I am writting this because i am curious if any of you ATS'ers know this guy and what yer take on him is. I am sure its going to be a mixed bag of feelings with everyone. Some liking him others not. I think i most definetly do not.
Awhile back when Obama was running for president, the LaRouch PAC was set up outside a courthouse here in Houston Texas and i went to pay my traffic ticket. On the way out they hitme up with the usual anti obama stuff so i listened. Sounded good and i had never heard of this guy Larouche so i tooks some free papers and a disk and even gave them a check for 25 dollars. What the hell if its against obama its gotta be good right? Well not from what i am reading about this guy now.
I get these emails at least once a week from the LaRouch PAC and i sometimes read them and sometimes dont. Cant say i am overly political to care much. The one i got today was weird. Its a paper discussing Larouche's ideas on how we need to join the Russians in a joint op to bomb the Afghanistan poppy fields and destroy the british drug cartel there. I was like what? HuH? I thought the Brits were our friends. To make it more confusing, The article goes on to state that we should bring iran in on the deal since such a large percentage of their population is addicted to opium. I thought wow is this guy mad? Arent these the folks who want to nuke us?
Ok so i decide maybe its time to do some digging into who this LaRouche guy is and wow what i found.

To start with he has a history as a marxist, and socialist. He hates jews and has been quoted as saying in regards to jews as being a zionist-british organism and "evolved through moral depravity and inbreeding into a separate species outside the human race. He absoutely seems to hate him some brits too. He has made conspiracy theorys in the past with regards to Queen Elizabeth II as running a drug cartel and that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was the first strike in a British attempt to take over the United States.

In 1986, LaRouche proposed that AIDS be added to California's List of Communicable Diseases. Sponsored by the "Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee" (PANIC), it came to be known as the "LaRouche Initiative." The proposal, Proposition 64, qualified for the California ballot in 1986, with the required signature gatherers mostly paid for by LaRouche's Campaigner Publications.[104] Opponents said the measure could have required universal testing and the quarantine of infected individuals, while proponents denied this, arguing that it simply allowed for standard public health measures to be taken. It was defeated, reintroduced two years later, and defeated again. AIDS was a leading plank in LaRouche's platform during his 1988 presidential campaign. He vowed to quarantine its "aberrant" victims who are "guilty of bringing this pandemic upon us

Well thats pretty much all i have had a chance to read so far on this guy. Anyone have anything they know and wanna post it please do. I feel so weird having giventhese people money. I am sure i am now on some watch list or something.
Laters

I've wondered about him too. Years ago, he was considered way too radical. He's much more believable in these times. If you want to know about LaRouche, you need to consider what his disciple, Webster Tarpley is saying (he's often on Russian Television on YouTube Feeds). LaRouche is an economist and Tarpley is a historian. They both have a pretty high level understanding of inflationary monetary policies and fiat currency trading wars. They are correct about a number of things. I believe Tarpley's current geo-political assessment of the Middle East the best explanation so far. LaRouche goes to the extreme..."everyone is a double agent, not just an agent. He believes that the Dalai Lama is a British operative and that's why China got him out. I'm not sure, but there is evidence.

I'm interested to hear what others have to say...

[edit on 9-4-2010 by ibiubu]

LaRouche appears to be more of a cult leader than a politician. I don't trust anyone when his followers call him Mister all the time.

Originally posted by ibiubu
Years ago, he was considered way too radical. He's much more believable in these times.

That's an excellent summary, IMHO. He was one of the first "crackpot" type alternative thinkers to really grab my attention, but I've always mistrusted him. I think there is a lot of garbage in what he says but on some issues there is truth mixed in, too. He's also entertaining even if I can't believe everything he says. He's almost like an older, earlier, less polished version of Alex Jones, for example.

He's got a very elaborate theory about European nobility, especially those from Venice, who he sees at the center of the historical TPTB, stretching back centuries...I tried to read his stuff on it once but it was too dense and snarled up...mixture of fact and fantasy, like so much tinfoil hattery out there...