Talk:LaRouche Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Opening comments

Also more critical content. Article is mostly neutral in tone, but the content is a bit one sided. Much more information about the Larouche Movement -- limited information from those who disagree. (of course there should be more about the movement itself, but there needs to be a clearly organized counterpoint for something so controversial) From Eggplantwizard, Feb 17, 2005

Note: Eggplantwizard's first edit was on February 17. SlimVirgin 23:28, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yet s/he already knows how to revert. See contribs. [1] SlimVirgin 23:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
And your point is...? I've been around a while -- I was anonymous before, and not as active. That's all EggplantWizard 02:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you've been around before you created an account, that would certainly explain why you're so familiar with Wikipedia. Don't worry about my comment. We've had some trouble over other articles related to this subject, though not with this article, and there have been a number of sockpuppet and anonymous edits, so I'm on the lookout, and your talk page said you were new here, though I see you've now changed that. But no offense was intended, and you are, of course, welcome to edit any article you choose to. And welcome to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin 03:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Have you looked at the other articles in the series? (See the listing in the box on the right side of the article). The Political views of Lyndon LaRouche is an often critical look at the philosophy espoused by LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is a chronological account of the man, with the good and bad listed. This article has two sections which have been hidden pending more work, one on the movement's funding and the other on its cultic aspects. If you have anything that you'd like to add, then be bold and add it. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:25, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reason for removing george w. bush from current villains

When you listen to their speeches and read their articles, it's striking how much they refer to Cheney and how little to Bush, esp. compared to reading or watching your typical U.S. Democrat or leftist speech/literature. They have made a very conscious decision to go after Cheney as a villain while calling Bush a puppet and ignoring him. DanKeshet 04:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks for explaining it. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] missing pieces

I think there are a few missing pieces about the LaRouche movement that are important here: intelligence-gathering, methods of fundraising and recruiting, more on the nature of the relationship between the different realms of the movement. I believe that some of this should be moved over from Lyndon LaRouche and that article should focus more on the man himself. Other parts of it we don't have written yet. DanKeshet 19:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. When I drafted this I included sections for funding and cultic behavior, but haven't gathered enough information to flesh them out. The funding is empty; about all I can say there is that he's raised X amount for campaigns and received X money in FEC matching. I once saw an allegation, which I haven't tracked down, that money paid for subscriptions has been re-categorized as political contributions in order to qualify for matching funds. Please, if you know more, add it. The cultic behavior section has a bunch of notes, but I know there's more. It could include the recruiting. The only thing I know about intelligence gathering is something I found while researching U.S. News &WR's lawsuit against LaRouche, in which they accused his agents of impersonating their reporters. He denied it, but admitted they pretended to be from non-existent publications in order to get access. Even so, how many news agencies have a "Director of Counterintelligence"? As a general rule I agree that the bio should be kept to the man. Feel free to move stuff over. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Re: funding. I was trying to compile a list of running mates for Lyndon LaRouche U.S. Presidential campaigns, and stumbled on what appears to be a significant funding source: campaign debt. Since 1990, LaRouche political committees have left almost $19 million in apparently unpaid expenditures. I am not intimately familiar with campaign committee financing, but I believe that each election's committee is a separate legal entity, as are the exploratory committees. I don't know who is owed the money. Perhaps TV and radio stations, the largest contractors along with LaRouche-owned printing/mailing companies, are required to extend credit to political committees. It may be that the campaign contributions go to pay affiliates and other campaign contractors get IOUs. If so, I think that the creditors would be grousing about it. -Willmcw 00:09, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:01, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche movement
See Lyndon LaRouche; LaRouche Movement, Schiller Institute, LaRouche Youth Movement, the National Caucus of Labor Committees, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and Jeremiah Duggan. The Schiller Institute and LaRouche Youth Movement were accused in October 2004 in a British coroner's court of using mind-control techniques on Duggan, a Jewish student from London, England who died in odd circumstances after spending time at one of the movement's "cadre schools". [2] [3] [4]

This article should mention the former PRONA party in Brazil and the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine.

[edit] One part of the the article I don't understand

From teh article: Verdi tuning. Agitates in favor of the so-called "Verdi tuning", in which A=432Hz, as opposed to the common practice today of tuning to A=440 Hz.

What is this about? What is A?

Good question. "A" is the musical note that commonly serves as the baseline for tuning instruments. Before being fixed at 440Hz in the 19th century it had various changing or local intepretations, mostly lower than the current value. A tenet of the Schiller Institute is that the current value of A is too high for the human voice. I'll see if I can improve the brief explanation. Thanks for pointing out that confusing part. Cheers, -Willmcw 12:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

There is documentation on this. It also goes back to Verdi, who had a law passed in the italian parliament, that C=256Hz be the frequency at which the note C was to be set. This did not last forever. LaRouche may base it upon this. Also, from my understanding, if C=256Hz, A=432Hz.--Ibykus prometheus 22:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-neutrality of opening comments

The statement "...the movement itself teaches that Lyndon LaRouche is a central figure of international political and cultural importance, and that the movement is a necessary response to save the world from an ongoing and imminent global crisis." is a clumsy sentance. The author sounds like they are stating that the movement is factually a necessary response to save the world from crisis, which sounds more like an editorial. At the very least, the word 'teaches' should be changed to 'proclaims'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mightywurlitzer (talk • contribs) 21:33, September 30, 2005.

That's fine. Thanks for that improvement. -Willmcw 22:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon comment

An anon left the following comment (in parentheses) in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"War on AIDS carriers. Demands identification and isolation of HIV carriers, and proposes use of directed energy beams for cure. (Really? Please reference where the LaRouche Movement recommends "directed energy beams" for curing AIDS patients. Somebody?)"


PROGRAM TO PUSH RADIO-FREQUENCY WEAPONS, AS WE PUSHED WHAT BECAME THE SDI
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
It is now urgent that we present the case for U.S. and allied development of radio-frequency weapons, in the manner we popularized the idea of what became SDI/TDI.
4. Role in cancer and AIDS research. [5]
And other text at the same location. -Willmcw 20:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. LaRouche has proposed this. But this was before Executive Intelligence Review went online, so it is hard to find internet sources. For more info, check out the older material. --Ibykus prometheus 22:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plato and Aristotle

I think Plato is an ideological hero and Aristotle is an ideological villain for the movement. There are LaRouche.. people (I can't in good conscience put a more specific noun here that isn't derogatory, so I'll refrain) all over my campus constantly seeking debate of passers-by, and a frequent opening line of theirs is "Are you a Plato person or an Aristotle person?" They go on to talk about how Plato's view on education is one where no knowledge is ever inferred and all learning must be done by redoing all the investigation that has ever been done... or something, and this is a view they support. Aristotle, on the other hand is "a slave of inference." I don't know if those people are representative of all LaRouche supporters (though I suspect it), but I make sure not to talk to them anymore. -VJ 00:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's about it: Plato and Aristotle represent these two factions, so to speak, that have continued to exist for ever. There's a whole bunch of stuff in Larouche's autobiographies, but for a more, erm, coherent, view, see Right Wing Populism in America (which is one of the few resources on LaRouche that's not swamped in propaganda).--Sean|Black 01:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


Do not place heros or dislikes. There are no arguments in the article just lists of people. That is not good. Remove them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.78.246 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] IMHO

I have looked over a number of the LaRouche articles on Wikipedia. It seems that there are more of them than necessary. It also seems that they are dominated by a small number of editors, who have something of a jihad against LaRouche. These editors seem to have done a bit of bullying toward newcomers. I think that those of you who belong to this group should have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and allow these articles to become a bit more neutral. LaRouche is controversial and a bit of a weirdo -- just quote him, let his words speak for themselves, don't feel that you have to strengthen your case by a lot of theorizing and speculation about what he really means. --BirdsOfFire 20:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche speaks in his own words on his websites, and we provide links to those. The purpose of an encyclopedia, as opposed to a book of quotations, is to summarize conventional wisdom. Is there any issue you have with this specific article? -Willmcw 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You put the Jeremiah Duggan section back in, saying he is "notable" and "died at a LaRouche seminar." In fact, he did not die at the seminar; the article doesn't even say that he did. He died running around in traffic. The idea that the seminar somehow caused his death is a pretty far fetched conspiracy theory. I thought that Chip Berlet and his colleagues were against conspiracy theories, but apparently an occasional conspiracy theory is OK when it suits the agenda. Like I said, there seems to be a bit of a jihad against LaRouche going on here, and a general lack of neutrality. --BirdsOfFire 15:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Duggan died while attending the seminar. He was not in Germany on a social visit. Conspiracies do exist, but that is beside the point. -Willmcw 02:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Beltran?

Are we sure about this decision? Given LaRouche's fear of Jazz and other sensationalistic art forms as a destracting stimulant that endangers one's ability to think rationally (and thus leaves one suggestable, suceptable to media propaganda and other memetic viruses). Something does not seem right with this inclusion. -- 69.248.43.27 01:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Google "Robert Beltran" "Lyndon LaRouche" -Will Beback 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
For example:
Internet audio broadcast for Dec. 20, 2003, featured a discussion with actor, director, and Lyndon LaRouche's collaborator Robert Beltran, after the end of the run of his production of Clifford Odets' The Big Knife in Los Angeles.[6] -Will Beback 02:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There must be a way we can tell how long he was involved with LaRouche, since he is not merely involved with Jazz music (again, something LaRouche despises) but also Star Trek (LaRouche dissagrees heavily with Rodenberry's vision, which seems in the same mold as H. G. Wells' and Bertrand Russel's vision of one world government and cultural pluralism, the opposite policy LaRouche has taken).
Is he even actively involved with Mr. LaRouche, or is he merely a supporter? Because I, myselfe, agree with much of what LaRouche says and have sometimes thought of supporting him wholly, but I still know enough to see that he is a cult leader who wishes to tightly regulate his society, not to mention his ensnarement over false delema abolutism (Schopenhauer is evil, rather then merely mistaken).

Or, perhapse I am merely mistaken about Mr. LaRouche, and in this case he is more flexible over the life-style of his followers then I presumed.

Again, is their a way we can know how long Mr. Beltran has been involved with Mr. LaRouche and how active in the movement he is?

Thanks -- IdeArchos 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I just saw that he became active in the movement from 03, and that he is indeed quite involved with them. I guess that means he has modified his lifestyle to suit the Platonic ideal. Pure logic, he is a Vulcan now. -- IdeArchos 04:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
There may be instances of claiming supporters who have since left the fold. I don't think that the list has to be limited only to current supporters, but we should indicate if a person is no longer associated, or was associated only for a limited time. Also, in the case of Beltran, he's called a "collaborator" in the EIR, so it seems clear that there is a claims from that side that there was a significant relationship. Merely being a non-notable supporter is not sufficient for inclusion in the list, no offense. "Collaborator" is also used for other performing artists who have worked with the movement. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Dale

Who is Stanley Dale, and who says he is part of the LaRouche movement? --BirdsOfFire 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Dale was an employee of some LaRouche campaigns. He was prosecuted in connection with them. -Will Beback 20:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
What is your source, and what makes him notable? --BirdsOfFire 16:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is the source:[7]. His case was newsworthy. -Will Beback 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says that he was just hired to circulate petitions. That doesn't make him an "associate or manager." --BirdsOfFire 16:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, folks who associate with other people for business purposes are called "associates". He was hired to manage the petition process. -Will Beback 17:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Above, you tell IdeArchos that "Merely being a non-notable supporter is not sufficient for inclusion in the list, no offense." Apparently a person who was not a supporter of LaRouche, who did not share his ideas, and was merely hired to do a job just like the phone company or the garbage pickup, is to be included on the list if it somehow makes LaRouche look bad. This is what I mean about the lack of neutrality in these articles. --BirdsOfFire 16:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Dale was notable enough to make the newspapers for his support of LaRouche. I assume that most of LaRouche's supporters on the list are paid too. The fact that many of his associates have been jailed is relevant to the history of the LaRouche movement. -Will Beback 20:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

SlimVirgin should not be deleting material with no explanation. His behaviour is really no different from IAMthatIAM, who is supposedly pro-LaRouche. --BirdsOfFire 16:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carter

  • Take the case of "deregulation," as set wildly into motion under Brzezinski-misguided President Jimmy Carter. That four-year term, with its fanatical emphasis on the combined follies of "fiscal austerity" and "deregulation," did more damage to the U.S. economy, in four years, than has been done under any other post-1945 Presidency, prior to the drive to "globalization," begun at the beginning of the last decade.[8]
  • Since about the time of the inauguration of the administration of President Jimmy Carter, there has been a persistent, catastrophic collapse of the share of national income of the lower 80% of family-income brackets.[9]
  • And in 1976-77, Jimmy Carter from Georgia, became the flag-bearer for the Southern Strategy, the racist policy, inside the Democratic Party.[10]
  • "The Men Behind Jimmy Carter's Bid for a Thermonuclear War, 1976"
  • The next change came, after '71, with the Carter Administration: which was the Southern Strategy, Democratic Party version. In other words, the Republican Party became dominated under the Nixon Administration, by racists. The Carter election, was a takeover of the Democratic Party, to where the racists had a dominant position. What the Democratic Party did, in effect, was to say, "We're going to defend the Democratic Party, by keeping those who are pro-racists, in the party, to vote; and to vote for our candidates." And, therefore, we picked a dummy, Jimmy Carter, who didn't know what he was doing—a mental case, had a mental breakdown; that's what qualified him to become governor in Georgia. He was the kind of man they could trust. And, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is also crazy—and dangerously so—and David Rockefeller, took this dummy, Gov. Jimmy Carter, paid him a lot of money, and made him President! And, the way it worked, is, the Democrats argued, "We have to keep the racists in the Democratic Party, to keep them from running over to the Republican Party, and then the Republican Party would run the nation."[11]
  • LaRouche also drew widespread attention, for his election-eve 1976 half-hour prime-time TV campaign broadcast, in which, as the U.S. Labor Party Presidential candidate, he warned voters about the menace of a Trilateral Commission-run Jimmy Carter Administration. LaRouche's dire warnings of a global confrontation and economic crisis, in the event of a Carter victory, set the groundwork for international resistance to the Zbigniew Brzezinski-run Carter regime.[12]

For these and a dozen similar quotes I think Carter belongs on the list of "villains". LaRouche frequently refers to Carter as a very bad president. -Will Beback 21:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fraud Charges

Citing a source, disputing and disproving these charges, a source cites shows official FBI documents, should be allowed on this site. LaRouche released a book entitled "Railroad" showing that the whole prosecution was a set-up. Are the Wiki administrators going to allow truth on their site?

I didn't delete reference to "Railroad". I deleted tendentious arguments and unsourced assertions (who invited LaRouche to join the Democractic Party? Who brought him into the Kerry campaign?) -Will Beback 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor

I just found this article online by EIR on the WWF. The british queen probably had a fit at this. The coming fall of the house of windsor I didn't link this on the main page as it is not worth doing so.

[edit] The LaRouche Movement template

What is the argument behind giving Jeremiah Duggan equal billing with Helga Zepp LaRouche or Amelia Boynton Robinson? His connection to the movement seems tenuous at best. --172.194.74.72 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits

The assertion about "entryism" is clearly POV, and even if it were true, it would be "original research" (see WP:NOR.) As far as Gene McCarthy is concerned, your claim is false; McCarthy signed the ad in the Washington Post to exonerate LaRouche 10 years earlier. Similarly, I don't see any basis for disputing the Pierre Salinger stuff. If you find a source that says Salinger was hypnotized or brainwashed by LaRouche, include it. --172.192.204.233 05:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Members of one political party running for office in another is a tactic often referred to as entryism - no original research is required to establish this, since the entry in Wikipedia covers this. As regards the McCarthy/Salinger links, if you can find a source showing actual support, cite it. None of the evidence presented so far shows more than generic support for civil liberties, which can only be taken seriously if it extends to cover unpopular groups. JQ 12:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The original research comes in where you assert that the LaRouche candidates are practicing "entryism". That appears to be your own opinion. Please cite a source that says they do that. You seem to be under the impression that the LaRouche candidates are not Democrats. What party did you think they belong to? In the "LaRouche Youth" article there is a link to video of LaRouche activists speaking at the Texas Democratic Convention. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that they are with LaRouche. They could hardly be infiltrating it.

I added another cite on Gene McCarthy that I found in another LaRouche article. There are plenty of them. I did not restore the Salinger one until I find out exactly what your objection is. He dedicated a piano sonata to LaRouche. That strongly suggests to me that he was a supporter. Do you disagree? --172.194.94.177 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted reference to entryism (BTW, entryism is often overt, as in the case you mention, but I'll let that slide). Still, I think it's relevant in assessing cases like Gene McCarthy's. The quoted interview consists (on McCarthy's part) of general criticism of the Bush Administration, of the kind that most Democrats would agree with. There's nothing here to suggest that McCarthy endorsed the views of the LaRouche movement. I've been quoted by EIR myself, and talked to them on the phone (though I tried to avoid doing an interview) and I certainly would not like to be listed here as a supporter. To try and cover this, I've restored the caveat deleted earlier, but without the reference to entryism.JQ 22:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
On Salinger, are we talking about the same guy - Pierre Salinger, former press secretary for JFK? There's nothing in his entry to suggest he ever wrote a piano sonata. On the other hand, he was famously gullible in his later years (see the TWA incident) and could easily have been persuaded to sign something without reading it carefully.JQ 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we are talking about the same guy. However, a more substantial source than an internet posting of the piano sonata would be welcome. // Astor Piazzolla 10:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The cited message from McCarthy re the Democratic Convention ends with these sentences: "Let me give the youth at this press conference something less material, and perhaps more useful—my outrage at their exclusion and my support for their mission. Let me be a part of their mission." That seems like pretty unambiguous support to me.

Were you quoted by EIR under the name "John Quiggin"? It doesn't turn up on a web search. Of course, only a little of the printed EIR is available on the web. --172.191.122.9 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

On McCarthy's message, I think it can equally well be read as a somewhat incautiously phrased statement of solidarity with an excluded group, the kind of thing you hear (or used to hear) a lot on the left. There's plenty of evidence to suggest his views, most obviously on environmentalism, were different from those of LaRouche. As regards EIR, I think there is a separate Australian version - I doubt that it's on the web.JQ 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/r/Talk%7ELaRouche_Movement_dfbd.html"