LaRouche in Red Square

Um so ya I saw these guys in red square and got in an arguement with one of them.  They said it had something to do with environmental policies conflicting with the needs of starving people.  The point in my mind is that environmental issues are something to be taken seriously, its not just a one sided issues of people needing help. In the furture, environmental issues are going to be catostrohic at the rate we are going. Of course governments abuse money and for some reason these guys are blaming environmentalism.  Please give me a more convicing arguement, red square people, or fuck off of what is a really good cause.

From LaRouche's website:

"Accordingly, he rejects the empiricist, cartesian, and positivist notions of both "objective science," and the separation of science from art."

Reading his website and Wikipedia entry, sounds like a guy I basically disagree with all over the board. And their use of a swastika is unforgivable. I'm kind of outraged that they think that's an okay symbol to use for their cause, considering it represents the murder of six million innocent people, which has nothing to do with anything relating to environmentalism, and even if it did, using it basically as propaganda is totally offensive.

I saw some people standing in front of them with handmade notebooks that had "CAUTION: BULLSHIT" written on them, and I'm not sure if they were with the LaRouche people or "protesting" against them. If it's the latter case, I would probably join them if I didn't have class and a meeting to go to.

My point isn't even strictly limited to the environmental or political aspect of it. How is a swastika, which was a peaceful symbol turned into a hateful one during the Holocaust, an okay (meaning ethically, not legally) thing to use in this context? Does this promote a safe campus where conservative, liberal, libertarian, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindi, atheist and other students from all walks of life feel safe?

I certainly don't feel safe seeing a swastika sign in the middle of Red Square.

How is environmentalism genocide? I believe the people who make this claim have drawn a poorly constructed argument that is very, very vague and are using provacative symbols such as a swastika to draw attention to the "genocidal" qualities of hugging trees.

If they want to be taken seriously, their ignorant use of a swastika needs to be reviewed and their argument needs to be far more specific than just "Do you want to stop environmentalism?".

I was wondering the same thing.  While I was walking by, somebody asked one of them something like "What's wrong with environmentalism?" to which the guy replied, "Just look at Africa!"

I stopped listening at that point.  They're just like all of the other people in Red Square that hold up "offensive" signs (e.g., Bible Jim and his group).  I've asked why before, and they told me it's the only way they can get anyones attention.  No surprises there.

I don't get the LaRouche proponents' tactics. They seem to want to be shocking enough to make people curious, but often (as in this case) go way overboard and are repellent. I may have at one point stopped an talked to them and came away thinking "... ok... that was weird", but this display they have set up is offensive and repugnant. Isn't this counter-productive?

It's not hard to avoid them, and I'm not worried about them influencing enough people to be effective at anything, and I am a fan of free speech, but they are really annoying. That said, I really, really appreciated the dudes with the "Caution: Bullshit Ahead" signs.

I was trying to figure that out as well, i went and asked.  Their arguments are vague, overgeralized, and often lacking supporting evidence.  The guy i talked to said environmentalism is gencide because the environmentalism movement and the current policies are designed to keep third-world countries from developing, specifically the cap-and trade policies.  Here's where the overgeneralization part comes into play:  he takes one poilicy and makes a generalization about all environmentalists and everything that is trying to be accomplished in regards to environmentalism.  I told him that using the term "genecide" isn't appropriate because these policies aren't created with an intention of extemrination in mind, but that they are created to keep humans from destroying the planet.  He said someone somewhere along the way must have had the intent of killing all the impoverished poeple but regardless, even if there isn't that intention, it's still genocide.  Once i told him that i am an environmental science student, he didn't really want to talk to me anymore, and told me that whether or not i realize it, i am moving towards genocide. I also said that one could make the argument that complete lack of environmental policy could also be considered genocide because we currently are destroying the world and living unsustainably, but they didn't really listen to that.  They like to talk a lot in an authoritative manner but never listen to what you have to say.

So, i understand their concern for thinking CO2 capping policies are detrimental to the development of third-world countries.  If the U.S. wasn't allowed to deforest the land, and pollute the water and pollute the air to the extent that we did when the industrial revolution started, we probably would not be where we are today.  However, the LaRouche Pac should do some research and realize that cap-and-trade policies where countries are issued CO2 permits based on historical emissions(which makes no sense) like the Kyoto Protocol, are not the only methods to acheive CO2 reductions to curb global climate disruption (but why would they do that, seeing as how the think global warming is a hoax, anyway?).  Then, they should be pushing for those policies.  I don't even really know what the hell they are trying to acheive-it doesn't seem like they have an agenda, and their methods of conveying information to normal people are obviously not effective.  

Thanks for confirming, Jesse. I figured they were going to be vague which is why I haven't gone down to the Square and talked to them. I certainly don't feel safe in the presence of a swastika and I believe that symbol creates a threatening environment for anyone not Aryan. While it is a free speech zone, the use of a swastika creates a threat of violence and it doesn't matter how it is intended, but how it is perceived.

Pretty much the worst thing I've seen since I saw the PETA children's comic telling kids how their mommies murder cute little pet bunnies (with vivid, bloody illustrations of a psychopathic grinning homemaker driving a butcher knife into a live rabbit). On the front, it had something like "Did you know your mom is murderer?" in big red letters. Oh, what a good read that was.

Anyway.

Counter-extremism is not the way to counter extremists (you know what I mean). Environmentalism is genocide? I guess humans have been "eco-friendly" for all of their history, or how else can we explain the genocides of previous centuries? Brilliant!

What a joke.

I learned really fast to RUN THE OTHER WAY when I see LaRouchies and possibly flip them off. Not only are their arguments insane (LaRouche's response to being asked about the extinction of the polar bears was "Do you want to sleep with a polar bear?"), they target at-risk youth and use them to spread LaRouche's ideas, not unlike the evangelical lady in "Jesus Camp," but far more frightening to me. The accusations of manipulation and brainwashing are pretty numerous, and they have been accused of causing the death (somehow, the details are fuzzy) of a Jewish boy at a conference in Wiesbaden, Germany. They're notoriously anti-Semitic. And really, the kids who come to campus are just rabble-rousers...I don't think anyone except LaRouche himself is insane enough to really believe all that...combine all this with the "Going Green" swastika, which completely misunderstands the goals of sustainable living AND deeply offends students, and I really don't think they have a right to be on campus. No right. It's not free speech...the way they approach it, it really is just hate speech if you ask me. Last time I talked to one of them, he talked down to me and accused me of only supporting Obama because he is an attractive male. And then expected me to join their organization. I have to stop there...blood pressure increasing...can't let them win!

fuck La Rouche

I talked to the people one time and they were so shady, wanted lots of money, and in the end they never really explained what it was they wanted to do~

I agree, it's even more than just a misunderstanding, because even the most environmentally-uneducated person (myself being one of them) can understand that sustainable living does not mean "sustainable living only for the people in cities and starvation for the people in poor countries."
It's more like a blatant reversal of the truth. 

Furthermore, the swastika is a disgusting symbol of something that should never be used to represent anything but the Holocaust itself, and when we see a swastika it shouldn't be slapped on a piece of poster board, it should be only for the purpose of education and remembrance of the atrocities committed in the Holocaust. I think it's incredibly disrespectful to anyone whose life has actually been affected by that symbol to use it so haphazardly. 

     I stopped and had a brief (very brief it seems) conversation with this group earlier today. While the conversation seemed rather vague and non-descript it didn't seem all that extreme. What initially drew me in to begin with was the sign melding the swashtika and eco-sign (not sure what it is actually called..). While I can understand the outrage people have about this melding a key factor seems to be being missed. Yes the swashtika has adopted a rather malicious stigmatism in recent history. Before that it was a buddist symbol. The key factor being missed however, is that it is just that; a symbol. It is nothing more that a pictorial representation that has no inherent meaning. The symbol itself does not stand for genocide, extremeism, peace or anything at all. We the viewers of said symbol are the ones that place meaning on it. While it may have a negative connotation in modern society it is intrinsically neutral. While I cannot say for certain what their motives were for using it, because only the person who created the image can, I can say that it was probably in bad taste. I was not personally offended by it, but that may only be because I place little to no stake in any symbol unless I have adopted it from my own personal experiences.

You have a very good point. Yes, the swastika was originally a Buddhist symbol, but was unfortunately twisted by Adolph Hitler and burned into the minds of millions with a negative context.

To Jews and survivors of the Holocaust, that symbol can mean death, anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, etc. The swastika being used in Red Square was obviously not being used with the Buddhist context, but a rather blatant statement equating their vague notion of environmentalism with genocide.

The intrinsically neutral nature of the swastika is not something most are aware of, but the context that the LaRouche supporters placed it in was obviously hateful and ignorant.

 You said:

"... It is nothing more that a pictorial representation that has no inherent meaning..."

And 15 words later said this:

"... We the viewers of said symbol are the ones that place meaning on it..."

How can something be a symbol if it doesn't have any meaning? An old dictionary of mine (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary) defines a symbol as:
"
""symbol n : something concrete that represents or suggests another thing that cannot in itself be pictured"

If you want to deny that the swatstika is a symbol (which I think is a synonym of pictorial representation (i.e. it REPRESENTS something pictorially)) then that is you're choice.  However, we humans put meaning into symbols.  What that meaning is is shaped by history and our own personal experiences.  How can it not be a symbol while we "the viewers... place meaning on it?"

     The most straight forward explanation I can think of is this:

       The word "red" is a representation of a concept. This is the english version. Spanish holds the same concept to be "rojo". Both words represent the same concept but they are different. So, in a sense, all things are open to interpretation by the viewer/listener. Now, as a society, I will agree that specific images/words/etc.. have adopted meaning over time. But that meaning is not defined by the object but rather by the social system. As a culture, we have done the same with many other objects/symbols. I merely wanted to point out that just because one culture has twisted a symbol for one meaning does not mean that the symbol truly holds that meaning if the symbol can be easily reproduced cross-cultures. So yes, in typical social context the swashtika is more biased towards Nazi affiliation than its original buddist affiliation, but on its own it should have no meaning. I was not trying to say that it holds no meaning to people, but rather, I was trying to say that it only holds the meanings we give it. The swashtika is a symbol, but what it represents is dependant upon your own interpretation.

it's all a matter of context really. "The Producers" was fricken' hilarious, and there were swashtika's in the movie... I just get irritated by those la ruche guys because they never make any sense to me and it feels like they just take any movement/political stance and construct some theory against it. 

 Thanks for replying (seeing as you like to surf the posts on a lovely tuesday afternoon like me) so fast.  I totally agree with you that the society, it's culture, and therefore, it's people give meaning to symbols.  And yes, if you lived and died before 1940 (or lived under a rock since then and missed WWII), the swastika typically means, or is stigmitized to mean, not so pleasant things.  So when the La rouche junkies put that symbol in front of college students open and curious eyes, I would bet and say it doesn't just mean red or rojo to them.  It carries a lot more images and feelings than that.

In America, in 2009, on a college campus, it carries a lot of meanings.  The La Rouches knew it and you know it.

In a related thread, I found it that swastika originated in the Sanskrit language and ironically means a lucky or auspicious object.  Or, more practically a particular mark made on persons or things to denote good luck.  So, perhaps... you might just interpret their sign as them wishing environmentalism and recycling good luck...

      I should be reading Flaubert's Sentimental Education, but I've fallen prey to philosophical and political discussions, which is why I'm still here...I realize that most people in modern society do derive the same negative image from the swastika that is being brought out here, I just felt like trying to explain my viewpoint on imagery in general and hope to get people to think beyond their initial reactions.

      And I doubt that the La Rouches people meant anything positive by their usage of the swastika. I also doubt that they were doing anything more than trying to get shock value from students, which seems to have worked. Shock value and propaganda only really work if you have a valid point that isn't being conveyed properly, and it sounds as if they don't.

kinda off topic, but the swastika originated in hinduism, not buddhism. just making sure we have our facts straight. buddha was a hindu prince, therefore buddhism has elements of hinduism in it...

I've heard the "safety" argument made for this, the Roaming Moanies, and the Genocide Awareness Project. While I feel like the second one really shouldn't fall into the same category, I just need somebody to make the case to me about safety and such images. When I hear that this stuff offends people, I get it, and I agree with those reasons for removal, but every time I've heard somebody mention safety, I feel like there's no distinction between offending people and somehow making conditions unsafe; nor do I like the assumption of a lack of control among the general public (especially at college) that this seems to make. Could someone explain this to me?

Lyndon LaRouche, in the booklets that were handed out the other day, directly related environmentalists to the Nazis.  The swastika was there to call attention to that.

LaRouche's logic:
Nazis were "pro-environment."
Nazis were fascists.
Today's environmentalists are Nazis/fascists.

That makes total sense.  (Ha.)

Oh undoubtedly! I feel so silly to have missed that logic!

(eyeroll)

yes, I believe this is the same guy who thinks we should build an interstate to Hawaii....

um... ya...

I could totally hitchhike to hawaii!! 

 The girl I talked to wasn't even as intelligent as some of the arguments posted here.  Basically, it went like this:

She told me that Nazis started environmentalism as a secret plot for genocide, and when I questioned her about this, she said that "actually, we need more room for technology...and by burning fossil fuels and...industry...we need to put MORE CO2 in the air, because plants use that and make it into oxygen, so if we want more, we should feed them more carbon, and..." whatever other garbage.  That quote is pretty much word for word what was told to me.  

Basically, I feel like the LaRouche group is just a place that gives people the opportunity to be a part of a group that unites behind a cause, even if it's really dumb.  They need validation and they get it through the group, so, that's why people believe it.

Or, at least that's how I see it.  It's really annoying though, and I imagine if I were Jewish, I would have literally knocked these people's teeth out.