Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

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


Untitled[edit]

"La Rouche in federal prison" -- missing topic from Contents[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_criminal_trials#Later_developments la rouche's 5 yrs in fed prison

173.61.9.126 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Worthy addition: presidential TV ads, also clarification of cases brought against him[edit]

Ok, an asside first. Somewhere there’s mention in f the tri-part test actually 4parts6for libel of a public figure being reffered to as the LaRouche Tesr, not true - it is the SCOTUS decision in Sullivan v NY Times: In a case regarding a public figure, 1) truth beats all 2) the figure must be identifiable (usually 1is assumed - you can say or print just about anything about anyone if it true) 2) Southern Sheriffs Sullivan claimed an NAACP ad in the NYT was about him(can’t find ny casebook, please check old guy ‘s memory - ad, about injustice against blacks, civ rights workers etc.) didn’t even single out a state 3) absence of legal malice: a) plaintiff must prove respondent had no data or respondent can demonstrate it had information it reasonabley believed true and b) respondent made an effort to test accuracy of data. I doubr any country rt decision would ever be given LL’s nane! And please cite case - not te there was also bad precedent set during NJ v Mario Jascalavich trial - the curari killer who got awaw when NYT reporter Myron Farber refused to reveal sources on story about the investigation of “Dr. X” - there was some law established, later demolished by “shield laws” in almost all 50 states making it near impossible for newspapers to be forced to reveal names of anonymous sources. Of course by that time Farber had been imprisoned for contempt of court by a damned fool Bergen Co. NJ judge, and rhe sideshow, which really didn’t effect state’s case against Dr Death had led to Jascalavich cleared and moving to Argentina, where he died, must be 35 years ago now.

Also NB: or should that be N Morte: I find it hard to believe LL is still alive in his late 90s+ this may be simple lar to the rather suspicious death date given by Scientology Inc.’s house doctor for former SF writer turned creator of a religion “because thats where the money is” say many who heard him discussing plan to turn novel into Dianetics, the wealthy , er, religion’s Bible, a rewrite as truth of Slaves of Sleep, the late Harlan Ellison has writ on many occasions, including a note in Dangerous Visiobs, SF anthology

AND NOW THE POINT OF THIS RAMBLE: LL made campaign commercials each time he ran for president, all consisting of the candidate seated in a leather English Men’s Club chair, in front of a rather impressive looking home library rambling for 15-30 minutes, leading the viewer to come away with the feeling he was claiming Queen Elizabeth II and family were Iewish, and conspiring with other Jews to flood US streets wit heroin. Also, falsely, that he had recently met with, and advised(implying their support) of dozens of world leaders. This material, probably in the overptotected vaults of the Museum of Radio and Television, would be wonderful to show the quadrennial shift in the man’s views, and why he attracted so many for llowers, including a schizophrenic cousin of mine. Also, editor/authors seem to have missed out nature of the case that led to prison: LL’s minions working airports and other sites would talk people into making small cr d card donations to, usually the Fusion Foundation, then, especially if donors were elderly, invent and submit fraudulent cred card slips for donations several orders of magnitude larger, again, if memory serves.

          ShrdluCubed SHRDLU SHRDLU SHRDLU (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Energy-flux density subsection added[edit]

I have added a little section on what appears to be a key concept behind much of LaRouchean's thought: energy-flux density. I think it is really a religious assertion, while claiming to be science/economics, because it says "this is the way the universe is" that goes from supposed science to derive morality/policy/worldview from it. I found it very hard to find any references to this concept outside of LaRouchean websites: there was a neo-Nazi site that approves, and an anti-LaRouche page that called it gobbledigook without discussing, and that was about it: so we have a concept which is key to the LaRoucheans, but of no impact or importance or interest to the WWW or commentators. That has made it hard to find any reference that is not "self written" material, that are not really best for references. So, rather than having no references at all, I have linked to a video of LaRouche and LaRoucheans, which may give some of the flavour of the concept and how it sits in their conspiracy theory. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)