Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 15 April 2012 (→Far too long - especially since there are so many related articles.: goal is actually to IMPROVE articles, not to make them middens). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lyndon LaRouche article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lyndon LaRouche article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Lyndon LaRouche is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 22, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going". Loudon Times-Mirror. January 27, 2004.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past". The Journal of American History. June 2006.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda". The Sierra Madre Weekly. December 1, 2009.

• Talk page archives
• Talk page index
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research

Policies and sources

Content policies

See WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Sources

LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see here.

• The New York Times, before 1981.
• The New York Times, 1981–present.
• The Washington Post, before 1987.
• The Washington Post, 1987–present.
• Mintz, John. "The Cult Controversy", The Washington Post, includes a series on LaRouche.

Right-wing and left-wing groups

• The LaRouche organization believed Frankhouser to be a federal agent who had been assigned to infiltrate right-wing and left-wing groups, and that he had evidence that these groups were actually being manipulated or controlled by the FBI and other agencies.
  • EIR, July 17, 1975

I see mentions in the citation of the KKK and Black September. I don't see any text about "right-wing and left-wing groups". It'd be more accurate just to list those two groups rather draw an unwarranted conclusion that these represented "right-wing and left-wing groups".   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There is the reference to '"enemy" organizations', a description that corresponds to what persons within the normal political spectrum would call 'fringe' or 'anti-constitutional'. Nevard (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe one of those phrases would be more accurate and inclusive.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source that makes that point more explicit: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1974/eirv01n10-19740708/eirv01n10-19740708_016-the_busing_plot_cia_plans_fall_r.pdf Cheers, Waalkes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC).

That complicates the equation considerably. I, for one, had no idea that Frankhouser's interactions with LaRouche went back that far- July 1974. This 1975 document seems to say that Frankhouser was threatened by the FBI, CIA, et al. with a lobotomy, etc, unless he provided them with incriminating evidence about LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party. That implies there was some significant existing or previous relationship by then.   Will Beback  talk  09:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest "extremist" groups in place of "right-wing and left-wing groups". Any other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The LaRouche organization clearly wrote that they thought both sides of the left-right equation were being manipulated to fight each other. To replace "left and right" with "extremists" would hide the actual point being made. Waalkes (talk) 08:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we are writing about what people believe and using their writings as sources, we need to use their words. If their terminology is questionable, then it should be in quotations. TFD (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but the source does not describe the KKK and Black September as "right-wing and left-wing groups". If there are objections to summarizing them as "extremist groups" then let's just name them. There are only two, so it won't take any more space.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Waalkes, if you have a different opinion could you please quote the text which specifically supports the added text?   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure: Let me call your attention (for the 3rd time) to the new source, which says this:

"...the CIA has coordinated the activities of its Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) police apparatus; the Departments of Labor and Health, Education and Welfare; a plethora of local and national CIA-controlled right-wing paramilitary groups including the Minutemen and the Ku Klux Klan; and the leading CIA-controlled pseudo-left-wing groups, the Revolutionary Union and the Socialist Workers Party."

"This work accomplished, the two attempted to organize the ultimate CIA control set-up -- a united front between right and left countergangs." Waalkes (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - it's hard to know what's being referred to without explicit excerpts. The source doesn't talk about "left-wing groups", they're "pseudo left-wing groups". We should use the phrase that appears in the source.

If LaRouche thought he knew so much about Frankhouser it's hard to understand why he'd place so much trust in him.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Misinformation in lead?

I have a question about this edit: . The syntax makes it appear that the Washington Post and the New York Times have called LaRouche a fascist. I don't believe that is the case. I think only the followers of Dennis King have said that. Either some source should be cited (not an opinion piece,) or it should be removed. Waalkes (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The wording of that sentence has been discussed extensively. Numerous notable people, scholars, and writers have called the subject or his movement "fascist" or "neo-fascist". We can add more sources if two seem too few. Who are the "followers of Dennis King"?   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The allegations of fascism do appear to be supported by the sources, but the only part of the article that explores it in detail is this small section. So, I'm not sure it should be mentioned in the lede. Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly a small section. I recently came across additional sources, so we could expand it if anyone thinks it's too short.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the lede here, Will. In fact, I think the milestones in LaRouche's life should be expanded in the lede, because most of the article focuses on the events in his life, and the third paragraph needs to be drastically rewritten or deleted, as it appears to focus on negative or pejorative opinions of the guy. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is common for an intro to describe what a person is known for, not jkust for the events in their lives. For example, Ron Paul: " Paul has been characterized as the "intellectual godfather" of the Tea Party movement. He has become well known for his libertarian ideas on many political issues, often differing from both Republican and Democratic Party stances." The sentence in question was put into its present form by user:Jayen466. If folks want to add more events from his life to the intro we can discuss that.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course we can discuss it since this page doesn't belong to anyone in particular (or isn't supposed to, anyway). We have stated our opinions and welcome additional input. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's one newly discovered source:

The Paris Supreme Court has concluded hearings on the suit filed against International Affairs, the All-Union Society Znaniye, the All-Union Association Mezhdunarodnaya Kniga and the publishing house Messidor-Globe by US citizen Lyndon Larouche who heads an international organisation which calls itself the European Workers' Party (EWP). The EWP is headquartered in the USA with branches in a number of West European countries, including France, the FRG and Sweden.

The suit was based on a publication in the March 1987 issue of International Affairs of an article by Vladimir Pustogarov, a well-known Soviet lawyer, on the growing threat of neofascism and the involvement of the EWP and Larouche himself in neofascist activities. In the suit submitted by Larouche's lawyers, International Affairs is accused of defaming the honour and reputation of the European Workers' Party and Lyndon Larouche, its founder. Larouche was insulted by the description of the EWP as an "anti-democratic, anti-Semitic, racist and anti-union" organisation, a description which was taken, incidentally, from Vorwârts, a weekly of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. The publication emphasised-again with reference to Western assessments-the dangerous nature of the EWP activities, as also of other right-wing extremist organisations closely associated with neofascism. Larouche demanded that each of the respondents pay 100,000 francs to him and the EWP.

The court repudiated all claims by Larouche, made him pay the indemnity, including a certain sum to the defendants for the damage suffered by them.

Basically, he was called a "neo-fascist", sued for libel, and lost. This is similar to a libel case in the US that the article mentions. That'd problably be best included in the chronology, since the case was an event.

The other source, more recent, makes a very categorical statement:

The leading exponent of American fascism, however, has been Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche. He and his followers have made the transition from communism to a modern American brand of fascism which incorporates the leadership principle with antidemocratic tendencies to overturn the American system of government.

That'd be more suitable to the "Allegations of fascism, anti-Semitism, and racism" section, but it'd also be a fine reference to the material in the intro.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the lead is written in such a way that it makes it look like this claim is endorsed by the Washington Post and the New York Times. But I see no evidence that this true. Other sources are cited, but nothing from those two papers. Endorsement by those papers would give the claim much more weight than just little old Dennis King and his followers. Unless those two papers have actually called LaRouche a fascist, the present wording is misleading. Waalkes (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who are the followers of Dennis King? Is there a King movement? As for the text, we can add a couple of words to clarify.   Will Beback  talk  02:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been a day and we haven't received any more input. So, we seem to have a narrow consensus of two editors for removing the material from the lede v one against. Based, on that, and absent any further opposition, I would say we could go ahead and remove the sentence(s) in question from the lede. As far as Will Beback's proposed addition of more material to the political classification section, I guess that dicussion is ongoing. Cla68 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem has been resolved.   Will Beback  talk  04:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it hasnt't. Waalkes (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I googled references to LaRouche in the Washington Post and New York Times. I found instances where they report that LaRouche's opponents call him antisemitic, but they do not report it in their own voice as objective fact, so I have changed the lead accordingly. Also, I think the lead should reflect the fact that in recent years LaRouche has become known for accurately forecasting the financial crisis of 2007 (yes, I know you don't think he did, but the standard is verifiability, not truth.) In addition to the sources already present in the article, I found these from Russia: Waalkes (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't say or imply that the WP or NYT called him a fascist, in the respective paper's own voice, unless we can show they did. --JN466 03:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Article is now more biased

This edit introduces a strong element of bias. By replacing the relative neutral word "contacts" with "alliances," it declares in Misplaced Pages's voice that one group of sources has the right POV, while the other group of sources that says these contacts were transitory or illusory has the wrong POV. Waalkes (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That is based on several sources which use the word. Alliances can be transitory or even illusory.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What does this tag mean: "not specific enough to verify". How much more specific can it be?   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Contact" does seem to be a more neutral word. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Which sources use that term?   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Will, in answer to your question, words like "ties" and "alliance" reveal nothing specific about LaRouche's contacts with the right-wing groups. They are chosen to insinuate some sort of shared ideology or agenda. In fact, many of the sources cited in this section debunk the idea of an "alliance." Why, then, would you select out only the ones that claim an "alliance" existed, and present only their conclusions in Misplaced Pages's voice, without attribution? Remember, you referred to attribution as "superfluous." Please don't reply to my question with another question, I'd really like to know the answer to my question. Waalkes (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I also expanded the explanation of the shared interests with the Liberty Lobby to give it more specificity about the shared agenda. We could add yet more, though at some point we'd be placing undue weight on the matter. Three sources use the term "alliances": Chanes, Johnson, and Hamilton. I'm not aware of any sources which directly debunk the existence of alliances. Please quote the text you're thinking of. As for the attribution issue, it's often good to attribute a view or assertion made by a single source. But when it's made by numerous sources then attribution would be silly. "According to Johnson, Boyer, Spiro, Chanes, Michael, and Hamilton..." Some of those are scholarly sources.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You may think attribution is silly, but why would you instead choose to take a minority view and present it as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice? "Alliance" implies agreement, which clearly did not exist. "Contact" is a more accurate term. Waalkes (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Johnson, in the "Strange alliances" chapter (pp. 207ff.), speaks of LaRouche's "flirtations with right-wingers", noting that "In the late 1970s, after failing to recruit either Soviets or right-wingers for his fight against the conspiracy, LaRouche's followers began trying for a more mainstream image."

• George and Wilcox similarly speak of a "brief involvement of the far-right Liberty Lobby with the LaRouche operation" and add, "In retrospect, we now know that LaRouche was definitely not a Soviet agent and also went nowhere with either the conservatives or the radical right." They also mention that

Carto acknowledged some exploratory talks with LaRouche, particularly concerning his proposal that LaRouche

"assist us in fighting the IRS, pushing for legislation against the IRS and putting his organization in a more populist stance, and they refused that. Their derivations are entirely different from ours. They've never dropped their basic socialist positions. Every socialist likes high taxes and every populist hates high taxes. There's a fundamental difference there. I think they've gone very far afield by, for instance, their support of Alexander Hamilton.That's an anomaly. I just can't feature that. Alexander Hamilton was a royalist, he was a pro-aristocrat, he was for a central bank. For Christ's sake, this is anathema as far as I'm concerned. We are pro-Jackson and pro-Thomas Jefferson. To us central banking is really the core of the evil so I can't go along with that." 14

• The LaRouche memo mentioned in the article is quoted as follows by George and Wilcox:

Right-wing organizations offer four opportunities: 1) sources for fund-raising (especially related to our organizing); 2) political contacts to circulate our perspective in anti‐ Rocky political-financial-military circles; 3) opportunity to expose and discredit Rocky's Buckley-FBI-CIA penetration of the Right; 4) potential USLP members and periphery. Cadres should be firmly fixed on the politics underlying this move: the real enemy is Rocky's fascism with a democratic face, the liberals, and social fascists. We can cooperate with the right to defeat this common enemy. Once we have won this battle, eliminating our right-wing opposition will be comparatively easy.9

All in all, the weight of Johnson and George/Wilcox seems to be that talks were held over a relatively short period, but failed to get anywhere, leading LaRouche to switch tactics and launch an attempt to find allies in more mainstream circles (partially successful in the 1980s, with his approchement to Reagan). --JN466 03:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnson and George/Wilcox aren't the only reliable sources on this topic, but even Johson uses the term:

• By promoting this abstruse ideology Mr. LaRouche has developed alliances with farmers, nuclear engineers, Black Muslims, Teamsters, pro-lifers and followers of the Ku Klux Klan.
  • "A MENANCE OR JUST A CRANK?" GEORGE JOHNSON The New York Times June 18, 1989,
• In LaRouche’s scenario, all political opposition would be purged by the police, and Jews would be expelled from the country. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith accused him of injecting anti-Semitic poison into the American political bloodstream.” To further his plan, LaRouche allied with the Ku Klux Klan. Michigan Klan leader Robert Miles praised him for “exposing the neo-atheist materialism of Kissinger.”
  • Hamilton, Neil A. (2002). Rebels and renegades: a chronology of social and political dissent in the United States. Taylor & Francis. p. 283. ISBN 978-0-415-93639-2. Retrieved 20 February 2012.
• Although the LaRouche organization and Liberty Lobby both shared a penchant for conspiracy theories implicating plutocrats, such as the Rockefellers, members of Liberty Lobby were eventually disillusioned by LaRouche’s relative softness on Zionists and Jews. For their part, LaRouchites tended to view members of Liberty Lobby as “rednecks” and “idiots.” Liberty Lobby defended its alliance with the seemingly leftist organization by asserting that the U.S. Labor Party had done more than any other group “to confuse, disorient, and disunify the Left.”
  • Michael, George (31 March 2008). Willis Carto and the American far right. University Press of Florida. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-8130-3198-9. Retrieved 20 February 2012.
• Lyndon H. LaRouche is the founder of a far-right political cult that over the years has crisscrossed ideologically from the far left to the far right, seeking alliances, advocating conspiracy theories, and bizarre agendas—such as using soldier-citizens to colonialize Mars.
  • Gardell, Mattias (7 October 1996). In the name of Elijah Muhammad: Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Duke University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-8223-1845-3. Retrieved 20 February 2012.
• LaRouche’s National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) was founded in the late 1960s and drew its initial support from former members of various left-wing groups such as Students for a Democratic Society and the Progressive Labor Party. LaRouche quickly moved to the right, establishing alliances with organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby. He set up dozens_pf front groups in the United States, Latin America, and Europe—all of them dedicated to promoting elaborate conspiracy theories and LaRouche’s peculiar brand of antisemitic, neofascist ideology.
  • Chanes, Jerome A. (June 1995). Antisemitism in America today: outspoken experts explode the myths. Carol Pub. Group. p. 192. ISBN 978-1-55972-290-2. Retrieved 20 February 2012.
• Mr. LaRouche is a one-time Marxist who more recently has allied himself with the ultra-right. His group, formerly known as the National Caucus of Labor Committees and the U.S. Labor Party, has a history of harassing public figures and is currently under investigation by federal and state officials for credit-card fraud and other activities.
  • "LaRouche Group, Long on the Political Fringe Gets, Mainstream Scrutiny After Illinois Primary" By Ellen Hume The Wall Street Journal 28 March 1986
• By the mid-1970s LaRouche was talking less about revolution and more about the conspiracies arrayed against him, from the Rockefellers to the Queen of England to Jewish bankers. Soon the group entered into alliances with far-right groups that shared his conspiratorial view of the world, including some anti-Semites and neo-Nazis.
  • "Inside the Weird World of Lyndon LaRouche" John Mintz The Washington Post September 20, 1987
• In 1985 African-American leader Julian Bond accused LaRouche of "using the elderly and the politically unsophisticated to promote his brand of right-wing totalitarianism, his alliance with Nazis and the Klan, his support for the white supremacists in South Africa, and for President Reagan's `Star Wars' Program."
  • "Black fundamentalism" Manning Marable. Dissent. New York: Spring 1998. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 69, 8 pgs
• In the mid-1970s, LaRouche began to describe intricate plots against the group by the CIA, the Rockefellers and others, the group's publications show. Around that time, the group, by then better described as conspiracy-minded than left-wing, began making alliances with groups that shared its concern about supposed secret plots and conspiracies -- the radical right wing. The NCLC's turn to the political right "happened without most members realizing it," according to one former member. "It happened through this hysteria." One man with whom LaRouche and his group dealt in the mid-1970s was Willis Carto, the founder of the Liberty Lobby, according to LaRouche's deposition in a libel case last year and one by Carto in another lawsuit. The Liberty Lobby, a right-wing group, has said it was never allied with LaRouche. Carto said in his 1980 deposition that the Liberty Lobby never endorsed the NCLC but that he was "quite impressed" with its members and that his organization's newspaper, Spotlight, had praised it. Despite the group's right-wing allies and conservative rhetoric, some critics say they doubt that the LaRouche organization truly abandoned its leftist principles and believe it merely faked a conversion to the right -- a point raised by NBC in the libel case.
  • "Presidential Candidate's Ideological Odyssey; From Old Left to Far Right" By John Mintz, The Washington Post January 14, 1985
• By the mid-1970's, the devoted hard-core members still remaining in the cult were ready to follow wherever LaRouche led. That proved to be away from Marxism and toward an alliance with the neofascist and anti-Semitic Right. Arguing that the main enemy of mankind was the Rockefeller family, LaRouche was soon also denouncing Zionists and meeting with Willis Carto of the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby.
  • "The Extremist", HARVEY KLEHR COMMENTARY AUGUST 1989 p. 56
• King returns to solid ground when he examines those mainstream politicians and policy-makers who formed alliances with the hate-monger, either accidentally or by design.
  • "Lvndon Who?" DAVID CORN The Nation. June 26,1989 p 898
• LaRouche’s efforts to develop reinforcements and support in the ultraright have met with mixed success. Overtures to Willis Carto’s Liberty Lobby, the most influential of the ultras, and to Col. Tom McCrary, the spokesman for the remnants of the George Wallace movement, the American Independent Party, have borne fruit in alliance. In its efforts to consolidate a right-wing constituency the U.S.L.P. has not spurned the likes of J. B. Stoner, the notorious Ku Klux Klan leader. Indeed, the party’s racism is blatant enough to warm the hearts of many Klansmen.
  • " The Strange Odyssey of Lyndon LaRouche" FRANK DONNER and RANDALL ROTHENBERG August 16-23, I980 The Nation. 14
• A more recent "Whig Coalition" development has been a growing alliance between the NCLC/USLP and Colonel Thomas A. McCrarv's National Coalition of Independents on Issues.( McCrary is a leader of the Independent Party of Georgia.) Georgia.) A September 27, 1977 New' Solidarity article suggests a motive behind this alliance which goes beyond mere "discussion of issues":...
  • Rose, Gregory F. "The Swarmy Life and Times of the NCLC", National Review, March 30, 1979.

That's enough to show that it is not a "minority" view. This is, in fact, a common description and therefore should be reflected in the text.   Will Beback  talk  06:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"Alliances" has these 13 reliable sources, but a number of sources use other terms so the more general "contact" can be used to encompass those. (Even hitting someone on the head requires contact.) Nine of the sources indicate that the subject was the developer of these ties. Are there any other sources to consider? The best way to summarize this material, and to compromise, may be to say something like, "LaRouche sought contacts or alliances with..." How's that?   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of those cites are just tertiary sources which are recycling Dennis King. Waalkes (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's just your speculation. A couple of these are written by scholars and published by academic presses, which are usually considered the most reliable sources. Others have been published by the leading periodicals in the country. And if some of them think King is a reliable source then it's not up to us to second-guess them. We don't check the sources of the sources. If you think these are unreliable sources then say so. But it isn't an exceptional claim.   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out what I think is a weakness in the approach of doing an internet search for a propaganda buzzword, counting the number of times it appears in print, and then using that as the basis for deciding how to shape a BLP article. Having said that, I think the section is better than it was. Waalkes (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

According to whom is this material the product of an internet search? And why would that be invalid, if the sources themselves are reliable? The way BLPs, and all articles, should be shaped is based on reliable sources, such as these. You can't just ignore them because you disagree with them.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A Very Complex Subject

Lyndon LaRouche is one hell of a challenging topic when neutrality and objectivity are called for. It's not enough to just decide which extravagant claims, and which dismissive denunciations, should be deleted or left in. LaRouche is a minefield of contradictions, and objectivity requires somehow offering the reader a fair and accurate assessment of the whole works.

This has been categorised as a "Low-Importance Political Article". I strongly disagree. The fact that someone is almost universally regarded as fringe wacko does not mean they have no historical significance, or that their wild ideas and convoluted analyses have no validity and no significant influence.

Validity? Yes, validity; and some of what comes out of LaRouche's brain has not only a strong semblance of truth but also astonishing depth and rarified beauty. The same could be said of the utterances of any intelligent schizophrenic, but that doesn't mean it's rubbish. If conspiracy theories were a recognised art form, LaRouche would be their Michelangelo or Beethoven.

I'll offer some specific examples of validity and influence shortly. Let's give credit where credit is due. But not where it isn't —

The article's first paragraph as now written contains a real howler: "LaRouche has been credited in many parts of the world for correctly forecasting that unrestricted financial speculation would cause the late-2000s financial crisis." The footnoted source is in Chinese, but it's undoubtedly correct since he's spent decades finding at least a few loyal followers in "many parts of the world" who would gladly give him credit for predicting the sun will come up. If you say the sun is just about to rise every fifteen minutes, starting at dusk, eventually, like a stopped clock, you'll be correct. Any long-time LaRouche hobbyist will know that this financial crisis was supposed to happen in 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, and every other year without exception until it finally struck in 2008. (For this a footnote could legitimately reference every issue of every LaRouche-connected publication, and the predicted doomsdays might go back earlier.) Capitalism requires periodic crises—it's remarkable this one didn't come a lot sooner and that it hasn't (yet) been as severe as LaRouche imagined. On the other hand, LaRouche's stubborn insistence that economies must be built on the solid foundations of infrastructure and industry, rather than conjured out of empty number-games, looks to have been on the right track all along (even though his would-be visionary proposals combine Jules Verne and Joe Stalin, without a trace of Steve Jobs).

LaRouche doesn't amount to much as a prophet or visionary, but what he is good at is probably more important: sniffing out hidden rot, seeing the emperor's new clothes, digging up unlikely facts, and getting the word out. in late 1972, I read in a LaRouche paper called New Solidarity a long article claiming that Robert McNamara as head of the World Bank was engaged in a global scheme to systematically reduce the living standards of the Third World's poorest, to uproot subsistence farms and rural communities, in order to promote export agriculture—to produce cash, a.k.a. foreign exchange, so governments could try to repay their World Bank loans. The tone of the article was utterly rabid, as if it were just far-fetched lunacy. But the underlying logic seemed sound. And then a few years later, the gentle, wise and very sane Frances Moore Lappé (of Diet for a Small Planet fame) was saying essentially the same thing in her book Food First, and it was presented (and accepted) as ground-breaking new research. Eventually I think the World Bank (maybe even McNamara himself) more or less admitted that's what they'd been doing, and sort of acknowledged it was evil. I read more LaRouche publications from time to time over the years and some (well, maybe all) of the most absurd assertions turned out to be either true or surprisingly credible —despite that barking mad prose style. I was relieved when I finally found one that was obvious nonsense: the Hare Krishna cult, claimed LaRouche, are involved in gun-running and drug-smuggling. But a year or two later, it was in the news. And as for the Queen of England running the global drug trade from Buckingham Palace — well, it wouldn't be unprecedented. Remember the Opium Wars? With all that royal cash to invest, QE2 must have a pretty special relationship with the banking industry, and don't all major banks set up branches on the Cayman Islands to launder drug money? Not quite so far-fetched, when you think about it.

What really won my grudging respect was LaRouche's analysis of environmentalism, his claim that it's a weapon in the oligarchy's class war against the rest of us. I knew he was right because I had already independently arrived at exactly the same conclusion myself, on the basis of my own observations and experiences—and I was coming at it from exactly the opposite direction, as a life-long tree-hugger whose near-religious convictions about ecology, nature and wilderness have never wavered. My friends and allies were often unwitting tools of the oligarchy's strategies, refusing to see the real agenda within a lot of the global thoughts and local actions of so-called "environmentalism". Blaming the poor for their own hunger and advocating a massive die-off as a solution to their problems is a position that I've twice seen overtly stated in print, coming from the most conservative and the most radical organisations, and oddly enough international bankers were involved in both statements. At the local level, I heard "green" arguments shouted passionately when low-income housing was proposed, but barely whispered when new mansions and golf courses devastated our last ecosystems. Before I read one word from LaRouche on the subject, it had occurred to me that aristocratic British "visionaries" hailing the dawn of "post-industrial society" circa 1970 were simply justifying and sugar-coating the effects of post-imperialist austerity. And now that the once-proud and well-organized industrial proletariat is reduced to "yobs" and "chavs" while the oligarchs play financial roulette, the oligarchy is free to dismantle both the remnants of the welfare state and Britain's environmental protections. LaRouche is dead right about environmentalism.

But he's dead wrong about ecology — that is, about nature, wilderness, plants and animals living their own lives on their own terms. His pathological contempt for the biosphere seems to be rooted in a dread of everything erotic, juicy, and uncontrollable—he once put out a series of weird wordless posters equating sexual love (or maybe it was maternal love) with swarming rats. (In 1973, three LaRouche followers separately told me how their leader had convinced them their insides were 97% shit and 3% human; the third time I heard this I asked how human are you now? He replied with radiantly goofy grin, Oh I'm 6 or 7% human now!—and then a shadow fell over his face as he seemed to realise how depraved he sounded.) That "rarified beauty" I mentioned of some of LaRouche's ideas is the flip side of his bio-phobia, a yearning for an ideal Platonic (or Reimannian) realm of mathematics, geometry, and the music of the spheres. He writes of such abstractions with the kind of passion and reverence most people might associate with the love of another person's body and soul.

And this brings us to LaRouche's influence on American politics. The incredibly arrogant, abrasive, robotic tone of his publications became the voice of right-wing talk radio. And the content is similar, as well as the style. Everything erotic and natural is equated with shit and rats; wilderness is there for the taking and just gets in the way if it's not used up. I believe his influence on the prevailing anti-nature ideology reached the populist right through Dixy Lee Ray, whose books and general attitude seemed steeped in LaRouchism; she was regarded a heroic iconoclast by Rosh Limbaugh. Before LaRouche moved in on the right wing, the broadcast voice of American conservatives was William F. Buckley—civilised, genteel, a bit smarmy, either engaging his guests in an actual dialogue or debating them with more or less reasonable arguments. It's unprovable speculation, but I'm inclined to believe it was LaRouche's influence that set the precedent for the right wing's rants against the Establishment, substituting name-calling for discussion, and taking on the role of embattled outsider locked in mortal combat with intolerable, threatening enemies. McCarthyism could have been a precedent, but that was twenty years gone. Goldwater, Reagan, even George Wallace were relatively friendly and level-headed. LaRouche was reaching a lot of people in the late 1970s. and he was having an effect; my landlady decided to vote against Jimmy Carter in 1976 because she heard LaRouche in a nationally televised New Hampshire debate saying Carter would inevitably launch a nuclear war if he won.

LaRouche was in New Hampshire again in 1980, and this may have been when his influence was actually decisive in American political history. George Bush, the Establishment insider, was expected to breeze through to the nomination, while Ronald Reagan was supposed to be barely relevant. But then it all went haywire; Bush lost New Hampshire and Reagan went on to become president. Why? A major factor, and if not the main factor, was that Bush's membership in David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission became a major issue. It wasn't just LaRouche talking about it; if my memory is right, the Governor and the editor of the biggest newspaper were both associated with the John Birch Society. LaRouche, however, was probably the most forceful and relentless critic of the Trilateral project, as well as the most informed and analytical; his style didn't inspire much confidence in his own candidacy but it was well-suited to undermining confidence in others. It also wouldn't have mattered that LaRouche was supposedly running within the Democratic Party, since Bush represented everything LaRouche was campaigning against. Chelydra (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Far too long - especially since there are so many related articles.

See Joseph Widney now and before . Gist remains, useless stuff not actually helping any readers removed. Objections? Collect (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I would start by shortening the sections that duplicate material from other articles such as US Labor Party. The material that is not duplicated in other articles tends to be the material covering recent decades. However, I would like to point out that although the "Strategic Defense Initiative" section says "Main article: Fusion Energy Foundation," that article does not cover that topic (the FEF article is generally a bad article, needs a clean up.) I think that the SDI section should actually be expanded a bit. I think LaRouche has claimed that his work on SDI is what caused him to be sent to prison. Waalkes (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Go to it. One editor has officially accused me of killing another editor. (Yes, you killed your opposition) Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I object to your recent removal of sourced descriptors of LaRouche. Some changes might be an improvement to the article, but your removal of some of the information seems to have a certain tilt to it. Many of these issues have been discussed on this Talk page for many months, and consensus has been reached in the article content. So, we should take each of your suggestions for the article and either reach a new consensus before adding/removing material, or not perform such additions/removals. Dave Dial (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. If you wish to discuss any of the edits, do so. If you wish to add properly sourced claims, do so. The purpose of any editor should be to improve the article, and I trust you noted the changes at Joseph Widney. The nastyness of LaRouche remains in the article, superfluous stuff does not belong in the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists