Daniel Burke and the LaRouche Cult (2022)

Zhenli (真理) is a Marxist writing on Medium.com.

---

There is this weird cult I’ve encountered quite a few times now, of people who associate themselves with a politician named Lyndon LaRouche. Many media outlets describe them as “far-right,” but LaRouchites, as I will call them, themselves decry this label, insisting they are not far-right. In fact, there have been some attempts by even by left-wingers to rehabilitate them.

“Left,” “right” — these labels are rather vague. They try to shove millions of ideologies into just two boxes. Let us not focus on these vague labels and instead just look at their ideas, and let you decide for yourself.

It is true that LaRouchites do not fit into the typical archetype we usually associate with a far-right wingers: someone who is very socially conservative, ultrareligious, ultranationalist, anti-science, and is highly neoliberal and pro-free market capitalism. But in reality LaRouchites fit into all of these boxes, except for one: they are not neoliberals. This might seem like a minor distinction, but it puts them pretty heavily at odds with most right-wingers, and has been the bridge that has allowed them to build some left-wing support as well.

Liberals tend to place vague “principles” above real-world material development, and care very little about real economic growth. In fact, they often praise the destruction of entire countries if it means these vague principles can be met. Take, for example, the dissolution of the USSR, or the destruction of Libya — both were humanitarian disasters that led to a complete collapse in living standards and the economy, but are praised by liberals as necessities because these countries were violating sacred laws of “individual freedom” and liberal “democracy.”

LaRouchites, on the other hand, drastically differ from the typical liberal in that they actually place economic development first-and-foremost. (Kind of… We will get into more detail on this in a second.) But the point is, the fact they reject neoliberal principles of “individual freedom” and support state intervention for the purpose of material development has put them at odds with typical liberals and, at times, even aligned them with Marxists.

In fact, LaRouchites have built a bridge between themselves and the Chinese government. The Chinese government treats them positively because they speak positively on the Belt and Road Initiative, which is a global infrastructure project. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been featured in Chinese state media several times. ^[1]

This is often the basis on which some Marxists want to rehabilitate LaRouchites. Marxists view material development as primary. In some sense, so do LaRouchites. Marxists are anti-Malthusian, so are LaRouchites. So, some conclude, this means LaRouchites are allies of Marxists.

Sometimes, on some issues, LaRouchites might be allies of Marxists. But I must make it very clear that LaRouchites are incredibly reactionary. In many ways, I would compare LaRouchites to the Strasserites in Nazi Germany. The Strasserites were part of the Nazi party, and they were just as anti-Semitic as all the other Nazis, but differed on economic issues, with Otto Strasser proposing democratizing the economy directly to Hitler.

Does this mean that the Strassersites were allies of Marxists? No. Their ideology was incredibly contradictory. They allied with fascists on pretty much every issue but the nationalization of industry, and so they worked with the fascists to get the fascists into power. The moment the fascists got into power, they purged them in the Night of the Long Knives. Gregor Strasser was killed, Otto Strasser fled the country.

Strasserism is thus a suicidal ideology. It allies itself mostly with the wrong people, by embracing mostly reactionary ideas, and thus can aid in fascists taking power. When the fascists take power, they won’t treat the Strasserites kindly.

Why do I bring up Strasserism? Because, like Strassersism, Larouchites tend to be reactionary on pretty much every issue except for having some slightly left-leaning economic ideas. But I only say slightly left-leaning, because they tend to be very religious, and hence, not particularly materialist. They might put economic development first, but even this is mired in anti-materialist ideas, leading them to reactionary conclusions.

First, LaRouchites tend to be very socially conservative. Lyndon LaRouche famously called everyone he disliked a “faggot,” and believed in a homosexual conspiracy to destroy the United States:

According to a variety of very authoritative sources, Henry A. Kissinger is not a Jew, but a faggot […]. The problem with Kissinger is like that of that flaming, fascistic faggot Roy M. Cohn, who is justly hated by most of the ordinary homosexuals of the United States, and a number of those from other nations. Similarly, Henry A. Kissinger is no ordinary, common, garden-variety of homosexual. His heathen sexual inclinations are merely an integral part of a larger evil […]. To understand the kind of faggot Henry Kissinger is, what Roy Cohn is, think back to the Emperor Nero and his court […]. That is the kind of faggot Henry Kissinger is. That kind of faggotry destroyed Rome. Will you permit it also to destroy the United States? ^[2]

LaRouche also led an anti-black campaign called “Operation Mop Up,” where they collaborated with the KKK to attack black activists, with one of their main targets being the black author Amiri Baraka:

The first application of “ethnic fascism” came in 1973, when the NCLC ^[3] 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. […]

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.” […]

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 ethnic whites: “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.” […]

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. […] A cartoon on the pamphlet’s cover portrayed him as a hyena with Negroid lips drooling over a baby’s corpose. Baraka became the NCLC’s Symbolic Black, just as Henry Kissinger would become its Symbolic Jew. ^[4] [5]

LaRouche was also vehemently anti-communist, believing that Marxism had satanic origins and thus needed to be destroyed, and that he was endowed with that mission from God:

Why not destroy the common author of Walpole liberalism, Jacobinism, anarchism, Marxism, fascism, and Bolshevism? Why not kill that Satan whom such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Aleister Crowley worshipped? Better, why not destroy that Whore of Babylon, that Shakti, that Ishtar, who is the great whoremother of all such Satans and Molochs? Can we not do those necessary things? Kill Satan? Kill his mother, the Whore of Babylon? Obliterate such Holy Scriptual figures? Is such business of God the business of man? Are we not the Creator’s Right Arm, endowed with that reason which no other earthly creature possesses, that we, as dutiful creatures of Providence, might do precisely such awesome deeds when the time came we must do so? That is no word-play with symbolisms. The words touch the essence of the most concrete grand strategy required for resisting and defeating the forces of the threatened New Dark Age. The Creator beckons us to kill that evil “Whore of Babylon.” To obey that command, first we must track that foul mother of Satan to her lair […]. As Benito Mussolini referenced this, Fascism and Bolshevism are twins born of the same, Venetian Party mother. At the time Mussolini made that reference, he professed that the Fascist Romulus had triumphed over the Bolshevik Remus. Since Yalta and Potsdam, it appears that Remus has prevailed. No matter, the point is that they are twins, skunks of the same stripe and satanic aromas […]. The real, ultimate enemy, Satan’s mother, has residence much closer to your home, perhaps the office of your favorite daily newspaper. ^[6]

If this seems like it was written by an insane person to you… well, read the entire work. It only gets more nonsensical. It tries to explain ideology through an ultra-religious worldview, and is just incoherent to anyone who is not already steeped in this insanity.

LaRouchites only have a single similarity to the left, which is in anti-Malthusian in and pro-development ideas. But LaRouchites being so steeped in ultra-religiousity means that they tend to take a very anti-science approach to development, and thus do not even have commendable views on this either.

A Malthusian is someone in the vein of Thomas Malthus, who argued that population growth would eventually outstrip food supply and so you needed to downsize human societies. In practice this proved untrue, but “Malthusianism” lives on as a more general term to refer to people who argue, in some way, that economic development is inherently unsustainable, and thus that society needs to go backwards.

It is pretty undeniably clear that capitalism has been wreaking havoc upon the planet. If you wish to maintain a belief and a faith in capitalism, you’re really only left with two options: Malthusianism or neoliberalism. The Malthusians argue that since environment destruction is inevitable, we should just go backwards, reduce economic development, go back to more primitive times. The neoliberals on the other hand just deny the problems entirely, insisting they’re all exaggerated, that climate change is a myth, etc.

Of course, the third and correct option is to criticize capitalism. We do not need “degrowth” or “depopulation,” nor is environmental destruction inevitable. We just need a more rational economy, one where rational planning reigns supreme over market anarchy, where we can deliberately plan environmental conservation and make it work alongside economic development.

LaRouchites decry Malthusianism as the greatest enemy. And, indeed, Malthusians are real and incredibly reactionary. They have infested most spaces these days. For example, below are screenshots I took from a futurist subreddit called /r/Futurology. This subreddit is supposed to be futurist, yet liberal Malthusian is so pervasive that talking about the need to scale back human development and to “cull the herd” (depopulation) is massively upvoted.

It is true that liberal Malthusians are a big problem. But the correct response to Malthusianism, as well as neoliberalism, is socialism. LaRouchites have condemned socialism as satanic, so they’re forced to take the only other option, which is neoliberalism.

Let’s take, for example, Daniel Burke, one of the faces of the LaRouchite cult these days.

Burke has argued repeatedly that anthropogenic global warming is not even real and is a conspiracy. More than this, he has even argued that trying to reduce $C{O}_2$ emissions at all is a form of “genocide.”

A recent peer-reviewed article in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (a Chinese publication) refutes the IPCC’s lies regarding the Sun’s effect on the climate.

Anti-Malthusians, read this!

“CO2 reduction” is genocide based on lies. ^[7]

Time for all anti-imperialists to recognize “CO2 reduction” for what it is: Malthusian genocide, in opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative. ^[8]

In the second Tweet, however, we can already see the odd nature of the LaRouchite ideology. In the same sentence that he is saying reducing $C{O}_2$ emissions is “genocide,” he is praising China’s Belt and Road Initiative, because it is good for economic growth as it is a global infrastructure project.

But it is incredibly self-contradictory, because the Chinese government does not support this absurd claim that $C{O}_2$ reduction is “genocide” but instead has been working heavily towards it and plans to become carbon neutral by 2060:

By 2030, China’s carbon dioxide emissions will peak, stabilize and then decline, and by 2060, China will be carbon neutral and have fully established a green, lowcarbon and circular economy, it said, reiterating the country’s previous pledge. ^[9]

This is something about LaRouchites that annoys me even more than neoliberals. They push neoliberal ideas, but try to cloak them in left-wing rhetoric. Burke in particular has a habit of trying to insist the Chinese government endorses all of his nonsensical claims. Here is Burke trying to claim that Xi Jinping criticized the notion of sacrificing economic growth to protect the environment:

Xi Jinping made the Chinese devotion to development clear in his remarks at Davos this year, where he said, “to sacrifice growth to protect the environment … is like climbing a tree to catch a fish.” ^[10]

Let’s look at the actual quote in full context without the ommissions, shall we?

China will stay committed to promoting ecological conservation. As I have said many times, we should never grow the economy at the cost of resource depletion and environmental degradation, which is like draining a pond to get fish; nor should we sacrifice growth to protect the environment, which is like climbing a tree to catch fish. Guided by our philosophy that clean waters and green mountains are just as valuable as gold and silver, China has carried out holistic conservation and systematic governance of its mountains, rivers, forests, farmlands, lakes, grasslands and deserts. We do everything we can to conserve the ecological system, intensify pollution prevention and control, and improve the living and working environment for our people. ^[11]

Doesn’t sound like Xi Jinping is opposed to ecological conservation, now does it? Let’s go further in the quote, as Xi literally goes onto praise $C{O}_2$ reduction in this same quote which Burke cited from.

Achieving carbon peak and carbon neutrality are the intrinsic requirements of China’s own high-quality development and a solemn pledge to the international community. China will honor its word and keep working toward its goal. We have unveiled an Action Plan for Carbon Dioxide Peaking Before 2030, to be followed by implementation plans for specific sectors such as energy, industry and construction. China now has the world’s biggest carbon market and biggest clean power generation system: the installed capacity of renewable energy has exceeded one billion kilowatts, and the construction of wind and photovoltaic power stations with a total installed capacity of 100 million kilowatts is well under way. Carbon peak and carbon neutrality cannot be realized overnight. Through solid and steady steps, China will pursue an orderly phase-down of traditional energy in the course of finding reliable substitution in new energy. This approach, which combines phasing out the old and bringing in the new, will ensure steady economic and social development. China will also actively engage in international cooperation on climate and jointly work for a complete transition to a greener economy and society. ^[12]

This is no accident. There is simply no way Burke could read a whole speech about ecological conservation and come to the conclusion it is actually a speech opposed to ecological conservation. He is clearly lying to try and mislead people.

“CO2 Reduction” is a policy of the City of London and its associated oligarchs like the British Crown, Mark Carney, & Sir Michael Bloomberg.

From the beginning, this Malthusian initiative has been intended to bring about the elimination of billions of human beings. ^[13]

Eliminating coal, oil, & natural gas means nothing other than the elimination of necessary means of life for developing & developed countries all over the world.

It is identical in effect to IMF “conditionalities” & “appropriate technologies,” but this time on behalf of Gaia. ^[14]

Is the Chinese government engaged in a “genocide” for trying to reduce $C{O}_2$ emissions? Are they working for the British Crown and Michael Bloomberg in a conspiracist plot to “eliminate billions of human beings”? Are they trying to “eliminate the necessary means of life for developing and developed countries all over the world”?

No, of course not. These are just the rambling of an unhinged mad man. Not everyone who wants to reduce $C{O}_2$ emissions is a Malthusian. Some are Marxists who want sustainable development.

This is where the anti-materialism of idealism LaRouchites makes them go astray. While they claim to favor economic development, first and foremost they are anti-materialist in their approach. This leads them to erroneous conclusions. They fail to understand that economic systems are built upon nature, and for economic development to be sustainable, then it must take nature into account. As Xi Jinping put it:

We must strike a balance between economic growth and environmental protection, and bear in mind that protecting the environment equates to protecting productivity and that improving the environment also equates to developing productivity. We will be more conscientious in promoting green, circular, and lowcarbon development. We will never again seek economic growth at the cost of the environment. ^[15]

You cannot destroy nature, which is the foundation of the economy, and expect to preserve the economy. This is just nonsense. Any mode of economic development which ignores environmental protection is bound to be unsustainable in the long-run.

The one positive aspect about LaRouchites which some Marxists have used to try and rehabilitate them, therefore, is not really that positive at all. Their ideas would lead to economic destruction in the long-run. Their ideas are just as antithetical to material development as that of the neoliberals, just in a different way. They also stem from the same source: a rejection of materialism.

LaRouchites seem convinced, because they have some connections with it, the Chinese government endorses everything they have to say. Burke even concludes, after deliberately misquoting Xi Jinping, that China is about to lift all restrictions on the financing of coal power plants:

I wish for China to quickly lift their ban on financing of coal power plants abroad, and I expect that they will. ^[16]

Of course, they are not. The Chinese governments wants long-term sustainable growth, not endless unsustainable growth that will destroy the country in the long-run. GDP is not the only measure of development, and should never be.

Innovative development is necessary for the sustainable growth of the world economy. Growth driven by stimulating policies and large-scale and direct government intervention in the economy can only treat the symptoms but not the disease, while growth at the cost of high energy consumption and environmental pollution is even less sustainable. Countries should improve the quality and efficiency of economic growth and avoid simply measuring development by the GDP growth rate. ^[17]

The slowdown of the Chinese economy is an intended result of our own regulatory initiatives […]. [W]e have recognized that to fundamentally ensure long-term economic development, China has to press ahead with structural reform, even if this requires some sacrifice of speed. In whatever undertaking, one has to look far and plan wisely to take care of both the short and long term needs. Killing the hen to get eggs or draining the pond to catch fish is no formula for sustainable development. ^[18]

The fact is that the LaRouchites are really just useful stooges for the Chinese government. Most LaRouchites are clearly not even “all there,” so to speak. But there are not many voices in the US who say anything positive about China, and China has been really adamant about spreading a positive image of their Belt and Road Initiative. So this makes LaRouchites a useful tool.

Some LaRouchites, like Burke, have interpreted this as meaning the Chinese government secretly endorses all his insane ideas, when they clearly do not. Any reasonable person can see this.

This has been an emerging pattern I have noticed among western right-wing loons. They love to claim that some eastern governments actually endorse their far-right insane ideas.

This phenomenon is caused by western governments and their constant barrage of propaganda attacking eastern governments. There are three ways a person can respond to this propaganda:

1. Believe it and despise eastern countries,
2. remain skeptical and do not believe all the propaganda, or
3. believe it and insist these western lies are actually a good thing.

Let’s say, for example, western media claims some eastern country is doing some awful evil, incredibly racist thing. The most common reaction to this in the west is to simply believe it and to conclude that eastern country is horrible. The second most common reaction is to question it, and think maybe it’s not as bad as western propaganda makes it out to be.

The third possible reaction, which is uncommon and only found among the most deranged, is to believe that the eastern government is indeed just as vile and racist as the propaganda suggests, but that this is a good thing. I have personally witnessed several westerners of this weird, deranged far-right category who try to claim China or Russia are somehow far-right Nazi-esque ethnostates that endorse their incredibly fringe beliefs, when they are not.

Russian state media even put out an article condemning these kinds of people:

[W]e have a situation where a bunch of westerners are harming Russia by using the country’s name to promote an agenda which isn’t part of Russian discourse. And this is a phenomenon displayed in the behaviour of many zealots, who ‘support’ Russia as keyboard-warrior crusaders but don’t understand the place at all, in reality.

Instead, they are projecting their own issues with their homelands onto this country and its leaders. For instance, American and European far-rightists think that because Vladimir Putin has restored Russia as a strong and sovereign state, he’s somehow aligned with their beliefs. And is on some kind of mission from God to save ‘white’ Christianity.

But, he’s not. Because Russia may well be the most ethnically and religiously diverse country in Europe. And Putin’s own cabinets have included a smorgasbord of Jews, Muslims and Buddhists in addition to the Christians and Agnostics who form the largest Russian ‘belief’ categories. ^[19]

I do not know if there is a term for this phenomenon, but it is so common, I feel like it deserves one. People who have extremely fringe political beliefs often like to pretend that large and powerful countries endorse those same beliefs, and this usually requires an enormous amount of mental gymnastics and misrepresentation.

We have already seen how Burke is so willing to omit large parts of a Xi Jinping quote to pretend that he somehow endorses his “$C{O}_2$ reduction is genocide” message, despite Xi Jinping literally calling for $C{O}_2$ reduction in that same passage.

These people do not approach eastern countries with a genuine curiosity to learn from their ideas and culture. Instead, they just see a big power that could support them and give legitimacy to their cause. They therefore try desperately to twist the evidence to try and make it seem like that country actually supports their cause.

In some senses I find these people more frustrating than regular liberals themselves. They spread the same exact western propaganda and demonize eastern countries, but then turn around and support these horrible things, which only further solidifies the prejudices westerners may have. If a westerner hears tons of propaganda against an eastern country, then meets someone who supports that country, but also believes in all the lies and propaganda, it will make them only further convinced that the country is evil and all those who support it also are horrible people.

Is it useful for communists for LaRouchites to spread positive messages about the Belt and Road Initiative, while at the same time pushing ultraconservative, ultrareligious, anti-communist, and anti-materialist messages? If a Marxist were to ever platform these people, they should restrict the topic purely to the Belt and Road Initiative. Because LaRouchites spread harmful messages on pretty much any and all topics beyond that.

That passage regarding Marxism being Satanic, for example, I actually discovered through Daniel Burke who posted it on his Twitter:

Burke’s Tweets are just as ultrareligious and incomprehensible as was Lyndon LaRouche’s. Here below is a rant of Burke trying to “debunk” the views of a Marxist:

He touched his shirt, pointed at my water bottle — “In this capitalist system, everything, including relations between people, is inhuman. Only when we socialize the means of production, are human relations possible. Only then, can human reason guide society.”

It was then that I understood his materialist outlook as similar to that of an eschatologist (end-times fundamentalist).

Man’s salvation does not derive from man. It is imparted to man by an external force, (for him, a materialist reality apprehensible by sense-certainty).

This view depends upon at least two axioms.

1. The universe is entropic (ruled by Satan).
2. Man’s nature is inherently bad, but he can be saved through the struggle against Satan’s evil world (through the sacrificial violence of class conflict)

These axioms allow for what Malthusianism will not permit, viz. that man’s increases in productivity be acknowledged & be considered good.

It allows for the existence of Reason—as an eternally distant condition, which nevertheless may come at any time (the Rapture). ^[20]

If you have any idea what Burke is trying to even say here, please let me know. To me, it is just gibberish.

While the Marxists who try to rehabilitate the LaRouchites might try to focus purely on their desire for industrial development, the reasons why LaRouchites support this is entirely different. It’s only a matter of time before these differences surface.

You can see here Burke citing Bertrand Russell, rejecting that the struggle for socialism is actually paramount, to instead center the vague struggle between “industrial civilization and humanity.” He later cites another passage arguing that Marxist-Leninists are not even Leninists but a continuation of Napoleon, representing a general belief in “scientific, technological, and cultural progress.”

“We concluded, as some writers in Germany and Czecho-Slovakia have also concluded, that the important fact of the present time is not the struggle between capitalism and socialism, but the struggle between industrial civilization and humanity.”

In practice, the primary movement of history for the Leninist currents of Soviet life is not socialism, but a principle of progress otherwise consistent with the Neoplatonic view of the necessity for generalized scientific, technological, and cultural progress. ^[21]

This summarizes quite well the LaRouchite mentality on economics. They reject any sort of complex theories like Marxism, but instead view it as a struggle between personalities. Some people just have a personality that values technological progress, others just have a personality that want to destroy and to regress human progress. There is no more complexity beyond that.

That is how they justify their weird contradictory views of both being anticommunist while also being pro-BRI and sometimes talking positively of China. Because, in their minds, the Chinese aren’t even Marxists, they’re just “progress”-ists. When they are forced to confront the Marxian inspired ideas of China, they openly criticize them and oppose them, such as Burke criticizing China’s restrictions on fossil fuels.

LaRouchites in this sense reflect a very capitalist mentality, a mentality of immediately rapid development at all costs with no regards to anything else. Even if it destroys the environment in the long-run, like all good neoliberals, they can just deny such a thing is happening, insist that everything is fine, and accuse anyone who wants sustainable development as actually wanting economic regression.

LaRouchites should not be understood as people who even want “progress” at all, despite their insistence on this point. They want immediate short-term progress, with no interests in long-term effects. Their ideas would thus wreak havoc on the ecology and destroy progress in the long-run of things.

Nothing will convince them otherwise. You can’t really reason with evangelical Christians who try to frame every problem through the lens of their religion.