Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Return to single discussion on text - "LaRouche-Riemann Method"

JoshuaZ version

  • 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.[1][2] LaRouche claims that this method has given him the ability to engaged in economic forecasting including a predictions including future economic crises.[3]
  • 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. [4]
  • 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.[5][6]

References

  1. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "Non-Newtonian Mathematics for Economists," Fidelio, Winter 1995
  2. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "ECONOMY DESPITE ALAN GREENSPAN: What Connects the Dots?" Executive Intelligence Review, February 17, 2006
  3. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999
  4. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, Information Society: A Doomed Empire of Evil" Executive Intelligence Review, April 13, 2000
  5. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "Music and Statecraft: How Space is Organized," LaRouche PAC website, August 29, 2007
  6. ^ LaRouche, Lyndon, "Science is not statistics," EIR, September 15, 1997

Comments on JoshuaZ's proposed re-write

I support JoshuaZ's proposed re-write--Cberlet (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine, but can we use another term instead of "LaRouchites", which sounds like a colloquialism? Maybe just "LaRouche supporters"? - Merzbow (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, JoshuaZ's re-write was not intended to replace "LaRouche-Riemann" method, but rather to replace two other sections as well, "triple curve" and "physical science." I disagree with this approach, since it doesn't provide a clear definition of either the L-R method, or the triple curve, and this can be done in relatively few words. I support Terrawatt on L-R method, and I think the present version of triple curve is concise and readable. These concepts are in fact central to LaRouche's message, as opposed to "AIDS and gays," which is peripheral at best, and as has been noted above, takes up a massively disproportionate amount of space in the article. If saving space is an issue, start by shortening that part. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
LaRouche sponsored propositions regarding AIDS in California on two ocassions. They got enormous press coverage, including hundreds of articles. LaRouche based at lest one of this presidential campaigns on the issue. OTOH, the only time the "LRM' has been mentioned in the press are two occasions when LaRouche has listed it in his bio, and then in the Klein article. In other words, it's not mentioned in numerous detailed profiles of LaRouche. It's occasionally mentioned in the LaRouche literature, but without explanation of the theory or its predictions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Try here. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Klein calls the movement a "paper-based cult", so the existence of a self-published journal isn't definitive, though it does show some allocation of resources to the topic. LaRouche has made many proposals that can be lumped together under "physical economy". I'm not sure why it's not a whole section since it's a key point. MagLevs, canals, bridges, landbridges, roads, dams, nuclear power, and other forms of infrastrucure are often mentioned in LaRouche literature, but can be handled together by simply saying that he's in favor of them. How many bridges has the movement built, either directly or indirectly? None. How many initiatives has the movement tried to pass regarding AIDS? Two. So that's two to zero. As mentioned above the difference in press coverage is more like a 100 to 1 or higher. While LaRouche pays lip service to physical economy, he's gone much further in promoting AIDS legislation. Both should be mentioned, but we should not give excessive weight to minor issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If by "Klein" you mean Avi Klein, he's an intern at a minor political opinion journal. Otherwise, you are mixing apples and oranges, i.e., LaRouche's activism vs. his theory. The biographical article covers much activity (which you seem to overlook) in the promotion of his infrastructure projects, including his numerous trips to Russia, India, and other countries. "How many bridges has the movement built" seems like a facetious question, although I suppose you could argue that they are in the process of building a tunnel under the Bering Straits, "indirectly." However, to get back to the point, this article purports to be on "views," not activism, and if LaRouche's opinions on various "hot button" issues (which seem to be the only kind of views that the American press covers for any politician) warrant an article, than a concise explanation of his core theory seems appropriate as well. --Marvin Diode 15:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Pres. George Bush says that reducing government spending is one of his highest priorities. But most of his policies and actions have not been concerned with lowering spending. So it would be inappropriate to devote large amounts of space in our bio of him on his philosophy of spending, even though he may say it's one of his most important beliefs. Likewise with this former presidential candidate. We should certainly mention the LRM and the Triple Curve, but with so little coverage of them in sources we shouldn't give them excess weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This is just so tacky and untue that it needs a strong response. Avi Klein is a freelance writer. The Washington Monthly is a major publication for the inside-the-beltway policy professional. All the more reason to rename this article Debates over the Views of Lyndon LaRouche in order to prevent this article from being turned into a fanzine for a cult crackpot and convited crook.--Cberlet 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Can we please stick to one discussion at a time? We can discuss the AIDS section later. I object to the continuous tendentious and disruptive editing pattern of spawning multiple discussion topics while there is no resolution of any text changes. This pattern has appeared before on LaRouche-related pages and was noted in previous complaints on how pro-LaRouche editors frequently create massive discussion page chaos that results in other Wiki editors wearing down and giving up. Please stop this pattern. No matter what the intent, the outcome is tendentious and disruptive.--Cberlet (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with this proposal, see reasoning in previous section. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I too still oppose. It glosses over key views of LaRouche. --16:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrawatt (talk • contribs)

Terrawatt version

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.[1]

New version in response to comments:

According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is the "LaRouche-Riemann method," where LaRouche applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.[2] With the formulation of this method, LaRouche claims success as a long-range forecaster: LaRouche says that he predicted that if the policies of the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower presidencies persisted, the second half of the 1960s would experience a series of international financial-monetary crises, leading toward a breakdown in the existing Bretton Woods system. The LaRouche-Riemann Method predictions for the future include a systemic crisis, and a general breakdown crisis of the global system if monetarist forms of austerity measures are continued.[1] I also borrowed the last two sentences from the old version. --Terrawatt (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Third version in response to comments:

According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.[3] With the formulation of this method, LaRouche claims success as a long-range forecaster: LaRouche says that he predicted that if the policies of the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower presidencies persisted, the second half of the 1960s would experience a series of international financial-monetary crises, leading toward a breakdown in the existing Bretton Woods system. Since that time, LaRouche has consistently claimed, for over 30 years, that the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system would lead to a more general, systemic breakdown crisis of the global system if monetarist forms of austerity measures are continued.[2]

--Terrawatt 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Comments on Terrawatt's proposed re-write

I support Terrawatt's proposed re-write --Niels Gade (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I oppose Terrawatt's proposed re-write version. It highlights an obscure and marginal professor who is a dedicated pro-LaRouche propagandist. Find a peer review journal mention of the so-called claims or move on.--Cberlet (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that if the professor was anti-LaRouche, he would suddenly be neither "obscure" nor "marginal." Be that as it may, I think using the quote is awkward. I suggest just using the explanation, which is clear and straightforward, without framing it as a quote, and simply citing it to the same source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't be sure, because it is not true. The framing and composition of the Terrawatt text is POV and unsupported. It is a sleight of hand. Let me try to explain it another way. It is as if every time LaRouche farts his followers announce he has invented a new perfume. To highlight this is to elevate the marginal to undue weight status. What matters is if the perfume manufacturers and perfume critics agree LaRouche has invented a new perfume, otherwise it is just putrid gas, no matter how many LaRouche followers praise its smell.--Cberlet (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have re-written it in response to comments (other than Berlet's personal attack.) And, I support my version. --Terrawatt (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What personal attack?--Cberlet (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Polly Hedra (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


<---So far there is no evidence that there is any such thing as a "LaRouche-Riemann method" outside of the LaRouche group and its allies. Feel free to jump in below and help search other scholarly databases. I've done two. If Marvin Diode, Niels Gade, Terrawatt, and Polly Hedra each do two database reviews we should have plenty of evidence to weigh.--Cberlet (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche is not being used here as a source on a topic which would require expert credentials. He is the subject of the article, and if he is notable enough to have an article, he can call his "method" whatever he pleases. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
But this is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine for LaRouche. We should probably just rename the article Debates over the Views of Lyndon LaRouche. How do I go about starting that process?--Cberlet (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
(EC) LaRouche is not the subject of this article, he's the subject of Lyndon LaRouche. The subject of this article is the views of Lyndon LaRouche. The reason that 3rd-party sources are appropriate is to help gauge the relative importance of his views. While LaRouche's views of the Queen of England are widely reported and thus notable, his theory of economic forecasting is only mentioned in one reliable, 3rd-party source that I can find and that's the recent "Publish and Perish" article.[4] That's an indication that the "method" is not important in the scheme of things, and that we should be careful of giving it too much weight. We should also be careful to include what reliable sources say about it, which Terrawatt's version omits. On the other hand, I agree that it's a philosopher's prerogative to name his theories as he likes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems likely that this debate, with the attendant insults and POV-slinging, will drag on. In the meantime, I would like to propose that Terrawatt's re-write of "LaRouche-Riemann method," which is both shorter and easier to understand than the current version, be substituted for the current version. Clearly some people would like to remove that section altogether, but I don't think that is likely to be the consensus -- in the meantime, I should think that everyone can agree that shorter is better. --Marvin Diode 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

<--------I disagree. The proposed Terrawatt version is biased and misrepresents reality. Here is a better version based on the failure of the pro-LaRouche editors to assist in determining if there is any real scholarly literature that backs the notion that there is anything resembling a "LaRouche-Riemann method" in the real world.--Cberlet 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

New version in response to reality:

  • According to LaRouche and his supporters, LaRouche has developed what they call the "LaRouche-Riemann method." The claim is that LaRouche has developed an economic model of analysis that applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.[5] LaRouche claims that on the basis of this method, he has had success as a long-range forecaster. For example, LaRouche claims that he predicted that if the policies of the Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower presidencies persisted, the second half of the 1960s would experience a series of international financial-monetary crises, leading toward a breakdown in the existing Bretton Woods system. LaRouche, however, repeatedly also predicted a global economic collapse throughout the 1970s and 1980s.(ref) King, Lyndon LaRouche.(/ref) Using the "LaRouche-Riemann method," LaRouche claims the future will include a systemic crisis, and a general breakdown crisis of the global system if monetarist forms of austerity measures are continued.(ref)LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999 (/ref) No scholarly journals mention the "LaRouche-Riemann method," however, and its use and claims of its usefulness appear to be limited to followers of LaRouche.

How about this version?--Cberlet 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA calls on us to avoid using the word "claim" when it gives an appearance of editoral skepticism. Terms like "state", "say", write", etc. are more neutral. I think the intro can be tightened up by minimizing some if the attribution. Lastly, I believe has been predicting economic collapse in the 1990s and 2000s as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't find Cberlet's version entirely objectionable, except for the last sentence, which is sort of gratuitious "nyah, nyah" -- anyone who agrees with LaRouche automatically becomes a "follower," so it's sort of a tautology. I also agree with Will's WP:WTA comment, which ought to be applied more carefully throughout Wikipedia. Suppose we substitute a sentence which says "Using the "LaRouche-Riemann method," LaRouche has consistently claimed for over 30 years that the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system would lead to a more general, systemic breakdown crisis of the global system if monetarist forms of austerity measures are continued.(ref)LaRouche, Lyndon, "The Economics 'I.Q.' Test" Executive Intelligence Review, May 14, 1999 (/ref)--Marvin Diode 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
LaRouche has consistently claimed that the global collapse is months away--for 30 years. At some point it became absurd...even comical. As for the last sentence, I invite everyone to search scholarly journals for any mention of the "LaRouche-Riemann method." If no evidence is found, then it is entirely reasonable to call it bullshit--using language appropriate for a Wiki entry, of course. See below. Help with the search. Otherwise stop complaining that the sentence is unfair.--Cberlet 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a reason why the Chinese government chose this particular moment to push LaRouche's ideas. They are losing millions per minute as their dollar-denominated holdings collapse in value. And Berlet is wrong about LaRouche's forecasts -- it hasn't been the same one over and over. He nailed the '87 stock collapse, for example. --Terrawatt 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The text is fine with me, but I'd be more comfortable leaving out the last sentence, which approaches OR (even if true, which it appears to be). - Merzbow 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that it approached OR so closely as to be carrying its child. --Marvin Diode 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have incorporated these suggestions into a third draft, above. --Terrawatt 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The draft is better, but doesn't make it clear that the predicted economic crisis has been imminent for the past 30 years. I can look up some cites, but I recall that he's often predicted that a crash has been due in the upcoming year, or the next presidential term, unless his policies are adopted. Further, what's the source for his 1960s prediction - just his 1999 speech?[6] We can't use self-published sources for a self-serving assertion, such as that he predicted an economic trend correctly 30 years previously. Also, if we're going to mention this theory we should at least spend a sentence describing it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The Will Beback/Cberlet team seems to be concerned that LaRouche might be receiving undeserved credit for predictions. I would suggest the following solution: simply omit the last lines. Or, if Terrawatt can produce a cite from LaRouche that demonstrates, for example, that he did correctly call the '87 crash before it happened, include that. To include an editorial comment that "LaRouche's predictions didn't come true" would be OR. Again, the simplest solution would be to omit those lines. As for the theory, the one-sentence description seems adequate -- it's not really a theory per se, just a novel use of Riemann's math to describe economic processes (which presumably cannot adequately be described using conventional math.) --Marvin Diode 22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If we omit the last line, and if we omit the 1960s prediction that leaves us with:
  • According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.[7]
I don't object to that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Not NPOV enough. How about:
  • According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is what they call the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which they claim applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.[8]
Otherwise, poor Bernhard Riemann will be twitching in his grave.--Cberlet 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's fine with me. --Marvin Diode 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's all right, but I favor restoring one sentence: With the formulation of this method, LaRouche claims success as a long-range forecaster, or maybe Using this method, LaRouche claims success as a long-range forecaster. We don't have to pass judgment on those claims. --Niels Gade 09:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not accurate. LaRouche does not merely claim some success, he is called by his movement "the world's greatest economic forecaster".[9], and he himslef boasts of "my published record of unequalled success of more than thirty years as the world's leading long-range economic forecaster".[10] "In incontestable fact, my record as an economic forecaster, over the recent thirty-five years, is not only unmatched, but unapproached by any other known forecaster whose work has been publicly accessible during that lapse of time to date."[11] "...world events have shown that my long-range forecasts have been consistently correct..." and "my becoming the most successful long-range economic forecaster known to the public in the world at large today."[12] "I'm probably the world's best economic forecaster alive, today. That's been the case, since about 1957-58, to the present time. I have never made a forecast which was wrong,"[13] Etc. Also, he credits more than just the LRM for his unique skill[14] so we shouldn't say that his success is due only to the LRM. I think the best, simplest summary would be, LaRouche calls himself the "world's best economic forecaster". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
A run-through of some of LaRouche's specific forecasts is here: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.FcrasH - I guess I slept through "the end to the existence of humanity as we know it" in the 70s. LeContexte 17:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so how about "*According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is what they call the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which they claim applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.[15]. LaRouche claims that this method has allowed him to be the best economic forecaster for the last thirty years. (and then add above links for citations). JoshuaZ 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You left out "world's." But otherwise I can live with this version. --Terrawatt 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I like "world's leading long-range economic forecaster," which recurs in Will's quote list. More encyclopedic. But either way, I'm OK with it. --Marvin Diode 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • According to LaRouche and his supporters, an essential feature of LaRouche's economic theory is what they call the "LaRouche-Riemann method," which they claim applies Bernhard Riemann's contributions in mathematical physics to the quantification of the relationship between rates of technological progress, and the consequent growth of intensivity of economic development.[16]. LaRouche claims that this method has allowed him to be the world's leading long-range economic forecaster for the last thirty years.[17][18]

I propose that this be put in the article so we can move on. --Niels Gade 22:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Clearly there are reputable published sources that note LaRouche's penchant for outlandish self-aggrandizing claims. This paragraph is ludicrous without such a caveat.--Cberlet 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What can we add to include that caveat? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


  • "LaRouche had a gargantuan ego. Convinced he was a genius, he combined his strong conviction in his own abilities with an arrogance expressed in the cadences of upper-class New England." -- A '60's Socialist Takes a Hard Right by Tim Wohlforth [19]
That has a nice ring to it.--Cberlet 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that my optimism about reaching a consensus on this was premature. But just in case anyone here is serious, I have an additional suggestion, which is that the last line mention that LaRouche forecasts a systemic breakdown of the financial system (his so-called "ninth forecast.") --Niels Gade (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A summary of LaRouche's nine forecasts is available at this page: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/21/larouches-ninth-forecast-inevitable-truth.html --Anti-Gorgias (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-LaRouchite scholarly cites to "LaRouche-Riemann method"

Help by searching databases and reporting back the results.

Still waiting for "Next Cite Search? :"--Cberlet (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. As I indicated above, it's irrelevant to the discussion. --Marvin Diode 15:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't count your chickens.... It is still relevant. See above.--Cberlet 23:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar: Only Non-LaRouchite scholarly cites are to article dubious of LaRouche's claims of scientific authority. "Conjuring medical science: the 1986 referendum on AIDS/HIV policy in California."

Sage Journals: No cites. Searched all "485 journals in Business, Humanities, Social Sciences, and Science, Technology and Medicine" and result was "Your search criteria: LaRouche and Riemann in Full Text, published Jan 1879 to Nov 2008 in all SAGE content...matched zero articles."--Cberlet (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Next Cite Search? :

Next Cite Search? :

Next Cite Search? :

British conspiracy

There's a newish claim by the LaRouche PAC that "The Mass Youth Killings are NOT a Social Phenomenon; It's the British Empire's Orchestration from the Top" [20]. This seems a notable enough claim to deserve a mention. LeContexte 00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thois is part of the subject's views on video games and social networking sites. We recently added a small section on "Video games", but we should probably add the social networking stuff too. Someone added material on that to Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement which we could move here.[21] Perhaps "Video games and social networking" would be a good section title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Or, both could be combined under "Social engineering." --Niels Gade 08:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any secondary sources for these claims? JoshuaZ 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There are secondary sources for the video game material now in the article. I agree that we should try to find some for the social networking material as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There's this in the Washington Monthly article:
  • When the group's older leaders eventually ventured online, they often stumbled. They were slow to grasp that although the Internet allowed the free dissemination of ideas, it also made criticism equally accessible. Around 2003, the organization set up a discussion board and then a Yahoo group, but both were discovered by a former member who delighted in asking inconvenient questions about Jeremiah Duggan, a young Briton who died in 2003 under mysterious circumstances at a LaRouche conference in Germany. Organization members shut the boards down and tried a more proactive approach, popping up on anti-LaRouche sites to defend the organization. That tactic only inspired more criticism, and confirmed to posters that the LaRouche organization was worried about what they were saying. Eventually, Youth Movement members were ordered to stay off social networking sites like MySpace, which LaRouche deemed an "Orwellian brain-washing operation." [22]
Crooked Timber is a reputable group blog. Scott McLemee has written about LaRouche in a reliable source[23] and been interviewed about LaRouche[24] on KPFK. He may qualify as an acknowledged expert on LaRouche. Commenting on the WT article he says:
  • All of this began to fall apart over the past decade or so—with the internet playing a fairly important role in the collapse both of the business and of the cult’s ability to control interaction between current and ex-members. Efforts to recruit a new layer of youth have only complicated matters by adding to the internal tension. The group has lately been targetting MySpace as an instrument of diabolical forces. (The design is certainly evil, so they may have a point.) [25]
It'd be nice to get more, but this is enough to source a straighforward assertion like, In the 2000s, LaRouche initiated a campaign against social networking sites, including MySpace, which he called an "Orwellian brain-washing operation" and reportedly forbid its use by members of the movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I know people in the LYM, and the idea that LaRouche "forbids people to use MySpace" is laughable. He denounces MySpace, but how is he going to control what people do on their computers? Why would he bother? The Washington Monthly article is just yellow journalism. I am appalled, as I said before, when I see people on this page sing the praises of the Washington Monthly because it happens to suit their POV, or talk about a "reputable group blog" (I thought blogs were off limits as sources,) and then turn around and dismiss Xinhua because it doesn't suit their POV, even though it is the most widely circulated press service in the world. I can't imagine a clearer example of WP:BIAS. --Terrawatt 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No doubt Xinhua took that position from Pravda. I wouldn't trust either for accurate information on bizarre critics of the western world. As for control, why would the Scientology Organization prohibit people from accessing possible forums for criticism of their 'peculiar' philosophy? Why would the Chinese government? John Nevard 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see anything like an objective source on LaRouche. I agree that the Washington Monthly article has all the earmarks of a smear job, and I suspect that the Chinese government has its own motives for praising LaRouche. However, I agree that there have been comments on this page which show systemic bias. You can't just write off a nation of a billion and half people. --Marvin Diode 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because you don't like what a reliable source says doesn't make is a "smear job" Washington Monthly is a highly reliable source. JoshuaZ 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Washington Monthly piece was summarized in Wall Street Journal in its "The Informed Reader / Insights and Items of Interest From Other Sources" section.(Nov 9, 2007. pg. B.5) The WSJ has a good reputation for reporting and I don't think they'd base a story on another paper's article if they didn't think the underlying reporting was adequate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The WSJ was recently acquired by Neocon maniac Rupert Murdoch, who has a reputation for using the press that he controls for propaganda (remember "fair and balanced" Fox News?) Incidentally, Avi Klein's previous gig was with another Neocon outfit, the "Homeland Security Daily Wire." And his research is sloppy: he and the WSJ blog that you cite claim that LaRouche missed the boat on the internet because he was fixated on print media. The truth is that EIR has been available online for years now, along with Twenty First Century, Dynamis and Promoteo. There are also websites for LaRouche PAC, Schiller Institute, Schiller Institute Denmark, Schiller Institute Germany, and also the various LaRouche affiliates in Malaysia, Australia, Philippines, Sweden, France, etc. --Niels Gade 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
LaRouche did miss the boat. The Scientology organization attacked opponents online for years before the LaRouche organization had a single website. Cults had to adapt or suffer losses. John Nevard 05:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's silly to suggest that the neo-cons have it in for LaRouche, when five minutes' research will show you that he's criticised across the political spectrum, from Trotskyists to paelo-cons LeContexte 11:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Trotskyites and Neo-Cons are interchangeable, two different stages in the same cycle. I'd like to see a cite where Paleocons criticize LaRouche, if you can produce one. And those politicians who support LaRouche tend to be traditional liberal Democrats like Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, and the numerous veterans of the Civil Rights movement who have worked with him. The ones who want his head on a platter are the Neo-Cons. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm just confused - wasn't LaRouche a Trotskyist? Does that mean he wants his own head on a platter? LeContexte (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

<--------------Reality Check: The findings of two academics who studied a LaRouche campaign contributor list (available from the Federal Election Commission) lend support to the thesis that LaRouche appeals to a paranoid constituency. In a 1986 press release, "Who Controls Us: A Profile of Lyndon LaRouche's Campaign Contributors," John C. Green and James L. Guth of Furman University identify LaRouche as "a new celebrity on the extreme right."

"An analysis of his campaign contributors suggests that LaRouche should be taken seriously, not as a candidate, but as evidence of the failure--and success--American politics," wrote the professors.

According to the results of the study, among LaRouche's contributors are a significant proportion of Northern neo-populist conservatives, "profoundly uncomfortable with modern America and susceptible to conspiratorial explanations of their distress. One seemed to speak for the others when he listed his major concern as `who really controls us?' To many of these alienated people, LaRouche's outlandish views offer a plausible answer to this question."

According to the study:

"Though LaRouche campaigns as a Democrat, most of his donors are independents, with the largest group `leaning' Republican. but ordinary people as well, believing that no one can be trusted `most of the time.' Very few say they are optimistic about their future or that of the country. They are equally disillusioned with politics, 40% report having become discouraged and ceased participating at some point. These attitudes extend to current political groups as well. Three-quarters feel `far' from mainstream conservative organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce. Roughly equal numbers feel `close' and `far' from more reactionary groups like the John Birch Society. Uniform dislike, however, is reserved for liberal advocates of change; the ACLU, Common Cause and Ralph Nader.

"LaRouche is most criticized for his political intolerance, a trait exhibited by his contributors. To measure tolerance, we asked all donors to name a group they regarded as `dangerous' and then asked if they would allow a member of that group to run for president, speak in a public place or teach in public school. Only a quarter of the LaRouchians would allow a member of their `dangerous' group to engage in all three activities and another quarter would allow none.

"LaRouche would probably approve of their choice of `dangerous' groups: more than half of the mentions figure prominently in `conspiracy' theories of politics, such as communists, drug dealers, Jews, bankers, intellectuals and the mass media. Some `conspiracies' are explicitly named: the `zionist-socialist movement,' the `international drug ring,' `cartel control of money' and the `post-industrial counter-culture.' But other donors identify mainstream organizations and leaders as `dangerous,' including the `unilateral disarmament advocates,' `eco-freaks,' `Hayden and Fonda,' `socialist Democrats' and `big labor bosses.'

"These kinds of attitudes occur among other conservative activists, but rarely to this extent. And the LaRouchians differ from other conservatives in demographic terms as well. LaRouche's donors seem to be the remnant of the `small town America' of a generation ago. Nearly three-quarters were born in the Midwest or Northeast and more than half still live there, outside the major cities. Most spent their adult life in one or two states; the only major move they have ever made was to retire to the Sunbelt. Two-thirds are 55 or older, male, of WASP or German extraction, and products of [nuclear two-parent] families. They are not, however, particularly religious; most belong to mainline Protestant denominations and few are active church members. "

The authors concluded, "it is alienated people who make fringe candidates possible. LaRouche should be taken seriously as a symptom of distress in a small part of the body politic. His limited appeal is a sign of the basic health of America politics."

Indeed!--Cberlet (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And this is relevant, how? --Terrawatt (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedians template

The template which notes that Dking and Cberlet have edited this article should stay. Their names appear throughout the article as critics and sources, so it is proper for the reader to know that they also edit the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)