Because the philosophy of Lyndon LaRouche is far too vast to contain within a series of books (let alone a diary entry), I will instead share my personal tale. I had been aware of LaRouche for many years. He was the crazy old man who would occasionally appear on Indy radio programs warning of imminent financial collapse or making claims that seemed-to me-over the top. The Washington post and WSJ writers are quick to quote LaRouche’s accusation that the Queen of England runs a drug cartel or that a Soviet spy had infiltrated the ranks of his organization. Everyone has heard the stories about his cult-like followers being brainwashed. LaRouche's incarceration (and of many of his associates at the same time) also is proof that he is a criminal to soeme (although those who study the case see political prisoner-for President Bush had a notebook on LaRouche in the Oval Office as found by a court subpeana). Very few get past these out-of-context attacks. Even Dave Barry and the Simpson’s have had numerous references to LaRouche as a quack-surely no one could possibly take the man serious?

That was until I came across an article on his site about the coming dollar collapse. For the last five years my #1 area of study had been investing in gold and natural resource stocks in preparation for what seems to be the inevitable fall of the US currency amid a long list of compounding factors. I had already come to the conclusion that mainstream economists did not understand the complex issues involved. I had been reading a short list of more alternative financial views in the resource investing community, but none had any solution to the problems (just services they sold so that you could get rich on the crash). The article I stumbled across-written by LaRouche personally-had confirmed all that I had come to believe, but LaRouche’s level of scholarly insight had gone decades beyond my personal studies. In addition to the insight about the problems, LaRouche was the first person to offer a solution to the United States (and the world in turn) whereas everyone else simply described the problems.

I was so impressed by the depth of LaRouche that I set out to study the larger philosophical views on science, philosophy, economics and culture that LaRouche espoused until I could either confirm or disprove the man and his associates. This led me on a journey that I am now only five months into. I have read several books by LaRouche and I have listened to at least 100 hours of audio lectures his organization has put online free-of charge located at:

http://wlym.com/mp3/

With videos of lectures located at:

http://wlym.com/...

I have gained more insight about science, politics, economics, art and music from these lectures in the last five months that I had received in two decades of formal education. But what I found when I dug into LaRouche’s actual philosophy was not so easy to brush off as the ramblings of a crazy 84 year old man. It encompassed all of the philosophers and mathematicians that LaRouche advocates (Plato, Nicolas de Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, Cantor). LaRouche is simply taking an entire lineage of philosophy that stands in opposition to the Aristotelian tradition (of Aristotle, Galileo, the Empiricists like John Locke and George Berkeley, Newton, Kant, the existentialists, Bertrand Russell, Von Newman, Leo Strauss, Noam Chomsky, and 99% of the university professors who only represent this group). Go to any big-box bookstore and you will see only Plato represented () of the formerly lineage mentioned. All of the books you will see, aside from Plato, are all representatives of the later lineage. The same can be said of modern educations in science, history and philosophy.

Very few are aware of things advocated by LaRouche. I will provide 8 very abstracted examples (with links to lectures for more info):

1. Nicolas de Cusa was the pivotal figure that started the Italian Renaissance and was key to Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci and Kepler (who called Cusa inspired in the first paragraph of Kepler’s first published work). I-like most-had not even heard of Cusa despite my lifelong interest in the Renaissance painters.[More Info]

2. The fathers of the American Revolution based their philosophies on many people (they were highly educated), but Leibniz’s essays on statecraft were of the greatest importance to people like Benjamin Franklin (who would stay with top Leibnizian Kesstner during trips to Europe). The phrase of the pursuit of happiness is Leibniz’s in opposition to empiricist and slave-advocate John Locke’s pursuit of property (of which humans of all races were included as possessions).[More info]

3. The economic system of the founding fathers was the antithesis of Adam Smith. Smith worked for the British Oligarchs who sought to bankrupt the colonies. Alexander Hamilton, Henry Carey and others fought the British system of central banking (which they associated with slavery) in opposition to what they called The American System. Today the "American System" is not taught, but it was the central debate of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Today the world has fallen back under a British oligarchical system despite FDR’s massively successful efforts to reverse this trend.[More Info]

4. Karl Marx and Adam Smith are both part of the same Hobbesnian (British economic) tradition. This tradition sees man as an animal without the ability to surmount limited resource issues. The Marx/Smith debate is a false distraction to LaRouche who rejects both of them. LaRouche sees man as a higher, cognitive being (based on Vernadsky’s Principles) that can overcome any resource scarcity through technology. LaRouche in the ultimate optimist in this way, but he also adds that if you do not continually improve culture, it will inevitably fall. This is why he wars of the (likely) coming Dark Age. Modern economics assumes the Malthusian ideas which are polar opposites of LaRouche’s view.[More Info]

5. Newton was a fraud. Radical empiricism (which is the leading dogma in colleges today) is likewise. Those who offered a system of thinking in the tradition of Plato (such as Leibniz) are purposely not taught today.[More Info]

6. The Euclidian and Cartesian systems of math and geometry further advocated by Euler and Lagrange were a major step backwards for human development. Most philosophies taught today such as Kant are based on these mathematical/logical systems. The mathematicians that LaRouche bases his economic philosophy on (such as Gauss, Riemann, and Cantor) have utterly destroyed Euclidian Geometry. All modern scientific developments have been small steps or simply rediscoveries of the mathematical and philosophical breakthroughs of the later group.[More Info, or This Series on Math]

7. Classical Art, particularly the music of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are among humanity’s greatest scientific achievements. The scientific principles understood and exercised by these musicians are the key to saving modern economies and governments through culture.[More info]

8. While LaRouche is a FDR-style democrat he is very critical of harmful elements in the democratic party that are just as bad as elements most liberals are aware of in the conservative movements. He is critical of many democratic financers who he sees as colleagues of republican financers. He is critical of Dean and Lieberman and the DLC. He is extremely critical of the rotting from within the democratic party in the period after WWII that had disdain for the working class. He cites Truman as an example of a fascist element of the democratic party. He sees the "evil" influence of those such as Bertrand Russell as central to understanding these intellectual battles. [More info]

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what LaRouche and his organization represent. Their goal is to prevent society from falling into a Dark Age by restoring the culture. They believe that the view of man (as a higher being than an animal) is central to the debate. The enemy of the LaRouche organization is Sophistry-which led to the fall of the Greeks. This is why Plato is perhaps the most important element of LaRouche’s philosophy. He goes much deeper than liberal/conservative and demonstrates how many who consider themselves liberal are actually similiar to neocons in their belief that people just animals or that might makes right (just perhaps a softer or more compassionate version of this Hobbnesain view).

I am well aware of many previous discussions of LaRouche on these blogs that seemed to only be a superficial examination without any real thorough understanding of his philosophies. Who among you has a deep enough understanding of LaRouche to continue this discussion-whether you refute or agree with his ideas and perspectives on history? I have seen so many on this blog dismiss LaRouchians, but who can refute their ideas?