Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Weed Harper (talk | contribs) at 15:59, 7 August 2004 (→Updated list of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:59, 7 August 2004 by Weed Harper (talk | contribs) (→Updated list of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

NPOVishness

I haven't read the archived talk pages, but it strikes me that the story of Jeremiah Duggan is a really notable omission. Duggan's death did quite a bit to expose LaRouche's organization to intense media and police scrutiny.

Yes: the police scrutiny found that the LaRouche organization had nothing to do with it. The media scrutiny followed the usual format (see ). --Weed Harper 15:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, reading through it, I believe that there are many cases of the text being just blatantly POV toward calling the LaRouche organization an anti-Semitic cult. Don't get me wrong: I find them to be a genuinely scary cult, and I have a friend who bears scars from Operation Mop-Up. But still, something like:

"During the 1970s LaRouche steered the NCLC away from the left and towards the extreme right, while retaining some of the slogans and attitudes of the left (as did the founder of fascism, the ex-Socialist Benito Mussolini, and many others since)."

is just blatantly POV. There is no reason to mention Mussolini here if our goal is to provide information on Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche's writings should be treated on their own, zany, scary, level and not because they are similar to Mussolini's. DanKeshet 06:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Here's a great quote: "Who is pushing the world toward war is the forces behind the World Wildlife Fund, the Club of Rome, and the heritage of H.G. Wells and the evil Bertrand Russell."

"An Open Letter to President Brezhnev", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Executive Intelligence Review, June 2, 1981 AndyL 21:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Virtually all of LaRouche pamphlets consist of quotes like that. Here, from the magazine I just took the picture of: "The era of thermonuclear terror launched in the postwar period had been promoted for decades by H.G. Wells, and Bertrand Russell, as the pathway to world Fabian dictatorship." (unsigned caption) in Children of Satan III: The Sexual Congress for Cultural Fascism, June 2004. The central thesis of the magazine is that the Congress for Cultural Freedom is working to conquer Europe and America for fascism by weakening it culturally, and that they are responsible for such things as 1960s counterculture, which has pushed the US toward "an existentialist, irrationalist dark age society, which was precisely the agenda of the Congress for Cultural Freedom". DanKeshet 01:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In response to some of the above points:

I agree that the reference to Mussolini is probably a bit tendentious, but it does serve to show that LaRouche's transition from extreme left to extreme right is not unprecedented.

Or it would, if LaRouche had ever made such a transition. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is true that a lot of LaRouche rhetoric is just gibberish, and it is a mistake to try to analyse it as though it was capable of logical explanation. I have been doing more LaRouche reading as a prelude to another assault on this article, and after a while it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is simply mad.

This article does not need protecting. What it needs is for the anonymous LaRouchist who has been vandalising it to be barred from editing it. There is no way this "dispute" can be "resolved," because LaRouchists are not amenable to rational discussion. I have more work I want to do on this article so I would like to see it unprotected as soon as possible. Adam 15:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My attempt to bar the anon user was countermanded. I guess we need to ask the ArbCom to do something. AndyL 17:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For those of you just joining us

This article has a long history, as you can see from the five volumes of Talk archives. It was edited and re-edited by various parties until June of 2004, when it was seized by a gang I'll call the Empire Faction, because the ringleaders are AndyL, a Canadian who writes a lot of admiring articles about British Commonwealth/Imperial functionaries, and Adam Carr, an Australian who writes a lot of similar articles, but more importantly is on the staff of Australia's most outspokenly fascist Member of Parliament, Michael Danby. Adam deleted the Lyndon LaRouche article altogether, and replaced it with a laughable smear job (the presently protected article is a slightly toned down version of same.) Any attempts to edit the smear job were met with revert wars, leading to protection of the article, at which point I asked for arbitration (see evidence). The arbitration accomplished nothing, finding very anticlimactically that the contending factions ought to be more polite to one another. Arbitrator Fred Bauder put it this way: "We don't try to arbitrate the content of articles, for example by doing a lot of research regarding Lyndon LaRouche and trying to figure out what's true and what's not, or even whether this source or that source said what about him." (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche)

Meanwhile, the page was unprotected. I made two efforts to edit it, and gave up, because the Empire Faction would immediately resume the edit war, and I was hoping that arbitration would do something other than what it ultimately did. The page, with minor modifications, remained a huge manure pile of propaganda, reeking with POV. On August 5, an anonymous user writing from the Philippines (203.215.75.149) attempted to edit out some of the offal, at which point another edit war was launched, leading to another protection.

I have become somewhat fatalistic about the process; I have contributed a list of the most glaring lies, which I will reproduce below. I also refer the reader to Significant Ommissions from the Current Version. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well Adam, we've been found out as British Imperialists. Perhaps we should tell Herschel about our secret membership in the Privy Council and our clandestine meeting at the Queen Mother's funeral. The Queen (or ma'am as I call her) has promised me a peerage if I fulfill my mission to root out any hint of LaRouchianism in Misplaced Pages. What has she promised you?AndyL 01:15, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I call her "Liz" or "Toots" so obviously I have seniority over you in the Imperial Cabal. More seriously, I am getting copies of some of the LaRouche documents we have been debating, from that well-known Zionist front the New York Public Library. This will enable me to verify (or otherwise) some of the citations from King. When I have them I will start work on the article again. Adam 08:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Updated list of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version

  • "He now maintains that he was soon disillusioned with Marxism and stayed in the SWP only as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
  • "Once again, LaRouche now maintains that he was an FBI agent during all this activism."
  • "In the 1970s LaRouche developed an intense interest in fascism, and began to adopt some of its slogans and practices, while maintaining (as he still does) an outward stance of anti-fascism." LaRouche developed an intense interest in preventing fascism. What "slogans and practices" does Adam allege that he adopted?
  • "He began to regard himself and his followers as "Prometheans," superior to all other people" This is a fabrication. LaRouche counterposed the term "Promethean" to Friedrich Nietzsche's categories of "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" in the discussion of Aesthetics, arguing that Nietzsche's approach was wrong.
  • "...under his direction the NCLC adopted violent and disruptive tactics, physically attacking meetings of the SWP, the Communist Party and other groups, who were classed by LaRouche as "left-protofascists." During "Operation Mop-Up," NCLC members engaged in a series of well-documented beatings of members of these groups." "Well-documented" would mean arrests; if you intend to accept allegations in the press by LaRouche's opponents, you ought to also include the FOIA airtel, which is actually "well-documented".
  • "During the 1970s LaRouche steered the NCLC away from the left and towards the extreme right, while retaining some of the slogans and attitudes of the left (as did the founder of fascism, the ex-Socialist Benito Mussolini, and many others since)." The business about steering toward the extreme right is a myth, and even if it were not, trying to make a comparison to Mussolini would be propagandistic innuendo.
  • "The Marxist concept of the ruling class was converted by LaRouche into a gigantic conspiracy theory, in which world capitalism was controlled by a secret cabal including the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Henry Kissinger, the Council on Foreign Relations and other standard villains of the extreme right, many though not all of them Jewish." Propagandistic crap. Adam is pulling a little sleight of hand here, trying to lump LaRouche in with the right-wing conspirophiles. In addition, it is not the case that "many" of LaRouche's opponents are Jewish. And, Adam wishes to imply that LaRouche is attacking someone because they are Jewish; this sort of thing trivializes anti-Semitism, by implying that anyone who ever criticized someone with a Jewish name is an anti-Semite.
  • "Despite LaRouche's rhetorical skill in presenting them as revolutionary, LaRouche's economic ideas are hardly original: they are similar to the policies of Germany under Bismarck and the statism of Spain under Franco and Portugal under Salazar." This is less obviously ridiculous than Adam's original formulation, but no less false. The models for LaRouche are Lincoln and FDR. That's what he says, that's what he means, end of story.
  • "LaRouche did not develop his current political and economic ideas in the 1950s or '60s: until at least 1969 he was a Trotskyist, although an increasingly unorthodox one." Adam is a mind-reader?
  • "Although the expression "Eurasian Land-Bridge," for example, has been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, there is no evidence that LaRouche has ever had anything to do with this project." Deception -- the Landbrige and Asian Highway are not the same thing, nor has anyone outside of Adam and his cohort Andy asserted that they were -- combined with deliberate fallacy of composition.
  • "This followed a concerted campaign by LaRouche to develop close relations with the Reagan Administration, by publishing flattering articles about administration officials in the LaRouche press." Innuendo; LaRouche publications wrote articles that were both favorable and highly critical of various officials and policies.
  • "Since 1979 LaRouche has concentrated on infiltrating his followers into the Democratic Party." Innuendo. I myself registered as a Democrat in 1972. Did I "infiltrate" the party? Wesley Clark registered as a Democrat just in time to declare his candidacy for the 2004 election. Did he "infiltrate"?
  • "The use of the NDPC name has, however, allowed LaRouche followers to compete seriously in Democratic primaries for lesser offices, and even occasionally to win them." Innuendo. What allows LaRouche followers to compete seriously is the fulfillment of petitioning and othe legal requirements. The NDPC was a Political Action Committee like any other.
  • "The best known example was in 1986, when a LaRouche candidate, Mark Fairchild, won the Democratic primary for the post of Lieutenant-Governor of Illinois." There were two candidates, the other being Janice Hart, about whom there is an article in Misplaced Pages. I attempted to correct this early, and my correction was immediately reverted by Adam.
  • "Some of the LaRouche organization's successes have come from exploiting public fears about the AIDS epidemic, which they blame on international conspirators." If this sort of innuendo is given any credence, any candidate who puts forward a concrete solution to a contemporary problem (as LaRouche did, by arguing that AIDS should be restored to California's list of communicable diseases and made subject to public health law), can be charged with "exploiting public fears" about that problem. Did FDR "exploit public fears" about the Great Depression? And, LaRouche never blamed AIDS on any international conspirators.
  • (regarding charges of anti-Semitism): "LaRouche for his part has denied these accusations, asserting that those who accuse him are part of the oligarchic conspiracy to rule the world." Nonsense; LaRouche simply asserted that those who accuse him are liars. Adam's propaganda would be more effective if he didn't lay it on so thick.
  • "From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse. The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is a common practice among anti-Semitic groups." Deliberate fallacy of composition -- in 1978, the LaRouche organization published a feature article in Campaigner entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." I notice that some wag added "The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is particularly noticeable in the 1978 publication by the LaRouche organisation entitled Zionism is not Judaism."


  • "In the 1970s also, LaRouche developed connections with the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby, a leading extreme right group, both well- known for anti-Semitism." I dare you to attempt to document this. What are "connections"? This is innuendo.
  • "In NCLC publications during the 1970s the Jews were accused of running the slave trade, controlling organized crime and the drug trade." LaRouche has never accused "the Jews", nor any other ethnic or religious group, of running orcontrolling anything. He has accused Jewish-surnamed individuals such as Meyer Lansky with trafficking in narcotics, just as he has accused non-Jewish-surnamed individuals.
  • "LaRouche also claimed that the "Zionist lobby" controlled the U.S. government and the United Nations." Utterly false. LaRouche has accused the "Zionist lobby", by which is meant principally AIPAC and allied organizations, of pursuing a policy that is harmful to both Israel and the U.S. He has never asserted that they control the U.S. government, let alone the United Nations, which has often passed resolutions that displease AIPAC.
  • "In 1978 LaRouche described the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," and his German second wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, dismissed it as a "swindle." These references are sourced in Dennis King's book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism." They are not "sourced" unless quoted; if King had direct quotes, I am quite certain he would have included them, instead of asking us to accept his characterizations.
  • "In 1981 LaRouche said that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis." Provide a quote, or delete.
  • "There is even a word of praise for Walther Rathenau, an archetypal Jewish business figure of the kind so savagely denounced by LaRouche throughout his career." Innuendo: provide an example of a "Jewish business figure" who was "savagely denounced by LaRouche."
  • "He explicity states that "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews," a direct repudiation of his 1981 statement that only 1.5 million died and those not as a result of a deliberate plan of extermination." Fallacy of composition; LaRouche cannot "directly repudiate" something that he did not say.
  • "It also operates more sophisticated telemarketing groups, soliciting donations by phone, usually under the guise of various patriotic front organisations to conceal the real source of the phone calls." Bullshit, if you'll pardon my French.
  • "The funds thus raised were then directed into a maze of dummy companies so as to avoid both taxation and attempts to recover the 'loans.'" Attempts to recover the loans were blocked by one source only: the U.S. government trustees that took over the companies, after the government-imposed involuntary bankruptcy (see significant omissions from the current version).
  • "One of the most damning aspects of the trial was the revelation of LaRouche's personal corruption. While lenders were told that LaRouche had no money to repay their loans, he in fact spent US$4.2 million on real estate in Virginia and on "improvements" to his 200-acre Leesburg estate. These included a swimming pool and horse riding ring."

Each one of these inventions or propagandistic insinuations constitutes a violation of Misplaced Pages policy; (see Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not). --Herschelkrustofsky 21:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A More Honest Assessment

I think that this assessment of LaRouche is far more honest than Dennis King's:

"U.S. economist Lyndon LaRouche ... was among the first personalities to propose a debt moratorium for the developing countries in the middle of the seventies, in polemics against the International Monetary Fund and other supranational institutions, promoters of a neocolonialist system based on usury. LaRouche, one of the most controversial personalities on the international scene, since 1994 has underlined that the present financial system is practically bankrupted and that it must be replaced by a system based on a radically new concept. His economic forecasts, particularly of the financial crashes of 1987 and of 1998, have proven to an ever-larger public his qualities as an economist. LaRouche sees American history as the primary battleground of a clash between those who intend to continue the anticolonial tradition, particularly by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, responsible for the creation of nation-states -- whose roots have to be found in European and Renaissance history -- and those forces behind the Pax Americana which de facto corresponds to the supranational oligarchical interests, historically centered in England."

--from La guerra del petrolio. Strategie, potere, nuovo ordine, by Italian oil expert and historian Benito Li Vigni, Rome, 2004.

--Weed Harper 15:59, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)