We’ve previously mentioned the ongoing persecution of former U.S. President Donald Trump by anticult organizations, a campaign that has lasted several years. We’ve also covered that the shooting at the Pennsylvania rally on July 13, 2024, where the assassination attempt on him took place, turned out to be part of a broader strategy by anticultists to discredit and undermine Trump’s political career. However, few are aware that the pre-election anticultist fervor in the United States is not happening for the first time.
In the early 1980s, American political figure Lyndon LaRouche faced organized opposition from anticultist groups1, such as the American Family Foundation (AFF)2, Cult Awareness Network (CAN), and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)3.
Notably, AFF eventually evolved into the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA)4, which is still active today, while CAN lost a court case in 1995 and went bankrupt. These groups opposed what they deemed “destructive cults” and accused LaRouche of using mind-control techniques to manipulate his followers, actively warning the public through the media and initiating lawsuits.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Especially when you take a closer look at their so-called alarmist warnings, which fit the pattern of a typical sponsored discreditation strategy. “The IMPACT” documentary did an excellent job of describing these methods and bringing this topic to light. But let us rewind a bit.
Lyndon LaRouche
Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. (September 8, 1922 – February 12, 2019) was an American economist and political activist, founder of several political organizations, collectively known as the LaRouche movement. He ran for president eight times between 1976 and 2004, once as a candidate from the U.S. Labor Party and seven times as a “candidate seeking candidacy” from the Democratic Party.
Critics often pointed to the unusual internal structure of the movement. Former members and outside observers claimed that LaRouche created a cult where he was the central figure, controlling his followers’ lives. Based on these allegations, numerous accusations of exploitation, manipulation, and even abuse of power emerged.
We won’t delve into the views and statements of Lyndon LaRouche, his conspiracy theories, economic ideas, or political decisions. What interests us is the fact that in the 1980s, he became the target of aggressive attacks by anticultist organizations (AFF, CAN, ADL, and others). He was labeled with numerous stigmas, accused of being the leader of a left-wing sect, a political cult, and was charged with extremism, antisemitism, racism, financial fraud, insanity, and whatnot.
He was even accused of fascism. In 1989, Dennis King wrote a book titled “Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism,” which aimed to expose LaRouche and his political agenda, which the author claimed posed a threat to American democracy.
Typical Anticult Terrorist Tactics
“The IMPACT” documentary was the first to openly reveal the stages of destructive tactics by anticult organizations—from the initial labeling of groups as “cults” or “sects” to the eventual physical elimination of members or leaders of the targeted group. These methods have been studied and documented using more recent examples of organizations that have been actively operating over the past 30 years. In particular, the Russian RACIRS, acting under the auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and political elites, as well as the French FECRIS, which can be considered the European branch of RACIRS, and there is much evidence of this. We will return to this topic later.
In retrospect, the battle against Lyndon LaRouche went through nearly all the stages of the criminal anticult terror scheme outlined in “The IMPACT.”
We’ll list them below:
- Labeling the group as a “sect” or “cult,”
- A successful media campaign,
- Creating a negative public image,
- Using pseudo-victims or former members of the targeted organization to amplify stigmatization,
- Inclining public opinion towards stigmatizing the victim organization,
- Urging law enforcement to take measures against the undesirable group,
- Investigations by law enforcement, biased reviewing of the group’s activities,
- Police raids,
- Criminal charges,
- Attempts at physical elimination…
At the final stage of this years-long discreditation campaign, in 1986, a real siege of Lyndon LaRouche’s home took place, when federal authorities raided his estate in Leesburg, Virginia. This event was part of a larger investigation into him and his associates, who were later charged with mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud the IRS.
The raid was dramatic, involving armed agents and even helicopters, marking a significant phase in the legal battles that LaRouche and his movement faced.
After a series of legal proceedings, LaRouche was found guilty and, in 1988, sentenced to 15 years in prison, while his associates received shorter sentences. Throughout the trial, LaRouche and his supporters claimed that the charges were politically motivated, but despite numerous appeals, the convictions stood. He began serving his sentence in 1989 but was released early in 1994 after serving five years.
Once again, in this article we are not trying to evaluate Lyndon LaRouche as a public and political figure; we are interested in the methods of how anticult organizations exert influence on their target victims.
Next, we will examine a particularly illustrative piece of investigative journalism published by “The Washington Post” in 1985. The article claimed that members of LaRouche’s movement were living in overcrowded apartments and barely had enough to eat, while their basic needs were paid for by the movement. They worked day and night like bio-robots, losing their families, burning out personally, they raised funds, or sold newspapers, dedicating almost every waking hour to the cause.
Let’s take a closer look at an article from John Mintz in “The Washington Post”, especially since it has amazingly survived after almost 40 years. From the very first lines, we see a blunt categorical assertion that Lyndon LaRouche was the leader of a cult. Note that at that time, no country in the world had a legal definition for the terms “cult” or “sect,” and no country has established one to this day.
The label “cult” (or “sect”) is the first step in the anticultists’ scheme of terrorist actions.
The very fact of releasing an “investigative” publication, clearly aimed at discrediting a specific person without providing factual and objective evidence of guilt, indicates that the article was actually commissioned. This aligns with the second and third stages of the anticultists’ scheme of terrorist actions – launching a media campaign to discredit a specific group. Through this, the group is labeled as dangerous and manipulative by means of the media, inevitably creating a negative image in the public consciousness. And that is precisely what happened.
Next, we move to the fourth stage of the anticultists’ scheme of terrorist actions: “Pseudo-victims are created from among the relatives or former members of the targeted organization. These ex-members or defectors actively slander (in this case) the political group, amplifying the stigmatization of the victimized organization.”
It is notable that the entire publication is literally filled with the opinions of these so-called “former” members, whom no one has ever seen. After all, in this simple way, any attitude regarding any individual can be imposed on society. In our view, blatantly manipulative technique, and it is quite odd to see it on the pages of “The Washington Post.” Then again, it was 1985…
Now, let’s take a look at the opinions of several “former members” or defectors, who, for safety reasons, chose to remain anonymous.
- “…people wouldn’t have any private lives anymore… Everyone’s got to march to the same tune…”
- “He (LaRouche) demands sycophantic obedience…”.
- “…He is in total control of the organization…”
- “The members are ‘rank-and-file automatons’”
- “…pure psychological terror…”
- “…the marriages were preserved, although the relationships were totally broken.”
- “There is some horrible psychological craziness in this group,,” said one defector.
- The ex-member remembered working extremely long hours for the group, and eating very little.
- Some LaRouche associates were trained in the use of guns, knives and other weapons at a “counterterrorism” school in Powder Springs, Ga., according to former members and other sources.
- “Amnesia is one of the necessary qualifications for membership,” one ex-member said.
One could spend a long time debating how much of the above corresponds to reality. However, for those of us deeply immersed in the study of the issue, there is no doubt about the obvious fact: we are witnessing clear signs of the anticult strategy of dehumanization. We see these signs everywhere today.
And the final stroke of the pen in John Mintz’s “exposé magnum opus” is a quote from yet another anonymous “ex-,” which could have put a definitive end to any political reputation, whether it was LaRouche or anyone else.
“The preponderance (of early members) have left in disgust,” said one former member. “They realized they’ve wasted years of their lives . . . . I woke up one day and realized I hadn’t thought about the cult for two months. That’s when you know you’re back to normal. It took a couple of years.” 8
It feels like even back in 1985, anticultists were testing some terrorist methods, particularly the use of anonymous defectors or the creation of a fake victim, describing unbearable conditions within the cult or political movement. And of course, there’s no guarantee that real victims existed at all. We detailed this in our article, “The Role of Apostates in Anti-Cult Organizations: Creating the Fake Victim.”
Dishonest journalism is a scourge of modern media.
Something similar is happening today against Donald Trump. With intentions and financial backing, one can “commission” a smear campaign against any political or religious group to drive them out of the mainstream. And that’s exactly what’s happening.
It’s also worth adding that Friedrich Haack 6, a notorious anticultist, was closely associated with the American Family Foundation (AFF), which played a role in the defamation of LaRouche. In his book “The Fight Against Sects. A Summarized Idea-historical Study” Bertil Persson writes:
“Starting in 1985, Friedrich Haack was the international director of research for the American Family Foundation (AFF) in the U.S… Ultimately, he wove an extensive network of centers for information and deprogramming in the FRG, Western Europe, and the U.S.“
You can learn more about Haack and his ideological ties with the anticultists of Nazi Germany by watching “The IMPACT” documentary.
Source:
1. https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/slime_watch/aff_2-02_rmo.html
2. https://articles1.icsahome.com/articles/history-of-american-family-foundation
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League
4. https://articles1.icsahome.com/articles
5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/main.htm
6. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Haack_(Theologe)
7. The Fight Against Sects: 9789185734092 – AbeBooks: https://www.abebooks.com/9789185734092/Fight-Against-Sects-9185734098/plp?msockid=335db29f78866bd410eba196799b6ae6
8. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/01/14/presidential-candidates-ideological-odyssey/ef4b34ed-f342-4cb4-aeac-74fd2435a7e9/
