Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The previous version of the article on LaRouche, which is referred to in the discussion, is available here.

Nota bene: I argued in favor of the previous article, on the grounds that it had fewer egregious POV problems than the livid rant that is presently found at the Lyndon LaRouche page. However, I agree with John's assessment that the previous article is a somewhat incoherent patchwork quilt, having been rewritten and edited so many times. I withdraw my support from that article, in favor of the new one that I have written at Lyndon LaRouche/draft, and invite comment on that article. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Responses to this post appear at the foot of the page. Adam 11:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam's and John's objections to the previous article

Adam and John have stated that they have objections to the previous article, but they have never named their objections. Instead, they resorted to the dishonest sleight-of-hand of having Adam write an entirely new article which in no way draws upon the previous one; instead, by Adam's own admission, it comes entirely from one source, which is a sleazy character assassination, Dennis King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (Adam says it also comes from an article in the Washington Post, by which he simply means a quote cited in the book.) The two of them then insist that the debate should be restricted to the merits of Adam's new article. They resist the idea of referring the dispute to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, but then contrive to block editing of their new, ridiculous article.

This last is a lie. You have made no effort to edit the new article - you have simply tried to revert to the old, ridiculous article. I, at least, have repeatedly asked you to edit the new article. john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The typical slander of LaRouche follows this format: "Numerous Left- or Right-Wingers, who shall remain nameless, have said that LaRouche is a so-and-so, and in my heart I believe it." In my editing of the previous article, I wrote some sections which were intended to rebut the propaganda, but more importantly, to introduce some factual material that might demonstrate to the reader what LaRouche actually does in the world, so that it is not so mysterious as to why there is such a fuss about him. I will reproduce these sections here, and I would like Adam and John to specify what, if any, challenge they would make as to the veracity and accuracy of what is said. And, if they cannot challenge it, I would like to know why they desire to suppress it:


Key policy interventions

  • In the mid-1970s, LaRouche began to meet with leaders of Third World nations to discuss a reform of the international monetary system. LaRouche maintained that institutions such as the International Monetary Fund were suppressing the development of these nations, saddling them with a fraudulent debt burden, and re-imposing a disguised version of colonialism, forcing these nations to provide cheap labor and raw materials. Following a trip to Iraq and Israel in 1975, LaRouche proposed an International Development Bank to supercede the I.M.F.; on September 8, 1975, LaRouche's proposal for debt moratoria was presented to the United Nations General Assembly by Dr. Frederick Wills, Foreign Minister of Guyana, and then discussed in August of the following year at the Colombo, Sri Lanka conference of the Non-Aligned Movement.
LaRouche's proposal, later adopted by Reagan? The implication that Reagan took the idea from LaRouche is ridiculous nonsense. john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Here is a first-hand recollection from someone who was directly involved. Both the New Republic and the Washington Post published hysterical articles, attacking the Reagan administration for its contact with LaRouche. And LaRouche circulated a pamphlet in 1977 calling for the U.S. to pursue the development of directed-energy technologies for Ballistic Missile defense, as the Soviets were already doing -- it was entitled "Sputnik of the Seventies."--Herschelkrustofsky 00:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
First hand recollections in a LaRouche publication have no credibility. At any rate, while it should certainly be noted that LaRouche was an early proponent of missile defense, and while I would be personally happy to say that the Republicans got the idea from LaRouche, since it would (to most people) make them look quite bad, and I don't like Republicans much, I don't think that's appropriate to an encyclopedia article. I think that most supporters of missile defense would deny that the idea was LaRouche, and such a contention would need to be supported by something other than a LaRouchite argument. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just to satisfy my curiosity, why is it that first hand recollections in a LaRouche publication have no credibility, whereas first hand recollections of "Mop-up", reported in the Village Voice, are considered highly credible? I would like to know precisedly what the criteria for credibility are. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:30, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • In 1989, despite having been imprisoned (see Criminal Record, below), LaRouche proposed major infrastructure plans for the Eurasian land mass, following the demise of the Warsaw Pact. These were entitled the Productive Triangle and Eurasian Land-Bridge plans. In May of 1996, LaRouche's wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche presented the Eurasian Land-Bridge proposal at a conference sponsored by the Government of China, in a debate format with British member of the European Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, who opposed it. The proposal was subsequently adopted, and is presently under construction, by China and neighboring nations.
I have no idea of any of this...but certainly we should say "the government of the People's Republic of China". john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • In April of 2003, LaRouche presented groundbreaking research on the role of a group of followers of German political philosopher Leo Strauss, who had managed to gain policy control of the administration of President George W. Bush, and used that control to implement radical shifts in policy, including a commitment to a preventive war doctrine which included suspension of the Geneva Accords.
LaRouche has never presented "groundbreaking research" on anything. This implies that said research has rocked the scholarly community, when, in fact, nothing LaRouche has ever done has ever rocked the scholarly community. Furthermore, discussion of the role of Straussians in the Bush administration did not start with LaRouche. What LaRouche brings to the picture is conspiracy theories and crypto-anti-semitism. john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Follow this link to read the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, in which former Editor-in-Chief Robert Bartley castigates Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker and James Atlas of the New York Times for following LaRouche's lead on the Straussians. While Bartley is clearly unhappy about it, he does truthfully note that "discussion of the role of Straussians in the Bush administration did start with LaRouche." Really, John, I'm surprised that you can feel so strongly about all this, and yet know so little about it.
Bartley has about as much credibility as LaRouche publications, imo. Just as it is in my interest, as a liberal Democrat, to say that Reagan got the idea for missile defense from LaRouche, so it is in Bartley's interested, as a ridiculously conservative Republican, to say that liberals got their ideas about Straussianism from LaRouche. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Herschell, I'd be prepared to consider LaRouche as a groundbreaking figure in policy and theory if one can cite publications other than LaRouche's which acknowledge that anything he's written or said has been "groundbreaking". Has LaRouche published any articles in peer reviewed academic journals? As for your citations of the WSJ and NYTimes they are, as you point out, hardly laudatory but simply trying to tear down others on the basis of "guilt of association" for making accusations with LaRouche also happens to make. Hardly evidence of LaRouche's academic or intellectual contributions. AndyL 04:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
John charged that "discussion of the role of Straussians in the Bush administration did not start with LaRouche." LaRouche's in-depth report on the topic was issued April, 2003. The NYT and New Yorker articles appeared a month later, and all other articles subsequent to that. As far as I am concerned, that proves the point. No one had ever heard of Leo Strauss, outside of his coterie of disciples, up until then. You are welcome to cite evidence that proves the contrary.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Support from the Civil Rights Movement

Although, since the late 1960s, LaRouche and his movement have been under continual attack from both Rightists and Leftists, LaRouche has enjoyed strong support from the veterans of the American Civil Rights Movement of Martin Luther King, Jr. In the early 1990s, while LaRouche was in prison (see below), full page advertisements, calling for LaRouche to be exonerated, appeared in papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Among the signators were Civil Rights leaders such as Amelia Boynton Robinson (the heroine of Bloody Sunday), Rev. Hosea Williams, Dr. Wyatt Tee Walker, James Bevel, Rosa Parks, and Benjamin Chavis. Additionally, Amelia Boynton Robinson became co-founder and Vice-Chairperson of the Schiller Institute, and James Bevel became LaRouche's running mate in the 1992 Presidential campaign, in which LaRouche ran from prison.

Surely this gives a false impression - perhaps these individuals have expressed support for LaRouche, but the basic fact is that LaRouche has no "Support from the Civil Rights Movement" and no mainstream civil rights organization has had any truck with LaRouche. john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You want to see the entire list of signators? I can provide a link. but regardless of how many there are, or what organization they belong to, the ones that I put in the article are sufficiently prominent that hiding their names is certainly more apt to provide a false impression, than providing them.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm actually fine with listing people who signed that petition - but you are repeatedly using this same single act (signing a petition about the prosecution of LaRouche) in different places in the article, to give the impression of widespread support for LaRouche. Listing these people once, in the part of the article about LaRouche's trial, would be sufficient. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Additionally, Amelia Boynton Robinson became co-founder and Vice-Chairperson of the Schiller Institute, and James Bevel became LaRouche's running mate in the 1992 Presidential campaign, in which LaRouche ran from prison." That indicates support beyond signing the petition (actually, they were full-page ads in WaPo and NYT), and ought to be included.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Criminal record

(I did not write this part, but did extensive editing on the previous version)

In December of 1988, LaRouche was convicted of conspiracy and mail fraud in regards to the methods used by his organization to solicit in the alleged amount of $294,000 of unrepaid loans. The alleged conspiracy, was a conspiracy to obtain the loans, with no intention to repay.

You should look up "comma usage" somewhere... john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To prepare for the trial, the government first filed, on April 20, 1987, an unprecedented involuntary bankruptcy petition against two LaRouche-controlled publications companies on whose behalf the loans had been solicited, ending all possibility of loan repayment. On October 25, 1989, Judge Martin V.B. Bostetter ruled the government's action was illegal. Bostetter said the government acted in "objective bad faith" and the bankruptcy was obtained by a "constructive fraud on the court." However, the appeal on the conspiracy and fraud charges went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court; at each stage of the appeals process, the courts declined to hear the appeal.

Okay, but so what? LaRouche was still found guilty. Putting a whole paragraph about this, and then almost entirely ignoring the actual stuff against him, again gives a false impression. john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just in case the article is intended to inform the reader, rather than reinforce the prejudices of the author, it were useful to make it known that this case was extremely controversial. For example -- I could have included this in the now-suppressed version of the article -- the amicus curae brief filed with the appeals was the second largest, in number of signators, in U.S. history (after the Chicago 7 trial). This makes the fact that the appeal was never heard all the more remarkable.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As I said above, this should be discussed. But the charges against LaRouche should be discussed in more detail, as well. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison in Minnesota, though he was given an early release in 1993 after serving five years. He ran his 1992 electoral campaign from prison. Prominent radical political figure and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has helped to try to clear LaRouche's name, arguing that investigators and political opponents had gone overboard in their accusations. Clark wrote in 1995, in a letter to then serving Attorney General Janet Reno: "I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."

Clark is a fringe figure. Why so much attention to him? john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you like him, he is a former Attorney General of the United States.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So what? He's progressively lost whatever credibility he may have once had over the last 35 years. At any rate, a mention of his support for LaRouche in his court case should be sufficient. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That's your POV. In my view, and I am not alone, his credentials as an human rights expert are certainly better than, say, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, and his open letter to Janet Reno should certainly not be suppressed. I am struck by your apparent willingness to entertain the admission of gossip and innuendo from Dennis King, who has no stature of any sort, while laboring to exclude the views of persons who are internationally prominent, because you evidently have a disagreement with them. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not your USENET post.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

During the 2004 Presidential campaign, LaRouche has characterized his imprisonment and subsequent release, with one sentence: "Bush put me in, and Clinton got me out." However, there were in fact thousands of political leaders who campaigned for LaRouche's release. In addition to leaders of the American American Civil Rights Movement (see above), there were many elected officials from the U.S. and around the world, including the following officials of various nations:

  • RNDr. Jozef Miklosko, former Vice-Prime Minister of former Czechoslovakia
  • Prof. Dr. Hans R. Klecatsky, former Justice Minister, Austria
  • Gen. (ret.) Edgardo Mercado Jarrin, former Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister of Peru
  • Gen. (ret.) Joao Baptista de Oliveira Figueredo, former President of Brazil
  • Nedzib Sacirbey, M.D., Ambassador at Large, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
  • Arturo Frondizi, former President of Argentina (recently deceased)
  • Manuel Solis Palma, former President of Panama
  • Dr. Abdelhamid Brahimi, former Prime Minister of Algeria (1984-1988)

--Herschelkrustofsky 20:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I'm not fully familiar with everything you're talking about here, I think my primary problem is that it's all explicitly designed to create a false impression of general opinion of LaRouche, by cherry-picking every single instance you can find of theoretically well-respected people treating LaRouche seriously. (Although people like Benjamin Chavis and Ramsay Clark are pretty dubious as far as respectability goes). While probably some of this should be mentioned, it shouldn't be used to obfuscate what's really going on. At any rate, I've listed the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I think this is a more appropriate place to go, at this point, than mediation - it's an invitation to other wikipedians to take a look at the article and weigh in. john k 20:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, you may not like Ben Chavis, or Ramsay Clark, or Indira Gandhi, or Rosa Parks, but it were certainly more faithful to the spirit of Wikipedia to let the reader know, and judge for himself. Regarding the Requests for comment,I would be more likely to believe that this is not all some sort of ploy on your part, if BOTH versions of the article were available on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It says in Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution: "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." You and Adam didn't improve the edits on the previous article; you suppressed it altogether -- even to the point of freezing edits on the new version, which I assume means that you are a Wikipedia adminstrator, or you know one. If you want to demonstrate Good faith, make both versions of the article available, protect both from editing, and post them on Wikipedia:Requests for comment.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The spirit of NPOV is certainly not to give all possible information that somebody might possibly be interested. Should we list every person who's ever said that Lyndon LaRouche is a crank, or a dangerous lunatic, or a common criminal, as well? Because a lot of people have said that, and probably some of them are famous. An article can't simply vomit up all information about its subject, and it certainly shouldn't do it selectively to put the person in the best possible light. To take an extreme example, I'm sure we can find numerous well-respected people who, through the years between 1929 and 1953, said nice things about Stalin. If we put all that stuff in, and took out all the information about Stalin's crimes as too uncertain, would you think that was NPOV? I've responded to the latter part of your post at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Suffice it to say that neither Adam nor I protected the page. john k 00:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would say, by all means, list every head of state, or cabinet level official, who ever said that Lyndon LaRouche is a crank, or a dangerous lunatic, or a common criminal, as well. And explore their motives for saying so.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

POV

-> Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/The_Herschelkrustofsky_List#Zionism_.2F_Zionist

Unprotecting

Herschel, would you be willing to try to improve the current version of the article to make it more NPOV? This would, I assume, be a rather bumpy process, given our current disagreements, but I think it's far more likely to move us towards consensus than constant reversion wars. I'd be willing to sit back, for at least a while, and see what you're doing, and I'd explain any specific reversions/changes to your edits, if you'd be willing to do this. This would let us unprotect the article and get back to editing it, too. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See "Straw Man" section, below. I am still trying to figure out how you can say that the decision to protect Adam's article, as opposed to the long-standing one which was only partially written by me, was made by someone other than you and Adam.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article was not protected by me or by Adam. It was protected by User:Mirv, as a result of our edit warring. It was protected on Adam's version simply because that was the version it was on when Mirv protected. How hard is this to understand? john k 15:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Listing sources

Sorry for prematurely doing a bit of copy editing. Anyway, if the article is largely or partly based on Dennis King's book as a source it should be listed as such eg Source: King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York: Doubleday, 1989. 415 pages. ISBN 0-385-23880-0 This would deal with Herschell's concern's about plagiarism. AndyL 03:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If it was standard procedure at Wikipedia that sources should be given for articles, then I would of course have done so with this article. But it is not standard procedure, so I didn't. It is false (and defamatory) to accuse me of plagiarism in this respect. Nowhere in my article do I use King's words. For the record, I have alreadty acknowledged that the article is based largely on King, but it also draws on the Washington Post, on various website sources and my own (extensive) knowledge of the history of Trotskyism and of the far right. Adam 04:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of plagiarism - as has been stated it's an absurd accusation to make in regards to an encyclopedia. I'm just pointing out to Herschell that there's nothing wrong with using source material and that his concerns can be dealt with through a citation rather than by removing anything that is based on King's research. AndyL 04:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When the article is unprotected, I will be making some changes to my comments on LaRouche, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, based on this speech. These changes will actually be in favour of LaRouche. Adam 04:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By all means, use that speech. It's a powerful indictment of anti-Semitism. But don't try to pull a slice-and-dice, cut-and-paste job á la Dennis King.--Herschelkrustofsky 10:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sheesh, even when I'm trying to be fair to your guy, I get abused. Krusty, like all LaRouchies, is addicted to personal abuse and slander as a political style, and is his own worst enemy in this discussion. And for the record (again) I did not ask for this article to be protected, and have already asked for it to be unprotected so that I can continue editing it. Adam 10:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The "Straw Man" technique

The typical approach to slandering a public figure (and the Adam Carr/Dennis King approach is only a particularly extreme and egregious example) is to attempt to create a "Straw Man", a semi-fictitious accounting of that individual, which the writer then proceeds to attack. Simultaneously, the technique requires that the actual motive for the attack be kept obscure; the attacker piously condemns the attackee, while avoiding any discussion of what the object of the attack has actually done to arouse his hostility. To the perceptive reader, this often leads to a paradox: in the case of LaRouche, whom the attacker paints as an obscure, unimportant figure with no influence or impact upon the world at large, why is it necessary to go to such great lengths to vilify him and ultimately jail him? If the worst that was alleged is true -- that LaRouche conspired with others to fail to repay $294,000 in loans (note: Adam Carr, following Dennis King, omits this figure, and slyly inserts "Assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson presented evidence that LaRouche's organisation had solicited US$34 million in loans since 1983" --failing to inform the reader that only $294,000 was not repaid due to the alleged conspiracy. This is transparent propaganda), LaRouche would hardly be newsworthy, compared to the stupendous scams, of say, Michael Milken, who gets a relatively respectful write-up in Wikipedia.

My point is, an article on LaRouche should:

  • acknowledge that LaRouche has been under attack from all sides, while properly identifying the attackers;
  • acknowledge that LaRouche has in fact played a significant role in politics, having consulted with a dozen or more heads of state, and put forth original ideas that have changed the face of politics and science, thus drawing the ire of other powerful individuals and entities, who initiated the attacks. John and Adam are somewhat hysterical in attempting to deny that LaRouche has done anything beyond spout conspiracy theories; this denial, methinks, is dishonest, because if LaRouche were such a trivial person, why are John and Adam so exercised about him?

If I were to remove the scurrilous and undocumented allegations, and the innuendo, from Adam's article, only about a paragraph would remain. I would like the input from others on the previous version, which was the product of many writers and editors; John and Adam have complained strenuously about it, but only in the most vague of terms.--Herschelkrustofsky 11:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Myself I'd like to see a merger of the two. Sam [Spade] 14:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I could live with that. I would also be in favor of trimming the previous version of the article. I didn't see the point of dwelling on all the minutiae regarding who was who in the Left during the 1950s -- but I left it intact out of respect for the previous writers. I was under the naive assumption that that was always the way things are done around here.--Herschelkrustofsky 15:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not really, respect for others doesn't seem to be part of the wiki-experience ;) Sam [Spade] 15:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ad hominem

I'm sick of these constant ad hominem attacks. The old version of the page is impossible to work with in large part because it's the product of so many cooks - it's an incoherent mess, and since Adam has been kind enough to start the whole process over again by writing a new article, I think we should take the opportunity to have a cleaner article. As I've repeatedly said, I'd be happy for Herschel to go over the article and help us come to a consensus that everybody can agree to. What I strongly do not want is for us to not base our work from a version of the article with statements such as

  • To his admirers, who are more visible outside the U.S., he is the last remaining American statesman in the anti-colonial tradition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and particularly in Russia (where LaRouche has often addressed the Duma and the Russian Academy of Sciences in the past decade), he is celebrated as one of the greatest scientific minds that the U.S. has produced.
  • This claim [that the US tried to frame LaRouche for the murder of Olof Palme] was corroborated on Swedish national radio in August of 1992, by a leading former East German Stasi officer, Dr. Herbert Brehmer.
You strongly do not want them, but that doesn't make them untrue. I can provide quotes, if you like, from leading members of the Russian Academy of Sciences (should I expect you to denounce that institution now?). And I cited the month, year and channel of the broadcast where Brehmer spoke -- you want the transcript in Swedish? On the other hand, you would be pleased as punch if someone were to post the article which Brehmer planted in the Danish press, which started the whole hoopla about LaRouche being a suspect in the Palme assassination (the story was a lead item on NBC news within 24 hours). I think that you should just fess up, John, that you are entirely indifferent to the truth here -- you are just maniacally committed, for reasons known only to yourself, to seeing a slander of LaRouche posted on Wikipedia. I find it ironic that you entitled this section "Ad Hominem," because Adam's article is just one prolonged ad hominem attack, lifted from a professional character assassin.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The long section on "Key policy interventions", which seems designed to purposefully mislead and suggest that LaRouche is a well-respected statesman.

And so on and so forth. I'd note that much of the article also consists of pre-Herschel constructions that are almost as inappropriately anti-LaRouche in their POV as Herschel's additions are pro-LaRouche. john k 15:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am deeply unconvinced that articles written by a single editor are necessarilly superior in quality to those produced by many editors. You would seem to be philosophically opposed to the group editing process? Sam [Spade] 15:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, of course not. This article was particularly bad, because it's about someone controversial. So first someone anti-LaRouche writes a long tirade, then that is edited by someone pro-LaRouche, who takes out some stuff, and adds pro-LaRouche stuff, and leaves much of the older stuff in place. The result is total schizophrenia. Consider the following:

LaRouche maintains that the U.S. has abandoned its historic mission, and become increasingly like the British Empire against which it originally rebelled, because of an organized subversion, involving particularly Wall Street-based financial circles of what he has characterized as a "synarchist" political movement of the oligarchy. He also asserts that this faction has taken rather extraordinary measures to eliminate him and his political movement from the scene: a typical claim is that the government of East Germany-- with the complicity of U.S. government and private organizations! -- attempted to frame him for the murder of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme. This claim was corroborated on Swedish national radio in August of 1992, by a leading former East German Stasi officer, Dr. Herbert Brehmer.

Beyond the fact that the beginning part assumes the existence of "the oligarchy", not the bizarre shift in tone from the second to the third sentence. The first part is basically saying LaRouche is crazy -- to the extent of including an interjection ended by an exclamation point! The next sentence says that this claim, which was brutally mocked as recently as the sentence before, was corroborated - that is, that it is credible. And this kind of schizophrenia is to be found throughout the old article. So this is not based on any kind of opposition to the collective editing process as a whole. And I'm certainly not saying that articles should be written by a single person. I am saying that occasionally, articles on certain topics (particularly ones where people have strong opinions) get so garbled that it is better to recommence from the beginning than it is to try to work with the mess that is present. john k 16:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ah, ok. Sam [Spade] 21:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A proposed solution

I agree with John's assessment that the previous article is not homogeneous, and that that is a problem. However, the problem is not solved by substituting Adam's article, which ought to be offered on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page as a textbook case of what to avoid. For example, in his presentation of what is called "Operation Mop-up":

  • "NCLC members engaged in a series of well-documented beatings of members of these groups."

First of all, if the beatings are well-documented, why not cite some documentation? The mere assertion that documentation exists is just propaganda. When I edited this section in the previous article, I left the accusation intact, but noted that it is disputed by the NCLC, which, unlike Adam/Dennis King, offers some documentation for its assertion that the violent clashes were initiated by the CPUSA.

I think that this should be a rule of thumb: for an article about a person whom everyone admits is controversial, each point which is disputed should be acknowledged, and arguments on both sides should receive at least a cursory reference. I attempted to do this in editing the previous article, and -- perhaps because I was too accomodating -- the result was not homogeneous. Perhaps that could be cured by further Good faith editing, and then again, perhaps not.

My alternative proposal, is that I am willing to write yet another, entirely new article. I have no difficulty acknowledging the attacks on LaRouche. I can assure you, John and Adam, that I have read more wild accusations against LaRouche than the two of you put together. I have read things that you probably never heard of, like the little anonymous pamphlet that was circulated on campuses in the 1970s, called NCLC: Brownshirts of the 70s. I read the material in the Mexican press which called LaRouche a "wealthy Zionist businessman." LaRouche was even accused, more recently, of being anti-Irish. But the key quality that I have to offer -- beyond my confidence in my ability to understand LaRouche, which Adam seems to be saying he is unable to do -- is that I am willing to abide by the rule of thumb stated above: I am willing to note both sides of every point of controversy. Adam has made it sufficiently clear that he wouldn't do that if his life depended on it.--Herschelkrustofsky 21:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, sometimes it is not NPOV to acknowledge two sides in an argument equally. Sometimes one side is wrong, or their argument is completely ludicrous, or unsupported. While we should probably, as you say, take moe care to acknowledge controversy, it is not enough to just "report both sides" without any kind of context. As to specific issues, I'd note that some alleged document printed on LaRouche's site is, again, not particularly credible to somebody who isn't a LaRouchite. At any rate, the document certainly does not indicate that "the violent clashes were instigated by the CPUSA." The document was produced well after Operation Mop-Up had already commenced, even. I have found [1], which quotes various mainstream publications at the time blaming "Operation Mop-Up" on LaRouche and NCLC.

I am very suspicious of anything from Berlet-- he and King and their cohorts from the [link removed] meetings have a history of falsification. It looks a bit over the top to me -- all that, and no arrests made? But some of the publications listed are "mainstream," so I wouldn't object to including it. As to the document I referenced, it's a photostat of an FBI memo, produced after an FOIA suit. Are you claiming it's a forgery?--Herschelkrustofsky 00:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do you dispute these LaRouche quotes from King's book?

On the conference's opening day the anti-NCLC coalition sent a sound truck through the black community and staged a picket line with signs comparing the NCLC to the Ku Klux Klan. This failed to stop the event, which was attended by several hundred white middle-class activists and a handful of welfare mothers. The harassment did, however, give LaRouche the pretext he needed. He called an emergency meeting of the East Coast NCLC. "From here on in," he declared, "the CP cannot hold a meeting on the East Coast.. We'll mop them up in two months." The NCLC, he promised, would seize "hegemony" on the left--i.e., replace the CP as the dominant organization.
Many NCLC members were shocked and frightened by LaRouche's announcement, but he anticipated their reluctance: "I know you better than you know yourselves, and for the most part you're full of crap, "he said. "This isn't a debating society anymore."
A front-page New Solidarity editorial, "Operation Mop Up: The Class Struggle Is for Keeps," echoed LaRouche's call. "We must dispose of this stinking corpse [the CP]," the editorial said, "to ensure that it cannot act as a host for maggots and other parasites preparing future scabby Nixonite attacks on the working class.. If we were to vacillate . we would be guilty of betraying the human race. Our job is to pulverize the Communist Party."

Most of this seems to be quotes from a newspaper, and a publicly delivered speech. It would be hard to fake this, I should think. john k 21:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is to say, no, I don't think Herschel should be allowed to create his own article. His POV is just too strong and dominating for me to be willing to trust that he could write a really balanced article. I would agree with him that Adam's article is not particularly balanced, but all of us are willing to work on making it more balanced. Allowing a LaRouchite to write the article on LaRouche is not the way to secure a good article on the subject. john k 21:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anything from Dennis King, that appears without iron-clad documentation, I would assume to be fraudulent. Have any of you actually taken a look at who Dennis King is? And the Smith Richardson Foundation, which funded his book?--Herschelkrustofsky 00:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Similar to an anti-LaRouchite, I would assume? Sam [Spade] 21:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, in fact. Followers of LaRouche are a tiny sect. Every source of information about LaRouche besides those of LaRouche himself essentially shares a similar view of LaRouche. Now, it should probably noted that few non-LaRouchites seem to have investigated LaRouche without producing work that was deeply anti-LaRouche. But this is ultimately circular. So, the mainstream view, rather than the fringe view, should be the predominant one presented. john k 21:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's not circular, it's fraudulent. There's a big world out there, outside of the English-speaking press. The honest assessments of LaRouche are not to be found in the publications of Rupert Murdoch, Katherine Graham or Conrad Black.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Where are the honest assessments of LaRouche to be found, then? Forgive me if I do not find Ramsay Clark and the Russian Duma to be reputable sources. Can you find any non-LaRouchite, non-Russian Duma type sources that paint LaRouche differently from this article? I'd note that the publications of Rupert Murdoch, Katherine Graham, and Conrad Black hardly refer to LaRouche at all. john k 00:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I for one strongly prefer that ALL views be presented, not only the view seen to be mainstream. Sam [Spade] 21:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. But these views need to be contextualized. You can't just present both views as though they're equal. If this were the requirement of NPOV, we'd have to have half the article about the Holocaust be about Holocaust denial. john k 00:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Herschell, why don't you write your new article here: Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/draft so we can see what you have in mind? AndyL 00:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm open to doing so, but I fear that it would ultimately be a waste of time, because I am convinced that John and Adam are making an intractable demand that the article conform to their POV. I suggested Wikipedia:Requests for mediation right off the bat, because I saw this coming. They both rejected mediation. My hunch is that this is headed for arbitration, although more experienced Wikipedians (other than John or Adam) are welcome to advise me on how to proceed.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Andy, I have now posted a draft, admittedly a rough one, at the site you recommend. I'm certain that the tone is not venomous enough to suit John and Adam, but others, perhaps even John, may concede that it is logically organized, mainly in an historical, chronological way.--Herschelkrustofsky 22:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see your version of the article, and I certainly don't demand that the article conform to my POV. I only demand that the article conform to NPOV by not presenting completely decontextualized LaRouchite propaganda as fact. Your "hunch" about arbitration, is, I fear, incorrect - nothing occurring here is beyond the normal give and take of an article content dispute. Arbitration is for serious violations of Wikipedia rules. john k 00:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thats not necessarilly true, take a look at this. Sam [Spade] 01:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Archive

I see that my archive has been undone. Is this beneficial to anyone, or would someone mind re-archiving it for me? I suspect if I did it again it would be similarly reverted. Sam [Spade] 21:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why should it be archived? It's discussion from yesterday, and the page isn't especially long. john k 21:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ok, whatever. I happen not to like long talk pages, but I guess thats just me. Sam [Spade] 21:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Operation Mop-Up Documentation

-> Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List

Washington Post as source

If one checks this article and looks at the sidebar on the right there are a series of Washington Post articles we can use as source material. AndyL 03:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche wasn't a harmless old weirdo in the early 70s when this took place, he was an experienced extremist leader in his 50s, having cut his teeth in 20 years of Trotskyist activism. My personal definition of LaRouchism is 50% Trotskyism, 25% fascism and 25% personal psychopathology. Adam 04:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd say more like 10% Trotskyism, 10% Luxemburgism, 20% New Dealism etc etc.

Anyway, before anyone dismisses the Washington Post as a source because it relies on Rees (in part) consider the fact that the series the Post published on LaRouche in the 1980s and reposted by them on the web had to pass muster with the Post's editorial desk and with the paper's fact checkers as well as with the paper's lawyers (given the incindiary nature of the charges and the wealth of the LaRouche organisation you can be damn sure lawyers vetted the articles and the material used to back it up to make sure it was libel-proof).

Consider also that the Post is not an obscure publication and that LaRouche would have been quite aware of the series and of its impact on the public at a time when his movement was making a serious bid for mainstream acceptance. If there was anything in the series which was factually unsound LaRouche would have sued (and LaRouche wasn't shy about launching lawsuits, as I recall he unsuccesfully sued NBC News at one point). He didn't sue the Post so I think we can safely say the material the Post published in their series is credible. AndyL 04:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the NBC libel case, which was a very interesting case, the court found that NBC was not responsible for assessing the truth or falsehood of the material they broadcast, that it were sufficient to rely upon sources that need not be disclosed. This set a precedent, certainly in the case of LaRouche, that pursuing a libel case for a political figure in the U.S. is an uphill fight. Ironically, I recall that Henry Kissinger subsequently filed a libel in Britain rather than in the U.S., because Britain was regarded as a more favorable environment to pursue such a case. Needless to say, LaRouche abandoned libel suits as a counter-tactic, and the press, including emphatically the Post, was not constrained by the threat of libel suits. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam's numbers sound approximately correct to me, although I might jigger up the personal psychopathology quotient a bit, and add some other stuff in, as Andy does. At any rate, the Washington Post series cited by Andy looks like a solid source (although Mr. Krustofsky has already denounced the late Mrs. Graham...) to use, especially for all the weird influence LaRouche seems to have had in the early 80s with the Reagan administration, which seems to be pretty well documented. (The craziest thing going on in this discussion, I think, is that HK seems to view the fact that relatively mainstream figures have met with LaRouche as somehow validating LaRouche, while nearly everybody else views this as a pretty sound discrediting of the relatively mainstream figure...) john k 04:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, John, you put words in my mouth. LaRouche's contact with mainstream figures doesn't "validate" him; it does, however, call into question the repeated assertion that his ideas have had no political impact, and it raises questions about the repeated assertion that he is universally despised in the world of politics. My main point is that these contacts should be reported in the article, so that the reader may draw his own conclusions.--Herschelkrustofsky 13:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Either way I think we need to have a mention of them in the article. His friendships w world leaders doesn't get nearly enough attention in the current article. Sam [Spade] 04:49, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Washington Post series on LaRouche

There was an editorial in the Post, in 1971, that I am trying to find to add to this discussion. As I recall, the gist of it was that there should be an agreement among all the American press, never to discuss LaRouche's ideas, because his ideas were dangerous. Discussion of LaRouche ought to be limited to attacks on him which avoid discussion of his ideas. The Post has stuck to this policy ever since. I'll let you know if I can dredge up a hard copy. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I had the year wrong. Here we go: On September 24, 1976, Stephen Rosenfeld wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," in which he set out a media policy for dealing with LaRouche: "We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms."--Herschelkrustofsky 20:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A LaRouche website states

September 24, 1976, Stephen Rosenfeld writes an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," in which he sets out a media policy for dealing with LaRouche: "We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms. . . . The government should be encouraged to take all legal steps to keep the NCLC from violating the political rights of other Americans."

This was written when LaRouche was running for President in 1976 and seems to be part of a debate on giving fringe parties any coverage, particularly wacky violent fringe parties Perhaps we can pull up the full article in order to get the context but in any case I don't see how this is relevent to articles written about LaRouche a decade later or how it changes the fact that the articles passed muster with Post fact checkers and lawyers and were not challenged by LaRouche in a libel suit. AndyL 06:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you make the argument that we must accept the word of any publication that has not been successfully sued for libel, then you must extend that courtesy to all of the LaRouche-affiliated publications as well. They have never been sued for libel, despite the fact that their meager financial resources, and LaRouche's pariah status, would make them especially vulnerable to such suits. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If anyone has $3 you can buy the article from here Washington Post archives AndyL 06:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

*Loudoun Newcomer Lives On Heavily Guarded Estate by John Mintz 1985

AndyL 04:47, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Krusty's comments above show that he is (a) ignorant and (b) as prone to paranoid conspiracy theories as his mentor LaRouche. In 1971 LaRouche was an obscure semi-Trotskyist fringe ranter, no more dangerous than the dozens of other fringe ranters then active in the US, in fact a lot less dangerous than some. The idea that the Post would have even been aware of his existence in 1971, let alone organising a ban on him with all the other (Zionist?) press magnates, is laughable. That Krusty doesn't know this says a lot about his qualifications for taking the arrogant tone he has taken with me and John in relation to this article. Adam 06:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Herschell's position is that we can't use the Washington Post or NY Times as a reference (both are owned by the same company) or the Times of London (owned by Murdoch) or it seems any source other than those operated by Lyndon LaRouche. Perhaps Herschell would be better off writing an article on LaRouche for Wikinfo where he could express his POV to his heart's desire?AndyL 21:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is not my position. Use them to your heart's content, but recognize that they, too, have a POV -- The Post was gung-ho for the recent invasion of Iraq, which LaRouche vociferously opposed, and led the drive to shut down D.C. General Hospital, which LaRouche vociferously defended.--Herschelkrustofsky 22:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Post and the Times are not owned by the same company. Otherwise, yeah, there is no source we can use, as far as I can gather. john k 22:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. Anyway the problem is that there is no credible source that backs up Herschel's claims about LaRouche while there are a number of credible sources that are highly critical of LaRouche. AndyL 00:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, depends what you mean about claims. For instance, it does appear to be true that LaRouche met with, say, Indira Gandhi. I think most of the problems with Herschel's version are not so much errors so much as a consistent cherry-picking and misrepresentation of information to create a false impression. At any rate, we'll never get anywhere while the article is protected. Perhaps we should create Lyndon LaRouche/draft to work on Adam's version until we can remove protection? john k 00:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note that as per Andy's suggestion, I have submitted a new article at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/draft, and everyone can now commence opining about that one. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've moved your article over to Lyndon LaRouche/draft, so that we can discuss the draft on the talk page for it, rather than here, which is more awkward. john k 05:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

After reading this article, it seems that I only knew a small fraction of what the real LaRouche was all about. What I did already know matches what I found here in the article precisely. He's a kook, a facist, and a crook. However, Americans might be glad to know that we're at on par with the Russians. Its good to know that our home grown extremist right-wing crypto-fascists are at least as fun as theirs are. ;-) Can't let foreigners have all the fun scandalous figures. (This guy makes Nixon look like a Quaker.) RK 01:31, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

(This guy makes Nixon look like a Quaker.)

Oddly enough Nixon and Larouche were both Quakers (or at least raised as Quakers) ;) AndyL 05:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_3&oldid=789533644"