LAROUCHE BRAINBOX OR CRACKPOT?

LETS START A DEBATE ON THE IDEAS OF LYNDON LAROUCHE.

Are they valid?

Can they be taken seriously?

I am the father of a member of the LaRouche cult, and I have been very
concerned about my son's involvement. In connection with this, I felt
motivated to read some of what LaRouche has written. I thought I would give
him the benefit of the doubt and read from those items that he would think
to be his best. This was fairly easy to do, since he provides a list of his
"Major Writings" on one of his web sites [1].

As I started to go over the list, I noticed that most were published in
EIR, a periodical controlled by LaRouche himself. Many more were published
by Ben Franklin Booksellers. I thought that this might be some independent
publishing house, but it isn't. It, also, is controlled by LaRouche. Other
items on the list were published under the auspices of the Schiller
Institute and other entities clearly identified with LaRouche. This left
only one publication, the book Dialectical Economics, published by D. C.
Heath. I had never heard of D. C. Heath, and seeing that everything else
was published in a manner that LaRouche would control, I suspected that D.
C. Heath might be a vanity publisher. This turns out to be the case.
Several former members of the LaRouche cult have confirmed that the
organization paid to have the book published. Coincidentally, this one
item, the one most likely to be mistaken for an independent publication, is
first on the list. Interesting. As I looked further into D. C. Heath, I
found that this publishing house had a reputation for circulating sloppy
science [2]. (It is now defunct.)

Now, LaRouche would have us believe that he is the greatest economist of
the twentieth century [3]. As such, one would have expected to find that he
has published numerous essays in journals on economics. But this is not the
case. He has not published a single paper in any periodical other than
those that he controls, none of which qualify as genuine, scientific
journals. And for those of us who are unaware of the standards of practice
in the intellectual disciplines, be advised that when one publishes
something that purports to be a contribution to the body of established
science, it is sent to an independent publisher. The editor will then
forward copies to several experts in the field. These individuals are
called "referees." They return criticisms (positive and negative) to the
editor. The editor forwards these anonymous criticisms to the author,
he/she responds to the criticisms, either having made recommended
corrections or arguing that the referees misunderstood something. The
editor may take these and send them to the referees for further comment,
and so on. This is not the procedure that is followed some of the time by
some of the intellectual disciplines in some of the countries of the world.
It is universal. And this is not something that serious intellectuals worry
about. They do not regard it as problematic. Generally speaking, these
people enjoy a good debate among their peers. In fact, this is referred to
as the "peer review" process.

Any "great" intellect in any field will have published numerous articles in
peer reviewed journals. This is, in fact, part of what it means to be a
great thinker today. They never publish in any other format. It is
considered to be the mark of a crackpot. If you can't get published via the
peer review process, serious questions must be raised about the quality of
your work. One does not need to be a professor at a recognized university
to get published, and one can get away with theories that are seemingly
ridiculous, as long as they are properly prepared and display the structure
of a genuine, scientific document. Indeed, there is a famous case of an
academic outsider, a lowly patent clerk, who at the age of about twenty
five submitted a paper in which he argued that some of the laws of physics
are such as to allow the following scenario. If one member of a pair of
newborn twins is put on a very fast spaceship and travels the cosmos until
he is one year old, and if he is then reunited with his sister, he will
find her to be many years older. Ridiculous! Don't you think so? Well, it
turns out to be fact. And the author published that paper in 1905, when the
scientific community was far more conservative than now. His name was
Albert Einstein, arguably the greatest physicist of the twentieth century.
It would never have crossed his mind to self publish.

And let's dwell on physics a little further. Several years ago, I came
across an article written by John Mintz of the Washington Post [4]. He
reports that [sic], "In a letter LaRouche wrote in November (1984) to The
New Republic magazine, in response to an article about his ties to federal
agencies, one passage reads:

'The most relevant point is my support for the view that a review of
physics from the vantage point of the Gauss-Dirichlet-Riemann approach to
topology and electrodynamics affords us not only a more accurate picture
than the Maxwell-Boltzman approach, but a more direct and easier approach
to comprehension of fundamentals.'"

Reader, if you don't understand this, it's because LaRouche was not trying
to be understood. I happen to have a modest background in this area,
roughly equivalent to that of an undergraduate major in physics, and I
don't know what he's referring to. I might be able to figure it out, but
there is no point to it. LaRouche doesn't know physics. Anyone genuinely
familiar with physics would have made the point by reference to the names
of principles, not the personalities involved. This is a good example of
the sophomore's famous maxim: "If you can't dazzle 'em with your
brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullshit." It is precisely the sort of
statement made by one who endeavors to simply give the impression of being
an intellectual. This is utterly absurd, unmistakable fraud and deception
to anyone other than the sorry souls in LaRouche's cult.

The upshot of all this is that LaRouche has never published anything via
the peer review process, the universally accepted standard of practice of
all intellectual disciplines in all countries of the world. Self
publication is not the fall-back position of a genius who is misunderstood.
It is the recourse of one who does not enjoy debate, one who has no respect
for the intellectuals in a field and one who has nothing of real merit to
say. This is the sort of person who is so arrogant that he cannot tolerate
criticism. Is it any surprise that LaRouche's economic prognostications
(severe depression, tomorrow) are in direct conflict with those of the real
professionals (and even of common sense)?

In preparing this essay, I looked through my various text books on physics.
I found that for any of the recognized great physicists, the indexes of the
books provided numerous page references to their names. This is a crude,
but effective technique for assessing the status of a great scientist. I
then went to the library and looked through a half dozen textbooks on
economics. I turned to the index for each, looking for the names of the
great economists. I found numerous page references to all of the great
thinkers in this field (e.g., Adam Smith, John Keynes). But I found no
reference whatsoever to Lyndon LaRouche. His claim to be the greatest
economist of the twentieth century has all the validity of Pee Wee Herman
claiming to be the heavy weight champion of the world. This is a grown man
living in a fantasy world.

I have also heard from many others that when LaRouche gives his talks he
presents his thoughts in a rambling diatribe, quite unlike the methodical,
disciplined discourse of a real scholar. He claims to be an economist, but
economics is a mature science, one based on mathematics. And this is not a
matter of style; mathematics affords much more accurate results and much
more easily assessed conclusions. Mathematics is, in whole, a major
discovery, and economists would no more disregard it than a carpenter would
eschew the use of an electric saw. Does LaRouche use mathematics in his
publications? I looked briefly over some of them; I found none. Nor did I
see any of the highly structured, methodical presentations characteristic
of a contemporary, scientific paper. His publications are not contributions
to the science of economics, and they are not read by professionals in this
field. In connection with preparing this essay, I spoke to several
professionals in economics. As I had suspected, they view him to be nothing
more than a joke. (They don't want to be identified; LaRouche has a
reputation for harassing his critics. In some cases, this has involved gang
assaults on opponents. On other occasions, it has involved leaving a dead
cat on the front stoop of the opponent.)

And let's turn briefly to psychology. LaRouche claims to be able to teach
genius, something that, I suspect, is grossly inconsistent with what is
believed by experts in the psychology of genius. But if he can do this,
then he must be one himself. After all, if he didn't find himself to
already be a genius, than he would simply have taught himself. But geniuses
in all intellectual disciplines (e.g., Einstein) all publish in peer review
media, they produce structured, carefully written essays. In economics, as
in physics and many other fields, there is an emphasis on mathematical
analysis. LaRouche does none of this. His essays have all the intellectual
merit of a grade school book report. He is a genius only in the estimation
of himself and the misguided souls in his cult. He is, in fact, not even an
intellectual of modest ability. It is even doubtful that he would qualify
as an amateur, since these folks at least adhere to the methods and
established principles of a discipline.

LaRouche is, in short, only the world's most spectacular crackpot.

He is as much an intellectual as he is a politician, which is to say, not
at all. And it would be correct to say that he is as much of an
intellectual as he is a moral leader. After all, he did five years in
prison for various scams, some directed at the vulnerable elderly, a crime
every bit as despicable as anything you can imagine.

Readers, if any of you have a background in economics, please write in to
this site and tell us what you think? This essay in its present form can be
revised based on what you have to say. Likewise, if any of you are
psychiatrists, we would like to know what you make of this man whose
theories are so weird and whose favorite criticisms involve references to
dysfunctional sexuality.

Also, it is my understanding that professional associations of astronomers
occasionally make public statements regarding astrology, this being
regarded as a kind of self-perpetuating hoax. We would urge recognized,
professional associations for economists, or individual economists, to
publish a critique of LaRouche's supposed contributions in this field. This
is worth doing. His message is not quite as widely received as astrology,
but it is international, and to innocent eyes and ears, especially in third
world countries, this man walks the walk and talks the talk of an important
American. A lot of young people are being mislead. Some of these might have
been real economists if they hadn't been distracted by this crackpot.

Oh, and by the way, reader, this document had to pass inspection by Erica
Duggan, effectively an editor for present purposes. She has been encouraged
to distribute pre-publication copies to experts on the LaRouche cult (which
she did). I wanted feedback. It would make my essay stronger. If I have
said anything wrong, if I have misspoken, I want to know about it.

RESPONSES TO CRITICISMS

As alluded to, this draft of my essay is a rewrite. Since presenting the
first draft, a well-intentioned critic (one with whom I am on good terms)
has argued that he also would self-publish if it meant keeping more of the
profits. True, and the same goes for me, but not if I am trying to
establish myself as a scientist. The real professionals have no time for a
would-be peer who does not follow the procedures that are intended to
minimize error in the formulation of established science. You may indeed
keep a greater percentage of the profits, but you will not be read by the
professionals, and your net profits will be virtually nothing. My friend
also argued that political commentary is, by general agreement, exempt from
the requirement of peer-review. True again, but this sort of material is
not viewed as a contribution to (political) science. If LaRouche aspires to
be a political commentator, fine, but he shouldn't present himself as an
economist.

---------------------------------------

[1] www.larouchepub.com/major_writings.html

[2] www.textbookleague.org/65trav.htm [William J. Bennetta: The Textbook
Letter is published, copyrighted and distributed by The Textbook League
(P.O. Box 51, Sausalito, California 94966)]

[3]http://larouchein2004.net/pages/biography.htm. Googling the subject
heading "LaRouche economist" produces some seven thousand hits, many
containing comments to the effect that LaRouche is the world's greatest
economist.

[4] Ideological Odyssey: From Old Left to Far Right, John Mintz, The
Washington Post, Jan. 14, 1985.