Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removed from article for discussion

I took this out:

LaRouche has also described the struggle as one between apostolic Christianity and the "hoax" of Judaism:

The Christian apostles...rid Christianity of the worst implications of the Old Testament...Christ has freed man from such barbarisms as the Old Testament.^[1]

...because it is highly misleading. The context is a long discussion of, among other things, Philo of Alexandria, who LaRouche says was developing a "Platonic version of Judaism." Without drawing any conclusions as to whether this is correct, one thing is clear: King is cherry-picking the material to fit his own depiction of LaRouche as a crude anti-Semite. A reading of the essay has convinced me that this is false, and the characterization in Dking's edit is misleading. --Marvin Diode 07:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you saummarize LaRouche's point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can offer a better interpretation for this passage offered I'll restore this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

When I see that many elipses in a quote it makes my suspicious. Again, Dennis King is searching for references to Jews in order to try to make a case. Based on my reading of the essay by LaRouche, I would say that the essential point he is making about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is that they all have both Platonic and Aristotelean currents. For example, LaRouche says about Judaism, "During that latter period Judaism itself was divided between the reactionary "orthodox" currents and the tendency for a humanistic, Neoplatonic transformation of Judaism. The emergence of the humanistic Sephardic current out of the Ismailite Judaic faction, and the emergence of Maimonides, Avencibrol, et al. of the Toledo schol, reflect the course of the latter aspect of the development." I inlude the latter sentence because earlier on this talk page, Dking made a claim that the only Jew LaRouche ever liked was Philo, which is obviously a crock. So, Will, I am appealing to you, since you obviously have a copy of the essay and you presumably have read it, why not concentrate your efforts on providing a basic, encyclopedic summary, rather than trying to mount a legalistic defense of King's willful distortions? --Marvin Diode 22:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the full paragraph, plus text from above it:

We now cite one related, important case here. We cite the case of that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion. (3)
The modern Jewish religion originated not with the Kingdom of Solomon or earlier, but centuries later, as a synthetic cult created by the order of the Babylonians and other non-Jews. The first step in the fashioning of the Jewish religion was based on piecing together scraps of Mesopotamian legends (and anti-Phoenician and anti-Egyptian propaganda), with odd pieces of actual Babylonian and other history added to the mixture. The infusion gave a credible calendar to the otherwise fraudulent concoction. This original Mesopotamian hoax was reworked repeatedly, always under the super vision of non-Jews, with the basic structure of the Old Testament hoax completed during the Persian Empire period.
Later, when Philo of Alexandria attempted to develop a Platonic version of Judaism (the roots of the later Sephardic tradition of Maimonides and Avencibrol), Philo avoided, for obvious political reasons, simply throwing out the mess before him. He attempted to circumvent the problem by the rabbinical, Pharasaical ruse of the "commentary," tolerating the text while fundamentally altering the reading to be attributed to it.
The Christian Apostles, confronted with the same general problem, rid Christianity of the worst implications of the Old Testament by emphasizing the "Dispensation of Christ," and warning against the dangers of the " concision." Christ had freed man from such barbarisms as the Old Testament. Only those sections of the Old Testament which pointed toward the coming of the Messiah or otherwise happened to coincide with Christianity were to be treated seriously.

I think the quotation above is accurate, though it'd be more intersting if we include the part about "that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion". Here is the proposed summary:

''LaRouche has also described the struggle as one between apostolic Christianity and the "hoax" of Judaism.

LaRouche does call Judaism a "hoax" religion. He does depict the Apostles as being in opposition to that tradition. I don't see what the problem is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor question

Will Beback, could you explain why you think the bit on the Queen of England belongs in the Judaism section? It appears also in the Conspiracy section. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's apparently there because that section contains background on how Jews fit into the larger conspiracies, many of which concern the House of Windsor. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You say "apparently." Could you explain? It seems irrelevant to me. --Gelsomina 14:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why I'm reverting certain deletions

1. On the "hoax" of Judaism quote. That LaRouche had included something favorable about a single Jew, Philo of Alexandria, is not significant. Philo had no following at his time within the Jewish community for a shift away from "Old Testmament" Judaism if indeed that was what he intended. The only self-styled followers of Philo in modern Judaism are LaRouche's handful of house Jews, who view Philo himself through the lens of LaRouche's poorly informed historical theories. (Where did LaRouche obtain the training to develop his sweeping theories on a specialized subject such as the influence of Platonism on the thought of Philo? People go to universities for many years and learn the ancient languages and scientific methods of textual analysis before venturing strong opinions on such a subject. Does LaRouche read Hebrew or Greek or Latin? Has he read the other Jewish and Greek and Roman writers of Philo's era?)

Thus when LaRouche, while demeaning the Jewish community and its beliefs, adds, oh, by the way, there was one Jew who liked Plato and was not so bad, this is just a rhetorical trick. The fact is, LaRouche calls the Old Testament a "hoax" and "barbarism" in contrast to Christianity, just as earlier (in "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach") he had talked about Judaism as a half-religion for people without a "Christian conscience." There was no "long" discussion of Philo but only two brief sentences. The context of the "barbarism" quote was an introduction to the essay that summarizes the struggle of the elites, with intro subheads such as "The Conspirators," "The Aristotelian enemies of mankind", "The 'Secret Knowledge'" and (my favorite) "Our Special Competence."

LaRouche's statement that the OT was written and revised under the supervision of Babylonians does not put LaRouche in a more favorable light--he is saying that the Jews have a synthetic culture and that their core religious tradition is a hoax. He implies that by choosing to follow a hoax they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. LaRouche does the same thing with Zionism, claiming it is a synthetic "racist" cult and that Israel is a puppet state for the London bankers. So ancient Judaism (and by extension Judaism today) is a hoax, Zionism today is an evil cult....what is left for Jews? To join LaRouche? All this nonsense is about creating nested framings to mentally trap his house Jews into continuing their loyalty to him, even unto suicide as in the case of Ken Kronberg.

2. As to the quote about medieval bankers, here is what LaRouche fantasizes (pp 32-33) about the period following Charlemagne:

From that point, a fight was joined in Europe between the Aristotelians (the monetarist banker-linked forces attempting and often succeeding, in controlling the papacy) and the humanist currents.

Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish, bankers speculating in Roman real estate and engaged in control of a significant part of Mediterranean trade through corresponding connections with banking families as distant as Baghdad. [Those Jews are just everywhere, aren't they?--DK]

Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successfully benefit from the financial advantages of the papacy, the Pierleoni "converted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, toook the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope....

This occurred during the eleventh century, and is no quaint element of church history but the focus of a chain of events which shaped the course of history over the following centuries, until the culmination of this policy in the mid-fourteenth century Black Death's killing of about half the existing population of central Europe. [Now we see why LaRouche regards the Nazi Holocaust as a "slight mistake" in comparison with what the Rothschilds et al. are plotting.--DK]

Let's also look at a slightly different version in LaRouche's "The Two Global Conspiracies" (New Solidarity, Nov. 18, 1977):

During the 11th century, a pair of Jewish banking families converted to Christianity for the purpose of seizing the papacy, establishing,...[line out of place here]...with the accession of Hildebrand, a corruption of the papacy which generally persisted until the emergence of the conciliar reforms during the late 14th century. The papacy of that period was not a religious issue (although it was a religious problem), but a hideous center of corruption, which employed the papacy chiefly as an instrument of usury on behalf of the various Italian banking families which poisoned and bribed their way into the office for that purpose. [Emphasis added; so much for the claim by pro-LaRouche editors that their man doesn't talk about a "usurious" elite.--DK]

3. Let's return again to LaRouche's explication of the medieval struggle of the elites in "The Secrets" and examine again the first sentence of the above quote from p. 32:

From that point a fight was joined in Europe between the Aristotelians (the monetarist banker-linked forces attempting, and often succeeding, in controlling the papacy) and the humanist currents.

There you have it: No nonsense about epistemology and visions of man and cognition--the "Aristotelians" are the "monetarist banker-linked forces." Nothing could show more clearly the fraudulent nature of the description and interpretation of LaRouche's crank theories being presented as fact on this site, without proper sourcing, by LaRouche's supporters. And if you go on to the next paragraph, he states that part of this evil Aristotelian force is Roman Jewish bankers with their compatriot banking families "as distant as Baghdad." And in the third paragraph he presents the Roman Jewish bankers as being at the absolute heart of the conspiracy--in the papacy itself.--Dking 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Response

Since I have actually read the rather cumbersome essay that is being used as one of the main sources in this dispute, I would make the following observations:

1. Dking or Dennis King is taking ideas that are very complicated and trying to shoehorn them into a very simplistic theory. In doing so, he is resorting to some fairly devious rhetorical techniques. Example: in his essay above, he writes:

Let's return again to LaRouche's explication of the medieval struggle of the elites in "The Secrets" and examine again the first sentence of the above quote from p. 32:

From that point a fight was joined in Europe between the Aristotelians (the monetarist banker-linked forces attempting, and often succeeding, in controlling the papacy) and the humanist currents.

There you have it: No nonsense about epistemology and visions of man and cognition--the "Aristotelians" are the "monetarist banker-linked forces."

...thereby ignoring pages and pages of discussion of Aristotle's ideas, what they represent politically, and why "monetarist banker-linked forces" would have an affinity to them. He takes one sentence out of context and says "There! I proved my point!"

2. Dking is expressing loads of opinions on topics about which, by his own admission, neither he nor LaRouche are credentialed experts. The difference here is that this article is about LaRouche's views, not Dking's. Therefore LaRouche's views are notable despite his lack of credentials. King's are not.

3. I submit that we are looking at a lot of original research here. In the cases where Dking is citing his own book, WP:REDFLAG and WP:COI Citing oneself apply.

4. I think that the best way to resolve this, without having to produce a whole new article fork on King's theories about LaRouche's theories about elites, would be simply to include a passage like the following:

Journalist and LaRouche critic Dennis King maintains that when LaRouche discusses "Aristoteleans," he is, by implication, referring to Jews.

I would say that the arguments pro and con will be too lengthy and abstruse, and insufficiently notable, to go in an encyclopedia. A short summary of what is obviously King's intended point should suffice.--Marvin Diode 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche and the London bankers

Having started what he calls a "lengthy and abstruse" debate, Marvin Diode (see prior posting) wants to back out now that he sees he doesn't have the facts on his side. But let's look at another of the abstruse points he originally raised: whether it can fairly be said that when LaRouche talks about the current British "oligarchy" he is talking primarily (as a long string of Anglophobes dating back to the 1890s has done) about Jewish bankers. I quote from his "Anti-Dirigism Is British Tory Propaganda," New Solidarity, Feb. 3, 1978:

The policy-shaping kernel of the enemy forces centered in the British monarchy is a group of private banking families associated with the Round Table, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the London Tavistock Institute, and control of networks conduited under the cover of the Socialist International and its adjunct organizations in the United States. These are notably the family interests of the Lazard Brothers, Barings, N.M. Rothschild, Hill Samuel, and other small private banking houses...[emphasis added]

Note that of the four banking families listed above, three are Jewish, and the fourth, the Barings, are believed (in anti-Semitic lore) to be secret converts from Judaism. Thus LaRouche is referring to three Jewish banking families and one might-as-well-be-Jewish (for agitational purposes) banking family that, along with "other [unnamed] small private banking families," are the "policy-shaping kernel" of the "British monarchy" and "control" or "directly contol" various institutions regarded as key in LaRouchian theory (LaRouche lists several more beyond those described in the quote above, but to include them all here would be tiresome).

Now let's look at another example: LaRouche's "How to Analyze and Uproot International Terrorism," New Solidarity, Feb. 17, 1978.

The British loudly, shamelessly advertise such objectives [support for terrorism and environmentalism, etc.] in the press controlled by the same Barings, Lazards, and Rothschilds who control the Round Table, the Royal Institute for International Affairs and the London Institute for Strategic Studies. These ruling British forces, the avowed enemies of the human species, shamelessly declare war on the human species, and yet the governments of the nations targeted for victimization profess to be incredulous when we insist that the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the policy arm of British MI-5 and MI-6, is behind international terrorism and environmentalism....

Were I a head of state of any principal European nation, I would clean up the terrorism problem in short order.

And if these nefarious banking families are so powerful in England naturally their power is exerted worldwide. Like flying saucers, they are everywhere. For instance, did you know that these banking families even started the U.S. Civil War? Yep, in the "Dirigist" article LaRouche tells us:

It was these same City of London interests, acting largely through their agents in the Boston, Manhattan, New Orleans, and other private banks--e.g., August Belmont and Confederate (Rothschild) Treasurer Judah Benjamin--which engineered the Civil War.

In other words, two Jews working for a third Jew engineered the bloodiest war in U.S. history! This is about on the level of Farrakhan's accusation that the Jews controlled the slave trade (or LaRouche's claim on September 11, 2001 that the World Trade Center terror attacks had been engineered by the Goldsmith brothers (cousins of the Rothschilds)).

Finally, I cite the well-known image from LaRouche's "Mickey Mouse and Pluto Come to Washington," New Solidarity, Oct. 17, 1978: Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David flanked by two well-known Jews hated by LaRouche (Kissinger and Milton Friedman).[1] The image's caption (why am I not surprised?) identifies the Jewish star as a "satanic" symbol.

Honest people can disagree on the extent to which Anglophobia and anti-Semitism merge in LaRouche's rhetoric, but I have cited the above sources in my own published writings, which in turn are recognized as legitimate sources for Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. The material is thus properly cited on two levels and there are no grounds for removing it.--Dking 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Using Dennis King's method it is also possible to prove that LaRouche is virulently anti-Christian. He has focussed his wrath on Francisco Franco, Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Augusto Pinochet -- that gives him away right there! All four are Christians, or at least nominal Christians. And if that weren't enough, LaRouche viciously attacks Tomás de Torquemada, which is an affront to Catholics everywhere. Sure, LaRouche says a few nice things about the apostles John and Paul, but who cares about them nowadays? That's just two isolated cases, and it means nothing. The only people who are interested in them are probably just the "house Christians" in LaRouche's organization. I rest my case. --Masai warrior 05:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not a serious response to Dennis King's comments. Identifying Jewish bankers (or allegedly Jewish bankers) as the linchpin of conspiracies to provoke wars and control the world economy has been a staple of anti-semitism for 150 years. There is such a thing as anti-semitism, there are recognisable tropes of anti-semitism, and the examples given by King are consistent with these. LeContexte 10:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Redflag

An editor deleted some material with this edit summary:

WP:REDFLAG,WP:NOR still apply. The cited sources are also misleading because interpretation given to sources is OR [2]

"WP:REDFLAG is a section of Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.
- Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
- Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
- Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
- Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

What claims are surprising or out of character? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The claims that were removed in this edit. Dking attaches his own interpretations and conclusions to the material he cites, in particular, the "Inner Elites" article, which contradict what LaRouche himself says in the very same article. WP:NOR also comes into play here. As I see it, we have two options: we can devote a new, article length segment to Dking's claims and the inevitable rebuttals, or we can substitute the short summary I provided, which I believe to be far more appropriate to an encyclopedia. I also think that my summary is scrupulously fair and accurate. Do you disagree? --Marvin Diode 00:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about NOR, I'm talking about REDFLAG. Which claims do you find surprising or out of character? All of them? Based on the widely held views of LaRouche, do you think that trhis statement:

LaRouche identifies the ancient incarnation of this elite with "the anti-human bestialists" and "parasites," "Babylonians and other non-Jews" who "cooked up the hoax known as the Old Testament."

Asserts views that are surprising or out of character for LaRouche? He is widely-viewed a anti-Semitic and as a conspiracy theorist. The assertions in that sentence appear to be within the common view of his character and unsurprising. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the red flag designation applies, the Washington Post and the Guardian, to name a few, have called LaRouche a conspiracy theorist and dealt with allegations of anti-Semitism. Original research is as always another issue. --arkalochori ^|talk| 02:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject is so well-known for advancing unusual concepts that REDFLAG would apply only for very unusual assertions. The editor forwarding the theory hasn't explained it. I've restored the sourced material deleted for that cause. (It was also deleted for "self-citing", but I didn't cite myself so that's no an issue either, and for NOR. Editors are free to explain that issue.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche's statement on fighting the alien species

Marvin Diode asked to see a copy of the text of "The Elite That Can't Think Straight." Without conceding that he has any right to ask me to furnish the original research materials for a properly sourced, critically praised book from a major publishing house, I am nevertheless furnishing this for the enlightenment of all (including LaRouche Youth Movement members with secret doubts about their leader) who may read this discussion page. The links are to images of the first page [3] and last page [4] of the essay in question. Left click to enlarge the images. The quote re LaRouche and the alien species is in the last paragraph of the last page. In reading it, ask yourself: What sort of person goes around having fantasies that people fear him and regard him as more dangerous than Hitler?--Dking 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Having read the context, I consider it biased and incorrect for you to draw the inference that he is comparing himself to Hitler. He is suggesting that his opponents might compare him to Hitler, which doesn't seem so far fetched to me, having seen you yourself do so so routinely. --Marvin Diode 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Basis for removal of OR

In response to Will Beback's edit summary: Identifying the "Italian banking families" as "Jewish-led" is OR, unsourced, and intended to insinuate that LaRouche has veiled or coded anti-Semitic intent. Likewise the reference to "a cabal of predominantly Jewish banking families in London." LaRouche opens the "Elites" essay by stating that:

Exemplary of the follies into which presumably educated and informed people are misled in the pursuit of the snipe, are the doctrines of the "international Jewish conspiracy" and the recently more popular "international communist conspiracy."

Thus Dking/Dennis King is attempting through part insinuation, part fabrication, to impute a meaning to LaRouche's words that runs directly contrary to the actual thrust of the essay. The remainder of the overly long comments from King are an exercise in WP:SYNTH, attempting to bolster his essential false argument. --Marvin Diode 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The contested text reads, in part:

He identifies the elite's medieval version with Jewish-led Italian banking families that he blames, according to King, for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.[ref]LaRouche, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," The Campaigner, May-June 1978, pp. 32-33.[/ref] [ref]LaRouche, "The Two Global Conspiracies," New Solidarity, Nov. 18, 1977[/ref]

Checking page 32 of the "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites," I see it says:

Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish...Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Roman Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successful benefit, from the finacnial advantages of the papacy, the Pierloeni "comverted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, took the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope. That sordid arrangement was nullified by intervention of the German emperor, and ex-Gregory VI and his heir Hildebrand, later Pope Gregory VII, were hustled off into exile.
This occurred during the eleventh century, and is no quaint element of church history but the focus of a chain of events which shaped the course of history over the following centuries, until the culmination of this policy in the mid-fourteenth century Black Death's killing of about half the existing population of central Europe...Three principal operations of that period were decisive in enabling Hildebrand to seize the papacy. First, the Norman conquest of Saxon England and the associated project for the Norman conquest of Sicily. Second, the murder of three popes, two by Aristotelian methods within twenty-three _tays of one another, by Hildebrand's family's associates, a family then, among other functions, providing catering services to the papacy.

So it appears an accurate summary to me. Larouche does appear to say that Jews were among the leading bankers in Rome, that they achieved some goals through poisoning, and that there was some policy that culminated in the plague. Where's the original research? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to quote my comments at the beginning of this section: Identifying the "Italian banking families" as "Jewish-led" is OR, unsourced, and intended to insinuate that LaRouche has veiled or coded anti-Semitic intent. Likewise the reference to "a cabal of predominantly Jewish banking families in London." Neither of these editorial comments by Dking is supported by the material you cite. --Marvin Diode 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If that's the only problem then let's fix it here.

He identifies the elite's medieval version with Italian banking families, especially the "converted" Jewish Pierleoni family, that he blames for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.

How's that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, it is an extremely minor point and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic summary of LaRouche's views. The only reason it comes up is that Dking was trying to scrape up some circumstantial evidence for his theory that the essay is secretly anti-Semitic. It's WP:SYNTH. --Marvin Diode 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm getting confused. You keep coming up with different objections to this material. As each is addressed you find fresh objections. It's getting old. Is the above text original research or not? If it isn't I'm going to put it back in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is as confusing as you make it out to be. There is a particular section of the No Original Research policy which is called "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position," shortcut WP:SYNTH. What Dking is doing is simply scrounging through the article looking for any reference to Jewish families or banking interests (while ignoring all others,) then assembling these references to attempt to advance a position, i.e. his theory that LaRouche is talking about a Jewish conspiracy, even though LaRouche states his opposition to such a theory. So what we have in Dking's edits is, instead of an encyclopedic summary of LaRouche's ideas, a melange of unrelated and non-notable tidbits that is clearly "intended to advance a position," while misleading the reader and harming the encyclopedia project. I don't think that you can honestly claim, Will, that the material you are seeking to include is intended to provide an essential summary of the basic ideas of the "elites" essay. --Marvin Diode 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I should also reiterate that the formulations dentifying the "Italian banking families" as "Jewish-led" and the "cabal of ...banking families in London" as "predominantly Jewish" are complete OR -- they don't appear in LaRouche's work, they are otherwise unsourced, and I suspect that they are historically incorrect. --Marvin Diode 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also Dennis King's version has his interpretation of Lyndon LaRouche's essay being even longer than the explanation of the essay. How does that not qualify as undue weight. This article is about the views of LaRouche not King. --arkalochori ^|talk| 07:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to evaluating or criticizing a theory, it is better to report what a prominent critic has written in a reliable source than to engage in original research by interpreting the material ourselves. Marvin Diode has claimed that this passage is orignal research, but it appears to me to be a valid summary of the text I've posted here. Note, however, that the actual text that Marvin Diode has repeatedly deleted is also based on a second work that I haven't haven't posted. So long as we summarize what reliable sources have said on the topic then we won't be in trouble. I propose that we could get around this simply reporting what reliable sources have said about LaRouche in this context instead of trying to deicde what it means on our own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. King's book does not provide summaries of LaRouche's views, it provides commentary on a real or imagined "sub-text." I think that it is normal practice in other articles on politicians to report directly on what they say, and to use mature editorial judgment as to what is notable and what isn't. --Gelsomina 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the frequency of what appear to be deliberate distortions in King's book, I don't think it is safe to conclude that it is a reliable source, published or not. There are many books available about 9-11 or JFK murder conspiracy theories that are published by reputable houses, but would not be admitted here as sources without careful scrutiny. --Marvin Diode 14:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that disputes the reliability of the book? It was published by a major publisher, Doubleday, and should be presumed reliable until proven otherwise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times review of his book, while generally favorable, includes this concluding assessment: But in trying to see Mr. LaRouche as a would-be Fuhrer, Mr. King may be trying to tie together the whole unruly package with too neat a ribbon. A number of loose ends hang out, not least of which is the fact that many members of Mr. LaRouche's inner circle are Jewish.[5] --Gelsomina 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Too neat a ribbon" is not the same as "deliberate distortions". Let's get back to the text in question. It plainly says that a Roman Jewish banking family "converted" to Christianity, and then went on to take over the papacy, pursuing a policy the led to the Black Death. This is not in a section on Jews, but in a paragraph trying to describe the lineage of the oligarchical/synarchic elites that is a key element of LaRouche's world view. I don't believe that excess weight on the oligarchy is a problem because it is so important to LaRouche and it appears throughout his writings. While Jews are part of the theory, they are not the whole theory and most of the important figures in the oligarchy haven't been Jewish, "converted" or otherwise. So I again propose the text:

[LaRouche] identifies the elite's medieval version with Italian banking families, especially the "converted" Jewish Pierleoni family, that he blames for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.

It accurately and briefly summarizes a key period in the history of the oligarchy as LaRouche has described it in his essay, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that in LaRouche's essay, "most of the important figures in the oligarchy haven't been Jewish, 'converted' or otherwise." This directly contradicts Dennis King's thesis, of course. The question then is, why do you consider this section to be notable? I also see a major flaw in your proposed edit, that being that you say that LaRouche "blames" the Pierleoni family for "causing the Black Plague." That's quite a stretch. --Marvin Diode 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you interpret the sentence:

This occurred during the eleventh century, and is no quaint element of church history but the focus of a chain of events which shaped the course of history over the following centuries, until the culmination of this policy in the mid-fourteenth century Black Death's killing of about half the existing population of central Europe

"This" refers to the takeover of the papacy by an "heir" to the Pierleoni family, who were "converted" Jews. Please explain who developed and implemented the policy that culminated in the Black Death, if it wasn't the Pierleoni, as LaRoche appears to say. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As is often the case with quotes taken out of context, the answer is not to be found within the sentence you cite. LaRouche's turgid writing style makes it difficult to ascertain who actually developed "the policy," or even what "the policy" actually is, but it may be the policy referred to a few paragraphs earlier, as "the Aristotelean policy of coopting and syncretizing religious beliefs into forms suitable to serve as state cults." At any rate, it is clear that LaRouche is not blaming the Pierleonin family for causing the plague, which happened 300 years later. --Marvin Diode 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to ask why you consider the section to be notable. We know why Dennis King considers it notable -- he's trying to piece together evidence for his theory of anti-Semitism. Since you apparently agree that "most of the important figures in the oligarchy haven't been Jewish, 'converted' or otherwise," why must we continue to wrangle over this obscure sentence? If you have read the essay, surely you agree that the kernel of LaRouche's view is that the two "elites" are characterized by adherence to the philosophies of either Plato or Aristotle, and the ethnicity or religious orientation of the individuals involved is of little importance. --Marvin Diode 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I would very much like to see your response to this. --Gelsomina 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that one aspect of LaRouche's Manichean division of the world is based on the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. I disagree that he thinks that cultures, ethnicities, and religions are of little importance. His associaiton of "that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion" with the Aristotelian tradition is important enough to be a recurring theme in the Elites piece. That's why we're summarizing it. The "theory" of Larouche's anti-semitism is widely held. Other than LaRouce supports I'm not aware of anyone who contradicts the theory. Don't you think that calling the Jewish religion a hoax is anti-Semitic? I'd like to see both of your responses to this question. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, I actually have read this article. It was a lot of work. Did you actually read it, also, or did you just do some word searches? What LaRouche says about Judaism in the article, as I understand it, is that up through Roman times it was mixture of all sorts of different influences, and it wasn't until the advent of Philo and the neoplatonics that it began to gel as a religion in the modern sense. He appears to be saying that much of the historiography is a hoax. As far as the "barbarism of the Old Testament" is concerned, would you care to present a defense of the Book of Leviticus? The thing that I object to is that Dking, with your support, makes no effort to summarize the article. He goes in with an agenda -- "Let's prove that LaRouche is an anti-Semite" -- and cherry picks quotes, which are then re-assembled like Frankenstein's monster into something to fit the agenda. Now that we have a big sub-section on Judaism, are you going to give equal weight to all the claims LaRouche makes about good guys and bad guys in the Christian religion? That certain plays a bigger role in the article. --Marvin Diode 17:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite any langugage that supports the assertion that LaRouche was referring to the historiography being a hoax rather than the religion itself? I see where he says, "We cite the case of that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion." Calling the Old Testament "barabaric" is one thing, calling it a hoax is another. Are you saying that calling the Jewish religion a hoax is not anti-Semitic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, did you read the article? Context is everything. LaRouche is an ambiguous character, and I had never labored through one of his long articles before. He obviously strongly supports some currents in Judaism that he considers to be neoplatonic. This may be a controversial view. I don't know whether he still thinks the same way (after all, this was written 30 years ago.) But in fairness to our readers, I would be extremely cautious about oversimplification. --Marvin Diode 14:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I've read the article. Do you think that calling Judaism a "hoax" religion" is anti-Semitic or not? You've said that the contention that LaRouche is anti-semitic is a fringe viewpoint. If that's the case then you'd have to agree that the remark is not anti-Semitic. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No answer? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer is no, that is not correct. And if you ask me whether I have stopped beating my wife, I'll ask you to rephrase the question. --Marvin Diode 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean if someone called LaRouche a "hoax" you wouldn't consider that to be an anti-LaRouche statement either? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to LaRouche apologists

LaRouche's followers have inserted vast quantities of their own personal interpretations, completely unsourced Original Research, into this Wizard of Oz article. An example would be their claim that there is a LaRouche-Riemann mathematical method in economics and their flat-earther claims regarding its efficacy. This is all nonsense--LaRouche has never mastered higher mathematics, I'd be surprised if he still remembers high school algebra. He just spouts abusive opinions, as that Newton practiced witchcraft. Dr. Edward Teller told me that LaRouche is "a poorly informed man with fantastical conceptions" and I think this sums up LHL's intellectual standing with everyone except his followers and a few elderly people he's scamming. Yet adulatory material about him has been allowed to dominate this article almost without opposition. Now, when I attempt to inject a few paragraphs of properly sourced material, it gets deleted again and again (or now, they want to "compromise" and allow in a tiny proportion while leaving paragraph after paragraph of unsourced LaRouche hero worship untouched).

The claim that LaRouche was only talking about the beliefs of his oligarchical enemies and not his own when he said they regard him as "more dangerous than Hitler" is ridiculous. If you go to the full paragraph that I have now given a link to, you will see that the more-dangerous-than-Hitler sentence was directly preceded by the following:

[T]hey recognize quickly in that distinction that exists between us evidence that I represent the ancient and feared adversary of their own evil species. The Whore of Babylon recognizes the mind of her potential destroyer.

Why does LaRouche use, and then repeat, the word "recognize" rather than choosing "perceive" or "fancy" or "imagine"? The word he chooses clearly indicates that LaRouche regards the described perception as correct. And in fact he has written numerous articles over the years about the need to destroy, eliminate, conquer, rid the world of, etc., etc., the evil species a/k/a the British, the Anglo-Dutch, the Venetians, the Zionist-British organism, the "friends of Henry Kissinger", the Synarchists or whatever his latest label might be.

As to LaRouche's statement that he's against "international Jewish conspiracy" doctrines, this is typical. He says he's against Nazis, then he calls the Jews Nazis and the Wehrmacht "heroic." He says he's against racism, then he hires Klansmen as his advisors. He says he's against fascism, then he writes a book calling for an industrial capitalist "dictatorship-in-fact" in the United States. He says he's against abortion but has pressured women in his group to have over 200 abortions. He says he's against international Jewish conspiracy theories but then outlines (in the very same essay and in numerous other essays) an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that embraces thousands of years of history.

I ask the LaRouche defenders on this page, do you or don't you agree with LaRouche:

that Jews seized the papacy and caused the Black Plague?

that the Rothschilds and Jewish agents of the Rothschilds caused the U.S. civil war?

that Britain is unremittingly evil and that it is controlled by "the family interests of the Lazard Brothers, Barings, N.M. Rothschild, Hill Samuel, and other small private banking houses"?

that the LaRouche organization is at war with an evil species outside the human race that is the relentless enemy of the human race?

that this evil species "recognizes" in LaRouche the "mind of [its] potential destroyer"?

that (as LaRouche has said) what the oligarchical species is planning for the human race makes the crimes of Hitler look like a "slight mistake"?

that Judaism is a half-religion and that Jews lack a proper Christian conscience?

that Jewish culture is simply all that is left over after everything else has been sold to the Goyim?

that the Biblical Jewish faith is based on a "hoax"?

that the "Zionists" killed Jimmy Hoffa?

that "America should be cleansed for its righteous war" by the "immediate elimination" of the Zionist lobby from positions of influence in America?

that the U.S. government is riddled with Mossad agents?

that the Nazi scientists who built V-2 rockets with slave labor represent one of the highest and most admirable stages in the history of Western science?

that the Wehrmacht played a "heroic" role against the evil British in World War Two?

that the Star of David is a satanic symbol?

that if the "British" don't mend their evil ways the U.S. should do to London what was done to Japan in 1945?

If you agree with him on these points, I suggest that your edits on this article should be taken no more seriously than any that might be advanced by David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. If you do NOT agree with LaRouche on these points, I suggest that you stop defending the indefensible.--Dking 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King has his own website to promote his conspiracy theories, Wikipedia should not be an additional venue for his opinions. He is thoroughly dishonest in the way that he mispresents LaRouche's ideas, using standard propaganda techniques. Because he wrote a book, Wikipedia is obliged to acknowledge that he has a theory that LaRouche is a closet anti-Semite, but we don't have to reproduce all of his convoluted and deceptive arguments. --Gelsomina 05:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The view that LaRouche is an anti-Semite is commonly held, not a fringe idea by one author. Which of the assertions in this list are misrepresentations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dwarf King

M Diode says that Dwarf King is not a real editor. If you click on the name you will see that this person is a real editor who has contributed to various articles. I might add it is NOT me. Although I'm found of Tolkein, I'm not a dwarf, an elf, an orc or a dragon.--Dking 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Incessant deletions of properly sourced material

It is clear that the LaRouche editors on this page will continue deleting my material about LaRouche's anti-Semitic conspiracy theories ad infinitum. The dispute has been exhaustively discussed on the discussion page, where I have presented the documentation from LaRouche's own writings that I based the analysis in my book on. There is clearly no point in waging an ongoing edit war; I can only rely on the good will of Wikipedians and the Wiki admin to resolve this issue.

LaRouche's defenders have responded to my proof of the well-founded nature of my analysis (including my furnishing of the text of LaRouche's more dangeous-than-Hitler fantasy and his allegations about Jews causing the Black Plague) with incessant re-deletions and yet another complaint to the Wiki admin repeating charges against Chip Berlet and myself that have already been rejected. On this discussion page, "Marvin Diode" has stated re my analysis that "I'm making it up" and that it is "thoroughly dishonest." Also on this discussion page, "Masai warrior" has threatened Wikipedia (and by implication, me as well) with a libel suit over this, and has called me a purveyor of "stinking propaganda."

As it stands, Wiki readers (including college students considering whether or not to join LaRouche) are being deprived of properly sourced information and are being fed absurd and totally unsourced sanitizations of LaRouche's ideas and history. This could have a disastrous effect on the lives of well-meaning but naive students and their families. Wiki as an institution needs to decide: Is it going to continue to allow this type of censorhip by LaRouche's followers, or will it take the steps that Chip Berlet has suggested for finally ending this abuse of the Wikipedia editing process?--Dking 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More deletions of properly sourced statements

In "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites" and contemporaneous articles, LaRouche did not just talk about Italian bankers. He repeatedly emphasized the leading role of Italian Jewish bankers who he said converted to Christianity (he repeatedly put the word converted in sarcastic quotation marks) in order to take over the Papacy and carry out usurious schemes resulting in the Black Plague. In LaRouche's description of Pierleoni rule of the Papacy and its alleged effect on European culture and economy he is clearly asserting that the Roman banking conspiracy was Jewish led. I properly cited this description to my book and I provided, on this discussion page, the actual quotes from the LaRouche articles cited in my book. The same holds true with the statement about LaRouche's view of the British oligarchy as being at its core a collection of London banking families of which those named are mostly Jewish. I properly referenced this statement to my book and provided the actual quotes from the LaRouche articles I cited in my book. The LaRouchians can disagree with my interpretation but the interpretation is solidly founded in my study of LaRouche's writings, is properly cited to a book widely recognized as being carefully researched, and thus deserves to be included in this article without censorship to balance the view presented by the LaRouchians (without any proper sources whatsoever) that LaRouche is a great and beneficent genius without a bigoted bone in the body.--Dking 02:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we've already been over this.[6] You point out that some banking families were Jewish, and from that you further conclude that they were "Jewish-led." However, LaRouche does not conclude this, there is nothing to suggest that he is attacking bankers for their religious or ethnic persuasion (as opposed to their banking pracitices,) and your edit was worded in such a way as to imply that he was singling them out for that reason. That is what is referred to as propaganda. I thought that Masai warrior's response was spot on. --Marvin Diode 02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode, if I recall correctly you've said that you are not a follower of LaRouche and that you have only a casual interest in LaRouche's writings. I think Masai Warrior has said the same thing. On the other hand, King wrote a book about LaRouche and has been studying him for decades. I don't see how we can prefer the opinions of a couple of people who've only casually looked at some of the man's writings over an expert opinion. If you ave a different 3rd-party source that describes LaRouche differently then let's look at it. But if it's just the opinion of an anonymous Wikipedia over a published expert, then I think we have to go with the expert opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dennis King makes no effort to disguise the fact that he is not in the least objective, which is what one would hope from an encyclopedia editor. He is editing with an agenda. Will, your view seems to conflict the view of the ArbCom, which said that "It is not possible to simultaneously pursue NPOV and an activist agenda. Editors who have exceptionally strong professional, political, or financial commitments to a particular point of view are asked to refrain from editing in affected subject areas. This is particularly true when the affected subject areas are controversial ." --Gelsomina 06:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom pointed those decisions at LaRouche followers, not their critics, though general editing concerns about avoiding COI and the like apply to everyone else as well. Attempting to use them to stifle critics of LaRouche here is... nice Chutzpah, but not going to fly. Georgewilliamherbert 09:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do your homework before making accusations. The arbcom decision I quoted was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy, which had nothing to do with LaRouche. --Gelsomina 15:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Note. Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Very similar language has been used, twice, regarding LaRouche supporters and this article. That you quoted another decision in this specific case does not invalidate my point in the least.

Based on the existing Arbcom precedent regarding this group and articles related to it, full protection of the article to end the edit warring is clearly on the table. A number of accounts involved in this debate are also clearly in violation of the prior arbcom rulings regarding LaRouche activities on Wikipedia.

While we generally limit other admin actions during a potential or actual arbcom case on a particular point, I don't see any reason to avoid enforcing prior AC decisions while we wait to see if this new case will introduce any new rulings specific to the issue at hand.

I reverted my brief full protection of the article a couple of days ago out of an abundance of caution. However, my conclusion at this time is that I was overcautious and that a full protect is probably warranted and compliant with policy and Arbcom rulings.

I haven't set a new full protection on, however I am strongly considering doing so. Georgewilliamherbert 23:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have carefully read the LaRouche arbcom decisions. They mainly apply to articles not directly related to LaRouche. Could you please specify which rulings you think are being violated here, and by which editors? --Marvin Diode 00:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Violations include but are not limited to:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - Principles 1, 2; Remedies 1, 4; Enforcement 3 would justify protecting the article due to the edit warring (though the 'without any mention' would be inapplicable to an article specifically ON LaRouche's views like this one; the Enforcement clause does specifically call out that Admins can protect other than the last version of articles in this particular topic area, however)

Remedies 1, 3 and 4 apply very specifically to articles other than article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. --Marvin Diode 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 - Principles 2, 3, 5
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others - Principles 5, 6, 11

None of these decisions nor Wikipedia policy or guidelines in general set aside topic-focused articles as some sort of exception to normal editing process or policy, where contentious editing by an involved party or organization is permitted. They all specifically state the opposite. Georgewilliamherbert 00:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. "Principles" refer to standing Wikipedia policies which are generally in force; for example, "Principle 2" of "LaRouche 2" reads 2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising. (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) I have referred to this in my arbcom complaint against Cberlet and Dking. However, when you speak, as you do, of enforcing a specific ArbCom decision, you need to reference "remedies" and "enforcement," and the only examples you give are the very ones which apply only to articles "not closely related to LaRouche." --Marvin Diode 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You're trying to legalistically wriggle around these points. Wikipedia doesn't work that way.

You are free to disagree with any enforcement actions I may take on these points, and my interpretation of policy. But I don't need you to agree that I'm enforcing policy and Arbcom rulings in a proper way for it to be OK for me to do so. Administrator actions are not constrained in the slightest by potential enforcees disagreeing that rules apply to them.

If I do act on these points I will of course notify the administrator's incidents noticeboard and note it on the ongoing arbitration case, for reference. Other administrators and editors are always welcome to review admin actions. Georgewilliamherbert 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, take whatever admin actions you like. I simply asked how the arbcom decisions were being violated, and by whom, and I seem to be having difficulty getting you to answer that. --Marvin Diode 04:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are LaRouche's views "left" or "right"?

I have gone back over the edit history of the Lyndon LaRouche bio article, and there is a lot of interesting stuff there on this controversy. During the 80s, when the Washington Post was calling him right-wing, Daniel O. Graham (who was in fact right-wing) was calling him an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist." It seems to me that LaRouche's politics are unusual and don't easily fit standard categories. I believe the John Birch Society also called him a leftist. Going down the list in this article of policies that he supports, some might be considered conservative, some liberal. In an encyclopedia there is a temptation to try to make everyone fit into cats, but I suggest that we resist the temptation in this case. --Marvin Diode 14:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with saying that he moved rightward from his former Marxist positions. The Washington Post is a better source for political standing, comparative to mainstream, than an ultraconservative like Graham. --arkalochori ^|talk| 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be time-specific. --Marvin Diode 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that it is. --Marvin Diode 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to users

Note. Gelsomina (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), based on checkuser evidence and editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- copied here from above. --arkalochori ^|talk| 07:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Due to continuation of the ongoing slow-motion edit war, per Arbcom decisions and related Wikipedia policy as discussed above, this article is now fully protected. Only administrators can edit the article.

Other editors who want to propose changes are free to describe the change here on the Talk page and discuss why it is a good idea. Administrators who watch this article should review such requested changes and are encouraged to make changes that are supported by Wikipedia policy or the improvement of the article as a whole. Georgewilliamherbert 00:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mostly Jewish" bankers

Dking misrepresents what I said earlier about libel. I didn't "threaten Wikipedia with a libel suit." I simply said that Wikipedia has a policy against libel. Would you like to see it? It's to be found at WP:LIBEL.

Now, I see that Georgewilliamherbert is taking Dking's side in the dispute. George, the contested edits are a standard smear tactic. LaRouche attacks a banking family for its banking policies and practices. Dennis King says that because the family is Jewish, this attack must be motivated by anti-Semitism. It means nothing of the sort, and it is very irresponsible (not to mention a BLP violation) to allow this sort of thing to go into the article. --Masai warrior 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Masai warrior and Marvin Diode keep repeating the same charges over and over, I'll repeat part of my response from several days ago:

As to the quote about medieval bankers, here is what LaRouche fantasizes (pp 32-33 of "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites") about the period following Charlemagne:

From that point, a fight was joined in Europe between the Aristotelians (the monetarist banker-linked forces attempting and often succeeding, in controlling the papacy) and the humanist currents.

Let's also look at a slightly different version in LaRouche's "The Two Global Conspiracies" (New Solidarity, Nov. 18, 1977):

New comment: The LaRouche editors have also attacked me for my interpretation of LaRouche's views on ancient Judaism. According to these editors, LaRouche posits a progressive faction among Jews led by Philo of Alexandria. Apart from the lack of evidence that any such faction ever existed or was ever a significant force, the "Secrets" and "Global Conspiracies" articles themselves reveal the insincerity of LaRouche's rhetoric regarding the good Jew Philo. LaRouche suggests that Philo's supposed progressive faction of Jews was moving towards Christianity and away from what LaRouche described in his earlier "Feuerbach" article (The Campaigner, Dec. 1973, p. 37) as the "half-religion" of Judaism (which supposedly reflected the interests of the "Roman merchant usurer" and supposedly failed to instill a "Christian conscience"). But what happens when some of the Roman Jews do convert centuries later (according to LaRouche's account, which may or may reflect the historical reality)? He puts the word "convert" in sarcastic quotation marks, twice, and states flatly that the reason for the conversion was financial and political--to seize control of the Papacy and employ it as "an instrument of usury." Thus like many other anti-Semites, LaRouche sets up a sadistic Catch 22--the Jews are damned if they do and damned if they don't. In his 1978 article, "New Pamphlet to Document the Cult Origins of Zionism" (New Solidarity, Dec. 8, 1978) LaRouche suggests that it is possible for there to be real, worthwhile Jews (as opposed to the "Jews who are not Jews"). He suggests that these real Jews, who may escape society's next round of repression against the fake Jews, are the Jews who follow his own leadership. Oh yeah, Lyn? Try telling that to the families of Jeremiah Duggan and Kenneth Kronberg.--Dking 15:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

After your latest long digression, we are still without a source for your claim that the Italian and British banking families were "mostly Jewish."

Incidentally, although the subject of usury does not come up in the "elites" essay, I have no trouble acknowledging that LaRouche opposes usury, and if that isn't already in the article, it should go there. However, if it is your intention to then argue that opposition to usury is a coded form of anti-Semitism, let me say in advance that I think that's a crock. --Marvin Diode 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's probably why it says "according to King" in the relevant section. Perhaps it could be made clearer that it is King's interpretation. --arkalochori ^|talk| 06:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a veiled threat. You cannot use WP:LIBEL to silence scholarly criticisms, and obviously "according to King" is clear enough attribution. El_C 10:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"You cannot use WP:LIBEL to silence scholarly criticisms" -- that part is comedy gold. --Leatherstocking 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Try to stay on-topic. This isn't a chat room. El_C 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't take side in the content dispute, I reverted the most recent policy-abusive edit. There is a difference between "this was wrong" and "they are right and those other guys are wrong".

If you believe there's a clear BLP violation in that text, we can discu in in appropriate depth here, and I or any other admin can deal with any violations which are evident after discussion and review. Georgewilliamherbert 21:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In the version that you locked into place, it is by no means clear that the observation that the Italian bankers or the British bankers were "mostly Jewish" is King's observation and not LaRouche's. I have read the article by LaRouche and he makes no such observation (and I know of no evidence that this was historically the case.) --Marvin Diode 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate to remind all parties of what the BLP policy mandates:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

– WP:BLP

--Marvin Diode 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Marvin, all protected articles are at The Wrong Version, so don't judge George too harshly on that. Perhaps you could propose a phrasing change to fix the problem you see and gather consensus around that? Thanks, William Pietri 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The situation could be easily remedied by removing the gratuitous and unsourced claim that the Italian and British banking families mentioned in LaRouche's essay were "mostly Jewish." Of course, that would simply be a return to the version that George reverted. But don't misunderstand me; I don't blame George for protecting The Wrong Version, I blame him for protecting an article in which he was a participant in the dispute (see Wikipedia:Page protection,) and for having a totally bizarre misreading of the arbcom decisions he cites. --Marvin Diode 00:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

British elite

The paragraph transitions poorly from "LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London" to the quote below which only discusses the "British elite." Although it is in the citations, nowhere does it mention the idea that British is a code word for Jewish. When reading that section it makes it harder to follow the connection.

Also on the Lyndon LaRouche page the following sentence is in the section Allegations of antisemitism: This latter claim is disputed by author Daniel Pipes, who writes: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British."^[2] Perhaps this or something similar can be added as an alternative view to counterbalance King's assertions. --arkalochori ^|talk| 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Then let's also copy from Wiki's Lyndon LaRouche article the citation to (and link to a page image of) the illustration, in a tract by LaRouche, of Queen Elizabeth at the top of a Star of David flanked by Henry Kissinger and Milton Friedman and with a caption calling the star a "satanic" symbol[7]--Dking 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure I have no problem bringing in relevant material from another related article. It probably should have been there in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkalochori (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Syntactical glitches

Can someone fix the broken {{quote}} under "Marxist Roots" and the broken {{quotation}} under "AIDS and gays"? These appear to be errors introduced as a result of El C's ref cleanup. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the way, is there any reason why two different templates are used for quotes? matt br 07:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Attribution

I have a simple suggestion to resolve the above dispute about attribution. Let the passage which presently reads as:

He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, primarily Jewish ones, that he blames, according to King, for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague.As to the modern elite, LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London.

be amended as follows:

He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, which according to King are primarily Jewish ones. King writes that he blames them for poisoning Popes and causing the Black Plague. As to the modern elite, LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of banking families in London, which according to King are mostly Jewish.

--Masai warrior 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that version. We've had a long discussion of this above and it appears that LaRouche does associate the "elite" with poisoning popes and causing the Black Plague. LaRouche describes what he calls the leading banking family of Rome as being "converts" from Judaism (his quotation marks).

Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish...Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Roman Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successful benefit, from the finacnial advantages of the papacy, the Pierloeni "comverted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, took the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope. That sordid arrangement was nullified by intervention of the German emperor, and ex-Gregory VI and his heir Hildebrand, later Pope Gregory VII, were hustled off into exile.

I don't think we need to attribute the well-known Judaism of the Rothschilds to King. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Will is evading the issue. It is simple. LaRouche attacks an elite, which he does not specify as Jewish. He also attacks one formerly Jewish family, the Pierleoni. Will and Dking wish to extrapolate this in such a way as to insinuate that whenever LaRouche attacks an "elite" it is a code word for Jews. Masai warrior's proposal cannot be challenged on factual grounds -- the attribution is accurate in his version. It appears that it is being challenged for some other reason. --Marvin Diode 00:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that the proposed change does not affect the business about the poisoned popes and Black Plague, only the claim that the bankers are "mostly Jewish." --Marvin Diode 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph after paragraph of adulatory nonsense about LaRouche in this article is not qualified by "according to Masai Warrior" or according to "Marvin Diode." Nor can it be, unless they have published such opinions in a citable publication. Masai Warrior, who has revealed his name, cannot claim such publication, and Marvin Diode is still hiding behind a user name rather than proudly standing up openly for his leader, so we can't say for sure what he has or has not published. Yet when someone comes along with citable information and even provides the backup documentation for that citable information, the LaRouchian editors say it has to be qualified with weasel language. The fact is that LaRouche said these reprehensible things. The language quoted and requoted in postings above is quite clear.

My counter proposal is that all the nonsense about the thought of Chairman LaRouche that goes beyond simply describing his opinions as a political figure (including his attempts to stir up hatred against Jews, gays and other groups), and instead depicts him as a great genius with marvelous ideas in vast fields of human knowledge (fields like medieval papal history and Riemannian mathematics in which, in fact, he lacks the training and background to even express a valid opinion) should be removed forthwith from this article. Such information should only be restored if the LaRouchian editors can come up with statements from legitimate experts writing in legitimate publications that LaRouche has made a valid contribution to Discipline X or Discipline Y.--Dking 22:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode said above that I and other non-LaRouchian editors "wish to extrapolate [the issue of LaRouche's conspiracy theories] in such a way as to insinuate that whenever LaRouche attacks an 'elite' it is a code word for Jews." Again MD is trying to evade the issue of LaRouche's open anti-Semitism by changing the subject to that of code language. What LaRouche said about the Jewish bankers in Italy is not code language, it is an open example of anti-Semitic conspiracy mongering. As to what he said about the London bankers, well, if you say the British Empire is the source of all evil, then say it's controlled by a clique of London merchant banking families, then give the names of four families as being at the center of the evil, with three of these families being Jewish and one a family rumored to be of Jewish descent--this is not code language, it's open Jew baiting, since in reality Britain was not and is not controlled by these families except in the addled minds of anti-Semites. Of course these examples could be used in helping to explain how LaRouche employs euphemisms on other occasions, but in the examples at hand the anti-Semitism is right out in the open. I added them to this article to correct the sanitized account of LaRouche's conspiracy theory of history that had been written by his followers, not to demonstrate his use of code language. If I had wanted to demonstrate his code language I would have begun by citing, as I did in my book, LaRouche's own writings on the subject. His followers may laugh at the idea of code language, but LaRouche himself takes it very seriously.--Dking 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article to note that you have this theory, but not to present it as fact, or to give you a soapbox with which to attempt to make your case. --Marvin Diode 14:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again you're evading the issue. The dispute is not over my or anyone else's "theory" of code language. The dispute here is over statements by LaRouche that are open and uncoded expressions of conspiracy-theorist Jew baiting.--Dking 22:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No quotes from LaRouche are being disputed here. The only bone of contention has been spin-doctoring editorial comments made in your edits. Please either respond directly to Masai warrior's proposal, or start another section if you feel it necessary to soapbox on other topics. --Marvin Diode 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This section is intended to be a focused discussion of the attribution edits proposed by Masai warrior. They seem non-controversial to me. --Marvin Diode 14:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with Masai warrior's proposal. It's just a clarification of what statements are Dennis Kings. --arkalochori ^|talk| 07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request, then, that an admin make those changes. --Masai warrior 13:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the changes and request that they not be made until we can achieve a consensus. This has been debated at length and not yet resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you please specify what you think is inaccurate in my proposed version? --Masai warrior 20:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I already have, see my comments above, starting with I dispute that version. You never responded. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because your comments above don't address my proposed changes. You speak of poisoning popes and the black plague, and that part is identical in both versions. Please tell me your objections to the changes that I proposed, which in both cases are the simple insertion of the attribution "according to King." --Masai warrior 06:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My view is that, when summarizing views expressed in writing, that we should only attribute opinions and interpretations about the writing, not obvious summaries. If an author writes, "the sky is blue", and a reviewer writes "he says the sky is blue", then we don't need to say "According to a reviewer, he says the sky is blue". OTOH, if the reviewer says, "he uses the sky as a metaphor for the ocean", then that's interpretation and should be attributed. Since LaRouche plainly says that the leading Roman banking family was Jewish and that it poisoned popes we don't need to attribute that statement to any reviewer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: Does LaRouche directly say the banking families he is criticizing are Jewish? If so, then we have no problem since we're just reproducing his view. If not, then I don't see the issue in making it clear what reliable source we rely on for this information. It seems to be a non-trivial fact that we should cite. - Merzbow 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To repost the relevant quote from above:

Some of these Roman banking families were Jewish...Historically the most important of such Jewish banking families of Rome was the Pierleoni. Emulating another Roman Jewish banking family which had "converted" earlier to Christianity, to successful benefit, from the finacnial advantages of the papacy, the Pierloeni "comverted" with the same purpose in view. One member of the family, styling himself Pope Gregory VI, took the direct route to his goal, buying the papacy from an incumbent pope. That sordid arrangement was nullified by intervention of the German emperor, and ex-Gregory VI and his heir Hildebrand, later Pope Gregory VII, were hustled off into exile.

So yes, LaRouche does say directly that some of the banking families in Rome, including the leading one, "converted" to Christianity from Judaism. The source is his own essay, "The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites".[8] Other text in the essay describes the poisoning of popes to clear the throne for preferred candidates. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree. Now onto the sentence about the British families... after wading through the above discussion the relevant LaRouche quotes are listed in this thread. Although LaRouche doesn't say they're Jewish (directly), King says that three of the four are. I have no reason to doubt this, but can we find a cite to insert into the article at this point? (Maybe King's book)? - Merzbow 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The material posted at #LaRouche and the London bankers citations from three LaRouche sources using Jewish families as examples of London bankers.

The policy-shaping kernel of the enemy forces centered in the British monarchy is a group of private banking families ... These are notably the family interests of the Lazard Brothers, Barings, N.M. Rothschild, Hill Samuel, and other small private banking houses...

I'm not sure how those don't support the assertion that "LaRouche has connected it with a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London." There may perhaps be a slightly more precise way of defining LaRouche's thesis, but I think the summary already in this article is reasonably close. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This is either Original Research -- because LaRouche evidently doesn't think that it's significant that the British bankers are Jewish -- or it comes unattributed from King's book. In the case of the Italian family, how do you justify the leap from one family being Jewish, to "Italian banking families... primarily Jewish ones"? And what is more to the point, these are clearly not "summaries" of what is in LaRouche's essay, but cherry-picked details meant to back up Dennis King's theory. That should be made clear. --Masai warrior 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, all I'm saying is that it would deflect accusations of OR if we cited that sentence to wherever in King's book he makes two points about LaRouche's words there: that three of those four British families are Jewish, and that this is relevant. Unlike with the Italian bankers sentence, this one doesn't stand alone just on LaRouche's quote. I don't have the book and its not online so I can't do it. - Merzbow 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why it is necessary in the first place to identify the religion of the bankers? --Niels Gade 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Lyndon LaRouche about that. The idea of this text is simply to summarize what he says. Regarding Merzbow's question, this change may cover it:

He associates the elite's medieval form with Italian banking families, primarily Jewish ones, that he blames for poisoning popes and causing the Black Plague. LaRouche connects the modern form to banking interests in London, most of them Jewish.

While King's interpretations of LaRouche are worth noting, I think we can summarize this material without reference to any interpretations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It turns out King's book is online - in Chapter 29 here he says "Although LaRouche threw in a single non-Jewish family, the definition was essentially the same as Alfred Rosenberg's." I also notice that the paragraph in this article containing these sentences under discussion begins with "Journalist and LaRouche critic Dennis King wrote in his book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (Chaps 28-30)". Looks like we're covered. - Merzbow 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To others who still have issues... it seems clear to me that King is a reliable source, his book is a reliable source, LaRouche's quotes and the statements in that book support the wording of those sentences, and the paragraph and sentences are properly referenced. Is there another reliable source you can provide that disputes any of this? - Merzbow 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So we're good with the existing language? Thanks for taking the time to review this request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm fine with it now. - Merzbow 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a Break magazine

The mention of Take a Break magazine needs a little more context - the reader would be forgiven for thinking that this is a women's magazine focussing on politics and economics whereas, in fact, its publisher's description reads: "Captivating real life stories, prize puzzles and competitions and classic weekly elements, combine to give readers an interactive and involving big value package". Can I suggest we add change the description of the magazine to "a women's magazine specialising in celebrity news and puzzles" and a link to the magazine itself (www.takeabreak.co.uk) and/or a link to the description of the magazine at http://www.tpconline.co.uk/website/takeabreak.cfm? LeContexte 10:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't think such a designation necessary, but since we don't have an article on the magazine (even though it has a claimed circualtion of 3 million), and since the LaRouche organization made such a strident response to it, it may be worthwhile to give a better indication of the magazine's genre. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3 million figure seems a bit optimistic - ABC, the industry body that measures these things, reckons the circulation is 1 million (http://www.abc.org.uk/cgi-bin/gen5) LeContexte 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Error in citation link

Citation 9 (The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites) links to "http://wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM7806.pdfl". The "l" at the end should be deleted. Could an admin please fix this? LeContexte 10:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks LeContexte 10:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Views of a cult figure"

At the beginning of the article it says that LaRouche's critics believe he has "views of a cult figure." That seems to be a strange formulation -- what sort of views does a cult figure have? I would think that a person becomes a cult figure because of some sort of social dynamic, not because of his opinions per se. --Niels Gade 21:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

the choice of words is strange - presumably it means "views typical of a cult leader". As you say, it's an odd point to make. LaRouche's views are quite unique and not particularly comparable with those of Jim Jones, L Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, or the other individuals who are often cited as cult leaders. Indeed, query if any "views" could be said to be typical of a cult leader (and I think this is your point). On the other hand, LaRouche's attitude to criticism and modes of organisation and fundraising might be said to be typical, and perhaps this is what the text is getting at. Should it be changed to "and accuse him of having being the leader of what is effectively a cult?" LeContexte 13:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the two editors above. The phrase is nonsensical and should be removed. However, the suggested replacement "and accuse him of being the leader of what is effectively a cult" is not appropriate in the lead paragraph because this is an article specifically about his views, not his activities. The issue of cultism should be mentioned further down in the article in a context of explaining relevant aspects of his worldview. There are numerous proper references that can be quoted on this.--Dking 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

good point! LeContexte 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is protected due to edit warring. Any change we make should be minimal and uncontroversial. I suggest that we simply delete the clause entirely and leave it at that. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, delete it. I added it when I changed the lead [9] to remove specific statements and be more of a general overview. I was referring to the criticism of how his statements are slavishly repeated and defended by his followers, but it isn't necessary. --arkalochori ^|talk| 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So how do we get someone to do this? --Niels Gade 07:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no objection I'll do it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove the top image?

It's in the LaRouche movement template anyway, and it certainly adds nothing to an article on the views of a person. If there was a picture of him stumbling around foaming at the mouth... maybe. But how he looks at LRO so-called 'conferences' has nothing to do with his views. John Nevard 11:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with using photos in templates. One nice thing about using it by itself is that a caption can give the context and date. Too bad his face is half covered. Does anyone else have an opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· —Preceding comment was added at 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it's duplicated in the template, I say nuke it. - Merzbow 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Will; that's certainly true regards photographs in templates. However, in this case the LaRouche photo in an article on his views is as relevant to the article content as say, a painting of Mohammed in the article on Islamic practices. It really doesn't add anything to the article, which is the WP gold standard. John Nevard 06:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that pictures of LaRouche pontificating or Mohammed praying could illustrate those topics, but I'm not arguing that this picture adds anything. Since no one is objecting I'll make the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Left-wing/right-wing

In the first paragraph of the article it says "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy, and moved towards the right.[10]" Having looked at the "criticism" section of Lyndon LaRouche, I find that while the Post was making the claim that LaRouche moved to the right, other notable sources were saying that he was still a leftist. I would like to propose the following to replace the sentence: "This is complicated by the fact that LaRouche's views have changed considerably over time, particularly during the 1970s when he abandoned much of his Marxist philosophy. Since that time, commentators disagree on whether LaRouche should be classified as Left- or Right-wing." --Niels Gade (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Which notable sources call LaRouche a "leftist"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

National Review, Heritage Foundation, Gen. Daniel Graham. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume you're referrig to Graham saying in 1985 that LaRouche was "pretending" to be right wing, in other words he has the appearance of being right wing. But since that's just one view I don't think we should change the text. I don't see where the others call LaRouche a "leftist". Cites? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Graham called LaRouche an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist." Heritage said he takes stands which serve Soviet policy goals. There is clearly no unanimity among his critics about how to classify him, so I don't think that the article should present one viewpoint as established fact. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As anyone who follows LaRouche knows, people from all political orientations have taken stands that served the policy goals of the USSR. But the specific question here is whether LaRouche is now a leftist. I don't think there are any contemporary sources which say so. The overwhelming perception appears to be that LaRouche is right wing, or even ultra-right wing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are contemporary sources that say that? --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly sources within the last decade that describe the subject as right wing or conservative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Within a few short years, the LaRouche group mutated from the left to the ultra-right, embracing a fascist agenda of extreme anticommunism, racism, and antiSemitism...LaRouche's public addresses revealed a bizarre philosophy-a mixture of paranoia, racism, and right-wing ideology. "
- "Black fundamentalism" Manning Marable. Dissent. New York: Spring 1998. Vol. 45, Iss. 2; pg. 69, 8 pgs
"One right-wing party - Citizens Movement Solidarity - is headed in Germany by Helga Zep-LaRouche, the wife of U.S. right-wing extremist Lyndon LaRouche."
- "FRINGE PARTIES SPICE UP GERMAN ELECTIONS;" KAREN CARSTENS. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Sep 25, 1998. pg.A.14
" Shortly after leaving a meeting staged by far-right extremists, ... The meeting was organised by the Schiller Institute, an extreme political group linked to LaRouche that shared a deep anti- Semitic streak. The institute is led by Lyndon LaRouche, a US right- wing conspiracy theorist once sentenced to 15 years in prison for fraud and who stood in this year's presidential elections."
- "The student, the shadowy cult and a mother's fight for justice: Jeremiah Duggan's death baffled German police and was labelled suicide. Now, 18 months on, new evidence has prompted a reinvestigation", Mark Townsend reports. The Observer. London (UK): Oct 31, 2004. pg. 3
" It was actually a meeting organized by the far-right Schiller Institute, and Duggan found himself involved with followers of Lyndon LaRouche, an American millionaire and convicted fraudster with virulent anti-Semitic views."
- "UK Parliament discusses suspicious death of Jewish student in Germany" JONNY PAUL, Jerusalem Post correspondent. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Mar 27, 2007. pg. 07
"The only setback in Mr. Sangmeister's political career came when he lost the 1986 primary race for lieutenant governor to Mark Fairchild, a supporter of the ultra-right, anti-communist Lyndon LaRouche. "
- "George E. Sangmeister Illinois" The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Oct 20, 2007. pg. B.6

That should be sufficient to show that LaRouche is widely considered to be right-wing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be good enough. However, the sourcing, especially the Washington Post, Seattle Times and Jerusalem Post descriptions are unambiguous (which is interesting. I personally think of him as more left-wing than right wing. This may be almost a Fred Phelps sort of situation, if you get sufficiently crazy then your viewpoints will rarely fit in a convenient classification) In any event, the sourcing is clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-notable sections

Many of the sections don't seem to be that obviously notable. Do we for example have anyone who discusses the LaRouche-Riemann Method that isn't LaRouche or one of his compatriots? I'm wondering how much of this material is all that worth having an article on. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of those sections, including "LaRouche-Riemann Method", "Triple Curve", "Eurasian Landbridge", and "Physical science", were started as standalone articles and merged in here. While they are occasionally mentioned by LaRouche publications as major initiatives or theories, they are ignored by the rest of the world and are not often discussed in depth in LaRouche publications either. I don't think they merit the space they have devoted to them, but I wonder if it's worth the trouble of editing them down. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just add a section of the form "Other views of LaRouche" and include a one sentence description of each of these? If no one objects, I'll add a proposed language on this talk page sometime later tonight or tomorrow. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I support that solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I object. This article purports to be about LaRouche's views, as opposed to "criticism of LaRouche," which instead of having its own article is simply spammed into all articles about LaRouche. If you look at the biography of LaRouche at the Schiller Institute site [11], the LaRouche-Riemann method is prominently featured, along with New Bretton Woods, etc. Also the coverage of LaRouche in Russia and China[12] places major emphasis on the Land Bridge. Since LaRouche's activity does not consist only of commentary, but also making specific proposals, the sections in question should stay as they are. I would argue that they are actually more important to the subject of the article than most of the rest of what is written here. --Terrawatt (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your objection is mainly irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a sounding board for LaRouche's ideas. And non-notable ideas are simply not notable. The fact that the Schiller Institute says something important has no bearing on its importance to non-LaRouchians. If you can find actual secondary sources these might matter. In any event, I haven't included the proposals in my section since they seem to possible require a separate section. But it is unlikely they should be given this much material. In any event, section follows:

According to the LaRouchites, LaRouche has constructed the LaRouche-Riemann Method, built on the application of LaRouche's concepts to the theories of Bernhard Riemann, although it is a philosophical and not a mathematical concept.^[3]^[4] LaRouche claims that this method has given him the ability to engaged in economic forecasting including a predictions including future economic crises.^[5]

The "Triple Curve", or "typical collapse function", is an economic model developed by LaRouche which purports to illustrate the growth of financial aggregates at the expense of the physical economy and how this leads to an inevitably collapsing bubble economy. LaRouche developed this concept from a project he conducted during the late 1940s and early 1950s. ^[6]

He has made attacks on Sir Isaac Newton, alleging that he and his associates plagiarized Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation as well as claiming that Newton's calculus is inferior to that of Leibniz.^[7]^[8]

References

^ LaRouche, "Inner Elites," p. 12
^ Pipes, Daniel, Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where it Comes From, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 1997, p. 142
^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "Non-Newtonian Mathematics for Economists," Fidelio, Winter 1995
^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "ECONOMY DESPITE ALAN GREENSPAN: What Connects the Dots?" Executive Intelligence Review, February 17, 2006
^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999
^ LaRouche, Lyndon, Information Society: A Doomed Empire of Evil" Executive Intelligence Review, April 13, 2000
^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "Music and Statecraft: How Space is Organized," LaRouche PAC website, August 29, 2007
^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "Science is not statistics," EIR, September 15, 1997

Comments on JoshuaZ's proposed re-write

Given that substantial portions of this article are devoted to weird speculations and insinuations about LaRouche's ideas by Dennis King and Chip Berlet, I would also object to abbreviating those sections which actually inform the reader about what LaRouche actually believes. May I ask what the motivation is? Is Wikipedia running out of space? Could we delete some of the Pokemon articles instead? Or this there a POV warfare aspect to this proposal? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The objectionable aspects of LaRouche's organization are a lot more important to anyone who doesn't drink the LaRouche (Flavour)-Aid than his wacky and oh-so-lovable economic ideas, and they recieve a lot more attention from the real world because of it. Wikipedia is not your LaRouche fansite. John Nevard (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This comment reflects the problem of Wikipedia systemic bias WP:BIAS, because it reflects the prejudice in the US and the UK, manufactured by media overlords like Rupert Murdoch, and their little hired hands. There is a totally different perception of LaRouche in Russia, China, India and the third world, and Wikipedia should try to take a more global perspective.--Terrawatt (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, this is just LaRouchite cult propaganda.--Cberlet (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you explain this article, published today, which will probably be read by more people than all English-language dailies combined? [13][14][15][16] --Terrawatt (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So, this shows that he gets a little press and that as usual Chinese state media fails to understand US politics. The fact that LaRouche gets occasional coverage is not by itself that impressive. If he didn't we wouldn't have any article on him. Keep in mind, we've already established that there is likely enough coverage to have an entire separate article on his views. That his views are on occasion notable is not the matter at issue here. How much room to give them is the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"...as usual Chinese state media fails to understand US politics" looks to me like an excellent example of "systemic bias." I suspect that on their side, they probably think "US corporate media fails to understand Chinese politics." --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Xinhua has on multiple occasions quoted from The Onion repeated uncritically. Indeed, Xinhua is a mainly a press agency rather than a news agency for news not directly related to China. And in any event, as I said if LaRouche didn't occasionally get some coverage he wouldn't be notable at all. So explain how this coverage shows we should give that much detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese government didn't publish that article by accident. They know very well who LaRouche is, since the People's Daily did a 7 part interview with him 2 years ago[17]. I suspect that by giving him such prominent coverage, when they know that he is denigrated by the U.S. establishment, they are tweaking the U.S. establishment, much the same way that the U.S. media tweak China by lionizing the Dalai Lama. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could list the portions you think consist of speculation and insinutation. LeContexte (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the "Theory of history as a conflict between elites," King managed to sneak in his "When LaRouche says British he really means Jewish" stuff. It is made to look like LaRouche identifies these banking families as Jewish when he doesn't. The same techniques recur in the "Jews and the Holocaust" segment. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime is there a consensus to replace the sections in question with the replacement section? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is not. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what precisely your objection is? JoshuaZ (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think JoshuaZ's version looks good. This article is so long that we can't treat every concept at length. A summary verion is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. The citations prvide links for further reading. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I support JoshuaZ's version.--Cberlet (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised?

I would offer a variety of comments here. I agree with Will that the article is so long that we can't treat every concept at length. I would start by shortening the "AIDS and gays" section, which is by far the longest, and appears to be mainly a Berlet hobby-horse. This is one example of where a much briefer summary would be sufficient to make the point. As far as JoshuaZ's rewrite is concerned, I would say the following:

The "LaRouche-Riemann Method" section should not be shortened, but it should be re-written by someone who understands what the hell LaRouche is talking about. It is presently as clear as mud. Incidentally let me say in advance, since I know that Cberlet will say that the L-R method is nonsense that no one can understand, that I don't buy that.

"although it is a philosophical and not a mathematical concept" appears to be OR.

In "Triple Curve" as it presently appears in the article, the last two sentences can go. They don't seem to be directly relevant to what precedes it. The explanation of what the three curves are, in the present version, is useful. JoshuaZ's version omits this, and I would oppose that omission.

"Physical science" is fine as is, and I disagree with JoshuaZ's proposed deletions. I would particularly oppose deleting the links to other articles on the Newton controversy, because obviously LaRouche didn't start these controversies, he's just weighing in on one side. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the comment about phil v. math as it currently stands may be OR and should be removed unless we can get better sourcing on that. I'd appreciate if you would explain how a rewrite by someone who "understands" it would not be original research itself given that you would be working with a variety of at best hard to understand primary documents. As to what the Triple Curves are, I don't see why we need all the details (especially because I'm not completely sure what LaRouche means by hperbolic in this context.) LaRouche's complains about Newton seem to have almost nothing to do with the the historical controversy, but I wouldn't object to an inclusion of a link to the main article Leibniz and Newton calculus controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to do a short summary of LaRouche-Riemann. I can find a suitable article by LaRouche, link to it, and summarize it. That would not be original research. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And how what you would be writing not be a synthesis of the LaRouche's primary sources? Furthermore, since no one but LaRocuhe's followers have bothered to pay any attention to the details, why are the details at all important enough to be mentioned here? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have some sort of basis for your assertion that "no one but LaRocuhe's followers have bothered to pay attention"? The Russians have "bothered to pay attention." LaRouche was made a member of the Moscow Universal Ecological Academy in 1994[18] on the basis of the LaRouche-Riemann method[19]. Now, if you like, you can go ahead with the Systemic Bias and say, "what do the Russians know about science? And who cares what they think?" --Niels Gade (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your first reference is at best questionable (and it doesn't make at all clear who the "Moscow Universal Ecological Academy" nor who the CNSR people are. Some indication that either CNSR was a reliable source and that MUEA was at all notable might help. As to your second source, all it is is a copy of an itemt in the "Executive Intelligence Review" which is a LaRouche mouthpiece. You may have a point here, but first you're going to need better sourcing to demonstrate it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, after poking around the CNSR site I found that here they describe LaRouche as "one of the currently leading candidates for the 2004 U.S. Presidential nomination by that nation's Democratic Party" this makes me doube their reliability as a source just a tad... JoshuaZ (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. The U.S. press would never make a mistake like that. They'd make a mistake like this. --Leon Pringle (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Either make substantive comments or don't clutter up the talk page. The inane comic you compare to had no bearing on anything whatsoever. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite. What on earth is the Moscow Universal Ecological Academy, and why is the only reference Google can find to the CNSR article you cited? LeContexte (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I'm reminded of the months-long effort by User:Jacob Peters on the Stalin article to convince people that Stalin wasn't a dictator by spamming the article with tons of Soviet-era USSR and Cuban cites. Needless to say, nobody bought it. It appears the Russian media hasn't increased in reliability much since then... - Merzbow (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A different proposal

The second link that Niels Gade cites provides a concise definition of the LaRouche-Riemann method, which could be quoted as follows:

LaRouche-Riemann Method

Ukrainian Professor Taras V. Muravinsky, who helped translate LaRouche's So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? into Russian, comments on LaRouche's identification of the essential character of economics as a natural science, and observes that

Lyndon LaRouche writes about his own contribution to the development of economic science, that he was the first to realize the importance of Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics, for the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development. This was the origin of the LaRouche-Riemann method.[20]

I suggest that this replace the present section on this topic. It's short, clear and not OR. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing in real scientific circles as the so-called "LaRouche-Riemann Method." It is a cult fiction. Terrawatt and Niels Gade are essentially repeating the claims of a well-known crackpot. Let's return to the sensible NPOV proposal under discussion.--Cberlet (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is getting coverage by non-US scholars do we for example have any scholars who have cited and discussed the LR method in peer reviewed journals? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We would need the services of some Russian-speaker who could take a look at the Russian-language internet, which I have heard is quite extensive.

Terrawatt's re-write is far more clear than what is presently in the article. I propose, however, that rather than having a special subheading, it simply be added into the economics section with an explanatory sentence along the lines of "LaRouche and his supporters refer to his economic theory as the "LaRouche-Riemann method." --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because LaRouche's bigotry is a major reason for his being notable, and needs to be explored in detail because of the repeated denials of pro-LaRouche editors that it is important.--Cberlet (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that LaRouche's notability is tied to his bigotry. (Anecdotally at least when I first heard of him there was far more emphasis on the conspiracy theory element than the bigotry). Furthermore, repeated denial by LaRouchian editors should not alter what the NPOV version of the article should look like. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Many major mainstream publications that discuss LaRouche in detail highlight his bigotry, especially antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia. When the pro-LaRouche editors try to sweep something under the rug, it is generally an indication that it is because it poses a problem for LaRouchite propaganda goals. Therefore it is frequently an indication that it needs to be considered in detail in an NPOV way, such as the current text.--Cberlet (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AIDS and gays

I'd like to submit the following much-shortened version of the "AIDS and gays" segment. I believe it gets across the essential points without the excess verbiage and WP:UNDUE problems. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1974, LaRouche formed a "biological holocaust task force" to analyze the effects of International Monetary Fund austerity policies in Africa. The task force published reports warning that these policies would cause a collapse of nutrition and sanitation, and could create an environment where pandemics of old or new diseases could begin. The reports compared the situation to the collapse of public health conditions which lead to the Black Plague which killed 1/3 to 2/3 of the population of 14th Century Europe.^[1] When AIDS was first recognized as a medical phenomenon, LaRouche activists were convinced that this was the pandemic about which the task force had warned. The LaRouche organization continues to blame the IMF for the spread of AIDS.^[2]

LaRouche activists formed the "Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee" (PANIC) in 1986 and in 1988 the "Prevent AIDS Now In California" (also PANIC) committee, each of which placed initiatives on the state ballot. The measures would have required that AIDS be returned to the California state list of communicable diseases, which are subject to Public Health laws. Both measures were overwhelmingly defeated at the polls.^[3]^[4] The Wall Street Journal wrote:

The initiative declares that people who have AIDS, or who are "carriers" of the virus generally believed to cause AIDS, would have an "infectious, contagious and communicable" condition. The initiative would require that people in these categories be reported to public health authorities. Opponents, including state, political, and medical leaders and gay-rights activists, say there is little simple or reasonable about the initiative. AIDS victims and those exposed to the virus — many of whom, researchers believe, probably will never contract the disease — could be barred from jobs involving the handling of food and could be banned from working in, or even attending, schools. The initiative also could bar people from traveling without permission of health officials, opponents say. Possible use of the state's quarantine powers has led Bruce Decker, chief fund-raiser of the opposition effort and head of a state advisory committee on AIDS, to raise the specter of "concentration camps" for AIDS patients.

– The Wall Street Journal

The argument in support of Proposition 69 which appeared in the Voter's Guide published by the State of California said that "These measures are not new; they are the same health measures applied, [by law] every day, to every other contagious disease."^[5]

Opponents of these initiatives characterized them as anti-gay. Since the gay community was initially one of the major sectors of the population to be affected by AIDS in the United States, the relationship of the disease to so-called gay lifestyles was hotly contested; among the measures which could have been implemented, had the initiative passed, were sexual contact tracing, which was depicted as an invasion of privacy by opponents of the initiatives, and possibly the closing of bathhouses or other environments where anonymous sexual contacts might take place. Under public health law, persons with communicable diseases may be subject to quarantine at the discretion of the health department; this possibility was raised to suggest that LaRouche wished to use the measure to persecute gays. Jean V. Hardisty, then director of Political Research Associates, charged that the "initiatives sought, in effect, to require quarantine for people with AIDS."^[6] LaRouche strongly denounced the gay community at the time for its opposition to his measure, using language which critics alleged to be homophobic.^[7]

This version is primarily based on LaRouchite propaganda and the LaRouchite POV about its critics. It is not NPOV. It is a total rewriting of history. It dismisses and diminishes serious issues and criticisms of LaRouche. It is without value as a model for further work.--Cberlet (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an improvement either. The details of the PANIC initiative are covered in an article of its own. More suitable for this article are the statements that LaRouche has made about gays and AIDS, which are well-covered in the current version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you believe that this particular topic merits so much space in the article? Is there any basis for a claim that it is a central theme in LaRouche's output? --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it deserves as much space as it receives. I was not arguing that point. I was arguing that your proposal does not cover LaRouche's view on the topic sufficiently and is redundant with another article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet's assertion that my re-write, which is dominated by criticism from the Wall Street Journal, is "primarily based on LaRouchite propaganda" is, of course, a joke. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is crafted in a way that distorts reality and is POV. Not funny at all--in fact, it is another example of denying the central homophobia of the LaRouche cult.--Cberlet (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that Berlet is obsessed with trying to make Wikipedia into an extension of his slander site, since nobody bothers to visit his slander site, but lots of people read Wikipedia. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to criticizing the text.

Categories: Talk archives