Misplaced Pages

Chip Berlet: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:00, 5 August 2005 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,782 editsm Reverted edits by Sam Spade to last version by El C← Previous edit Revision as of 06:10, 5 August 2005 edit undoRangerdude (talk | contribs)3,171 edits Revert to original version pending outcome of discussionNext edit →
Line 39: Line 39:


==Criticism of Berlet== ==Criticism of Berlet==
Some critics of Berlet consider his actions during the 1990s to have been unfair to left-wing activists in America. In 1991, Berlet mostly limited his criticism to groups on the left who were prepared to form alliances with organizations considered to be anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, or ], such as ] and the ]. He later extended his criticism to those willing to work with the libertarian ] and with industrialist ]. He also criticized ], ], and ], who work with public figures on the right on common issues of concern, such as ], but who, Berlet says, seldom raise questions about the racism, sexism, or homophobia, as he sees it, of their right-wing coalition partners. Berlet argues that left-wing activists in such coalitions need to maintain a position of principled self-criticism and refrain from understating issues of bigotry. This arguably hardline stance has attracted criticism from a number of individuals. Some critics of Berlet consider his actions during the 1990s to have been unfair to left-wing activists in America. In 1991, Berlet mostly limited his criticism to groups on the left who were prepared to form alliances with organizations considered to be anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, or ], such as ] and the ].
He later extended his criticism to those willing to work with the libertarian ] and with industrialist ]. He also criticized ], ], and ], who work with public figures on the right on common issues of concern, such as ], but who, Berlet says, seldom raise questions about the racism, sexism, or homophobia, as he sees it, of their right-wing coalition partners. Berlet argues that left-wing activists in such coalitions need to maintain a position of principled self-criticism and refrain from understating issues of bigotry. This arguably hardline stance has attracted criticism from a number of individuals.


Daniel Brandt, a left-wing activist who maintains the Googlewatch and Namebase websites, writes of Berlet: Daniel Brandt, a left-wing activist who maintains the Googlewatch and Namebase websites, writes of Berlet:
Line 45: Line 47:
<blockquote>He isn't critical of conspiracy thinking on the basis of the evidence, but waits until the theorist can be shown to have incorrect political associations. Berlet doesn't fit anywhere on our spectrum; he's running his own show. </blockquote> <blockquote>He isn't critical of conspiracy thinking on the basis of the evidence, but waits until the theorist can be shown to have incorrect political associations. Berlet doesn't fit anywhere on our spectrum; he's running his own show. </blockquote>


Laird Wilcox, an American researcher and civil libertarian who studies fringe groups, makes a similar criticism of Political Research Associates. Wilcox says most watchdog groups have a tendency to use what he calls "links and ties" to imply connections between individuals and groups, he told '']'': "It's kind of like three Catholics hold up a bank in San Francisco, and you blame the Pope." Wilcox has criticized Berlet over an incident involving the Rev. Francis S. Strykowski, a 76-year-old Catholic priest who was forced to resign after Berlet identified him as having attended an ] meeting addressed by a former ] leader. Strykowski maintained he had not realized what kind of meeting it was. The problem with watchdog groups, Wilcox told ''The New American'', is that: Laird Wilcox, an American researcher and civil libertarian who studies fringe groups, makes a similar criticism of Political Research Associates. Wilcox says most watchdog groups have a tendency to use what he calls "links and ties" to imply connections between individuals and groups, he told '']'': "It's kind of like three Catholics hold up a bank in San Francisco, and you blame the Pope."
Wilcox has criticized Berlet over an incident involving the Rev. Francis S. Strykowski, a 76-year-old Catholic priest who was forced to resign after Berlet identified him as having attended an ] meeting addressed by a former ] leader. Strykowski maintained he had not realized what kind of meeting it was. The problem with watchdog groups, Wilcox told ''The New American'', is that:


<blockquote> operating as intelligence networks for the FBI and other law enforcement bodies, but their information is highly prejudiced by their political outlook. The danger inherent in this arrangement is that these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the &#8216;watchdogs&#8217; disagree with. </blockquote> <blockquote> operating as intelligence networks for the FBI and other law enforcement bodies, but their information is highly prejudiced by their political outlook. The danger inherent in this arrangement is that these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the &#8216;watchdogs&#8217; disagree with. </blockquote>
Line 53: Line 57:
Berlet has also been criticized by '']'' for having accused the ], in a 1993 op-ed piece for the '']'', of down-playing the right-wing threat while focusing on left-wing groups. Berlet has also been criticized by '']'' for having accused the ], in a 1993 op-ed piece for the '']'', of down-playing the right-wing threat while focusing on left-wing groups.


In 2003, he was criticized by conservative activist ] over an article he wrote for the ] (SPLC) on Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC). Berlet wrote that right-wing think tanks like Horowitz's "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable," and made allegations of racial insensitivity against the CSPC. In an open letter to SPLC president ], Horowitz urged him to remove the article from the SPLC website, alleging that it was "filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears ..." Since then, Horowitz's ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried several articles attacking Berlet's research methods and political affiliations, as well as a response from Berlet. In late 2003, Berlet was criticized by conservative activist ] regarding an article by Berlet on Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), which published by the ] (SPLC). Berlet's article claimed to demonstrate that "right wing foundations and think tanks" including Horowitz's "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable" and made several allegations of racial insensitivity and bigotry against the CSPC. Horowitz responded in a letter directed to SPLC president ], describing Berlet's article as the work of "a leftwing conspiracy theorist." Writing to Dees, he asserted that Berlet's article "is so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." The objections centered around the article's characterization of a passage from his writings on slavery reparations, which Horowitz contended "has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is lingering racism or not" as had been implied.

Since the incident, Horowitz's ''Front Page Magazine'' has carried several articles attacking Berlet's research methods and political affiliations. Chris Arabia, writing for ''Front Page Magazine'', asserts that Berlet employs ] tactics to attack individuals and organizations that do not belong to the political left. Arabia writes that "Berlet’s favored technique is to describe fascist and/or hate movements in detail and then brazenly link them to anyone who does not tow his party line." As an example, he points to articles by Berlet listing "SPLC-designated “hate groups” together with organizations that merely do not share Berlet’s ideology," aimed at creating a "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand." According to ''Front Page Magazine'', Berlet has employed similar tactics against "fellow left-wingers" who disagree with him politically. According to Arabia, his approach has had the effect of squashing "vigorous debate and discourse" both within the political left and in general.

Berlet has responded to Horowitz by reiterating his earlier position: "The Center for the Study of Popular Culture has produced a vast amount of text marked by nasty polemic and exceptional insensitivity around issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual identity." He further accuses the CSPC of employing "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States." Horowitz again responded in a second letter directed to Dees. According to Horowitz, Berlet's allegation against the CSPC regarding the use of inflamatory language "applies ''mutatis mutandis'' to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which exacerbates societal tensions by exaggerating the number of hate groups in America and by proposing that they come in only one color and one political disposition. It does this by labeling legitimate political differences as racism and bigotry."


The political movement headed by controversial American fringe politician ] has also published material critical of Berlet. Berlet wrote articles on LaRouche in the 70s and 80s, in which he called LaRouche an anti-Semite and fascist, and alleged, with journalists ] and Russ Bellant, that LaRouche was involved in illegal fundraising activities. LaRouche sued Berlet and King, as well as '']'' and the Anti-Defamation League, but lost the case. During LaRouche's 2004 presidential campaign, a LaRouche network publication called Berlet and King "lower-level operatives of the ]-created drug legalization lobby." The political movement headed by controversial American fringe politician ] has also published material critical of Berlet. Berlet wrote articles on LaRouche in the 70s and 80s, in which he called LaRouche an anti-Semite and fascist, and alleged, with journalists ] and Russ Bellant, that LaRouche was involved in illegal fundraising activities. LaRouche sued Berlet and King, as well as '']'' and the Anti-Defamation League, but lost the case. During LaRouche's 2004 presidential campaign, a LaRouche network publication called Berlet and King "lower-level operatives of the ]-created drug legalization lobby."

Revision as of 06:10, 5 August 2005

Template:Totallydisputed

Chip Berlet.
Used with permission, © 1999 MH/PRA

John Foster "Chip" Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American investigative journalist and researcher specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the United States, particularly the religious right, white supremacists, homophobic groups, and paramilitary organizations. He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories in the mainstream media and on the Internet.

He is the senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a non-profit organization based in Somerville, Massachusetts, which tracks right-wing networks, and is known as one of the first researchers to have drawn attention to the efforts by white supremacist and anti-Semitic groups to recruit farmers in the American mid-west in the 1970s and 1980s.

Résumé

Berlet is the co-author of Right–Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort and editor of Eye’s Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, which both won a Gustavus Myers Center award. He has written for the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Mother Jones and the Columbia Journalism Review, and has also appeared on ABC's Nightline, NBC's Today Show, CBS This Morning, CNN, and The Oprah Winfrey Show.

In 1982, he was a Mencken Awards finalist in the best news story category for "War on Drugs: The Strange Story of Lyndon LaRouche," which was published in High Times. In addition to his journalistic work, he has written for academic journals and encyclopedias, and has given academic lectures in universities in the U.S., Canada, Switzerland, and England.

Berlet is former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild, and has served on the advisory board of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University. He currently sits on the advisory board of the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation.

Background

File:Genealogy of Antisemitic White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism.png
Genealogy of White Supremacy, Theocracy, and Fascism.
Used with permission, © 2005 PRA

Berlet was born and raised in New Jersey. As a teenager, he became active in church-based politics, and served as a delegate at National Council of Churches meetings, before attending the University of Denver for three years, where he majored in sociology with a journalism minor. He left university in 1971 to work as an alternative journalist. In the mid-70s, he went on to co-edit a series of books on student activism for the National Student Association and National Student Educational Fund. He also became an active shop steward with the National Lawyers' Guild.

Berlet and his wife, Karen, have a history of local activism. While living in Marquette Park, Chicago, they helped form a community group that fought a spate of racist attacks, which included physical assaults on African-Americans and the firebombing of black families' homes. Berlet was assaulted twice while monitoring Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi rallies in his neighborhood — once for helping someone who was being beaten, and a second time while photographing an attack on anti-racist protesters.

Berlet gained a reputation during the 1970s and 1980s as a researcher into government abuses of civil liberties, and as a critic of intelligence agencies and the FBI. During the late 1970s, he became the Washington, D.C. bureau chief of High Times magazine, and in 1979, he helped to organize citizens' hearings on FBI surveillance practices. From then until 1982, he worked as a paralegal investigator at the Better Government Association in Chicago, conducting research for an American Civil Liberties Union case, involving police surveillance by the Chicago police (which became known as the "Chicago Red Squad" case). . He also worked on cases filed against the FBI or police on behalf of the Spanish Action Committee of Chicago, the National Lawyers' Guild, the American Indian Movement, Socialist Workers Party, Christic Institute, and the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group. In 1983, he became a co-founder of the Chicago Friends of Albania, which was supportive of the communist Enver Hoxha regime in Albania.

In 1982, Berlet joined Political Research Associates, and in 1985, he founded the Public Eye BBS, the first computer bulletin board aimed at challenging the spread of white-supremacist and neo-Nazi material on the Web, and the first to provide an online application kit for requesting information under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

Berlet is also a photo-journalist. His photographs, particularly of Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi rallies, have been carried on the Associated Press wire, have appeared on book and magazine covers, album covers and posters, and have been published in the Denver Post, Washington Star, and Chronicle of Higher Education.

In 1996, he acted as an advisor on the Public Broadcasting Service documentary mini-series With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, which was later published as a book by William Martin.

Criticism of the left

During the 1988 U.S. Presidential election, Berlet wrote a paper titled "Clouds Blur the Rainbow," which was critical of the New Alliance Party and the third-party presidential campaign of Lenora Fulani, alleging the group was more of a front group for a psychotherapy cult led by Fred Newman, than it was a left-wing political party.

During the 1991 Gulf War, Berlet began criticizing left-wing critics of the intelligence community as being channels — wittingly or otherwise — for conspiracy theories which he believes have their roots in the extreme right. In articles in The Progressive and In These Times, Berlet criticized the Christic Institute, Victor Marchetti, L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Craig B. Hulet, Mark Lane, and the so-called October Surprise theory — which alleges that Ronald Reagan's team made a deal with the Iranian government to ensure that the American hostages being held in Tehran would not be released before the 1980 presidential election.

Political Research Associates published a report by Berlet in 1990 entitled "Right Woos Left," in which he claimed that, though these conspiracy theories are embraced by the left, their origins lie with the extreme political right. His book Right-Wing Populism in America, published in 2000, continued exploring the relationship between racism, anti-Semitism, conspiracism, and what Berlet calls "apocalypticism".

Berlet argues that the right-wing backlash that he says the U.S. is currently undergoing, is the most sustained of its kind in American history. He argues that, although 95% of America's hate crimes are committed by people not affiliated with any group, they have nevertheless internalized a narrative developed and promoted by the right wing that demonizes certain groups, like blacks or gays. He argues that the left must develop coalitions to find a way to counter-balance these narratives, instead of becoming isolated as another side of the "lunatic fringe."

Criticism of Berlet

Some critics of Berlet consider his actions during the 1990s to have been unfair to left-wing activists in America. In 1991, Berlet mostly limited his criticism to groups on the left who were prepared to form alliances with organizations considered to be anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, or fascist, such as Liberty Lobby and the Populist Party.

He later extended his criticism to those willing to work with the libertarian Antiwar.com and with industrialist Roger Milliken. He also criticized Ralph Nader, Alexander Cockburn, and Ramsey Clark, who work with public figures on the right on common issues of concern, such as anti-globalization, but who, Berlet says, seldom raise questions about the racism, sexism, or homophobia, as he sees it, of their right-wing coalition partners. Berlet argues that left-wing activists in such coalitions need to maintain a position of principled self-criticism and refrain from understating issues of bigotry. This arguably hardline stance has attracted criticism from a number of individuals.

Daniel Brandt, a left-wing activist who maintains the Googlewatch and Namebase websites, writes of Berlet:

He isn't critical of conspiracy thinking on the basis of the evidence, but waits until the theorist can be shown to have incorrect political associations. Berlet doesn't fit anywhere on our spectrum; he's running his own show.

Laird Wilcox, an American researcher and civil libertarian who studies fringe groups, makes a similar criticism of Political Research Associates. Wilcox says most watchdog groups have a tendency to use what he calls "links and ties" to imply connections between individuals and groups, he told The Washington Times: "It's kind of like three Catholics hold up a bank in San Francisco, and you blame the Pope."

Wilcox has criticized Berlet over an incident involving the Rev. Francis S. Strykowski, a 76-year-old Catholic priest who was forced to resign after Berlet identified him as having attended an anti-communist meeting addressed by a former Ku Klux Klan leader. Strykowski maintained he had not realized what kind of meeting it was. The problem with watchdog groups, Wilcox told The New American, is that:

operating as intelligence networks for the FBI and other law enforcement bodies, but their information is highly prejudiced by their political outlook. The danger inherent in this arrangement is that these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with.

Berlet responded that Wilcox had mischaracterized PRA's activities. "Laird Wilcox is not an accurate or ethical reporter," Berlet told the Washington Times. "He simply can't tolerate people who are his competition in this field."

Berlet has also been criticized by The New American for having accused the Anti-Defamation League, in a 1993 op-ed piece for the New York Times, of down-playing the right-wing threat while focusing on left-wing groups.

In late 2003, Berlet was criticized by conservative activist David Horowitz regarding an article by Berlet on Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), which published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Berlet's article claimed to demonstrate that "right wing foundations and think tanks" including Horowitz's "support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable" and made several allegations of racial insensitivity and bigotry against the CSPC. Horowitz responded in a letter directed to SPLC president Morris Dees, describing Berlet's article as the work of "a leftwing conspiracy theorist." Writing to Dees, he asserted that Berlet's article "is so tendentious, so filled with transparent misrepresentations and smears that if you continue to post the report you will create for your Southern Poverty Law Center a well-earned reputation as a hate group itself." The objections centered around the article's characterization of a passage from his writings on slavery reparations, which Horowitz contended "has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is lingering racism or not" as had been implied.

Since the incident, Horowitz's Front Page Magazine has carried several articles attacking Berlet's research methods and political affiliations. Chris Arabia, writing for Front Page Magazine, asserts that Berlet employs guilt by association tactics to attack individuals and organizations that do not belong to the political left. Arabia writes that "Berlet’s favored technique is to describe fascist and/or hate movements in detail and then brazenly link them to anyone who does not tow his party line." As an example, he points to articles by Berlet listing "SPLC-designated “hate groups” together with organizations that merely do not share Berlet’s ideology," aimed at creating a "false illusion that conservatism and racism walk hand-in-hand." According to Front Page Magazine, Berlet has employed similar tactics against "fellow left-wingers" who disagree with him politically. According to Arabia, his approach has had the effect of squashing "vigorous debate and discourse" both within the political left and in general.

Berlet has responded to Horowitz by reiterating his earlier position: "The Center for the Study of Popular Culture has produced a vast amount of text marked by nasty polemic and exceptional insensitivity around issues of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual identity." He further accuses the CSPC of employing "inflammatory, mean-spirited, and divisive language that dismisses the idea that there are serious unresolved issues concerning racism and white supremacy in the United States." Horowitz again responded in a second letter directed to Dees. According to Horowitz, Berlet's allegation against the CSPC regarding the use of inflamatory language "applies mutatis mutandis to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which exacerbates societal tensions by exaggerating the number of hate groups in America and by proposing that they come in only one color and one political disposition. It does this by labeling legitimate political differences as racism and bigotry."

The political movement headed by controversial American fringe politician Lyndon LaRouche has also published material critical of Berlet. Berlet wrote articles on LaRouche in the 70s and 80s, in which he called LaRouche an anti-Semite and fascist, and alleged, with journalists Dennis King and Russ Bellant, that LaRouche was involved in illegal fundraising activities. LaRouche sued Berlet and King, as well as NBC News and the Anti-Defamation League, but lost the case. During LaRouche's 2004 presidential campaign, a LaRouche network publication called Berlet and King "lower-level operatives of the MK-Ultra-created drug legalization lobby."

Books by Berlet

  • (2000), with Matthew N. Lyons, Right–Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Guilford Press, New York; paperback edition ISBN 1572305622
  • (1995), (ed.), Eye’s Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, South End Press, Boston; paperback edition ISBN 0896085236

Selected papers and articles by Berlet

  • (2004), "Mapping the Political Right: Gender and Race Oppression in Right-Wing Movements," in Abby Ferber, ed, Home-Grown Hate: Gender and Organized Racism, New York: Routledge.
  • (2002), “Encountering and Countering Political Repression,” in The Global Activists Manual: Local Ways to Change the World, edited by Mike Prokosch, Laura Raymond, and Michael Prokosch, New York: Thunder Mouth Press/Nation Books
  • (2002), “Anti-Masonic Conspiracy Theories: A Narrative Form of Demonization and Scapegoating,” Heredom, Vol. 10, pp. 243-275.
  • (2001), “Hate Groups, Racial Tension and Ethnoviolence in an Integrating Chicago Neighborhood 1976-1988.” In Betty A. Dobratz, Lisa K. Walder, and Timothy Buzzell, eds., Research in Political Sociology, Volume 9: The Politics of Social Inequality, pp. 117–163.
  • (2000) with Matthew N. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, New York: Guiford Press.
  • (1998), “Who’s Mediating the Storm? Right–wing Alternative Information Networks,” in Linda Kintz & Julia Lesage, eds., Culture, Media, and the Religious Right, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press
  • (1998), “Following the Threads: A Work in Progress," in Amy Elizabeth Ansell, ed., Unraveling the Right: The New Conservatism in American Thought and Politics, New York: Westview
  • (1998), “Y2K and Millennial Pinball: How Y2K Shapes Survivalism in the U.S. Christian Right, Patriot and Armed Militia Movements, and Far Right", presented at the annual symposium, Center for Millennial Studies, Boston University
  • (1998), “Mad as Hell: Right–wing Populism, Fascism, and Apocalyptic Millennialism," presented at the 14th World Congress of Sociology, International Sociological Association, Montreal
  • (1998), “The Ideological Weaponry of the American Right: ‘Dangerous Classes’ and ‘Welfare Queens’", presented at the international symposium, The “American Model:” an Hegemonic Perspective for the End of the Millennium?, Group Regards Critiques, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • (1998), with Matthew N. Lyons, “One Key to Litigating Against Government Prosecution of Dissidents: Understanding the Underlying Assumptions, ” Police Misconduct and Civil Rights Law Report, in two parts, Vol. 5, No. 13, Vol. 5, No. 14, West Group.
  • (1997), “Fascism’s Franchises: Stating the Differences from Movement to Totalitarian Government," presented to the American Sociological Association, Toronto
  • (1997), “An Introduction to Propaganda Analysis," in Uncovering the Right on Campus: A Guide to Resisting Conservative Attacks on Equality and Social Justice, Cambridge, MA: Center for Campus Organizing.
  • (1996), “Three Models for Analyzing Conspiracist Mass Movements of the Right,” in Eric Ward, ed., Conspiracies: Real Grievances, Paranoia, and Mass Movements, Seattle: Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment .
  • (1995), with Margaret Quigley, “Theocracy & White Supremacy", in Chip Berlet, ed., Eye’s Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, Boston, South End Press.
  • (1995), “Uniting to Defend the Four Freedoms," in Chip Berlet, ed., Eye’s Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, Boston, South End Press.
  • (1995), “The Violence of Right-Wing Populism.” Peace Review, Vol. 7, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 283288. Oxford: Journals Oxford Ltd.
  • (1990), Review of The False Prophet: Rabbi Meir Kahane FBI Informant to Knesset Member, Z Magazine
  • (1987) Review of Inventing Reality: The Politics of Mass Media by Michael Parenti, in The Library Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 2, April
  • (1984), with Russ Bellant “LaRouche Loses Libel Suit,” The Guardian, NY, November 14, 1984
  • (1982), with Russ Bellant and Dennis King, “LaRouche Cult Continues to Grow: Researchers Call for Probe of Potentially Illegal Acts,” The Public Eye, Vol. III, Issues 3 & 4
  • (1982) “Private Spies: A New Threat To Constitutional Rights,” The Public Eye, Vol. III, Issues 3 & 4, 1982.
  • (1981) “Ever Hear of Lyndon LaRouche? He May be Keeping Tabs on You,” Des Moines Register, September 23, 1981.
  • (1980) “Lyndon LaRouche and the U.S. Labor Party: Cult Fanaticism and the Politics of Paranoia,” Chicago Reader, March 7, 1980.

References

Further reading

Categories: