Okay, so this guy really creeps me out. It also seems quite possible in hindsight that I once took part in a four-hour debate with either a member of or sympathizer with the LaRouche movement.
you should add a 31st chapter about LaRouchism to your book.I would probably not include him because he seems to be a politically vicious man and poor role model for the people.
But in my model he would fit into the thirty-second ideological constellation, which represents an array of political views intended to manage forms of social conflict with public policies based upon the five moral virtues of discipline, ambition, magnificence, reverence, and assertiveness. These are opposite of those I am most compatible with, and in all honesty I cannot think of many HP who seem to be more horrible in politics than LaRouche. Nonetheless, a FF could still modify his views without abandoning its priorities by intertwining a corporatist, authoritarian, or totalitarian government with policies of neo-mercantilism, technocentrism, (cultural) imperialism and, perhaps, neo-realism in international relations.
To a follower of LaRouche I would recommend readings on Deng Xiaoping, Chiang Kai-shek, Vladimir Putin, Getúlio Vargas, Georges Pompidou, Charles de Gaulle, Maurice Macmillian, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, José Rivera, Jomo Kenyatta, Park Chung-hee, Abdul-Aziz, António Salazar, and Lee Kuan Yew - who are other politicians in the same constellation who espouse some compatible ideas - or instead the likes of Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, Shirin Ebadi, Tony Blair, Aung San Suu Kyi, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Evo Morales, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Noam Chomsky if he or she were interested in learning more about and trying to develop an appreciation for their political adversaries.
On the other hand, most of what I'm saying could be cast aside in favor of a completely different explanation as the project progresses. I have been leaning too much on intuition and creativity lately and not enough on research and solid evidence. xD
