Searching for LaRouche under the bed Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The "LaRouche 1" ArbCom case established that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," and that "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense."

Ah, but what constitutes "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement"? This phrase has acquired a remarkably elastic definition. Consider this quote from Pope John Paul II, removed by Will Beback as "LaRouche-sourced material," although there is no source cited. Presumably most pronouncements by the Pope get published by the Vatican, although we don't know in this case.

Increasingly, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement" has been taken to mean "opinions with which LaRouche might conceivably agree." Aside from Will Beback/Willmcw/User2004, the other hyper-vigilant defender against creeping LaRouchism is User:172, who waged a mammoth battle at the article "Privatization" to prevent inclusion of material on a conference on the privatization of national security functions ( see the lengthy debate on the talk page.) !72 argued that the material ought to be deleted because it sounded like something LaRouche might consider to be important. My edit, which triggered a revert war by 172, was sourced to the Princeton University transcript of the conference proceedings.

Recently, User:Tsunami Butler made a fruitless appeal to the ArbCom, which included an entertaining sampler of recent complaints on Will Beback's talk page. Predictably, this was ignored by the ArbCom.

In the course of the discussion, however, Will Beback announces his latest exploit, which I tracked down to the ANI archive. Will reverts two edits: one edit, in article "Laissez-faire," mentions George Schultz and Milton Friedman as laissez-fair advocates that went so far as to call for drug legalization. This edit was sourced to the Wikipedia articles on George Schultz and Milton Friedman, and sure enough, they did that. However, Will Beback pounces, calling it a "LaRouchism." Similarly, in the article "Free Trade," Will Beback comes to the rescue against an edit which references Henry Carey and Friedrich List, and includes a quote from William McKinley -- "remove LaRouche concepts," he writes. He also threatened to ban HonourableSchoolboy for that one.

So now, if you are an admin and you want to ban someone, you can accuse them of holding an opinion similar to one of LaRouche.

[Jonathan]

HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?

[disclaimer]Any answer that I give will be an oversimplification, and doubtless will be disputed by someone.[/disclaimer]

Basically, in U.S. politics since the time of the American Revolution, there has been an ongoing battle between those forces who supported the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution, and those who opposed them. The latter group thought that it was impractical and undignified to politically enfranchise the common folk, and preferred some sort of aristocratic system like the one that remained in place in Europe -- either a formal, titled nobility, or in more recent times, an aristocracy of financial and business leaders, typified by Wall Street.

This conflict has gone back and forth throughout US history. A decisive battle was the election of Franklin Roosevelt, who used the power of the White House, plus the enormous popular support which he enjoyed, to place significant controls on the power of Wall Street, or what he called the "Economic Royalists." However, with the death of FDR, the "Economic Royalists" made a big comeback, and they are intent on preventing the re-emergence of anything like the movement which FDR led. Early on, they identified LaRouche and his movement as just the sort of thing which they could not tolerate, and went to considerable effort and expense to eliminate it, without success.

My view of Wikipedia is that it is fundamentally a creature of Jimbo Wales and his trusted acolytes, and in various ways, subtle and not so subtle, it reflects his personal ideology, which lines up squarely with the Wall Street crowd (see Wikipedia Ideology Project.)

As to why WP hates him and his accolytes, it looks more like many WP editors and admins have lost too many fights with them. And like they say, its actually worse to win a fight with a cop than lose one.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, as I was involved in most of the fights until I was temp-blocked last May. I lost every one of them as far as the ArbCom was concerned. However, if you mean perhaps that I won arguments in moral terms only to get slapped with sanctions, that may be true.

[nobs]

HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?

[disclaimer]Any answer that I give will be an oversimplification, and doubtless will be disputed by someone.[/disclaimer]

My question, too. On this page, for example, we have a discussion between two notable Wikipedian's, Stephan Kinsella, a theoritician of the Austrain School of Economics, and Chip Berlet, a devoted Marixist idealist. Kinsella refers to LaRouche as a "nutjob", while Berlet calls him a "lunatic". Now, for NPOV purposes, what would be neutral compromise language between proponents of private property and their opposite collectivization advocates to reconcile POV discrepencies of "nutjob" and "lunatic"?

the election of Franklin Roosevelt, who used the power of the White House, plus the enormous popular support which he enjoyed

Again, a similiar problem. It appears both LaRouche, and Ronald Reagan according to Lou Cannon, idolized Franklin Roosevelt. So what would be NPOV language to describe FDR's inspiration on future Presidential candidates, one considered to represent greedy Wall Street bastards and big business, the other an outspoken activist and opponent of "Economic Royalists" ?

LaRouche's wiki bio says,

he shared a cell with televangelist Jim Bakker at the Federal Medical Center located in Rochester, Minnesota. ...According to Bakker, LaRouche received a daily briefing each morning by phone, often in German...

Is LaRouche Alsacian?, i.e. hailing form Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine), the source of fratricidal warfare between the sons of Karl der Grosse/Charlemagne/Charles the Great, and now the seat of the European Union and symbol of European co-operation. A German minority, living in France, speaking German but having French names (in the 19th century they were called half-breeds, but with Strassburg being the seat of the European Parliament, and hope for the future of a fully integrated Europe, this kind of insensitivity is not prevelant today).

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

On this page, for example, we have a discussion between two notable Wikipedian's, Stephan Kinsella, a theoritician of the Austrain School of Economics, and Chip Berlet, a devoted Marixist idealist. Kinsella refers to LaRouche as a "nutjob", while Berlet calls him a "lunatic". Now, for NPOV purposes, what would be neutral compromise language between proponents of private property and their opposite collectivization advocates to reconcile POV discrepencies of "nutjob" and "lunatic"?

LaRouche enjoys the distinction of being hated by both Right-wingers and Left-wingers. However, as I have noted elsewhere, I don't think of Berlet as a genuine Leftist, but rather, a "Faux-Leftist."

the election of Franklin Roosevelt, who used the power of the White House, plus the enormous popular support which he enjoyed

Again, a similiar problem. It appears both LaRouche, and Ronald Reagan according to Lou Cannon, idolized Franklin Roosevelt. So what would be NPOV language to describe FDR's inspiration on future Presidential candidates, one considered to represent greedy Wall Street bastards and big business, the other an outspoken activist and opponent of "Economic Royalists" ?

Oddly enough, LaRouche and Reagan were on friendly terms. Reagan adopted LaRouche's recommended verson of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and at on least one occasion that I can recall, made a public statement saying that LaRouche's ideas were important and should be heeded (Reagan caught Hell for this in the press.) However, LaRouche considers "Reaganomics" to be an abject failure.

LaRouche's wiki bio says,

he shared a cell with televangelist Jim Bakker at the Federal Medical Center located in Rochester, Minnesota. ...According to Bakker, LaRouche received a daily briefing each morning by phone, often in German...

Is LaRouche Alsacian?

No, LaRouche is the grandson of an immigrant from Quebec. I think that Bakker is simply mistaken here. LaRouche would not receive briefings in German. However, he would receive phone calls from his wife, who is German. It would not be surprising that he would speak to her in her native language.

[nobs]

Reagan adopted LaRouche's recommended verson of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and at on least one occasion that I can recall, made a public statement saying that LaRouche's ideas were important and should be heeded (Reagan caught Hell for this in the press.)

You got a cite for this? Don't see his name here (unless you can specifically state what "recommended verson" refers to or supply a date).


This post has been edited by nobs:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Reagan adopted LaRouche's recommended verson of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and at on least one occasion that I can recall, made a public statement saying that LaRouche's ideas were important and should be heeded (Reagan caught Hell for this in the press.)

You got a cite for this? Don't see his name here (unless you can specifically state what "recommended verson" refers to or supply a date).

The Presidential directive you cite doesn't mention LaRouche's name, or anyone else. This is a contentious issue. The Wikipedia bio is semi-balanced on this point -- it has a quote from former head of German Military Intelligence, General Paul-Albert Scherer, saying that Reagan adopted LaRouche's policy, and it has a quote from General Daniel Graham, former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, who says that Reagan adopted Daniel Graham's policy (otherwise known as "High Frontier.")

Apart from this forum, I have only come across LaRouche in the Jeremiah Duggan case, which was very big news in my part of the world. Obviously, I know better than to assume that the Wikipedia article is unbiased, given some of the editors involved. Nevertheless, there are still some questions unresolved about Mr. Duggan's death.

The Duggan story, as it appeared in the British press, is on the face of it a fairly outlandish conspiracy theory. It alleges that, for unknown reasons, LaRouche activists practiced Mind Control on Duggan as he attended a conference in Germany, causing him to commit suicide. It leaves unanswered the questions of how the LaRouchians were able to control his mind, and more importantly, why would they want to? He had no prior contact with the organization. He was a casual attendee at a conference held to oppose the Bush administration's Iraq war policy. People that I know in the organization have told me that the organization's relations with his mother were initially quite friendly, and then some British government officials intervened, including Baroness Symons, a spooky right-wing figure. Next thing you know, Chip Berlet is involved, and Berlet crafts the mother's campaign to blame LaRouche.

[guy]

The Duggan story, as it appeared in the British press, is on the face of it a fairly outlandish conspiracy theory. It alleges that, for unknown reasons, LaRouche activists practiced Mind Control on Duggan as he attended a conference in Germany, causing him to commit suicide.

Which British press published that? The versions I've read (and I've checked an online database of news stories) say that he was fleeing from someone or something, and possibly the balance of his mind was disturbed, but I can't find a word about Mind Control.

Baroness Symons, a spooky right-wing figure.

Are we on the same planet? I know Elizabeth Symons. She was a career trade union official until she was given a peerage in 1995. In 1997, she became a minister in the new Labour government. In 2005, she was dropped for being too left-wing and insufficiently New Labour.