Talk:National Caucus of Labor Committees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

old comments[edit]


old comments[edit]

The new version seems pretty solid to me. If anyone has any specific criticisms, let's discuss them here. -Willmcw 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Fusion[edit]

I have not read any articles of Fusion, but it seems rather presumptive and biased to claim LaRouche as "praising Nazi Rocket Scientists", and what is the deal with the DDT?. Just asking.

RoyBot 69.248.43.27 11:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edits[edit]

Cognition was right to say "Willmcw, the changes in question were added by an anonymous passerby who did not provide citations or discuss the additions on the Talk page." I have noticed on other pages that Willmcw will often demand extensive source citations, and on this one he let all sorts of biased comments in without any objection. This seems like a double standard. --NathanDW 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC);
Are there any specific issues about the article that you'd like to raise, or are you just complaining? -Will Beback 22:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Here are some objections to the anonymous edits. The older version was much more neutral and objective.

This paragraph is completely POV: "By the late 1970s, the NCLC had abandoned Marxism altogether, in favor of what LaRouche called an American System approach. Critics such as Chip Berlet, Russ Bellant and Dennis King, noting the NCLC's obsession with Jewish banking conspiracies and its increasingly militaristic and statist rhetoric, accused it of adopting an essentially neo-fascist world view."

LaRouche did not invent the American System, but this makes it look like he did. Chip Berlet, Bellant and King did not "note the NCLC's obsession Jewish banking conspiracies and its increasingly militaristic and statist rhetoric." As far as I can tell from reading LaRouche's writings, there is no such obsession. These charges are repeated like a mantra by Berlet, but they should not be repeated in Wikipedia articles like they are established fact.

Saying that NCLC members "attempt to carry out research" is POV. You can say that all researchers "attempt to carry out research," but this is propaganda language to belittle them. Webster Tarpley is listed as co-author of the Bush biography, but I don't find anything that backs up the anonymous editor's claim that he was the "main author." "Helga Zepp-LaRouche, wife of Lyndon, who has interpreted the ideas of Friedrich Schiller and Nicholas of Cusa to depict them as forerunners of LaRouche" -- also POV. And, I agree with Roybot -- the comments about Fusion magazine are just ridiculous.

Will Beback, you should not need me to point these things out to you. You seem to have no problem noticing these sort of thing in other articles. --NathanDW 17:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC);

If these are the problems with the text then deal with them - don't revert the entire article back to an old version. I'm going to revert your revert, and then address these specific issues. -Will Beback 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

NathanDW has changed this article back, step by step, towards its absurd earlier form. First, the writers he cited have not had a "major" influence on the LaRouche organization or on its ideology, which is all about Lyndon, his ego, his ideas. They are not taken seriously by any legitimate scholars. To point this out and to remove their puffed-up self-descriptions is not POV, as NathanDW keeps saying, its an attempt to keep wikipedia sane. The stuff about Helga trying to present Schiller as a proto-LaRouche is dead-on accurate; it is profoundly misleading to present her as a legitimate Schiller scholar. As to Webster Tarpley, his name is listed first on the book jacket in spite of his name being alphabetically second, and he was the one who went around promoting the book. And he's the one who sells it today on his own web site while I couldn't find it for sale on the LaRouche site. That NathanDW would try and palm this off as a book simply by Anton Chaitkin is another example of how utterly dishonest the LaRouche cult is.--15 February 2006

Sources for the disputed material would help settle this. Thanks, -Will Beback 01:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
::Material in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. You are simply putting in your own opinions. The material that was there originally was not well sourced, but at least it was not full of speculation (for example, you are not putting in any evidence that Tarpley was the main author of the book. What you are doing is called Original Research and it is not permitted at Wikipedia.) I think the most honest and verifiable way to present the contributions of NCLC members is simply to list who has had books published, and what they were about. That is verifiable. The stuff about Michael Hudson doesn't belong in a biographical note about Allen Salisbury. It is simply more POV-pushing. --NathanDW 01:56, 16 February 2006

(UTC);

:The article is not about Allen Salisbury, it is about the NCLC. The only reason the list of so-called NCLC scholars was placed in it was to promote the fantasy that NCLC is a "philosophical association" rather than what it really is--an anti-Semitic far-right cadre organization waging a centralized propaganda war against Jews, Judaism, Israel, the UK and the principles of American democracy. But once the claim is made that Salisbury is this great Carey scholar then the issue of what a real Carey scholar learned about Salisbury's organization becomes a legitimate comment. If you want Hudson out, and if you want 21st C magazine's pet Nazi scientists out, and if you want Helga's absurd views on Schiller to not be mentioned, then the solution is simple--take out the entire section on the so-called NCLC scholars. There ARE no NCLC scholars, only a group of fanatics headed by a convicted felon.-- 15 February 2006;

NathanDW wants to get away with describing LaRouche's economic theories as "the American System" approach. I changed this back to "what NCLC members described as the American System approach." If these people want to treat their adherence to what they call the American System approach as a fact, they have to document it, which they haven't done any more than they have documented that LaRouche is the inheritor of Martin Luther King or Plato or Charles de Gaulle or Charlemagne or the Old Man of the Mountain or anyone else whom they have depicted at one time or another as a proto-LaRouche. As to the Webster Tarpley issue, I'm asking NathanDW again why he erased Tarpley's name. Is he trying to turn Wikipedia into a Soviet style encyclopedia in which if a leader falls from power his face gets airbrushed out of the picture? Just go to Tarpley's web site. He's selling the book and its the same edition published by the LaRouche organization and Tarpley's name is clearly listed first.--15 February 2006

:None of your opinions matter under Wikipedia policy. Material in Wikipedia articles must come from published sources. Please provide sources for the opinions you have placed in the article or else remove them. --NathanDW 01:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BirdsOfFire that these edits are original research. However I think both he an Cberlet should not have done a wholesale revert, but adressed them one by one. I will do that now, a few at a time. --NathanDW 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC);

Michael Hudson[edit]

Cberlet, you deleted information about Michael Hudson, saying that it duplicates information in other articles. I think that this is a mistake because the reader of this article would have no way of knowing that there was information about Hudson in the other article. Also, I have seen that you frequently put duplicate information in more than one article, for example in Jeremiah Duggan and Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. You have done that quite recently in fact. So, you should not object to the Hudson information appearing here. --NathanDW 20:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC);
Cannot have the same identical paragraph on two pages on LaRouche. Link if you must.--Cberlet 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
::Dude, the paragraphs are not identical, only the quote is. Please show me a rule on Wikipedia that says a quote can not appear in two different articles. --BirdsOfFire 16:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC);

SDS[edit]

I notice there was an edit war over whether the group "left" or "was expelled" from SDS. Does either side of this conflict have any evidence? It doesn't seem like it should appear at all if there is no verification. Or, both versions of the story should appear. --172.197.75.131 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC);

Disputed[edit]

Is the article still disputed? There doesn't seem to be much discussion going on. --Tsunami Butler 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC);
Flag should probably be removed.--Cberlet 22:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I removed the flag, and trimmed the LaRouchite propaganda unrelated to this page. Please abide by Arbcom decisions regarding pro-LaRouchite material on Wikipedia.--Cberlet 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Two questions:

1. How is a list of leading members considered "propaganda"?

2. Are you Chip Berlet?

--Tsunami Butler 15:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC);

The list of names are still there, with links. The unrelated promotional plugs that are not really connected to the history of the defunct NCLC are gone. Are you a LaRouchie? Please abide by Arbcom decisions regarding pro-LaRouchite material on Wikipedia. --Cberlet 16:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Cberlet, please be mindful of WP:CIVIL. There is nothing illegitimate about this person asking you if you are Chip Berlet -- it's a matter of record at Talk:Chip Berlet. --NathanDW 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please be mindful of the Arbcom decision against attempts to plug pro-LaRouche material into multiple pages. You are in violation.--Cberlet 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I brought this up in the "clarification" section at the "Requests for Arbitration" page, and the ArbCom member who responded said he couldn't find anything wrong with Nathan's edit [1]. --ManEatingDonut 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC);
Do we have verifiable sources for the material? -Will Beback 23:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
:::::I replaced the ones who wrote books. That the books were published is verifiable. I don't know how to find the other ISBN numbers though -- maybe someone can help on this. --NathanDW 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC);
What's our source for Billington's Chinese education? How is it relevant to this article? -Will Beback 05:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No mention[edit]

Why is there no mention of this being a cult? Is there a threat of being sued by LaRouche? It was a cult when I saw the people in it in the 1970s, they were intimidated time and again, and some exceedingly nasty things were said to individuals. This by "leaders" who were doing it to the "cadre"--those who essentially believed the "organization." It was, as I saw it in the 1970s in the town in which I lived, a cult. The people in it were mostly young, and I suppose that is why they got away with such outlandishly belittling treatment of their "cadre." Calling this a "cadre" organization seems to be pandering to the Larouchites, it was certainly more like a "cult" organization than anything I've seen since. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.176.83 (talkcontribs).

Please understand that this is just one of several articles about the LaRouche Movement. If you have any sources which support your view of this topic then please add them. We can't write articles based on our personal knowledge. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks, 1973[edit]

I have reverted this material from Cberlet because I doubt that the NYCTSTA can stand up to WP:V requirements. Also, the new material probably violates WP:UNDUE, and the image is likely to be deleted on the grounds that it has been released to the public domain by "anonymous." -Marvin Diode (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC);
The source is Chip Berlet, reporting what he says they said. I'm not sure how the "undue weight" argument can be made. By comparison, the article seems to spend a lot of time talking about the subsequent writing careers of one-time members. Is the EIR actually published by the NCLC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
::I have added the NPOV tag until we hash this out. We have Chip Berlet citing himself, claiming that the New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks, whoever and whatever that was, claimed that the NCLC published something -- I think that we are a long way from WP:V here. I also question whether this episode rises to the level of notability (hence the question about undue weight -- it takes up a substantial portion of the article,) and I am removing the image under BLP -- I think that a caricature with a swastika is probably defamatory.
There seems to be a pattern here -- every few weeks, Cberlet picks one of the LaRouche articles that has been stable and does something deliberately provocative, a textbook case of tendentious editing. I don't see any other explanation for this latest foray -- it adds nothing of substance to the article, it just provides another opportunity for Cberlet to say "Nyah, nyah, LaRouche is an asshole," and waste everyone's time some more. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I have set up a "criticism" section such as appears in other Wikipedia articles. This may solve the neutrality problem. It is not SOP to put all the criticism in the lead of the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC);
How come the Pro-LaRouche editors can find text from really old LaRouchite articles to support claims that praise LaRouche, but cannot seem to find really old LaRouchite articles where they wrote idiotic, venomous, or bigoted text? Is that a pattern?--Cberlet (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::::The behavior described by Marvin Diode is the opposite of tendentious editing. It's a good thing to allow disputes to quiet down. And if nobody could edit stable article then Wikipedia would cease improving.
The behavior described by Marvin Diode has a precise name: it is called trolling. --Terrawatt (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC) ;
Regarding the Red Hornets, the Charlotte incident had an entire newspaper article written about it. If we judge weight by sources then it probably doesn't have sufficient weight. Again, I don't see how the books later published by one-time members are as relevant.
As for the image, if it's properly sourced then BLP doesn't prevent us from using it. BLP doesn't bar all defamatory material, just poorly-sourced defamatory material. I think that until we can verify that the Red Hornets created the design, or some other sufficient sourcing, then we should leave it off.
Lastly, is this group notable enough for an article of their own? Or would it be better merged with the LaRouche movement, or the U.S. Labor Party? Much of the relevant material, such as "Operation Mop Up", is already at Lyndon LaRouche or the other articles. We don't have much to say about this group by itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've also removed the unsourced list of members. BLP applies to them as well, and allegations of membership in the NCLC could be viewed as defamatory. If we can obtain a verifiable list of NCLC members, of if there are sources calling these people members or officers, then we can add them back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::The idea that "allegations of membership in the NCLC could be viewed as defamatory" is patently absurd. And although Will Beback appears to be arguing in favor of including defamatory material ("BLP doesn't bar all defamatory material, just poorly-sourced defamatory material."), it says in Wikipedia:LIBEL that "For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." --Terrawatt (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC);
Regardless of whether it's derogatory or promotional, it still needs to be sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The sources provided don't seem to mention membership in the NCLC. How do we know that these people were members? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
As for the cartoon, it doesn't appear libellous to me. It's the equivalent of a political cartoon. LaRouche is a public figure, and the drawing is obviously an opinion and not a statement purporting to be truth. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Political cartoons are typically syndicated and copyrighted, not anonymous. They are often very critical, but I have never seen a political cartoon published in a living person's biography at Wikipedia. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC);
It's a moot point unless it's verifiable. And this isn't a biography, it's an article about a political/philosophical organization. WP does have political cartoons in articles on political topics. I'm not sure how many of the political cartoons in the American Revolution were signed and syndicated, or even today. In my area not long ago there was a local artist who'd plaster the utility boxes with obscure political posters of his own making that he didn't sign. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Membership[edit]

  • All of the victims [Michael Billington, Anita Gallagher, Paul Gallagher, Laurence Hecht, Donald Phau] were, at all relevant times, associates of a philosophical association known as the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC).(Footnote 1)
  • Footnote 1: The abandonment of dues-payment membership was a process which unfolded during the years 1976-1978. The NCLC had been formed in January 1969, as a coalition of sundry organizations which had come together at some time during the 1966-1969 interval. From that time, until 1976, the NCLC existed as a due- paying membership organization, with sundry income- yielding and expense-incurring activities included. In 1976, most U.S. citizens members of the NCLC became members of the U.S. Labor Party (USLP), a registered political party which included a large ration of persons not associated with the NCLC. Continuing Cointelpro operations targetting the NCLC, and also the Labor Party, by the FBI and its sundry public and private associates, prompted the NCLC to abandon its quasi-corporate organization, in order to limit itself to the status of a purely philosophical-legal association. During the course of the 1980 Democratic Primary campaigns, most members of the USLP participated in various Democratic Party campaigns; most of these, together with numerous others, participated in a new political-action committee, the National Democratic Policy Committee, which was formed within the setting of the August 1980 New York Democratic convention. During the same interval, 1976-1980, the publishing and scientific organizations whose corporate life had begun with partial sponsorship by the NCLC, evolved in ways which reflected the changes in the NCLC. Apart from its functions as a philosophical association, the principal other activity of the NCLC, from 1978 to the present date, has been in connection with legal cases against the Cointelpro and related offenses of the FBI and associated agencies. [2]

So that's a source for five "associates" of the NCLC. I'm still looking for other sources on members/associates. Wasn't there a governing "National Committee"? The membership of that would be important to include. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The death of Ken Kronberg on April 11, 2007 represents an irreplaceable loss of a leader of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, ...Ken was elected a member of the National Committee of the NCLC in 1974, was a steering committee member in the New York Region of the Labor Committees, and a National Committee member in the Midwest—in the Detroit Region—from 1975 to 1977...Molly joined Ken on the NCLC’s National Committee in 1982. [3]

There's a source for two more members, who were also members of the NC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see sources that mention members of the USLP, which is described as the politicial arm of the NCLC. So are USLP members also NCLC members? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:I couldn't find a source, but it is my understanding that NCLC membership is synonymous with membership in the LaRouche movement, as opposed to being a "supporter" or "ally." --Niels Gade (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC);
According to LaRouche himself, it was a dues-paying membership organization until 1976 or 1978. He says the USLP had a different, though overlapping membership. From what LaRouche, Niels, and others say, it seems that there were no members after that or currently - that people just drop in and out of the movement without formal registration or letters of resignation. However it appears that the governing National Committee does have a defined membership. For example both of the Kronbergs are described as belonging to it. I think that we should only include people on this page who are verifiably described as members of the NCLC or the NC. We have a separate article for the general movement. Likewise, I think that we should not include folks described only as USLP members since we have an article on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Charged in the case are LaRouche, five of his organizations and 13 aides, three of whom are fugitives and three of whom have been granted separate trials....All the individual defendants are members of the NCLC, which the government says set strict, daily money-raising quotas for LaRouche followers throughout the country...Michael Gelber, Richard Sanders and Charles Park, all fugitives, and Michael Billington, allegedly were Boston-area LaRouche money-raisers who made the fraudulent credit-card charges...Paul Goldstein, Jeffrey Steinberg, Michelle Steinberg, Robert Greenberg and Edward Spannaus, allegedly were members of LaRouche's security staff who directed the defendants involved in the cover-up. Each is charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice. Roy Frankhauser, hired as a consultant to the LaRouche security staff, allegedly assisted with the cover-up. "FOLLOWING LAROUCHE LEADS TO FAR SIDE OF EXTREMISM -- PARANOIA RUNNING RAMPANT AS KEY FIGURES GO ON TRIAL". JOHN MINTZ " Seattle Times, September 23, 1987
More members. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Two long-time members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, Donald and Alice Roth, protested to the National Executive Committee in 1981 about LaRouche spreading the claim that Hitler oversaw the extermination of far fewer Jews than commonly believed. "Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. pg. 1
More members. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ...Dave Goldman of New York, director of economic research for the National Caucus of Labor Committees... Timy U.S. Labor Party Seeks Allies on the Right" KENNETH REICH Los Angeles Times; Sep 21, 1977; pg. B3
Another member. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Tennenbaum, science advisor to U.S. statesman Lyndon LaRouche,... [4]
  • Most prominent was Lyndon LaRouche advisor Jonathan Tennenbaum[5]
  • Roy Frankhouser, former Klu Klux Klan grand dragon and LaRouche advisor, convicted of obstruction of justice.[6]
  • LaRouche security advisor, Roy Frankhouser [7]
  • ...the late Mitch WerBell, LaRouche's security advisor and a long-time CIA mercenary.[8]
  • In January 1979, a credit card belonging to Andreas Typaldos was used by the LaRouche campaign to pay for their New York to Washington D.C. air fares, and two rooms for two days at the Washington Hilton. The debt to Typaldos of $1,086.62 was noted in the campaign committee's July 10, 1979 quarterly report to the FEC. As to the use of the pseudonyms: Renee "Reniotis" is an occasional reporter for New Solidarity, the USLP newspaper; while Andreas "Reniotis" is an important advisor in the party’s inner councils (reportedly he belongs to the National Committee, one step beneath the NEC).
  • The schedule, unaudited but issued on the stationery of Mann, Brown & Bauman, Certified Public Accountants, lists the current chairman of the U.S. Labor Party, Mr. Konstandinos Kalimtgis, as controlling 55 percent of the partnership operating income and over 60 percent of total capital accounts. Kalimtgis, who also uses the names "Gus Axios" and "Costas Axios," has long been the closest and most trusted aide of USLP founder Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. Party documents identified Kalimtgis for many years as the USLP chief of staff. In September 1979, he replaced LaRouche as titular chairman so that LaRouche could enter the 1980 Presidential primaries as a "Democrat."... Mark Stahlman, Computron vice-president for research and development. He is a longtime member of the USLP/NCLC and formerly served on its security staff....Paul Teitelbaum, executive vice-president of Computron. He is also a long time USLP/NCLC member and is listed in the internal phone directory... Fletcher James, Computron vice president. He is also a longtime USLP/NCLC member, and he is listed in the internal phone directory. ...Elias Typaldos, Computron vice-president and brother of Andreas Typaldos. He is listed in the USLP internal phone directory, and party defectors describe him as "a former member who remains sympathetic."... One of its [FEF's] three directors, Steven Bardwell, is a Computron systems analyst.... Ed Spannaus, a founding member of the party...Uwe Henke von Parpart (who oversees the party's finances on behalf of the National Executive Committee)...Zeke Boyd, a former Black Panther Deputy Defense Minister who switched to the USLP and is now Lyndon LaRouche's bodyguard. [9]
  • Andreas Typaldos, for example, was an economic advisor to party founder Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. in his unsuccessful 1980 presidential campaign...Among the executives who joined the firm during its first five years of operation were vice-presidents Paul Teitelbaum, Antony Papert, Fletcher James, Mark Stahlman and Typaldos' brother Elias and controller Edward Spannaus, all of whom—except for Elias Typaldos—were party members, Vendome said. [10]
  • Debra Freeman, PhD, LaRouche Health Policy Advisor... Harley Schlanger, Southern States Director for Lyndon LaRouche... Dennis Small, Director, Ibero-American Intelligence, EIR magazine... Linda deHoyos, EIR Asia Editor...Mel Klenetsky, Editor, EIR...William Jones, EIR Bureau Chief, Washington, DC... Nora Hamerman, EIR Editor-in-Chief...Nancy Spannaus, Editor-in-Chief, New Federalist newspaper, and former Editor-in-Chief, New Solidarity:... Carol White, Editor-in-chief, 21st Century Science & Technology magazine...Christopher White, EIR Director,... Paul Gallagher, Defendant, LaRouche movement Virginia cases, Debra Freeman, Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations...Odin Anderson, attorney for Lyndon LaRouche...Anita Gallagher, Defendant, LaRouche movement Virginia cases...William Engdahl, Director, European Economics Intelligence, EIR... Dennis Small, Director, Ibero-American Intelligence, EIR magazine...Helga Zepp LaRouche, Chairman, Schiller Institute...[11]
  • Claudio Celani, an Italian representative of Lyndon LaRouche,...This was the second time in a month that a LaRouche spokesman had been invited to address the Confapi. On Oct. 23, Andrew Spannaus gave the keynote to the founding conference of the Ascoli-Piceno chapter of the group.[12]
  • Schiller Institute spokesman Uwe Friesecke,[13]
  • Lynne Speed, spokeswoman for the Schiller Institute, and the Coalition...Laurence Hecht, editor of {21st Century Science & Technology:...[14]
  • LaRouche spokesman Dennis Speed[15]
  • A LaRouche financial adviser, Stephen Pepper,... [16]
  • Michael Steger, a spokesman for the LaRouche Political Action Committee, [17]
  • LaRouche spokesman Bruce Director confirmed that LaRouche isn't registered to vote...[18]
  • Mrs. Kathy Wolfe, spokeswoman of U.S. Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche.[19]
  • The spokesman at the press conference was Tim Richardson, "bureau chief" of NCLC’s Executive Intelligence Review, [20]
  • LaRouche spokesman Dana Scanlon denied the allegations...[21]
  • Sheila Jones, Illinois spokeswoman for [Lyndon] LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee, "MANY SHARE BLAME FOR BIZARRE VOTE IN ILLINOIS;" SARAH SNYDER. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Mar 30, 1986. pg. H.12
  • Ted J. Andromidas, a LaRouche spokesman in Los Angeles, "Write-In Candidacy Mounted to Sidetrack LaRouche Follower;" LANIE JONES. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Mar 26, 1986. pg. 25
  • Nicholas F. Benton, a spokesman for LaRouche, "Conservative upsets stun Illinois Democrats" Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Mar 20, 1986. pg. 03.A
More members, advisors, spokesmen, directors, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • for holding another member, Alicia Weitzman, prisoner in her own apartment. ..an NCLC member who had been in East Germany, named Konstantin George...Some time subsequently Christopher White's "depro- gramming" was apparently completed. He returned to active status in the NCLC and his and his wife Carol (Schnitzer) White's names appeared as authors in the LaRouche organization's literature. Carol White also is listed as the author of a book on "electromagnetic theory." Then, in January 1978, Christopher' White is shown as the author of a special thirty-two page edition of the NCLC's magazine...Costas Axios, NCLC chief of staff in New York,...[22]
More members, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Warren J. Hamerman, chairman of the National Democratic Policy Committee, another LaRouche organization, issued a statement attacking the actions as the work of a "renegade network in the Department of Justice. The baseless and unconstitutional actions taken against organizations associated with Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche in Leesburg are nothing but a political dirty operation carried out by the parallel government that is behind the Iran-contra affair," Mr. Hamerman said. He added that it represented an effort to impede Mr. LaRouche from exposing "this secret government."
    • "LaROUCHE ASSETS ARE SEIZED IN U.S. BID TO COLLECT FINES", LESLIE MAITLAND WERNER, NEW YORK TIMES April 22, 1987
Another chair. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourced members of the NCLC/NC[edit]

  • Alice Roth, member[LAT 10/14/86]
  • Alicia Weitzman, member[23]
  • Anita Gallagher, member[24]
  • Carol (Schnitzer) White, member[25], "Editor-in-chief, 21st Century Science & Technology magazine"[26], author of The new dark ages conspiracy : Britain's plot to destroy civilization
  • Charles Park, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
  • Christine Berl, "leading NCLC members"[27]
  • Christopher White, "EIR Director",[28], member[29], author of "The Political economy of the American Revolution"
  • Donald Phau, member[30]
  • Donald Roth, member[LAT 10/14/86]
  • Edward Spannaus, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
  • Elias Typaldos "former member"[31],
  • Fletcher James, "long time USLP/NCLC member", [32], [33]
  • Jeffrey Steinberg, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87], author of "Dope, inc. : Britain's opium war against the U.S."
  • Jose Torres, "leading NCLC members"[34]
  • Ken Kronberg, NC member[35]
  • Konstantin George, member[36]
  • Laurence Hecht, member[37]
  • Mark Stahlman, "longtime member",[38][39]
  • Michael Billington, member[40]
  • Michael Gelber, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
  • Michelle Steinberg, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
  • Molly Kronberg, NC member[41]
  • Paul Gallagher, member[42], "Defendant, LaRouche movement Virginia cases,"[43]
  • Paul Goldstein, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
  • Paul Teitelbaum, "long time USLP/NCLC member", [44],[45]
  • Richard Sanders, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
  • Robert Greenberg, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87]
  • Roy Frankhauser, member[NYT 9/23/87], indicted[NYT 9/23/87], advisor[46]

This is compiled, from the list above, of those folks who have been directly called "members" of the NCLC or the NC in reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Hornets[edit]

According to the Seattle newspaper, and the Charlotte Observer, the Red Hornets created the campaign T-Shirts. The design credit is "Nelson Rockefeller"--obvioulsy false--a fixation of LaRouche at the time. There is no copyright notice anywhere on the design. In the mid-1980s I interviewed a representative of the Red Hornets for an article. Alas, the paragraphs were cut for space. But in the course of the interview I asked permission to use the graphic from the T-shirt. I was told that the Red Hornets encouraged reproduction of the image, and they were delighted when people used it. I received a box of the T-shirts from the Red Hornets. They have been in my possession the entire time. They are the original design. There is no copyright notice anywhere on the T-shirt. I scanned the image off one of my T-shirts last week. I posted it to Wikimedia. How much more sourcing is required?--Cberlet (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it looked like Rockefeller signed it. Anyway, I can't see any good way of verifying the material in this context. If it were published in a reliable source then that would be different. OTOH, an assertion of fair use might be made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I assert Fair Use. I am not in the T-shirt business and the image is notable. What else do I need to do?--Cberlet (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The image is not notable and not appropriate. And can you imagine how Cberlet would squeal if this caricature were added to the Chip Berlet article? He would claim that he is being picked on and persecuted. --Polly Hedra (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC);
I LOVE that cartoon!!! I have it on my wall at work. I sent it to all my friends! Please, get permission and place it on my page. Fabulous!--Cberlet (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is the cartoon not appropriate? Does the carrot look too much like a penis? Some people suggested that when they first saw the T-Shirt. Could it have something to do with LaRouche's pulsating priapic homophobia? I solicit your honest opinion.--Cberlet (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Appropriatess is not the issue, in my opinion. This article is not a bio. WP includes contemporaeous political cartoons and posters in articles on political topics, which is standard practice for history books and articles in other publications. Further, the cartoon criticizes the followers of LaRouche, not LaRouche the person. Neutrality requires reporting on all significant points of view, and it's quite possible that those points of view are expressed chiefly on t-shirts, posters, or other images. The issue that I see with this t-shirt cartoon is whether we believe it's a real t-shirt as claimed, or if someone has created it more recently and is claiming that it's an old t-shirt. Since the latter is hard to believe I'm more convinced by the former. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Attacking Wiki entries out of spite[edit]

Terrawatt, after calling me an Internet Troll (above), quickly went to my outside world entry as Chip Berlet and added a nasty paragraph of criticism. See here. I think this is underhanded and reprehensible. Why is this type of activity allowed? Arbcom was quite clear that this practice was not acceptable.--Cberlet (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:It's not a paragraph, it's a sentence, and it's sourced. You're going to complain about this? Like you've never added nasty criticism to an article about someone else? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC);
Arbcom has ruled that this type of activity is grounds for suspension or banning. Don't trivialize this incident. I have never added nasty criticism to an article about someone else, nor have I ever added crticism to an entry based on spite during a content dispute.--Cberlet (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
:::You have no basis for the insinuation that Terrawatt's edit was made out of spite. And your claim that you "have never added nasty criticism to an article about someone else" is contradicted by your entire edit history. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC);
Libel is one thing but the edit you are concerned about cannot be dismissed that easily. I was skeptical at first, but I now see that we have articles about both the author and his website. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Are you referring to Justin Raimondo? --Terrawatt (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC);
When I said "the author", yes. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Could you make a comment at Talk:Chip Berlet? Will Beback reverted my edit, calling it "self-published." --Terrawatt (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC);
This was left on my user talk page.
  • ==Justin Raimondo quote==
  • If I had known about the quote [47] sooner, I would have added it long ago. It seems to me to succinctly summarize relevant criticism of Chip Berlet. If you will point me to a decision by the ArbCom that says Chip Berlet is uniquely immune from criticism among all Wikipedia bios, I will be happy to read it. --Terrawatt (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I object to people depositing crap on my talk page. Perhaps folks here will be willing to clean it up?--Cberlet (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not crap. Somebody criticized you, and you don't like it. I mean, that's an understandable feeling, but it's referenced and it's not Joe-off-the-street saying it. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

<---That's not the issue at all. Baloney. There is lots of criticism on my real name entry. I leave it there. Big deal. The issue is editors involved in an entry dispute immediately going to my entry and adding a criticism. That is crap. It is crap that Arbcom found sanctionable. I object to this juvenile form of retribution. It is simple spite. All decent editors should object to it. It amounts to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I have no idea why adminstrators put up with this crap. It shows a total lack of backbone. It is a disgrace. Wikipedia is increasingly a playground for immature thugs. Principled editors should object.--Cberlet (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrawatt added a quote that was harsh and biting, but referenced and relevant. Whether he did it out of spite or not is beside the point. Trust me, if his addition couldn't be backed up, I wouldn't stand for it. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Chip Berlet entry page is now locked due to BLP concerns resulting from multiple reversions of the quote which was deleted.--Cberlet (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Roderick[edit]

Just for the record, does the Kevin Roderick article specify NCLC, or is it more generic to the "LaRouche organization"? --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which citation are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::You added several new sections today, all sourced to Roderick's article in the LA Times. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC);
I'm trying to add only material that directly refers to the NCLC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I think that this article should be merged with LaRouche movement, because the two are essentially the same, and there is no need for two different articles. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they are "essentially the same." --Terrawatt (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC);
There's some merit to that. But I think we should wait a bit. This article is being expanded with material for the first time in years and it'd be easier to keep it separate while its being improved. Clearly the LaRouche movment includes many discrete organizations, many of which have overlapping personnel and aims, and some of which are notable enough on their own for articles. For example, the U.S. Labor Party probably deserves an article because every little political party gets an article. OTOH, the National Democratic Policy Committee, while in some ways equally important, probably doesn't merit an article and should be covered in one of the other LaRouche articles. Most of the PACs or campaign comittees are covered in the presidental campaign articles, but thousands of other candidates also ran under LaRouche-affilitiated groups. No one ever said this is a simple movement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Bad idea to merge. I have boxes of material on NCLC, and I am just geting started. Happy holidays!--Cberlet (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::Sounds to me like "Attacking Wiki entries out of spite." --Terrawatt (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I against merging, and also against Berlet just importing his slanders which are already in other articles. If the slanders have to be included, they don't have to appear in every article. This article should be about NCLC. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC);

POV deletions[edit]

I do not think it is appropriate for pro-LaRouche editors to do little more than delete material that is critical and insert material that is in praise of LaRouche. The Red Hornets incident was reported in two newspapers. It is one of the few times that a mainstream newspaper mentioned the LaRouchites other than in the context of criminal activity, lunatic assertions, or cult activity. As for former active members, these are documented NCLC members.--Cberlet (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

::Roy Frankhouser was never an NCLC member, as you well know. The others may have been members, but the category is "notable members." None of the ones I removed published any research or otherwise distinguished themselves. Some of the ones added earlier by Will Beback are in fact notable -- Paul Gallagher, for example, was featured on ABC network news as an expert on SDI technology, the day after Reagan's speech announcing the program. We should find a source and include that informantion. The "red hornets" episode is trivial, and adding Berlet's cartoon is undue weight. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC);

I moved Frankhouser to another section. Please do not revert without bothering to read the edits. It is not my cartoon.--Cberlet (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd added Frankhouser to the list of members, per the section on membership above, because there's a source calling him a member. Is there a source that says he was never a member? Even if there is we should probalby leave him in the list of members and report on the dispute there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Some one went through and hand-picked some names for removal. I'd been adding all that were reported. If we want to be strict about it then the usual WP standard is to inlcude only those who have articles. Writing a book does not make one notable. I've trimmed the list to the linked articles. If folks want to create articles on the other individuals they're welcome to do so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:::The leading members of the NCLC are generally the ones who have been published. That is just common sense. As far as your claims about Frankhouser are concerned, the cites in United States v. LaRouche say Frankhouser was a paid outside consultant. That makes him not a member. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed it from "notable members" to "leading members," to avoid a further debate over semantics. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC);
"Notable" is the standard WP terminology. What sources do you have to establish that these are the "leading members"? Says who? Is this just your opinion? Are these officers of the organization? The founders? What makes them "leading"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::As I understand it, "notable" is the standard WP terminology for deserving your own article. For this article, I was trying to use common sense -- leading members would be either officers of the organization (in which case I wouldn't use just NC members, there are too many of those,) or editors of publications, authors of books (which is recognition of an important research contribution) or heads of organizations (Paul Gallagher was head of FEF.) --Niels Gade (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC);
How many members of the NC are there? I've only seen the names of a few. Is there a list somewhere? Is there a list of officers? If we're going to include the head of the FEF we need to establish the connection between it and the NCLC. ·:·
:::::::::According to your Heritage Foundation source, the FEF is an NCLC front. --Niels Gade (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC);

Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between being a leader of a political organization and publishing a book. Regarding the Frankhouse membership, it's asserted in the "membership" section above, in which a journalist says "All the individual defendants are members of the NCLC..." At the time Frankhouse was among those defendants. Anyway, it's a moot point if we go with the conventional Wikipedia definition of "notability", which would not include Frankhouse, Phau, Roth, Spannaus, et al. because they do not have WP articles written about them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
PH, I don't understand your edit[48] - why did you restore Phau, Gallagher, and Kronberg, but not Greenberg, Park, or Steinberg? What criteria are you using? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::I took out Phau, and I provided reasons for the ones I left in. Also, if you read the article "United States v. LaRouche," you will see that Frankhouser was not tried with the NCLC defendants. He was tried in a different trial. --Polly Hedra (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC);
What criteria are you using for determing notability? Your own judgment? If so that's not objective. How does writing a book make one notable, and is everyone who's ever written a book notable? What're our source for Chaitkin or Salisbury ever having been members? You appear to have removed sourced entries and added unsourced entries.
Further, we should really include the current officers of this organization in the list of members. Presumably there's a chairman or president, a secretary, a treasurer, etc. If we can track down the bsic information on this organization we should include those obvious entries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::One of Berlet's entries refers to "NCLC mayoral candidate Tony Chaitkin." --Terrawatt (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC);
I don't know what you mean by "Cberlet entries" - can you provide referencs for the meberships Salisbury, Chaitkin, et al? Can you explain what criteria is being used to include and exclude known members? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Cberlet added this: "One incident took place April 23, 1973 at a debate featuring Labor Committee mayoral candidate Tony Chaitkin.<"Look at This: Communist Party Needs 'Trotskyist' Goons!," New Solidarity, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 30-May 4, 1973 (Published Weekly by the National Caucus of Labor Committees), pp. 1, 4-5.> And no, I can't explain the criteria. Other people seem to be doing that. --Terrawatt (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC);
I suppose we can make the logical inference that a "candidate" is also a "member" without violating WP:OR. As for the list, you did appear to be contributing to its entries.[49] I don't care too much what criteria we apply so long as it is neutral and verifiable. WP-style "notability" is well-defined and convenient, but we can use other criteria if they meets the requirements. Also, we still need sources for some people being "former" members. Does the NCLC make announcements about these things? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think that both Tarpley and Molly Kronberg have made public statements to the affect that they are no longer affiliated. In the case of MK, making a statement on Chip Berlet's web page leaves little room for doubt. --Niels Gade (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC);
So you consider MK's statements on Chip Berlet's webpage to be a reliable source? Also, how can we find the officers of the organization? The names of members of the NC? Further, we should describe what type of legal entity the NCLC is - is it incorporated, or a 501(c)3, or a PAC, etc? Do you know? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-write[edit]

IMO, this article was an incoherent mess. I re-wrote it, providing sources, eliminating some unsourced info and trivia. I also took the material out of "criticism" and put it into the history section, along with balancing accounts from LaRouche. --Polly Hedra (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC);
I reverted your edit because it did too much at once without any prior discussion. You remoevd a lot of sourced, relevant material. Please discuss here the individual changes you'd like to make. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
::You didn't raise of peep of complaint when Cberlet did his "grand re-write" on December 18. If all major changes should be discussed before implementation, we should go back to this version until everything has been discussed. But I think PD's version looks like an actual article and not just Chip Berlet's scrapbook, so I vote for the PD version. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC);
As far as I can tell, Cberlet didn't delete anything. I'm gogint to restore the sourced material, since no specific objections to the reliability of the sourcess has been raised here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Leading members?[edit]

user: Niels Gade has proposed that the criteria for "leading members" should be: "leading members would be either officers of the organization (in which case I wouldn't use just NC members, there are too many of those,) or editors of publications, authors of books (which is recognition of an important research contribution) or heads of organizations (Paul Gallagher was head of FEF.) " Let's compile a list of folks who have been published by LaRouche-related publishers and see if that makes sense. People published by more than one entity are only listed once.

National Caucus of Labor Committees [50]

  • Jim Rumley
  • Noam Chomsky
  • Steve Fraser
  • Tony Pappert

New Benjamin Franklin House [51]

  • Anton Chaitkin
  • Carol Schitzner White
  • Christopher White
  • David Goldman
  • Friedrich August Heydte
  • Helga Zepp-LaRouche
  • Hulan E. Jack
  • Jeffrey Steinberg
  • Konstandinos Kalimtgis
  • Nancy B. Spannaus
  • Nora Hamerman
  • Robert Dreyfuss
  • Thierry LeMarc

Executive Intelligence Review [52][53]

  • Aglaja Beyes-Corleis
  • Allen Douglas
  • Allen Douglas
  • Anno Hellenbroich
  • Barbara Spahn
  • Barbara Spahn
  • Carol Cleary
  • Criton Zoakos
  • Dean Andromidas
  • Dennis Small
  • Fernando Quijano
  • Gretchen Small
  • Gretchen Small
  • H Graham Lowry
  • H. Graham Lowry
  • Hector Apolinar
  • John Grauerholz
  • John Grauerholz
  • Jonathan Tennenbaum
  • Joseph Brewda
  • Judith Wyer
  • Judith Wyer
  • Kathy Burdman
  • Konstantin George
  • Linda Everett
  • Lothar Komp
  • Luba George
  • Luis Vásquez M
  • Mark Burdman
  • Mary Burdman
  • Michael Billington
  • Michael Liebig
  • Mohamed Alí Seineldín
  • Molly Hammett Kronberg
  • Nancy Coker
  • Richard Cohen
  • Rogelio Maduro
  • Sara Madueño
  • Sara Madueño
  • Sergei Glazyev
  • Stanislav M. Menshikov
  • Stanley Ezrol
  • Stanley Ezrol
  • Steven J Bardwell
  • Thierry Lalevee
  • Vin Berg
  • W. Allen Salisbury
  • Warren J. Hamerman
  • Webster Tarpley
  • William Engdahl
  • Yára Nogueira Müller

"Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations"[54]

  • Edward Spannaus

"Campaigner Publications"[55][56]

  • Gabriele Dannenberg
  • Hans Bandmann
  • Jacques Cheminade
  • Richard Sober
  • Scott Thompson
  • Stefanie Pauls
  • Wolfgang Lillge
  • Wolfgang Lillge

"Schiller Institute"[57][58]

  • Paul Gallagher
  • Amelia Boynton Robinson
  • William F. Wertz
  • Michael J Minnicino

"LaRouche PAC"[59]

  • Debra Freeman
  • Jessica Tremblay

This seems like a very long list and doesn't even include all of the officers, publication editors, or heads of subsidiaries. Nor can we really be sure that everyone here is a member. I propose that we don't include those members whose only claim to being "leading" is the publication by a NCLC-affilated publisher. I suggest again that we either use the conventional WP standard of notability, or that we include those who have been reported to be members (listed above under #Membership). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

::I'm quite sure that Noam Chomsky is not an NCLC member, because LaRouche has written articles very critical of him. Hulan Jack was a close supporter of the movement, but I doubt that he was an NCLC member. I think that a good measure of being a "leading member" would be authorship of books or editors of publications, since they are fewer and arguably more significant than people who just had articles published in periodicals. Jeff Steinberg might be an exception because he is a high-profile spokesman for LaRouche. I think Nancy Spannaus qualifies because she was editor of New Solidarity and New Federalist, and also edited a volume of source documents on the economic theorists of the American Revolution. Carol White and Robert Dreyfus also authored books, but both have left the organization. You might want a separate category for former members. You have a lot of Europeans on your list, who technically would be members of ICLC but not NCLC. --Niels Gade (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC);
This is a list of people who have authored books published by LaRouche-affiliated publishers (though a few article writers may have gotten in by mistake). Obviously, all of these people are not "leading members" so that isn't a useful criterion. LaRouche has been critical of former members, so criticism alone isn't evidence of non-membership. I'd be happy to list or mark former members, but that has to be verifiable. This article covers the ICLC too, but we could have separate lists if we can verify the info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Not all the publications on your list are actually books -- some are EIR reprints, etc. Also, EIR publishes books by people who are not NCLC members. So, if you narrow it down to actual books, written by actual NCLC members, it should be more manageable. --Niels Gade (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC);
OK, so how do we determine which ones are NCLC members? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, for starters, you can cross-check your list of those who have published, or headed organizations, with your list of NCLC members here, plus Tony Chaitkin which Terrawatt documents above. I would also propose (others may disagree) that anyone who is identified as an "advisor" or "spokesman" for LaRouche in a LaRouche publication should be assumed to be an ICLC member -- I found this cite which identifies Jonathan Tennenbaum as such. --Niels Gade (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC);
We can do that. I think we should add those who were convicted on of crimes committed on behalf of the organization. They seem to have been pciked for prosecution due to their leading roles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Niels suggested that you include "anyone who is identified as an "advisor" or "spokesman" for LaRouche in a LaRouche publication" and instead, you have used Dennis King as a source. He is far too biased, and is likely to use the term "advisor" or "spokesman" to describe people that he wants to use for guilt by association purposes. Also, your comment that leading members may have been picked for prosecution is plausible, but also original research, so unless you have a source (which the prosecution would never provide) you should forget that one. --Terrawatt (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC);
Unless you have a source saying that "leading members" of the NCLC are those who've had books published then maybe we should omit that criteria as well. Maybe folks who aren't identified as leading members in sources shouldn't be included. That would keep the list quite short. As for sources, reliable sources are relaible sources - we can't just limit it to LaRouche publications. Many newspaper and magazine articles have identified people as being spokesmen, advisors, and subsidiary heads, and there's no good reason to exclude those sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing no further discussion or objections, I'll proceed to compile a list of advisors, spokesman, directors, NC members, indicted members, and reported members who've had a book published by a LaRouche publisher whcih we can use as the list of "leading members". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::If you have a bonafide reliable source that says so-and-so is a leading personality in the NCLC, fine. But the list you have above contains too much conjecture. --Terrawatt (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC);
It's mostly based on what Niels Gade suggested. If you wnt to adopt a standard that requires specific sources calling people "leading members" then probably none of the current entries would belong. Since even the pro-LaRouche editors can't agree, I'm going to remove the list of "leading members" until we can all agree on objective, verifiable criteria. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Let me clarify. I don't have a real problem with your list at Talk:National Caucus of Labor Committees#Leading members? except that it includes a few persons who are notable supporters, not members. I do have a problem with your list at Talk:National Caucus of Labor Committees#Membership. Also, as I said above, your claim that those who were prosecuted are automatically "leading members" is OR and self-serving to your POV. --Terrawatt (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC);
What is your criteria for inclusion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the present list is fine -- it probably ought to include Nancy Spannaus as editor of the various papers, and Jeff Steinberg as head of counterintelligence. I could go either way on those. I suggest that, rather than get all worked up about some formula for inclusion or exclusion, we use standard editorial judgment. If someone feels that a name has been included without proper documentation, bring it up for discussion. If someone feels that a name has been unjustly excluded, bring it up for discussion. We don't need a humongous list -- it begins to look like stalking rather than an encyclopedia article. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC);
No, we need to have an onjective, verifiable criteria, not just a decision among a couple of you as to which names you'll allow. Unless we can decide on such a criteria we should either delete the list or use the usual WP standard of notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I've found a source that actually identifies two leading members:
  • Thus leading NCLC members who had readily supported Mop Up, such as [Christine] Berl and [NCLC security chief Jose] Torres, challenged LaRouche's credibility during the spring of 1974.[60]
So we can have two properly-sourced entries. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
:::::"Properly sourced"? From Dennis King's self-published web site? --Polly Hedra (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC);
From his book, which most of us agree is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::"Most of us"? Maybe a poll is in order. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC);
I was including you due to your statement, "I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication." The King bio was published by a major publiser, and widely reviewed in mainstream media. What reason is there to call that book unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Extreme bias, wild conspiracy theories, transparent propaganda techniques. Those are the main reasons. --Niels Gade (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC);
According to whom? The book meets the standards of WP:V and WP:RS. Are you saying that Doubleday is a purveyor of propoganda? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, in terms of accuracy you yourself confirmed that these people were members. I don't know what your source is, but it confirms the reliability of the King book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, it confirms the reliability of one, non-controversial claim in the King book. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC);
So, as I said before, we have at least two properly-sourced entries. I'm curious to know what source Niels Gade is using for members. Is there a list or does he know the names of all past and present members by heart? If there is a list it'd obviously be very helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

criteria[edit]

  • The issue here is simple and fundamental to Wikipedia's iron clad rule of Verifiability:

    The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.[emphasis from page]

    If there is no reliable source for a member they must be stricken even if true. Again, from WP:V:

    The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

    If an editor added these members, they must provide reliable sources which is defined as:

    A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

    Published works are best. And again:

    Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.

    Be sure your source provides such structures. And more:

    In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

    More:

    Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

    ∴ Therefore | talk 08:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep it simple: once we have established that the person is an NCLC member, a "leading member" is one who has
  1. had a book published by the NCLC had a book published by the NCLC or a cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organization
  2. edited a publication published by the NCLC edited a publication published by the NCLC or a cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organization
  3. headed an organization founded by the NCLC headed a cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organization --Terrawatt (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC);
  • That's an arbitrary set of criteria. Ther's no source that says that the leading members are those who have published books. Furthermore, there's no available list of members of the NCLC, and very few sources that connect the NCLC to any of the alleged subsidiaries or publications, including EIR, the Schiller Institute, etc, so until we have lists of "organizations founded by the NCLC" and of "publications published by the NCLC" those criteria are impossible to fulfill. In the absence of a workable, objective, and verifiable criteria of our own creation I strongly suggest that we simply use the generic Wikipedia standard for notability, which is the existence of a Wikipedia biography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
:*The criteria do not appear arbitrary to me, and you do have a partial list of NCLC members, culled from your googling. Those criteria are a reasonable basis for shortening the list to those about whom the article has something of interest to say. It appears to me that you are making an unnecessary fuss about this. Eventually those people that appear on the list in the article now may have articles about them, as some already have, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse and I don't see why. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC);
    • What sources do we have that indentify the Schiller Institute or the EIR subsidiaries of the NCLC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
***The Heritage Foundation article[61], which I believe you have cited in your edits, refers to them all as interchangeable parts of the "LaRouche network." If you believe that this is all too ambiguous, I would suggest that you nominate this article for deletion and redirect to LaRouche movement. I would probably support it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC);

I assume you're referring to this passge:

  • Because the LaRouche network contains such a large and ever-changing list of political organizations, publications, and business enterprises, it is useful to categorize the network's elements into three groups: publications and publishing enter- prises, political groups, and businesses. A list of current and former elements of the network includes:
  • Political Groups
  • The National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) The International Caucus of Labor Committees (ICLC) The National Democratic Policy Committee The Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF) The Lafayette Academy for the Arts and Sciences The Humanist Academy The LaRouche Campaign (TLC) The U.S. Labor Party (dormant) The National Anti-Drug Coalition The Club of Life The Revolutionary Youth Movement The National Unemployed and Welfare Rights Organization (NUWRO) The International Workingman's Association (IWA) The Labor Organizer's Defense Fund The Committee for a Fair Election (CFE) (dormant)
  • Publications and Publishing Enteprises
  • New Solidarity (a newspaper) New Solidarity International Press Service (NSIPS) Fusion Magazine International Journal of Fusion Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) Investigative Leads (an EIR spin-off) War on Drugs The Young Scientist The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company Campaigner Magazine Campaigner publications American Labor Beacon (reported to be currently in the hands of dissident members of the network) NSIPS Speakers Bureau
  • Business Enterprises
  • Computron Technologies (now bankrupt) Compittype (a financial printing firm) WoXld Composition Services* PMR Printing Company, Inc.

If this article were titled the "LaRouche network", or even the "LaRouche movement" then this source would be good for showing that these organizations belong to those broad concepts. But this article is about the NCLC, and that passage simply says that the NCLC is one of many parts of the LaRouche network, not that it is the head and these other groups are all subsidiaries. If there's a reference that speaks of "the NCLC's EIR news service" or says that the "FEF is a front group for the NCLC" then we can use that. Please provide the sources before assuming that Computron was owned by the NCLC. As for this article, there are sufficient sources that do talk about the NCLC to establish its notability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

::OK, I changed my proposal to get us out of this conundrum. --Terrawatt (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC);
So where do we find this list of "cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organizations"? Why would peeople who've had books publised by a "cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organizations" necessarily be leading members of the NCLC? Do you have a source for that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Will, I think you could answer that question yourself. First of all, list appears at LaRouche movement and is corroborated by the Heritage Foundation article. Secondly, you don't need a source that says people who have had books published by "cothinker, LaRouche-affiliated organizations" would be leading members of the NCLC -- you just cross-reference the list of authors with the list of NCLC members, and look for matches. All of this fuss is beginning to look like WP:POINT. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC);
We can't use Wikipedia as a source. The Heritage Foundation article doesn't indicate the relationship between the NCLC and these other groups. It simply says that they are all part of the LaRouche network and that the NCLC is the core of the network. If we can verify that some entities are subsidiaries, then the heads of those subsidiaries could be listed as such. I still don't see any reason to assume that having a book published makes one a leading member. I suggested that the leading members were indicted, to which Terrawatt replied "If you have a bonafide reliable source that says so-and-so is a leading personality in the NCLC, fine." and "Also, as I said above, your claim that those who were prosecuted are automatically 'leading members' is OR and self-serving to your POV." Likewise, the claim that authors are automatically 'leading members' is OR and "self-serving to your POV". Unless we have a source calling certain folks or categories of folks "leading members" then we should revert back to the generic "notable members" system used in the rest of Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Former members[edit]

It is not unreasonable to list Kronberg and Tarpley as "former members." If you follow the link to Webster Tarpley, it is stated clearly in that article that he broke with LaRouche. In the case of Molly Kronberg, it is not OR but rather simply obvious that one does not make the kind of statements that she made in her interview with Berlet if one intends to stay in the organization. --Marvin Diode (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC);
  • Provide a source and I won't object. Lots of folks criticize organizations to which they belong, so mere criticism is not evidence of leaving a group. As for Tarpley, what's our source showing he was ever a member of the NCLC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::Your recent nominees from the Dennis King book were at one time members, but all resigned years ago -- Christine Berl, Torres (I think the first name is incorrect,) Warren Hamerman. I have no idea where you could find a cite for this. It seems silly to include people who left years ago due to a fundamentalist reading of Wiki-policy. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC);

Wikipedia is cultish about this stuff. Here is another highly instructive cartoon. --Leon Pringle (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

NG, it's hard enough to find citations for people being members, and it's apparenlty just about imposible to find sources for people being former members. So long as we don't try to list some folks as "current members' then we don't need to spend too much time worrying about current status. This is no different from the issues we face in other types of articles. For articles about settlements we don't worry if everyone in the list of "notable residents" is still a resident. Having once been a resident is sufficient. Likewise in articles about colleges we don't worry about whether "notable faculty" are still carrying a full load, or even are still alive. Should we find sources that say a person dropped their membership in the NCLC then we can also include that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I removed Torres and Berl for several reasons -- because I don't trust Dennis King as a source (too biased, and certainly capable of designating someone as "leading" for his own reasons,) but also because I understood the criteria to be that the persons had published, been editors of publications, or headed affiliated organizations. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC);
That was proposed, but we never agreed upon it. Torres and Berl are the only people who are called "leading members" in a reliable source. If the source we have for them isn't good enough then how do we justify adding unsourced entries? Since this is so contentious, and since there's no acceptable standard, I suggest we only include those people who are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and who are sourced as being members. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are some unsourced members I've moved from the article.
While it's clear that these folks have been followers of or spokesman for LaRouche, it's not clear that they were ever members of the NCLC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Also: Chaitkin has been called a "candidate" of the NCLC, but we don't have a source for him as a "member". The USLP is identified as a subsidiary of the NCLC, and the NDPC could be too. How about extending NCLC member to "candidates for statewide or federal office running on the NCLC, USLP, or NDPC tickets." If we include candidates of those groups then we can add Tarpley, Nancy Spannaus, Janice Hart, and some other notables. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I think that this is all very tendentious. It is downright absurd to assert that Chaitkin would be a candidate without being a member. And putting in people like Berl and Torres, who were minor figures who quit in the '70s, is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia the butt of jokes on "The Simpsons." --Niels Gade (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC);
We have a source, one that you confirmed from your own personal (and extensive) knowledge of the LaRouche movement, saying that Berl and Torres were leading members of the NCLC. This article has a list of "leading members", the rest of whom have no source calling them "leading members". Yet you insist on including those unsourced entries while excluding the sourced entries. That appears more tendentious than anything. So, returning to the question above, shall we assume that candidates of the USLP and NDPC were members of the NCLC? If not why not? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I've sorted it alphabetically. While there may be former members on the list unless we have a source we shouldn't differentiate possibly current members from possibly former members. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone has a source that denies Berl and Torres were "leading members" I think we should restore the names to the list. Niels claims, without any evidence whatsoever, that they were "minor members". We can't write this article based on one editor's recollections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Who calls Carol White "Schnitzer"? I have never seen her referred to in that way. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC);
Check Google. ["Carol Schnitzer" larouche]. For that matter, check ["Carol Larrabee" larouche]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
::It looks like your favorite authors, Chip Berlet and Dennis King, use that name. However, on the books and articles she authored, her name is given as Carol White. It appears that your use of her maiden name is intended as a form of harassment, so I am reverting it. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC);
You are making the error of assuming bad faith and I don't appreciate it. I got that name from the WorldCat library archive which I cite above as the source. Here it is again.[63] I don't care what she's called. The shorter name is used on other books so that's fine too though less unique. I believe there are sources for the name changes, judging by the Google searches. Is she on the list of current members? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has found a source that disputes the source that says Torres and Berl were leading members of the NCLC I'm going to restore them to the list. If anyone can find sources for the other entries on that list that'd be even better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Have you established that they edited publications, authored books, or led LaRouche-affiliated organizations? --Terrawatt (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC);
No, I've established that they have been called "leading members". Have you established that any of the people now on the list have been called "leading members"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Will, please desist from these semantic games. It's an editorial decision, not a question of whether you can google the words "leading member." The criteria that Terrawatt mentions seem reasonable to me, and I'm certainly not going to accept the formulation, without any basis given, of a critic as fanatical as Dennis King. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC);
It's hardly a "semantic game" to suppose that a list of leading member should include people called "leading members" in a reliable source. If the list isn't made up of people called "leading members" then it should be retitled to make its criteria explicit: "Members who have authored a book, edited a publication, or led a LaRouche-affiliated organization". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::This is silly. Making judgments like this is the job of editors. Otherwise, Wikipedia could be edited by a computer that was programmed to search the web for keywords. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC);
I removed three people who didn't appear to meet the criteria. The list looks pretty complete except for one glaring omission: Nancy Spannaus, editor of New Solidarity and New Federalist. She was also co-editor of Political Economy of the American Revolution, which was a compilation of source documents, so she and White would not be considered "authors." --Niels Gade (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC);
Can you please explain in more detail why you deleted three sourced enties, each of whom was the leader of a LaRouche-affiliated organization? Are you saying that businesses aren't organizations, or that businesses haven't been an important part of funding the movement? And what about PANIC, which collected hundreds of thousands of signatures and enormous press coverage, leading some to call it the LaRouche movement's greatest electoral success? If the plan is to only allow non-profit organizations then we're going to have to establish which organizations have which tax status. Once again this appears to be an arbitrary list of whoever a few Wikipedia editors think should be on the list, rather than an objective list of people who meet rational critieria. Will Beback NS (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
And is it incorrect that M. Kronberg was editor of the new Federalist? Will Beback NS (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::I remember Spannaus as the main editor, but if you have a source that says, Kronberg was Managing Editor or something like that, go ahead, restore it. The entry for Kronberg that was deleted didn't say anything about her being an editor. As far as local organizations or businesses are concerned, I am in favor of a more restrictive approach so that the list doesn't get overly long. I thought you were in favor of that approach also, since earlier you wanted only those persons with Wikipedia articles. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC);
Another editor wrote in another article that Kronberg was the NF editor. I asked for a cite, but never got one. I'll go delete that assertion. As for the standards, I was proposing usung Wikipedia's standard for notability, rather than the arbitrary manner this list is being compiled. I'm not aware of many other businesses or local organizations, so excesive length shouldn't be a problem. The Caucus Distributors was clearly a major part of the LaRouche movement and a principle funder of the NCLC. If we exclude the president of it, P. Rubinstein, then this list will be a joke. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Do you have a source that says that the Caucus Distributors funds the NCLC? Or that the NCLC actually has a budget to be funded? All we have is that it is a philosophical organization. We don't have any source that says it carries out activities that would require funding. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC);
If the NCLC doesn't publish books and distribute boks and magazines then why are we including authors and editors? If they do publish and distribute then money is involved. Also the NCLC has run candidates in elections, another activity that involves money. Training security teams in paramilitary tacts requires money. While we do have an unsourced statement calling the NCLC a "philosphical association" we don't any any source for the exact legal nature of the NCLC - is it a non-profit or a corporation, or what? We should find that out to include in the article. While the concept that it's just a "philosphical association" is one of the viewpoints that we can include, it's not the only viewpoint. As for sources, we can cover that below. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange vandalism[edit]

This article seems to have become a target for vandals, which is odd because I would think that it's a somewhat obscure topic. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's related to a vandal I blocked, and has nothing to do with this article per se. Sorry for the trouble. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Businesses[edit]

A

  • During the 2000 presidential campaign, the LaRouche Committee received $1,448,389 in federal matching funds. The Committee spent the bulk of these funds for advertising and fund-raising services by seven vendors that LaRouche and several of his political associates created in the mid-1980's to provide and distribute material advocating LaRouche's political, philosophical, and scientific views. LaRouche was the vendors' sole client. Some of these vendors had provided services to LaRouche's 1988, 1992, and 1996 presidential campaigns...The seven vendors were American System Publications, Inc., Eastern States Distributors, Inc., EIR News Services, Inc., Hamilton Systems Distributors, Inc., Mid-West Circulation Corp., Southeast Literature Sales, Inc., and Southwest Literature Distributors, Inc.
    • LaRouche Com New vs. FEC, US.FEDERAL.ca12
    • Federal Circuits, D.C. Circuit (March 03, 2006)
    • Docket number: 04-1311
    • Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20189710

B

  • Another means by which the LaRouche network establishes links to business is through the operation of commercial firms that specialize in printing services and computer software. ...Included among the firms linked to LaRouche are Computron Technologies Inc., The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, World Composition Services, and PMR Printing Company. ...Because the LaRouche network contains such a large and ever-changing list of political organizations, publications, and business enterprises, it is useful to categorize the network's elements into three groups: publications and publishing enterprises, political groups, and businesses. A list of current and former elements of the network includes:...Business Enterprises: Computron Technologies (now bankrupt), Computype (a financial printing firm), World Composition Services, PMR Printing Company, Inc....Another means by which the LaRouche network establishes links to business is through the operation of commercial firms that specialize in printing services and computer software. ...Included among the firms linked to LaRouche are Computron Technologies Inc., The New Benjamin Franklin House Publishing Company, World Composition Services, and PMR Printing Company.
    • Institutional Analysis #28 "The Larouche Network" by Copulos, Milton R., Heritage Foundation [64]

C

  • ... Mr. LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees, his central organization. Also charged are the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche, Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc.
    • "Trial for LaRouche and 7 Starting Tomorrow" AP. New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Sep 20, 1987. pg. A.27

D

  • Promissory notes that an elderly widow received in exchange for $40,000 in loans to organizations that raised money for Lyndon LaRouche were unlicensed securities, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled. The decision, to be filed today, affirms a ruling by state Commerce Commissioner Michael Hatch. He had ordered the organizations to stop offering or selling unfiled promissory notes or debt instruments without obtaining an opinion letter from the Department of Commerce. The woman, identified only as "MM," gave money to Caucus Distributors, Campaigner Publications Inc. and Independent Democrats for LaRouche in 1984 and 1985.
    • "Elderly woman's promissory notes for loans were securities, court rules;" Margaret Zack, Staff Writer. Star Tribune. Minneapolis, Minn.: Apr 5, 1988. pg. 03.B

E

  • A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the fraud and conspiracy trial of political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, six aides and five LaRouche organizations after complaints from jurors that the case was taking too much time....The four organizations charged with fraud are the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche, Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc.
    • "JUDGE CALLS LAROUCHE MISTRIAL;" Associated Press. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: May 5, 1988. pg. 8

F

  • The incorporation papers of Caucus Distributors, Inc.—the most successful of LaRouche’s telephone fund-raising entities—affirm outright that its purpose is to promote the "political ideas and beliefs" of the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
    • King, Dennis (1989) Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, Doubleday [65]

G

  • [The prosecution] said Caucus Distributors Inc. and Campaigner Publications Inc., which raise money, publish and distribute material for the LaRouche organization, also have not filed tax returns.
    • "LAROUCHE, FOLLOWERS ACCUSED OF TAX EVASION AND CREDIT FRAUD" William M. Welch. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Jan 29, 1987. pg. 16

I

  • 'Prosecutors say more criminal charges are expected against the LaRouche network of companies and groups, which they say are really operated jointly under the auspices of the National Caucus of Labor Committees-the political group LaRouche convened in the late 1960s. A national executive committee oversees policy, according to members. In a 1981 memo to National Caucus of Labor Committees members, LaRouche disclosed how the small New York group had grown into a large money-making international organization. He said it required income of $225,000 a week in gross sales to keep its programs going-or $11.7 million a year... The grand jury in Boston heard testimony that a single account of Campaigner Publications Inc., which publishes some of the LaRouche literature sold in airports, handled $4.5 million in a four-month period of 1984. And the empire includes a dozen such companies and committees...Much of what comes in stays in. The organization's own companies typeset, print and distribute all the literature, with a staff of about 250 in Leesburg....On the Proposition 64 campaign, much of the $200,000 spent to gather signatures was sent to California by a New York unit, Caucus Distributors Inc., and was largely paid in salary to local LaRouche candidates....The grand jury said, after a two-year investigation, that unauthorized charges were made to the credit cards of about 1,000 people who bought New Solidarity and other LaRouche publications, such as Executive Intelligence Review and Fusion magazine.
    • "Authorities See Pattern of Threats, Plots Dark Side of LaRouche Empire Surfaces" KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. p. 1

J

  • 'An FBI affidavit, filed in 1985 in connection with a Massachusetts federal grand jury probe of the LaRouche network's finances, states that just one of three Manhattan bank accounts of Campaigner Publications, a LaRouche propaganda arm, handled total credits of more than $4.5 million in a four-month period in 1984, maintaining an average balance of $95,000. This account was one of dozens maintained at that time by NCLC-controlled businesses, political fronts and regional offices across the country and in various foreign countries...LaRouche entities are closely interlocked, often sharing office space, telephone switchboards and staff, and all headed by top NCLC members. Flow charts and financial reports of the NCLC show the cash going into one kitty. Mr. LaRouche, using intelligence-community jargon, has referred to business spinoffs as conducting "proprietary" activities. A former LaRouche follower, Eric Lerner, stated in a 1979 affidavit filed in a commercial dispute with LaRouche loyalists that he had been pressured by NCLC leaders to "funnel" profits from an engineering business to the U.S. Labor Party (an electoral arm of the NCLC) in violation of election laws. "It is the policy of the USLP to use corporations as fronts for the USLP and as channels for funding of USLP," Mr. Lerner charged, citing the case of Computron, a software firm once associated with Mr. LaRouche.
    • "The Empire of Lyndon LaRouche". Dennis King and Patricia Lynch. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: May 27, 1986. pg. 1

K

  • [NBC] asks LaRouche to admit that those expenses are paid by some 20 organizations linked to him, including his presidential campaign committees, which have received nearly $1 million in federal matching money during two elections, his National Caucus of Labor Committees and his various magazines and other organizations. Some of them, including Caucus Distributors Inc., are among the LaRouche- related entities under investigation for alleged credit card fraud by a federal grand jury in Boston, according to government prosecutors.
    • "NBC MOVES AGAINST LAROUCHE" William M. Welch. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: May 27, 1986. pg. 9

L

  • Another arm of the LaRouche empire, Caucus Distributors Inc., supplied most of the $215,000 spent to gather signatures for the AIDS initiative.
    • "Medical Experts Assail Initiative on AIDS Officials Dismiss Claims Made by Supporters of LaRouche-Backed Prop. 64;" ROBERT STEINBROOK, KEVIN RODERICK. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext). Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 3, 1986. pg. 3

M

  • The corporations named in the indictment were Campaigner Publications Inc. and Caucus Distributors Inc., which were described as fund-raising entities controlled by Mr. LaRouche....The three campaign committees indicted were the LaRouche Campaign, Independent Democrats for LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees.
    • "U.S. CHARGES AIDES TO LaROUCHE WITH CREDIT-CARD FRAUD SCHEME" PHILIP SHENON, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 7, 1986. pg. A.1

N

  • Prosecutors say more criminal charges are expected against the LaRouche network of companies and groups. Prosecutors say they are really operated jointly under the auspices of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, the political group LaRouche convened in the late 1960s. A national executive committee oversees policy, according to members....The organization's own companies typeset, print and distribute all the literature, with a staff of about 250 in Leesburg. On the Proposition 64 campaign, much of the $200,000 spent to gather signatures was sent to California by a New York unit, Caucus Distributors Inc., and was largely paid in salary to local LaRouche candidates.
    • "Raid Stirs Reports of LaRouche's Dark Side" Kevin Roderick, Los Angeles Times. San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext). San Francisco, Calif.: Oct 14, 1986. p. 1

O

  • The National Caucus of Labor Committees, LaRouche's central political organization, is charged with conspiring to obstruct justice. All the individual defendants are members of the NCLC, which the government says set strict, daily money-raising quotas for LaRouche followers throughout the country. The LaRouche Campaign, the political extremist's campaign organization up until Walter Mondale won the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination, is charged with 51 counts of wire fraud for allegedly receiving donations charged to credit-card accounts without authorization. Independent Democrats For LaRouche, his 1984 campaign organization from the time Mondale got the nomination until the general election, is charged with 59 counts of wire fraud. Caucus Distributors Inc., a New York-based organization which operated under the NCLC to support LaRouche money-raisers, allegedly was involved in all 116 wire fraud counts. Caucus also is charged with one count of mail fraud for allegedly soliciting a campaign loan with no intention of repaying it, one count of conspiring to obstruct the investigation and one count of contempt of court. Campaigner Publications Inc., an organization which raised money and distributed literature for LaRouche and his campaigns, is charged with four counts of wire fraud for allegedly accepting money raised through unauthorized credit-card charges, three counts of mail fraud for allegedly soliciting loans with no intention of repaying them.
    • "FOLLOWING LAROUCHE LEADS TO FAR SIDE OF EXTREMISM -- PARANOIA RUNNING RAMPANT AS KEY FIGURES GO ON TRIAL" JOHN MINTZ. Seattle Times. Seattle, Wash.: Sep 23, 1987. pg. B.6

P

  • With financial help from his wife's family, Kronberg created World Composition Services (WorldComp), a typesetting company that he operated out of LaRouche's offices. At the time, WorldComp was a cutting-edge venture, the first company of its kind to use computer typesetting in New York. Kronberg came to control PMR as well, which printed most of the group's pamphlets, books, and newspapers...In one case, bankruptcy proceedings revealed that Computron, a well-respected software company owned and managed by high-ranking cadres, was spending $5,000 to $10,000 a week to cover 20 percent of the organization's budget...In 1978, she had helped to open the New Benjamin Franklin Publishing House in order to serve as the publisher of Dope Inc., a massive project that famously named the Queen of England as the head of the international drug trade. It was first serialized in Executive Intelligence Review and later published as a book...
    • "Publish and Perish" Avi Klein. The Washington Monthly. Washington: Nov 2007. Vol. 39, Iss. 11; pg. 21, 7 pgs


There are businesses that were created to "provide and distribute material advocating LaRouche's political, philosophical, and scientific views", and whose "sole client" is LaRouche. Businesses have been included, along with publishing houses and political groups, as "elements" of the LaRouche movement. Business organizations were tried alongside LaRouche and other NCLC members. Some of the firms have even been repeatedly descrobed as "organizations". Businesses are at least as important to the movement as books and magazines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

::So what is your point? None of these cites mention the NCLC. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC);
My point is that business enterprises are an integral part of the LaRouche network. There's no reason to put non-profit groups like FEF on a different basis than for-profit groups like the Caucus Distributors. Also, I've added more cites that connect the NCLC to the various companies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

EIR Special reports[edit]

An editor removed several books, with the comment that they were EIR special reports.[66] A) Are EIR special reports not books? The ones I included are over 100 pages long. B) What's our source for their being EIR special reports? The WorldCat site lists them as books. Is there a list somewhere of EIR reprints and books? Unless someone has a reliable counter-source I think they should be reinstated. Will Beback NS (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

:They are soft-bound, magazine sized publications, and there are hundreds of them. If you want to list all the authors, this article will become very long. I couldn't find a comprehensive web listing, but this link should give you an idea: [67] --Niels Gade (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC);
I don't see the deleted items - again, what's our source for those titles not being books? Will Beback NS (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
My assumption is that anything over 100 pages long is a book:
  • AIDS global showdown : mankind's total victory or total defeat : featuring Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.'s plan for victory - 192 pages [68]
  • An Emergency war plan to fight AIDS and other pandemics - 138 pages [69]
  • Project Democrary : the parallel government behind the Iran-Contra affair - 341 pages [70]
  • Global showdown : the Russian imperial war plan for 1988 - 366 pages [71]
So we need a source that shows that a 366 page publication called a "book" by a neutral, reliable sources is not, in fact, a book.
Also, Dope Inc was first published in EIR in serial form, so it too is an EIR reprint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It is complicated. Many EIR Special Reports were published in glossy magazine stock wraps, newsprint innards, 8 1/2 x 11, formats. Some were softcover perfect-bound, 8 1/2 x 11, paperbacks with white paper. The former is usually classified as a report, the latter can be classified as a report of book, often depending on the length. But absent any other published source on this obscure publishing history, I think Will Beback's suggestion of including authors of anything over 100 pages is a suitable compromise, at least until PRA publishes a bibliography of LaRouchite books and reports.--Cberlet (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Typically a book is written by one author or a small group of authors. The EIR reports were written by large teams, probably everybody on the EIR staff that was researching the topic. It would actually make more sense to me to have an article on EIR -- it is an influential publication, and probably more notable than the NCLC. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC);
EIR is full of deranged garbage and conspiracist lunacy, and it is primarily distributes by fawning sychophants of the LaRouchite cult. The last thing we need here is another LaRouchite cult entry.--Cberlet (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
::::::Of course, people can, and do, make similar comments about your organization, PRA. So rather than using talk pages for soapboxing, it would be better to try to participate usefully in discussion of the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC);
Getting back to the topic at hand, do we have any source for these publications not being books? Also, since Dope Inc and George Bush, The Unauthorized Biography were both serialized in magazines first, the distinction between reprints and books appears indistinct. If users are concerned that this list will grow too long, rather than keep changing the criteria I suggest we use the standard Wikipedia criterion for inclusion in s list of notables: the existence of a Wikipedia article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If no one can find a source to the contrary, I'm going to assume that things called "books" are books and restore the deleted material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

National Executive Committee[edit]

While we don't have any sources saying that the leading members of the NCLC are those who've published books, we do have sources that say the NEC is the most important body in the organization. Some call it the "governing" body" or the "highest" authority. It seems that the members of the NEC are the leading members of the NCLC so we shold include NEC members in our list. However I'm having trouble finding a list of the NCLC NEC. Is the membership secret? Or have I just looked in the wrong places? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tentative list, drawn from a variety of sources some of which aren't necessarily reliable. This isn't intended as a final list, just a start.

  • Allen Salisbury [72][73]
  • Christine [74]
  • Gerry Rose [75]
  • Warren, Gerry, Webster, Mel, Will, D.Small [76]
  • Fernando Quijano [77]
  • Tony Chaitkin [78]
  • Nancy Spannaus [79]
  • Jeff, Tony, Nancy, Ed (at the time), Will, Gerry, Dennis. [80]
  • Kenneth Dalto [81]
  • Warren J. Hamerman [82]
  • Tony Papert [83]

The best source would be a LaRouche site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

::With all due respect, these sources reek. I suggest that you just consider the present version of the article an acceptable compromise, and move on. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC);
I said the sources aren't great, that they were just used to start compiling the list. What's a better source for the NEC membership? They are the leading members of the NCLC, aren't they? We have multiple (very good) sources that say so. Most organizations have a list of their senior officers, advisory groups, etc. By comparison, the CEC lists its NEC. Is the NCLC NEC membership secret? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Further some of the sources seem adequate. [84] and [85] appear reliable. As I said before the best source would be a LaRouche site, but the organization doesn't post the names of its leadership then we have to rely on other sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to CIA report[edit]

When I click this link, I get a message saying that it is unavailable. --Niels Gade (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC);
You're right - it uses a dynamic link from a search rather than a hard link to the specific document. You can find the document by searching from this page.[86] If I can't figure out a way to make a direct link I'll move it to a "further reading" section and add a notation on how to access it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd-party confirmation for category: COINTELPRO targets[edit]

I should think that the FOIA document should suffice. However, Dennis King also claims the NCLC was a COINTELPRO target. [87] --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC);
There are several books about COINTELPRO, and none of them mention the NCLC. That program ended in 1971, and this allegation concerns 1973. The matter covered in the King book, which I certainly agree is a reliable sources, is about Tony Papert, who isn't even mentioned in this article. The criteria for inclusion in the category is that entries should be "confirmed targets". Let's keep looking for confirmation, and in the meantime we should leave off the category.   Will Beback  talk  17:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::Hey, guess what! Dennis King says the Tony Papert was a founding member of the NCLC.[88] Is that "confirmed" enough for you? --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC);
When Tony Papert gets an article then we can add it to the category.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Don't be silly. Papert was targeted for his role in the NCLC, which is clear from the source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC);
The trouble with using Google Book's snippet view is that you only see snippets. In the broader context, it appears that the King is referring to the SDS Labor Committee, not the National Caucus of Labor Committees. It's pretty well known that the SDS was a target of COINTELPRO, as confirmed by reliable 3rd-party sources.[89]   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::It is well known that the NCLC is a continuation of the SDS Labor Committee. That, combined with the FOIA document (which in and of itself is solid proof,) establishes that the category is appropriate. The fact that you have a book, as yet unnamed, which omits this is no reason to delete the category. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC);
"It is well known that the NCLC is a continuation of the SDS Labor Committee." What circles do you travel in that this is well known? We don't even mention this "fact" in the article, just like we don't mention Papert. Regarding the letter, it is here strictly for decorative purposes. It's not a usable source.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::It may not be in this article, but it is in Lyndon LaRouche. It's also in the Heritage Foundation report on LaRouche, which is cited in this article.[90]. And why exactly is it that the FOIA document is not a source? The government doesn't willing divulge information about its covert operations, and FOIA is typically the only way to get that information. --Leatherstocking (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC);
Please re-read WP:PSTS. If we started using primary source files for Wikipedia articles, such as this one, then we'd be in serious violation. The FBI?FOIA letter never even mention "COINTELPRO". As for SDS Labor Committee and Tony Papert, they aren't mentioned in this article. If they are really important parts of this topic then we should start by adding them. For the record, are you saying that you think Dennis King's book is a reliable source?   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Generally, I would agree with your assessment of King's book at the mediation cabal page, that it's "reliable for facts, but his interpretations are not neutral." By "not neutral," I would mean "given to heavy-handed propaganda and far-fetched conspiracy theories." You have asked me before for a blanket endorsement of King as a source, and as always, I refer to WP:REDFLAG -- it depends entirely on how exceptional the claim is. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC);

Since we both agree that King's book is a reliable source for facts, I've gone ahead and added material from it. I've made a general rewrite of the origins of the NCLC and other history material. Some of the sources conflict or at least don't agree, so it may have to be much longer if we want to fully reflect all views. Regarding COINTELPRO, as a compromise I've created Tony Papert as a redirect to this page, and added the "targets" category to it. Since he appears to be an important member, I've added his name to the list of "selected members".   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should National Caucus of Labor Committees be removed from Category:COINTELPRO targets?[edit]

Should National Caucus of Labor Committees be removed from Category:COINTELPRO targets? Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC) ;

Comments by involved editors[edit]

See previous discussion. We have solid sources that demonstrate that the NCLC was originally called the "SDS Labor Committee,"[91] and that the Labor Committee was a target of COINTELPRO.[92] There is no reason to believe that the FBI discontinued COINTELPRO activity against the NCLC, and good reason to believe that it did not, in the form of this photostat of a document obtained by FOIA lawsuit. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC);
We have a source that says Tony Papert was a target. Papert is in the category. The FBI letter is on an entirely different matter, and came two years after the end of the COINTELPRO program. Further, it's a primary source. There is ample scholarship on COINTELPRO and none of it seems to mention the NCLC.   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::Are you arguing that Papert was a target because of some aspect of his personal life, and not due to his leading role in the Labor Committee? That's hardly plausible. And would you be so kind as to name the "scholarship" to which you have so often referred? --Leatherstocking (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC);
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying there's no 3rd-party source that confirms the NCLC was a target of COINTELPRO. If you want to see the books written on the topic then "COINTELPRO" has a list. I checked a couple and could not find any mention of the NCLC or LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors[edit]

Socks[edit]

Postings by socks of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  02:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Look at This: Communist Party Needs 'Trotskyist' Goons!," New Solidarity, Vol. IV, No. 4, April 30-May 4, 1973 (Published Weekly by the National Caucus of Labor Committees), pp. 1, 4-5.