTS: Peace Through Development in 
Southern Africa, TC special report, 1978; "Summary of South Africa's Economic 
Potential for Development," NCLC internal document, late 1970s. 

PLANS FOR SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENCE GATHERING: LM, "Functions of the 
Science Section," ICLC internal document, Jan. 4, 1975. 

INDIRECT MONITORING BY GOVERNMENT: LHL, "Security: KGB Footprints 
Around Computron," ICLC internal document, Jan. 23, 1981. 

GOLDSTEIN WORRIES ABOUT INCIDENT IN SOVIET UNION: "Background 
Profile on KGB Connection," NCLC security memo, Jan. 19, 1981. 

BREZHNEV OBITUARY: "Leonid Brezhnev (1906-82): Nation Builder," NS, Nov. 
18, 1982. 

CHAPTER TWENTY 

FASCISM REOUIRES HIGH-LEVEL SPONSORS: LM, "The Conceptual History 
of the Labor Committees," TC, Oct. 1974, p. 25. 

CRITICIZES CUTBACKS AT LANGLEY: LHL, "In Defense of the Central 
Intelligence Agency," NS, Dec. 1, 1978. 

URGES A PARALLEL ORGANIZATION: LHL, "The CIA~Only a Caretaker 
Force," EIR, Oct. 10, 1978. 

URGES INCREASED AUTHORITY FOR CIA: LHL, The Case of Walter 
L/ppmann (New York: Campaigner Publications, 1977), pp. 178-80. 

DEPOSITION OFJEFFREY STEINBERG: June 6, 1984, LaRouche v. NBC, U.S. 
District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Civ. Docket No. 84-01 36-A. 



BARDWELL ON NCLC'S ALLEGED GOVERNMENT CONNECTIONS: Steve 
Bardwell, "Third Rome Hypothesis," ICLC internal document, Jan. 13, 1984. 

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE 

FRANKHOUSER'S 1975 TRIAL: U.S.A. v. Roy Frankhouser, U.S. District Court, 
Philadelphia, Crim. Docket No. 74-1 01 --see esp. testimony of Edward N. Slamon 
and his ATF memoranda filed with the court; "Informer's Trial: He Says Uncle 
Sam Was His Partner in Crime," Washington Star, Sept. 15, 1975; "How 
Klansman Became a U.S. Agent," Philadelphia Inquirer, July 13, 1975. 

FRANKHOUSER'S DECEPTION OF THE NCLC: U.S.A. v. The LaRouche 
Campaign etal., U.S. District Court, Massachusetts, Crim. Docket No. 86-323-K, 
Proffer Pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act, Aug. 1987; John 
Mintz, "Sifting the Truth from Informers on LaRouche," Washington Post, Oct. 26, 
1986. 

BARDWELL'S SKEPTICISM: Steve Bardwell, "Third Rome Hypothesis," ICLC 
internal document, Jan. 13, 1984. 

PICK'S ALLEGATION ABOUT GOLDSTEIN: NBC Nightly News, Apr. 7, 1986. 

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO 

STALIN AND TROTSKY ARTICLES: LHL, "The Ouestion of Stalinism Today," 
TC, Nov. 1975; LM and K. Ghandi, "The Passion and Second Coming of L.D. 
Trotsky," TC, Summer 1974. 

LAROUCHE ON THE POTENTIAL EXPLOSIVENESS OF HIS CIA 
CONNECTION: LHL, "Woodward's Book on Casey: A Blend of Fact and Fiction," 
EIR, Oct. 16, 1987. 

JUDGE ROBERT KEETON RULES ON CIA DEFENSE AND THE EMERSON 
PROBLEM: U.S.A. v. The LaRouche Campaign etal., U.S. District Court, 
Massachusetts, Crim. Docket No. 86-323-K, Memorandum and Order, Apr. 8, 
1988. 

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE 

AGENT PROFILES: LM, "Psychological Profile of a Model CIA Agent," NCLC 
internal document, Aug. 19, 1974. 

HAMERMAN DEFINES SECURITY'S MISSION: Warren Hamerman, "What Are 
the Labor Committees and the Labor Parties?," in l-low the Labor Party Is 
Organized to Win, USLP pamphlet, 1976. 



"ANTI-SEMITIC JEWS": Howard Blum and Paul L. Montgomery, "One Man 
Leads U.S. Labor Party on Its Erratic Path," New York Times, Oct. 8, 1979. 

CHARLES TATE'S TESTIMONY: USA v. Roy Frankhouser, U.S. District Court, 
Massachusetts, Crim. Docket No. 86-323-K, Nov. 2-4, 1987. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE "COVER": "LaRouche Says His Supporters Take Covert 
Roles in Campaign," New York Times, Feb. 1 6, 1 980. 

CANON WEST: "Knight of Malta Admits Campaign Against USLP," NS, Dec. 12, 
1978. 

MASOUERADING AS JOURNALISTS: Patricia Lynch, "Is Lyndon LaRouche 
Using Your Name?," Columbia Journalism Review, Mar./Apr. 1985. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE "TARGET LIST": "Harassing Telephone Calls Linked to 
Campaign in New Hampshire," New York Times, Mar. 1 , 1 980. 

SMEARS AND OTHER HARASSMENT OF JOURNALISTS: John Mintz, "Critics 
of LaRouche Group Hassled, Ex-Associates Say," Washington Post, Jan. 14, 
1985. 

DEPOSITION OF JEFFREY STEINBERG: June 6, 1984, LaRouche v. NBC, 
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Civ. Docket No. 84-01 36-A. 

DEAD CATS: Transcript of NBC First Camera, Mar. 4, 1984. 

PLANS FOR HARASSING ADL: "Security-Legal Memorandum: NDPC-ADL 
Counteroperations-Make the ADL Pay Everywhere," NCLC internal document. 
Mar. 7, 1984. 

EGAN'S TESTIMONY: Bond hearing of Jeffrey and Michelle Steinberg, Oct. 9, 
1986, USA V. Jeffrey Steinberg et al., U.S. District Court, Massachusetts, Crim. 
Docket No. 86-323-K; Violation No. 86-1379-M (Alexandria, Va.). 

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR 

MEETINGS WITH POLICE IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST: "'Radical' Group Spies 
on Left," Seattle Sun, Oct. 27, 1976. 

SURGICAL ACTION: LHL, U.S. Labor Party Security Services (sales brochure), 
July 15, 1978. 

NCLC'S LAW ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY: "Two Approaches to the Law 
Enforcement Crisis," EIR, Apr. 14, 1981. 



DEFENDING THE LOS ANGELES PDID: "The Conspiracy to Destroy Law 
Enforcement: The Case of the LAPD," Investigative Leads, 1980. 

NCLC ADMITS IT COOPERATES WITH POLICE: "Plaintiffs Memorandum in 
Support of Motion to Enjoin Release," LaRouche v. Webster, U.S. District Court, 
Southern District of New York, 75 Civ. 6010, 1978. 

CLAMSHELL ALLIANCE: "Two in Labor Party Cited as Police Source," Concord 
Monitor, June 9, 1977; "Strange Bedfellows: Thomson and USLP," Boston 
Phoenix, June 14, 1977. 

FBI SAYS REPORTS ARE "FABRICATED": Edward Spannaus, "The 
Documentary History of FBI Operations Against Lyndon LaRouche and the 
NCLC," Part III, NS, July 18, 1983 (quotes from FBI documents received under 
FOIA). 

FIGHTING THE COUNTERCULTURE: "Cleaning Up the Filth," NS, June 25, 
1981; LHL, Special Anti-terrorist Information Report, NSIPS, May 10, 1979, p. 11. 

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE 

WILLIAM BUNDY OUOTED: Howard Blum and Paul L. Montgomery, "U.S. Labor 
Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy," New York Times, Oct, 7, 1979. 

LEVY AND NCLC: Transcript of NCLC interview with Levy, Dec. 1 981 (NCLC 
internal document); "Mordechai Levy: The Profile of Mossad Hit Teams," in 
Moscow's Secret Weapon: Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Mafia, EIR special report, 
Mar. 1, 1986. 

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX 

DUPONT'S WAR AGAINST ROY COHN: Now East, July and Dec. 1980; 
"Profiles of the Times," Oct. 24, 1982; Nicholas von Hoffman, Citizen Cohn (New 
York: Doubleday, 1988); People v. Dupont, New York State Supreme Court, New 
York County, Crim. Docket No. 4995/80. 

ROGER STONE'S LETTER: "Judge Releases Cohn Foe," Village Voice, Nov. 
25, 1981. 

NCLC'S REACTION TO MEDIA'S OUTRAGE: "Is N.Y. Times Hanging Roy Cohn 
Out to Dry?," NS, Nov. 5, 1982. 

ATTACKS ON MORGENTHAU: Is the District Attorney the Biggest Crook in 
Town?, NCLC leaflet, 1 982; "Is Morgenthau a Terrorist Sympathizer or Just His 



Wife?," NS, Dec. 6, 1982; "NCLC Motion Rattles 'Get LaRouclie' Prosecutor," 
NS, Dec. 10, 1982. 

ATTEMPTS TO INTIMIDATE ABRAMS' OFFICE: "Homosexual Coven Runs 
N.Y. Attorney General's Office," NS, Aug. 4, 1986; "Roy Cohn's Last Vendetta: 
Alliance with the Dope Lobby," NS, Aug. 11,1 986. 

CHAPTER TWENTY-SEVEN 

PURLOINED LETTER: LHL, "A Machiavellian Solution for Israel," TC, Mar. 1978, 
p. 8. 

ROLE OF DECEPTION AND CONCEALMENT IN HISTORY AND 
PHILOSOPHY: LHL, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," TC, May- 
June 1978; LHL, "Wall Street's Un-reformed Drunks," NS, Mar. 7, 1978; LHL, 
"What Is a Humanist Academy?," TC, Sept.-Oct. 1978; LHL, "A Machiavellian 
Solution for Israel." 

"NOT NECESSARY TO CALL ONESELF A FASCIST TO BE A FASCIST": LHL, 
"Solving the Machiavellian Problem Today," NS, July 7, 1978. 

AVOIDING "MORAL SHOCK": "Machiavelli's Notebook: More Crimes Covered 
Up by Euphemisms," New York-New Jersey Prosecutor (NCLC regional 
newspaper), Sept. 29, 1986. 

WORD GAMES: LHL, The Case of Walter Lippmann (New York: Campaigner 
Publications, 1977). 

TWISTING CUSTOMARY MEANINGS OF WORDS: LHL, Lippmann, p. 76. 

IRONY AND PUNNING: LHL, Lippmann, pp. 76-77. 

"NOMINALIST" PUNS: LHL, Lippmann, pp. 54, 69, 85. 

DISLIKE OF OCCAM: LHL, Lippmann, p. 54. 

GERMAN RIGHTIST DECEPTIONS: Kurt P. Tauber, Beyond Eagle and 
Swastika: German Nationalism Since 1945, 2 vols. (Middletown, Conn.: 
Wesleyan University Press, 1967). 

CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT 

ALLEGED "KERNEL of TRUTH" IN THE PROTOCOLS: LHL, "New Pamphlet to 
Document Cult Origins of Zionism," NS, Dec. 8, 1978. 



CONSPIRACY THEORY OF OLIGARCHS VERSUS HUMANISTS: LHL, "The 
Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," TC, May-June 1978. 

ATLANTIS: LHL, "The New Outline of History," NS, Feb. 9, 1979; LHL, "The 
Truth Concerning Pre-Christian Cultures," NS, Mar. 23, 1979; LHL, "Beneath the 
Waters of Chappaquiddick," Part II, NS, Jan. 26, 1979. 

OLIGARCHS WROTE OLD TESTAMENT: LHL, "Solving the Machiavellian 
Problem Today," NS. July 7, 1978. 

THE EVIL PERSIANS: LHL, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," pp. 
16-20. 

ALLEGED JEWISH POWER IN ANCIENT BABYLON AND PERSIA: Houston 
Stewart Chamberlain, Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I (New York: 
Howard Fertig [repr.], 1968), pp. 458-63; Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the 
West, Vol. II (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928), p. 209. 

EVIL DIONYSIAN CULTS: LHL, "What Is a Humanist Academy?," TC, Sept.-Oct. 
1978; LHL, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," pp. 20-24. 

ISIS AND MODERN ISRAEL: Mark Burdman, "How Britain's Biggest Racists 
Created Zionism," TC, Dec. 1978, pp. 38-39. 

ROSENBERG'S VIEW OF ANCIENT CULTS: Alfred Rosenberg, The Myth of the 
Twentieth Century {Torrance, Calif.: Noontide Press, 1982); Dionysios: p. 17; 
Isis: pp. 149, 235. 

ROLE OF PIERLIONI FAMILY AND OTHER ROMAN BANKERS IN MEDIEVAL 
EUROPE: LHL, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," pp. 32-33; LHL, 
"Two Global Conspiracies," NS, Nov. 18, 1977. 

THE OLD MAN OF THE MOUNTAIN: LHL, "How to Analyze and Uproot 
International Terrorism," NS, Feb. 17, 1978. 

FREDERICK BARBAROSSA: "The German Constitutional State and Terrorism," 
manifesto of the European Labor Party, TC, Feb. 1978, pp. 36-37. 

BEMOANING OF RACIAL DECLINE: LHL, "The Looming Extinction of the 'White 
Race,'" EIR, May 21, 1985. 

ATLANTIS AND THE ARYAN RACE: LHL, "The New Outline of History"; 
Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, pp. 4-5; LHL, The Toynbee 
Factor in British Grand Strategy, EIR special report, 1982. 



LAROUCHE ON STRUGGLE BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND LOAN CAPITAL: 
LM, Dialectical Economics {Lex\ng\on, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1975). 

SPENGLER'S STRUGGLE OF THE TWO ELITES: The Decline of the West, Vol. 
II, p. 506. 

CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE 

NAZI OBSESSION WITH A BRITISH-JEWISH CONSPIRACY: Mein Kampf 
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1943), p. 637; Himmler quoted in Bradley F. Smith, 
Heinrich Himmler: A Nazi in the Making, 1900-1926 (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover 
Institution Press, 1971), p. 166; Alfred Rosenberg, The Myth of the Twentieth 
Century {Torrance, Calif.: Noontide Press, 1982), p. 414; World-Battle quoted in 
Peter Viereck, Meta-Politics: The Roots of the Nazi Mind {He^N York: Capricorn 
Books, 1965), pp. 307-8; Joseph Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, ed. and trans. 
Louis P. Lochner (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1948), pp. 285-86 (entry for 
Dec. 19, 1942). 

POPULIST OBSESSION WITH BRITISH-JEWISH PLOT: Richard Hofstadter, 
The Age of Reform (New York: Vintage, 1955), pp. 70-93. 

LAROUCHE'S APPARENT SOURCE FOR HIS THEORIES ABOUT THE 
"BRITISH": "Cincinnatus," War! War! War!, 3d ed. (Metairie, Louisiana: Sons of 
Liberty, 1984). 

"BRITISH" DEFINED AS BEING IDENTICAL WITH WEALTHY BRITISH JEWS: 
LHL, The Case of Walter Lippmann (New York: Campaigner Publications, 1977), 
p. 13; LHL, "Anti-Dirigism Is British Tory Propaganda," NS, Feb. 3, 1978. 

STAR OF DAVID ILLUSTRATION: LHL, "Mickey Mouse & Pluto Move to 
Washington," NS, Oct. 17, 1978. 

CONSPIRACY OF COSMOPOLITAN FAMILIES: LHL, "How to Analyze and 
Uproot International Terrorism," NS, Feb. 17, 1978. 

KICK THE BRITISH OUT OF WASHINGTON: LHL, "The Fitness to Command," 
NS, Feb. 14, 1978. 

"ZIONIST-BRITISH ORGANISM": "Register the Zionist Lobby as Foreign 
Agents!," NS, Sept. 5, 1978. 

ROTHSCHILDS CONTROL BRITAIN: Christopher R. White, The Noble Family 
TC special report, 1978, p. 14. 

CHAPTER THIRTY 



RACIAL DOCTRINES: LM, Dialectical Economics {Lex\ng{on, Mass.: D. C. 
Heath, 1 975), pp. 90-91 , 457; LHL, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," 
TC, May-June 1978, p. 50. 

THE HIGHER REALITY THE BRITISH CANT COMPREHEND: "The Death of 
Aldo Moro: The Time for Justice Has Come," Part II, NS, May 16, 1978. 

PARASITE AND HOST: LHL, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," p. 
64. 

BRITISH A "LOWER ORDER OF MENTALITY": LHL, "The Death of Aldo Moro: 
The Time for Justice Has Come," Part II. 

BRITISH A "PACK OF ANIMALS": LHL, "That Zoo Called The House of Lords,'" 
NS, Dec. 29, 1978. 

AVOWED ENEMIES OF HUMAN SPECIES: LHL, "How to Analyze and Uproot 
International Terrorism," NS, Feb. 17, 1978. 

ALLEGED "SENSUAL APPETITES": LHL, "The Truth Concerning Pre-Christian 
Cultures," NS, Mar. 23, 1979. 

BRITISH AN ALIEN SPECIES: Christopher R. White, The Noble Family, TC 
special report, 1 978, pp. 4,11. 

"POTENTIAL DESTROYER" OF THE OLIGARCHS: LHL, "The Elite That Can't 
Think Straight," EIR, Oct. 17, 1978, p. 56. 

DESTROY THE BRITISH SO HUMANITY MIGHT LIVE: White, The Noble 
Family, p. 31. 

CHINESE: LM, "What Happened to Integration?," TC, Aug. 1975, p. 26. 

AMERICAN BLACKS: LHL, The Case of Walter Lippmann (New York: 
Campaigner Publications, 1977), p. 144. 

PUERTO RICANS: LM, "What Happened to Integration?," p. 40; LM, "The 
Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party," TC, Nov. 1973. 

ITALIANS AND IRISH: LM, "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach," TC, Dec. 1973, pp. 
32-33. 

TRIBAL PEOPLES: LHL, "The Truth Concerning Pre-Christian Cultures." 

ANNEXATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN AND MEXICAN TERRITORY: LHL, 
Lippmann, p. 30. 



RUSSIANS AS SUBHUMANS: LHL, "Ivan Grozny, Timur Timofeev Is a Boyar," 
NS. May 30, 1978. 

MOUNT ATHOS: "Bomb the 'Holy Mountain,'" EIR, Feb. 21 , 1 986. 

ALLEGED ULTIMATE GOAL OF LAROUCHE'S LIFE: LHL, The Power of 
Reason (New York: New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House, 1979), p. 194. 

CHAPTER THIRTY-ONE 

TYCOON THEORY: LHL, "Shoe Data Processing Comes of Age," undated 
report. 

CRIMINAL CONDITIONING THEORY: LHL, "How to Profile the Terrorist 
Infrastructure," EIR, Sept. 26, 1978. 

CONFRONTATIONAL FUNDRAISING TACTICS: Howard Blum and Paul L. 
Montgomery, "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy." New York 
Times, Oct. 7, 1979. 

LAROUCHE ANALYZES LABOR COSTS: LHL, "Economic-Valuation Budgetary 
Standards," ICLC internal document, Jan. 15, 1981. 

KALIMTGIS THREATENS TO GO BEFORE A GRAND JURY: Konstandinos 
Kalimtgis, "Open Letter to Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.," Jan. 26, 1981. 

COMPUTRON BANKRUPTCY: In the Matter of Computron, U.S. Bankruptcy 
Court, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 81 -B-1 04-77. 

LAROUCHE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL BURNOUT: LHL, "Organizational Aspects 
of Financial Management," NCLC internal document, July 25, 1 981 . 

ALLEGED FINANCIAL SCAMS DURING 1980 CAMPAIGN: Bank Bumiputra 
Malaysia Berhad v. D. Stephen Pepper, New York State Supreme Court, County 
of New York, Civ. Docket No. 1 0750-81 ; John J. Parker et al. v. Pepper Fine Arts 
etai, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, Civ. Docket No. 12046- 
84. 

CHAPTER THIRTY-TWO 

REPORT ON FINANCIAL STRUCTURE: How the Labor Party Is Organized to 
Win, NCLC/USLP pamphlet, 1976. 

"PROPRIETARY" RELATIONSHIP, SHADOWS, FOOTPRINTS: LHL, What Are 
the Labor Committees Today?, ICLC pamphlet, Dec. 1979. 



LERNER'S ALLEGATIONS: Affidavit of Eric Lerner, IVIay 29, 1979, Gilbertson v. 
Lerner, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, Civ. Docket No. 
09564-79. 

NCLC'S FINANCES GO "UNDERGROUND": "Financial Warfare Against the 
NCLC, Report No. 1," NCLC internal document, Sept. 23, 1978. 

WERTZ'S POEMS: "The Cathedrals," NS, Nov. 25, 1985; "From the Sling of 
David," NS, Dec. 20, 1985; "Sling of David," NS, Dec. 27, 1985. 

THE "ART" OF CREDIT-CARD FRAUD: Complaint and Jury Demand, July 28, 
1 986, First Fidelity Banl< v. LaRouctie et al., U.S. District Court, New Jersey, Civ. 
Docket No. 86-2938. 

CHAPTER THIRTY-THREE 

MARGARET BEYNEN CASE: Declaration of Margaret Beynen, Oct. 9, 1986, 
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Civil Docket No. 86-5820. 

RIP-OFFS OF ELDERLY, AN OVERVIEW: CBS's West 57th (news program), 
Oct. 10, 1987. 

ELIZABETH ROSE TRANSFORMED INTO HEROINE: "Elizabeth Rose Blasts 
'Reign of Terror' Against Elderly in U.S.," NS, Nov. 7. 1986; "Elizabeth Rose 
Inspires Audiences," NS, Dec. 19, 1986; "Patriotic 84-Year-Old Begins Tour for 
Seniors' Rights," NS, Nov. 24, 1986. 

HELGA ON FINANCIAL "LOGISTICS": Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ICLC daily 
briefing, Aug. 22, 1986. 

CHAPTER THIRTY-FOUR 

LAROUCHE'S THEORY OF LINKS BETWEEN SPOOKS AND CROOKS: LHL, 
Tlie Case of Walter Lippmann (New York: Campaigner Publications, 1977), pp. 
134-35. 

CIARDELLI'S DRUG CONNECTION: Mike Royko, "They Hate Drug Pushers, 
But...," Chicago Tribune, Apr. 21 , 1 986. 

NCLC ANALYSIS OF THE DRUG TRAFFIC: Konstandinos Kalimtgis et al.. 
Dope, Inc.: Britain's Opium War Against the U.S. (New York: New Benjamin 
Franklin Publishing House, 1978). 

NCLC THEORIES ON MONEY LAUNDERING: David Goldman, "What Does the 
NSA Know About Dirty Money?," NS, Aug. 21 , 1 979. 



THE ROVING DECIMAL POINT: Bank of Nova Scotia v. NCLC, New York State 
Supreme Court, New York County, Civ. Docket No. 02829-77; "The Drug Banks 
Heist $350,000 from LaRouche Organization," NS, Nov. 7, 1978. 

CHAPTER THIRTY-FIVE 

LAROUCHIAN DEALINGS WITH TEAMSTERS: "LaRouche Cult Linked to 
Teamsters," Our Town, Dec. 23, 1979, and "Teamsters for LaRouche," Our 
Town, Jan. 27, 1980; Douglas Foster, "Teamster Madness," Mother Jones, Jan. 
1982. 

NCLC ARTICLES GLORIFYING VIOLENCE: "Teamsters Debate PROD," NS, 
Aug. 11, 1978; "Ken Paff--Khomeini's Man in U.S. Labor Movement," NS, Feb. 9, 
1981. 

ANTI-SEMITISM: LHL, "Jack Anderson and the Gang That Killed Hoffa," in The 
Gang That Killed Hoffa, TC special report, 1978. 

BACKGROUND ON McMASTER: Dan E. Moldea, The Hoffa Wars (New York: 
Paddington Press, 1978). 

LAROUCHE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND THE TEAMSTERS: "The Big Lie 
Bites Back," Convoy, July-Aug. 1979; LHL, "Open Letter to IBT Pres. 
Fitzsimmons," and TCELP, "Teamster Committee: 'No Time to Be Scared,'" NS, 
Extra, June 22, 1979; "IBT Denies Supporting U.S. Labor Party Candidates," 
International Teamster, July 1979. 

NCLC CALLS FOR FIGHT AGAINST AFL-CIO ZIONISTS: NS, Sept. 8 and Sept. 
26, 1978. 

CHAPTER THIRTY-SIX 

"HAVE A HUNDRED-DOLLAR BILL": LHL, "Top-Level Dope, Inc. Control of 
Dalto Conclusively Proven," ICLC internal document, Nov. 4, 1981. 

MAYER MORGANROTH'S BACKGROUND: "Florida Lawyer's Role in Teamster 
Loans Being Investigated by Justice Department," Wall Street Journal, Nov. 14, 
1977; Dan E. Moldea, The Hoffa Wars (New York: Paddington Press, 1978). 

CHAPTER THIRTY-SEVEN 

GOOD AND BAD MOBSTERS: LHL, "The Mafia in U.S. Life," ICLC internal 
document, Nov. 1, 1981. 



ANTI-BRILAB LITERATURE: The Justice Department Stands Trial, NDPC 
pamphlet, 1981 ; Brilab-Abscam: Union-Busting in America, Committee Against 
Brilab and Abscam pamphlet, 1980. 

PROVENZANO FAMILY DEFENDED: NS, Apr. 16, 1981; May 7, 1981; May 21, 
1981. 

FRANK SHEERAN DEFENDED: NS, Apr. 13, 1981; Apr. 16, 1981; May 18, 
1981. 

INTERVIEW WITH ORRIN HATCH: "Senator Hatch Talks About Brilab 
Approach," EIR, Mar. 10, 1981. 

CABA IN HOUSTON: "Committee Against Brilab, Abscam: Controversy Swirling 
Around Group's Tactics in Fighting 'Conspiracy,'" Houston Post, Dec. 7, 1980. 

ALLEGED "ARRAY OF MAFIOSO CONNECTIONS": "FBI Cointelpro Against 
LaRouche on Trial in Detroit," NS, Jan. 24, 1986. 

DETROIT SPLIT: Joe Conason, "Is LaRouche's Cult Collapsing?," Village Voice, 
Nov. 11, 1981. 

"DOPE-SOAKED TEETH": "Max Fisher-United Brands Behind Detroit-Centered 
Operation," ICLC internal document, Nov. 5, 1981. 

"'MAFIA VIOLENCE' AURA": LHL, "Top-Level Dope, Inc. Control of Dalto 
Conclusively Proven," ICLC internal document, Nov. 4, 1981. 

THREATS TO DALTO: "Dalto May Be Killed by Mafia Soon," ICLC internal 
document, Nov. 1, 1981. 

CHAPTER THIRTY-EIGHT 

ANNOYANCE AT IBT LEADERSHIP: "Teamster Stupidity," NS, Jan. 25, 1982. 

SUPPORT FOR NORIEGA: Wliite Paper on tlie Panama Crisis: Wlio's Out to 
Destabilize the U.S. Ally, and Why, EIR special report, 1986; "State Department 
Plots with Nazis to Destroy Panama," EIR, Mar. 21, 1986; "U.S. Caught Backing 
Mob 'Democrats' in Panama," EIR, June 27, 1986. 

NORIEGA SPEECH: Manuel Noriega, "The Military's Role in Securing 
Democracy," EIR, Mar. 7, 1986. 

ATTITUDE TO SPADAFORA MURDER: "From the Editor," EIR, Mar. 7, 1986. 



BLANDON TESTIMONY: Hearing on Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign 
Policy: Panama, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, Feb. 9, 1988. 

PARNTHER SPEAKS AT LAROUCHIAN GATHERING: "International Panel 
Blasts Persecution of LaRouche," EIR, Sept. 18, 1987 (photo of Parnther at this 
event, EIR, Sept. 25, 1987, p. 37). 

EIR'S RESPONSE TO BLANDON TESTIMONY: "Jose Blandon Paid to Lie," 
EIR, Feb. 19, 1988.