| Revision as of 05:03, 22 July 2004 edit64.30.208.48 (talk) →Conspicuously missing . . .← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:11, 12 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,813,120 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
*] |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
*] |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
*] |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=FAC |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|action1date=23:21, 22 December 2005 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Lyndon LaRouche/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=32386777 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|blp=other|listas=Larouche, Lyndon|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography| politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Virginia| importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|NH=yes|NH-importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
<!-- ((bot-generated}} --> |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 26 |
|
|
|algo = old(61d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}<!--Automatically goes to a new archive page if the archive is over 250 kB, threads with no new comments in the last two months get moved to the current archive page. Archiving is done once a day around midnight UTC--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|year=2004 |
|
|
|section=January 2004 |
|
|
|title=LaRouche for president: The campaign that keeps on going |
|
|
|org=Loudon Times-Mirror |
|
|
|date=January 27, 2004 |
|
|
|url=http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=10876575&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506040&rfi=6 |
|
|
|year2=2006 |
|
|
|section2=June 2006 |
|
|
|title2=Can History Be Open Source? Misplaced Pages and the Future of the Past |
|
|
|org2=The Journal of American History |
|
|
|date2=June 2006 |
|
|
|url2=http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/93.1/rosenzweig.html |
|
|
|year3=2009 |
|
|
|section3=Featured |
|
|
|title3=Sierra Madre Actor Takes a Stand Against LaRouche Propaganda |
|
|
|org3=The Sierra Madre Weekly |
|
|
|date3= December 1, 2009 |
|
|
|url3=http://sierramadreweekly.com/featured/sierra-madre-actor-take-a-stand-against-the-larouche-propaganda-camp/ |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<br clear="all" /> |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Lyndon LaRouche}} |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive index |
|
|
|mask1=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive <#> |
|
|
|mask2=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive<#> |
|
|
|mask3=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Australian media coverage |
|
|
|mask4=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/works |
|
|
|mask5=Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/research |
|
|
|leading_zeros=no |indexhere=no |template= |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{LaRouchetalk}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (Mann-Chestnut hearings) ]. <!-- {"title":"Mann-Chestnut hearings","appear":null,"disappear":{"revid":608302989,"parentid":608287400,"timestamp":"2014-05-13T00:32:13Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Policies and sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Content policies=== |
|
==The Unanswered Questions== |
|
|
|
See ] and ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ... |
|
'''Does Krusty allege that Dennis King forged the two citations about LaRouche's comments on the Holocaust in 1978 and 1981, or does he not? If so, what is his evidence? We are all still waiting for the answer to this simple question. |
|
|
:It were difficult to discuss whether King forged anything, because he neither produces, nor quotes, any such document. As I have pointed out before, in a dozen or so answers to your posts, the "citations" in your article amount to the following: a statement from anonymous sources characterizing LaRouche's views at the time; an assertion by King that a press release exists, which King does not quote, but rather offers his own characterization; and a reference to an (also not quoted) article, which sounds like a distortion of an editorial I recall in the 1978 "Zionism is not Judaism" issue of the ''Campaigner.'' This is a full and complete answer to your questions. You may pretend it is not, if you like. You may also continue to insist that you are entitled to set the ground rules for this debate, which you are not. --] 14:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if— |
|
And now, Adam, I'd like to get your response to the recently posted ], as well as the ]. --] 23:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
# it is not unduly self-serving; |
|
|
# it does not involve claims about third parties; |
|
|
# it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; |
|
|
# there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; |
|
|
# the article is not based primarily on such sources." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
===Sources=== |
|
==Googling vs. Research== |
|
|
|
LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major ] are ''The New York Times'' and ''The Washington Post''. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*, before 1981. |
|
Adam and Andy continually attempt to rig the debate by insisting that any source they prefer, such as the thoroughly disreputable Dennis King, must be accepted as gospel, whereas any source associated with LaRouche is automatically excluded, in their world. They further insist that press coverage of LaRouche must be available on the internet, or else be barred from discussion. Then, press coverage that acknowledges LaRouche's influence, which in the English-speaking world usually consists of outbursts of rage from his opponents (see the on LaRouche's expose of Leo Strauss, or the on LaRouche's expose of the disinformation center in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans) -- must also be discounted, in Adam and Andy's world. Foreign press coverage of LaRouche is often not on the web, or unseachable (unless you know how to spell LaRouche's name in Russian, Chinese or Arabic), and is therefore also ruled out. And ironically enough, regularly includes articles from the LaRouche-founded publication ''Executive Intelligence Review'' -- but the last place you would seek a truthful characterization of LaRouche's ideas, is from the horse's mouth. Adam and Andy show a marked preference for the opposite end of the horse. --] 01:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*, 1981–present. |
|
|
*, before 1987. |
|
|
*, 1987–present. |
|
|
*Mintz, John. , ''The Washington Post'', includes a series on LaRouche |
|
|
== Spelling error == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
self-defence Correct spelling is: self-defense <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
Herschell, it's not unreasonable to ask for a second source to back something up. Unfortunately there are no second sources to back up any LaRouche claims. The Eurasian Land-Bridge, which you claim is different from the ] would presumably be one of the biggest megaprojects the world has seen. Why then do none of the governments involved mention it? Why does it not have a website? Why do the engineering firms involved with it make no reference to it? Why is there no mention of it say in the Economist or BBC News or any engineering journals? You claim it is known as the "New Silk Road" yet, according to BBC News, that is the nickname of the Asian Highway. You claim a case involving LaRouche is an important precedent with regards to the Voting Rights Act. If that's the case cite a law journal that discusses the importance. If these major world historical events and projects you associate with LaRouche truly involve him you should be able to find independent sources but you can't. Does that not tell you anything? But please, on the Eurasian Land Bridge. Give us one source not associated with LaRouche. Just one. ] |
|
|
:It is odd that you ask for confirmation from either the BBC news, which speaks for the British government, or the ''Economist'', which speaks for the City (i.e., the London banking establishment.) If you read my article at ], you may recall this passage: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Living person biography-lock== |
|
::In May of ], LaRouche's wife ] presented the '']'' proposal at a conference sponsored by the Government of the ], in a debate format with British member of the ], Sir ], who opposed it. The proposal was subsequently adopted, and is presently under construction, by the PRC and neighboring nations. |
|
|
|
He's been dead since last year. So why is there still the tag about his being a living person? Are the cultists responsible for keeping that lock there?] (]) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Even though I am one of the leading published critics of the LaRouche groups,I am uncomfortable with using the term "cultists" to refer to other Misplaced Pages editors. Can we simply refer to them as "pro-LaRouche editors?" ] (]) 12:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
:Of course, you may ignore the link to ], because you deleted the article. I also note that you are now asserting, in your re-write of the ] article, that the Asian Highway is also known as the Eurasian Land Bridge, which is untrue, and a rather obvious little propagandistic flourish on your part. My point, however, is this: why would you expect honest coverage, by the British establishment, of a project by which they are, shall we say, not amused? You should read the article at ], which is a stub; I could expand it, but until we get some arbitration, you will automatically delete anything I write, outside of this talk page. |
|
|
|
::], good conduct is most important in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
::I see no editorial dispute. Anyone can make edits to Misplaced Pages. Everything I see labels him as deceased. What is the issue? ]] 12:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fair enough. I am alright with Berlet's suggestion.] (]) 18:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Blue Raspberry, the point is: when you put the cursor over the lock symbol it says the article is protected for living persons. As you said, he does not appear to be living, so should we not remove that lock?] (]) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Dogru144}} Sorry, I missed your message a year ago. |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} ] in 2016. The tooltip on the lock does say that it is in place as a biography of a living person. LaRouche has been in heaven since February 2019, so no longer living. Per the request here, could we try without semi-protection until and unless problems arise? ]] 00:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I plain missed that he died. Anyway, this article's subject was a big topic in Misplaced Pages once, with big problems. Which makes me not very comfortable with complete unprotection. So I will meet you in the middle: I will put it on pending-changes protection, so that everyone can edit it, but there will be a little stopper for vandalism trying to trickle in. The frequency of edits as it is now will not put too much of a strain on pending-changes reviewers. Note: any admin who wants to unprotect completely: go right ahead, no need to ask me. Cheers and happy editing. ] (]) 06:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Lectonar}} Great response, thanks! ]] 20:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's locked so the perjorative and non-objective tone STAYS. Stop complaining. He was nuts. Right? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
:There is no "official website" for the Landbridge, because it is not administered by one private corporation (to the chagrin of the Brits), but rather as a cooperative effort by an assortment of soveriegn nations. Otherwise, there are plenty of articles from ''Xinhua'' and other press agencies that cite the role of LaRouche and his wife. However, you can't Google them, which is precisely the point of the post to which you are responding. --] 14:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lydon LaRouche == |
|
::: As an aside, the BBC does not "speak for" the British government. You might care to read up about the ], just as an example. ] 21:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is clear that the LaRouche movement and organisation, founded by its name giver, is a political fascist sect. They practice brainwashing. Sometimes they function as suborganisations and thus try to avoid prosecution. Directly or indirectly they are responsible for many destroyed existences, even up to deaths and suicides. A dangerous organisation! Stay away from them and anyone supporting or trivialisinf them. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
::''Postscript: back in ], Andy was insisting that any report from the ''Washington Post'' or kindred publication must be regarded as credible, since they have not been successfully sued for libel. If you make this argument, then you must extend that courtesy to all of the LaRouche-affiliated publications as well. They have never been sued for libel, despite the fact that their meager financial resources, and LaRouche's pariah status, would make them especially vulnerable to such suits.'' --] 15:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] has an ]== |
|
::The onus is on you to cite these "many" articles, I'm afraid. Oh, and why can't we view them, as we could any other article on Xinhua's website? ] 14:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the ''']'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
::* Sept 19, 2003 -- A lengthy article on Lyndon LaRouche by Ding Yifan was published in the influential Beijing-based ''Guangming Daily'' and the Xinhua News Agency. |
|
|
::* April 3, 2003 -- Richard Dallyn interviewed Lyndon LaRouche on, ironically enough, BBC's Five Live show on Wednesday, April 2nd. It was aired on the international news show which played from 1 am to 5 am. |
|
|
::* Jan 3, 2003 -- Dubai, UAE: ''Al-Bayan'' published an article by Lyndon LaRouche entitled "The Year To Come" together with an article by Hussein Askary on History as Tragedy in its New Year's political supplement. The online version of Askary's article is accompanied with a photo of a starving African family; the hard copy has the map of the Eurasian Land-Bridge. |
|
|
::* Aug 15, 2002 -- Skopje, Macedonia: A new political magazine, called ''Manifest'' has been launched which carries an interview with Lyndon LaRouche as its cover story. Many of the articles cover LaRouche's strategic and economic analysis, as well as his program for a New Bretton Woods monetary system and the Eurasian Landbridge. |
|
|
::* June 5, 2002 -- Ankara, Turkey: ''YARIN'', the top political magazine in Turkey, interviewed Lyndon LaRouche in its June issue. The issue is so popular that it was sold out and rushed to a second printing. It was also picked up by the Turkish dailies, and posted on their websites. |
|
|
::* May 7, 2002 -- Seoul, South Korea: Lyndon LaRouche interviewed by Chang Dae-Hwan in the ''Maeil Business News''. The interview covered his program for the New Silk Road and Korea's role in this as the "Asian Hub" for Pacific transport and trade. |
|
|
::* Apr 5, 2002 -- MKTV, the main Macedonian TV station ran a one hour interview with Lyndon LaRouche. The theme of the interview was 'A mass movement is gathering around LaRouche to rebuild the world.' The interview is scheduled to be rebroadcast on Apr 8th on MKTV and a second TV station, Citel TV. |
|
|
::* Dec 28, 2001 -- The ''India Post'', which circulates internationally, covered the LaRouche's recent trip to India. The article was short and very accurate, among other things covering the fact that LaRouche was in India to participate in a seminar: "Growing Global Crisis: The World Needs A New Monetary System." |
|
|
::* Dec 28, 2001 -- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The ''New Straits Times'' carried a prominent interview with Dr. Kassim Ahmad covering his long history in influencing Malaysian politics and culture. Dr. Ahmad referenced Lyndon LaRouche as one of the writers who has influenced his life and as an example of someone whom he would not judge without first carefully reading his biography and writings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Supreme Court cases? == |
|
::''These are just a few highlights.'' --] 15:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This page currently says "At least ten appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals, '''and three were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court'''", and the page ] vaguely implies similar things. However, I am having a devil of a time actually finding any LaRouche-based SCOTUS cases or decisions (with the exception of United States v. Kokinda, which is tangential). I am hoping someone can point me to those cases, and we should cite/link to them on this page or the criminal trials page. However, I suspect that none exist, and what this wikipedia article may be trying to say is that appeals were made to the Supreme Court, which denied them; if that's so, then none of the cases were ever '''heard''' by the Supreme Court. That would explain why I can find, eg, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1989/01/01/sg890463.txt, but no follow up. ] (]) 12:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC) |
|
:And you've read these articles yourself, have you? Or have you only seen references to them in LaRouche publications?20:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I haven't been able to find any either. I guess the description on the other page ], "three were appealed to the ]," is the more accurate one. ] (]) 15:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
::Is that you, Andy? Boy, you're insatiable. You ask for "one, just one" citation, I give you nine, and now you want to know whether I've read them all. The answer is yes, I have, when there are English language transcripts available. I have not seen the TV interviews. A complete list, with English transcripts, is available . --] 22:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have already stated my view on this. It is impossible to accept any statement by LaRouche or from any LaRouche source as true unless it is independently verified, given the proved record for dishonesty of both LaRouche and his followers (including Krusty). I agree that King has his deficiencies as a source, but I have yet to see any charge of dishonesty against him proved. ] 03:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==For those of you just joining us== |
|
|
|
|
|
On June 20, 2004, ] took it upon himself to delete the long-standing Misplaced Pages article on Lyndon LaRouche (which may be viewed ), and substitute a new one. I recognized the material in the new article as being entired drawn from one source, an obscure book by poison-pen-for-hire ] entitled ''Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism''. When I called him on it, Adam admitted that his article was drawn entirely from this source. King's book was sponsored by the ] ], and relies on the ] technique of carefully avoiding any discussion of LaRouche's actual policies and ideas, while asserting that LaRouche uses a code language to secretly convey a message of anti-Semitism. |
|
|
|
|
|
Adam has announced his intention to respond to any efforts to edit his article, by embarking on revert wars. He apparently has a history of this (see ], and refers to this approach as his "robust tactics." The article was protected by Misplaced Pages administrators on June 21. When the article was unprotected on June 30, Adam reverted my edit (which I invite 3rd parties to inspect, at the ), without comment. I have written a third, alternative article on LaRouche, which is available at ]. --] 15:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in the non-LaRouchie universe, this is what happened: |
|
|
*The first version of the article was pure LaRouche propaganda, full of blatant lies and total inventions (such as the Eurasian Land-Bridge, see above), so I rewrote it. |
|
|
*I used as my principal source King's book, which is the only LaRouche biography in existence. While it is not an academic biography, and has the deficiencies of a book written to prove a case (that LaRouche is a fascist), it is nevertheless adequate, and gives standard citations for most (though not all) of its attributions. I am not aware that the factual accuracy of King's citations have been challenged by any non-LaRouche writer. If King's book cannot be used to write a LaRouche biographical article, then so such article can be written, because there is no other account from a non-LaRouche source. |
|
|
*I also used various online sources (with due caution) and the ''Washington Post'' account of LaRouche's trial and conviction. |
|
|
*Who funded King to write the book is completely irrelevant. Most academic books are funded by someone. |
|
|
*Krusty did not "call me" on using King, and I did not "admit" it (these are standard LaRouche polemical distortions). |
|
|
*King does indeed "assert that LaRouche uses a code language to secretly convey a message of anti-Semitism," and I think he is correct, at least when talking about the 1970s, but my article gives due credit to what appears to be LaRouche's recent shift of position on matters Jewish. |
|
|
*I did not "announce my intention to respond to any efforts to edit my article by embarking on revert wars." I said I would revert attempts by Krusty to re-insert LaRouche propaganda in the article, as I have done and will continue to do. This was why I reverted Krusty's edit after the page was unprotected. |
|
|
*Readers of this controversy need to understand that Krusty is obviously a LaRouche activist of some seniority: he says himself he remembers things LaRouche said in 1978. Given the nature of the LaRouche cult, everything Krusty says and does here must be seen as LaRouche propaganda. It can no more be taken as true than what a neo-Nazi would say at ] or what ] says at ]. Krusty is not interested in writing an encyclopaedia article, he is interested in protecting the LaRouche cult's view of itself and particularly the fantasy biography that LaRouche has spent 30 years creating around himself. |
|
|
*It is of course true that I and others editing here are hostile to LaRouche. But there is no equivalence between that hostility to LaRouche and Krusty's support for LaRouche. I and others are trying to write an encyclopaedia article, as objectively as is humanly possible and using the available, admittedly inadequate, sources. Krusty is merely acting as a mouthpiece for the LaRouche cult. |
|
|
*Krusty complains that "Adam and Andy continually attempt to rig the debate by insisting that any source they prefer, such as the thoroughly disreputable Dennis King, must be accepted as gospel, whereas any source associated with LaRouche is automatically excluded, in their world." In a sense this is true, for reasons I have already stated. Material from LaRouche sources is always propaganda, and often untrue. Since truth cannot be separated from myth in LaRouche propaganda, it must all be excluded ''unless'' it can be verified from independent sources. The anti-LaRouche material is of varying quality, and must be assessed critically in the way any historian is trained to do, but if it is properly referenced it can be used ''unless'' shown from an independent (ie, non-LaRouche) source to be false. This may seem unfair on Krusty, but it is the price he pays for choosing to become an acolyte of a proved liar, slanderer and fabulist like LaRouche. ] 01:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The "land-bridge"== |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm sure I could go to a lot of countries issue a few media releases and convince a few gullible reporters to interview me because I say I'm important but if the megaproject I'm talking about is real there should be some sort of documentation to prove its existence somewhere. ] 14:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
":* April 3, 2003 -- Richard Dallyn interviewed Lyndon LaRouche on, ironically enough, BBC's Five Live show on Wednesday, April 2nd. It was aired on the international news show which played from 1 am to 5 am." |
|
|
|
|
|
Herschell, even the LaRouche account of this interview makes NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of this land-bridge yet you post it here as "evidence" of an independent source for the land bridge. This does not bode well for the rest of your "evidence" or for your credibility. Why did you post it here? Were you just trying to bamboozle us into thinking there was more (or even anything) in the mainstream media about this land bridge than there actually was. I'm very disappointed in you Herschell, it seems you've tried to trick us here. ] 14:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, let's see all of these articles come from and accompanying pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* Sept 19, 2003 -- A lengthy article on Lyndon LaRouche by Ding Yifan was published in the influential Beijing-based ''Guangming Daily'' and the Xinhua News Agency. |
|
|
|
|
|
The link to this article is incorrect so I can't check LaRouche's version of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
::* April 3, 2003 -- Richard Dallyn interviewed Lyndon LaRouche on, ironically enough, BBC's Five Live show on Wednesday, April 2nd. It was aired on the international news show which played from 1 am to 5 am. |
|
|
|
|
|
no mention of the land bridge (see earlier post above) |
|
|
|
|
|
::* Jan 3, 2003 -- Dubai, UAE: ''Al-Bayan'' published an article by Lyndon LaRouche entitled "The Year To Come" together with an article by Hussein Askary on History as Tragedy in its New Year's political supplement. The online version of Askary's article is accompanied with a photo of a starving African family; the hard copy has the map of the Eurasian Land-Bridge. |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, the only evidence of the land bridge is LaRouche's say-so. No independent verfication. |
|
|
|
|
|
::* Aug 15, 2002 -- Skopje, Macedonia: A new political magazine, called ''Manifest'' has been launched which carries an interview with Lyndon LaRouche as its cover story. Many of the articles cover LaRouche's strategic and economic analysis, as well as his program for a New Bretton Woods monetary system and the Eurasian Landbridge. |
|
|
|
|
|
as follows as part of a question asked to LaRouche "if the "LaRouche recipe" -- the New Bretton Woods and the Land Bridge projects -- were to become US policy and were endorsed by a coalition of countries in the world, how fast and how directly could this change the situation for the positive. Can you explain how this mechanism would work?" LaRouche's reply doesn't mention the land bridge. I don't see why the mention of a land bridge proposal in an interviewer's question can be seen as evidence of anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
::* June 5, 2002 -- Ankara, Turkey: ''YARIN'', the top political magazine in Turkey, interviewed Lyndon LaRouche in its June issue. The issue is so popular that it was sold out and rushed to a second printing. It was also picked up by the Turkish dailies, and posted on their websites. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* May 7, 2002 -- Seoul, South Korea: Lyndon LaRouche interviewed by Chang Dae-Hwan in the ''Maeil Business News''. The interview covered his program for the New Silk Road and Korea's role in this as the "Asian Hub" for Pacific transport and trade. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* Apr 5, 2002 -- MKTV, the main Macedonian TV station ran a one hour interview with Lyndon LaRouche. The theme of the interview was 'A mass movement is gathering around LaRouche to rebuild the world.' The interview is scheduled to be rebroadcast on Apr 8th on MKTV and a second TV station, Citel TV. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* Dec 28, 2001 -- The ''India Post'', which circulates internationally, covered the LaRouche's recent trip to India. The article was short and very accurate, among other things covering the fact that LaRouche was in India to participate in a seminar: "Growing Global Crisis: The World Needs A New Monetary System." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::* Dec 28, 2001 -- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: The ''New Straits Times'' carried a prominent interview with Dr. Kassim Ahmad covering his long history in influencing Malaysian politics and culture. Dr. Ahmad referenced Lyndon LaRouche as one of the writers who has influenced his life and as an example of someone whom he would not judge without first carefully reading his biography and writings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great Herschell, it looked kind of impressive at first but further investigation shows you've provided us with bupkiss, nada, nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Most of your sources make no mention of the landbridge, the ones who do do so provide no evidence other than LaRouche's say so. Again, can you give us some independent articles from say one of the governments involved or an engineering journal or something which talks about the land bridge as an actual thing and not a mere claim by LaRouche? Are there no engineering surveys of the project? No detailed studies? No references by government departments? |
|
|
] 15:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Conspicuously missing . . .== |
|
|
|
|
|
Under the heading 'economic views, towards the end, it is interesting that corporatist economic connection was made regarding Franco and Salazar, but not Hitler and Mussolini. Why?!?! Mussolini pioneered this. And don't get me started about the Italian fascist MSI and LaRouche's MSI! |
|
|
|
|
|
More about LaRouche's ideas |
|
|
There was a time that much of what was on this page had been written by myself and one other, prior to the first add ins by Krusty that Andy later threw out. Overall, the article that exists is pretty good. His declared Platonism as opposed to Strauss's Platonism is missing though. Krusty will probably agree that these things should be in here. However, the reason I think they should be in there is because I trust the readers to read through all this and see LaRouche for what he is: an ineffective small time swindler ala the music man. Krusty would not agree. However, Krusty is obviously a LaRouchie - he even tries to write in a style identical to the Steinbergs - a couple analogous historically to Ayn Rand's loyal favorite couple in her own ineffective small time cult-racket. Are things I'm saying right now POV? Damn straight - this is the chat area. Here we can speak truth the way we see it. . . Most notable was Krusty's complete and total ignorance of the Socialist Worker's Party, LaRouche's role in it, LaRouche being a Marxist for many years, and this ignorance is something I see across the whole terrain of LaRouchie's I've met, particularly here in the Los Angeles area where they attempt to recruit the unwitting at LACC and other locations.. The problem is that the LaRouche group IS a cult using any meaningfull or helpful definition of the word. His supporters ARE brainwashed, really anything they say is going to have many problems as it is regurgitated crap from their Duce. Students who are in college ARE TOLD to drop out of college AT college BY LaRouche people AT college. They are TOLD that friends outside the group should be kept at arms length if not forgotten completely. This must be included in the article. It is crucial! Let the readers decide for themselves if LaRouche is a demogic cultist neo-platonic 'new-school' fascist - once they are provided with all the facts. The LaRouchies will admit this if you ask them, though they will have their obvious rationalizations of it - but a fact's a fact - they will admit it. In my opinion, you have let Krusty control way too much of this content. LaRouchies almost invariably had no real history of political activism or education prior to becoming a LaRouchie. This is how the Potemkin Village they live in is effected. LaRouchies will blatantly lie or omit information that is suitable to their needs in one context, in one conversation, and in the very next conversation days or moments later, contradict it all. I know they have been trained in conversational and debate methods - methods which have no place in an honest discourse - methods which are aimed at bending reality around the argument - if you can call it an argument at all. One look at a LaRouche pamphlet reveals an endless stream of disconnected, disjointed, factually inaccurate mumbo-jumbo which preys upon the socially inept or psychologically prone (to join a cult, often the young) people. His anal-fecal fixation and fixation on 'filth' 'decadence' 'satanism' and 'zionist-masonic orders' and other conspiratorial cabals should send the alert bells ringing to any politically seasoned citizen. The very structure of the grammar - intentionally meant to be headache-y, the repeated use of esoteric terms at different times in different contexts, is meant to effect a series of mental images in the mind of the reader which render them most confused but yet forced to gape in awe and wonder at the word-smithing. Feeling that they don't understand what it is they are reading, they are compelled to ask the person who gave them the pamphlet what this or that means. This person has just allowed themselves to be schooled and the LaRouchie has the upper hand. Only the LaRouchie can properly understand what LaRouche is saying, so nothing you say about him can make any sense or be accurate unless you are yourself a LaRouchie. To those looking for a strong-man or leader, to those who are unconciously believers of the fuhrer principle, (that great men make history, often reinforced in our own hierarchical societie's culture),LaRouche can be appealing. LaRouche's self-proclaimations that he and he alone is the sole inheritor, walking in the image of christ on earth, solely capable of bettering the situation of life on earth and saving us all from a satanic cabal of corruption and homosexual drug induced filth - ths appeals only to a certain personality type, the very repressed, and for them his rantings will seem believable. While the field is somewhat limited, when you find the people who fit the mold, you must aggressively pursue them until they join. Similar debates rage at the Adolf Hitler page. Should the Hitlerians be able to keep off wikipedia pertinent information about Adolf Hitler or the war effort since 'making people sound bad' seems to have the effect of seeming 'POV'. Capone 7-9-04 |
|
|
|
|
|
:Chaim, you did link the article to your goofy shit in the PCC paper. And how's your |
|
|
|
|
|
==Updated list of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version== |
|
|
|
|
|
As of 20:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*"In 1988 LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for illegally soliciting unsecured loans and tax code violations." This is inaccurate; the charges were all conspiracy charges, and there was no allegation that the loans were illegally solicited. The alleged conspiracy (see ]) was to ''deliberately fail to repay the loans''. |
|
|
|
|
|
*"He now maintains that he was soon disillusioned with Marxism and stayed in the SWP only as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation." |
|
|
|
|
|
*"LaRouche was heavily influenced by Healy's conspiratorial world-view and his advocacy of violence and intimidation." This is innuendo. How does Adam know what LaRouche was thinking? Did LaRouche say he was "heavily influenced" by Healy, or anything Healy advocated? |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Once again, LaRouche now maintains that he was an FBI agent during all this activism." |
|
|
|
|
|
* "He began to regard himself and his followers as "Prometheans," superior to all other people" This is a fabrication. LaRouche counterposed the term "Promethean" to ]'s categories of "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" in the discussion of ], arguing that Nietzsche's approach was wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "During the 1970s LaRouche steered the NCLC away from the left and towards the extreme right, while retaining some of the slogans and attitudes of the left (as did the founder of fascism, the ex-Socialist Benito Mussolini, and many others since)." The business about steering toward the extreme right is a myth, and even if it were not, trying to make a comparison to Mussolini would be propagandistic innuendo. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "He cites as evidence for this a September 24, 1976 opinion piece in the Washington Post, entitled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," and written by Stephen Rosenfeld, a senior editor (who is Jewish)." Whether Rosenfeld is Jewish is irrelevant; lacking any evidence, Adam is trying to make a case for LaRouche being an anti-Semite, purely through insinuation. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "In practice this amounts to advocating centralised, though not socialist, state control of the economy, with heavy state investment in industry and science, and presumably administered by members of the "Promethian" elite such as LaRouche himself." Clumsy and obvious innuendo. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Despite LaRouche's rhetorical skill in presenting them as revolutionary, LaRouche's economic ideas are hardly original: they formed the basis of the corporatist system in Spain under Franco and Portugal under Salazar." This one is a real howler. Did Adam think this up himself? |
|
|
|
|
|
* "LaRouche did not develop his current political and economic ideas in the 1950s or '60s: until at least 1969 he was a Trotskyist, although an increasingly unorthodox one." Adam is a mind-reader? |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Although the expression "Eurasian Land-Bridge," for example, has been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, there is no evidence that LaRouche has ever had anything to do with this project." Deception -- the Landbrige and Asian Highway are ''not'' the same thing, nor has anyone outside of Adam and his cohort Andy asserted that they were -- combined with deliberate fallacy of composition. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Since 1979 LaRouche has concentrated on infiltrating his followers into the Democratic Party." Innuendo. I myself registered as a Democrat in 1972. Did I "infiltrate" the party? ] registered as a Democrat just in time to declare his candidacy for the 2004 election. Did he "infiltrate"? |
|
|
|
|
|
* "The use of the NDPC name has, however, allowed LaRouche followers to compete seriously in Democratic primaries for lesser offices, and even occasionally to win them." Innuendo. What allows LaRouche followers to compete seriously is the fulfillment of petitioning and othe legal requirements. The NDPC was a ] like any other. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Some of the LaRouche organization's successes have come from exploiting public fears about the AIDS epidemic, which they blame on international conspirators." If this sort of innuendo is given any credence, any candidate who puts forward a concrete solution to a contemporary problem (as LaRouche did, by arguing that AIDS should be restored to California's list of communicable diseases and made subject to ] law), can be charged with "exploiting public fears" about that problem. Did FDR "exploit public fears" about the Great Depression? And, LaRouche never blamed AIDS on any international conspirators. |
|
|
|
|
|
* (regarding charges of anti-Semitism): "LaRouche for his part has denied these accusations, asserting that those who accuse him are part of the oligarchic conspiracy to rule the world." Nonsense; LaRouche simply asserted that those who accuse him are liars. Adam's ] would be more effective if he didn't lay it on so thick. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse. The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is a common practice among anti-Semitic groups." Deliberate fallacy of composition -- in 1978, the LaRouche organization published a feature article in ''Campaigner'' entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." |
|
|
|
|
|
* "In the 1970s also, LaRouche developed connections with the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby, a leading extreme right group, both well- known for anti-Semitism." I dare you to attempt to document this. What are "connections"? This is innuendo. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "In NCLC publications during the 1970s the Jews were accused of running the slave trade, controlling organized crime and the drug trade." LaRouche has never accused "the Jews", nor any other ethnic or religious group, of running orcontrolling anything. He has accused Jewish-surnamed individuals such as ] with trafficking in narcotics, just as he has accused non-Jewish-surnamed individuals. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "LaRouche also claimed that the "Zionist lobby" controlled the U.S. government and the United Nations." Utterly false. LaRouche has accused the "Zionist lobby", by which is meant principally AIPAC and allied organizations, of pursuing a policy that is harmful to both Israel and the U.S. He has never asserted that they control the U.S. government, let alone the United Nations, which has often passed resolutions that displease AIPAC. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "In 1978 LaRouche described the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," and his German second wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, dismissed it as a "swindle." These references are sourced in Dennis King's book ''Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism''." They are not "sourced" unless quoted; if King had direct quotes, I am quite certain he would have included them, instead of asking us to accept his characterizations. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "In 1981 LaRouche said that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis." Provide a quote, or delete. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "There is even a word of praise for Walther Rathenau, an archetypal Jewish business figure of the kind so savagely denounced by LaRouche throughout his career." Innuendo: provide an example of a "Jewish business figure" who was "savagely denounced by LaRouche." |
|
|
|
|
|
* "He explicity states that "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews," a direct repudiation of his 1981 statement that only 1.5 million died and those not as a result of a deliberate plan of extermination." Fallacy of composition; LaRouche cannot "directly repudiate" something that he did not say. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "Like most cults, the LaRouche organisation devotes much of its energy to the sale of literature and the soliciting of small donations at airports and on university campuses." Innuendo. The LaRouche organization raises money exactly as do other political movements, except without the emphasis on large foundation grants. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "It also operates more sophisticated telemarketing groups, soliciting donations by phone, usually under the guise of various patriotic front organisations to conceal the real source of the phone calls." Bullshit, if you'll pardon my French. |
|
|
|
|
|
* "The funds thus raised were then directed into a maze of dummy companies so as to avoid both taxation and attempts to recover the 'loans.'" Attempts to recover the loans were blocked by one source only: the U.S. government trustees that took over the companies, after the government-imposed involuntary bankruptcy (see ]). |
|
|
|
|
|
* "One of the most damning aspects of the trial was the revelation of LaRouche's personal corruption. While lenders were told that LaRouche had no money to repay their loans, he in fact spent US$4.2 million on real estate in Virginia and on "improvements" to his 200-acre Leesburg estate. These included a swimming pool and horse riding ring." |
|
|
|
|
|
Each one of these inventions or propandistic insinuations constitutes a violation of Misplaced Pages policy; (see ]). --] 21:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ...
"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—
LaRouche lived all his adult life in New York (1953–1983) or Virginia (1983–present), which means the two major newspapers of record are The New York Times and The Washington Post. Both have written extensively about him, including several extended investigative and analysis pieces from the 1970s to the 2000s. These articles provide the structure of much of this article—in that we highlight what they highlight. For their archives on LaRouche see below. For the books we use see here.
He's been dead since last year. So why is there still the tag about his being a living person? Are the cultists responsible for keeping that lock there?Dogru144 (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It is clear that the LaRouche movement and organisation, founded by its name giver, is a political fascist sect. They practice brainwashing. Sometimes they function as suborganisations and thus try to avoid prosecution. Directly or indirectly they are responsible for many destroyed existences, even up to deaths and suicides. A dangerous organisation! Stay away from them and anyone supporting or trivialisinf them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliachay (talk • contribs) 19:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This page currently says "At least ten appeals were heard by the United States Court of Appeals, and three were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court", and the page LaRouche criminal trials vaguely implies similar things. However, I am having a devil of a time actually finding any LaRouche-based SCOTUS cases or decisions (with the exception of United States v. Kokinda, which is tangential). I am hoping someone can point me to those cases, and we should cite/link to them on this page or the criminal trials page. However, I suspect that none exist, and what this wikipedia article may be trying to say is that appeals were made to the Supreme Court, which denied them; if that's so, then none of the cases were ever heard by the Supreme Court. That would explain why I can find, eg, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/osg/briefs/1989/01/01/sg890463.txt, but no follow up. Dingolover6969 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
