Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/Archive 1

Closed issues

These issues appear to be addressed to the satisfaction of all. Herschel: please move issues you have raised here as and when they are addressed to your satisfaction. Thanks. Martin 20:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

General POV characterizations of LaRouche

• "Lyndon LaRouche began his political career as a Marxist, and his political ideas retain certain characteristics of Marxism and Leninism, albeit in a very incoherent form." This is strictly Adam's personal opinion. Adam regards anyone who does not endorse Adam Smith as a Marxist/Leninist. This opinion is not even widely shared, let alone something which ought to be presented as fact.

• "Although LaRouche is frequently described as a fascist, his politics might better be described as a mutated form of Trotskyism, combined with his elaborate conspiracy theory and based on attacking individuals and groups rather than capitalists as a class." More of the same. Plus, the only reason that LaRouche is frequently described as a fascist, is precisely the same reason that Bill Clinton is described as a rapist: because a bunch of goons on the payroll of Richard Mellon Scaife managed to get their views into print. If this article were even slightly honest, this fact would be acknowledged.

A Leninist view of imperialism?

• "He still expounds a basically Leninist view of imperialism." This is Adam's POV, as seen in Adam's edits of neocolonialism, where he asserts that only leftists believe it exists. LaRouche expounds FDR's view of imperialism, which is also John Quincy Adams' view of imperialism.

Are LaRouche's economic ideas similar to those of Franco and Salazar

• "Despite LaRouche's rhetorical skill in presenting them as revolutionary, LaRouche's economic ideas are hardly original: they are similar to the policies of Germany under Bismarck and the statism of Spain under Franco and Portugal under Salazar."

This is less obviously ridiculous than Adam's original formulation, but no less false. The models for LaRouche are Lincoln and FDR. That's what he says, that's what he means, end of story. -- Herschel

Nelson Rockefeller

• "In the 1960s and 1970s, LaRouche was particularly focussed on the supposed danger posed by liberal Republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller believing that he was attempting to rescue international capitalism through aid schemes and, domestically, through antipoverty programs as a means of coopting the working class and Black underclass." This is incorrect; LaRouche did not attack Rockefeller for "aid schemes" and "antipoverty programs," but rather for Schachtian schemes to collect debt by imposing forced-labor programs and cutbacks in social services.

LaRouche's opponents

• "The Marxist concept of the ruling class was converted by LaRouche into a conspiracy theory, in which world capitalism was controlled by a secret cabal including the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Henry Kissinger, the Council on Foreign Relations and other standard villains of the extreme right, many though not all of them Jewish." This is a crock. The term "secret cabal" is POV -- LaRouche has never asserted that there was anything secret about his opponents. Their views and activities are a matter of public record. Likewise "standard villains of the extreme right" -- those individuals and groups have been criticized from all over the political spectrum. Adam is insinuating that LaRouche is a rightist, since Adam cannot demonstrate that he is one. And last but not least, "many though not all of them Jewish" -- more sleazy insinuation, aimed at creating the impression that LaRouche is an anti-Semite.

Press coverage

• "LaRouche claims that there is also a conspiracy by the "Establishment" and the press it allegedly controls to deny him coverage and prevent his views becoming known." This is inaccurate; LaRouche cites the Rosenfeld op-ed as evidence that there are those in the press cartels that seek to deny him truthful coverage. The existence of the John Train Salon illustrates that some folks are eager to provide LaRouche with plenty of misleading coverage, as are Adam and Andy, the principle authors of the Wikipedia articles.

Pro-nuclear leftists?

• "He calls for greater federal investment in science and technology, particularly the space program and nuclear energy (with a special emphasis on nuclear fusion.) Most of these are staples of both the traditional left and the modern anti-globalization movement." Give me a break! Name just one example where "the traditional left and the modern anti-globalization movement" called for nuclear energy or increased NASA funding.

Indiscriminate use of the term "Fascist"?

• "LaRouche himself frequently describes his enemies indiscriminately as fascists or proto-fascists." Sleazy POV. LaRouche has never used the terms "fascist" or "proto-fascist" indiscriminately.

From the biography page

• "At about this time LaRouche's attacks on the pro-Soviet U.S. Communist Party ceased, and LaRouche publications began to run pro-Soviet articles." First of all, are you sure that you want to put this in the section where you attempt to defend the bogus argument that LaRouche switched from left to right? The fact is, LaRouche publications were generally anti-Soviet during the 80s, but would acknowledge anything constructive in the USSR, such as some of their science programs, particularly with regard to fusion energy. The more you guys try to squeeze LaRouche into some sort of cartoonish "right-wing" or "left-wing" caricature, the more your propaganda will develop these sorts of paradoxes.

Club of Life

• "The group also adopted a position against abortion and ran a front group named "Club of Life" on the issue." The Club of Life was formed in response to attacks on LaRouche by the anti-abortion movement (which is inconvenient for Andy, who is attempting to lump LaRouche in with various "right-wing" causes). LaRouche has consistently refused to take a stand one way or the other on abortion (Andy, your memory must be failing, because you yourself put a link on one of the archived talk pages to a video clip from the Democratic Convention, where an enraged Baby Boomer was demanding that a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement take a position pro or con on abortion, which the youngster was refusing to do.) LaRouche has, however, attacked the philosophy of Malthusianism, and has attacked the right-to-lifers for their hypocritical refusal to fight euthanasia and the genocide being carried out against the Third World. The fact is, Andy, LaRouche has never sucked up to anyone in an attempt to gain support; he has never modified his own views in an attempt to gain support; he didn't modify his views to stay out of jail, although he was given that opportunity; your POV is all wet.

See [1] Weed Harper 14:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So then he criticises the pro-Lifers for not going far enough? But he doesn't criticise them for opposing abortion? AndyL 15:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andy, it's very simple. LaRouche has made it clear that he considers abortion a "hot button" issue, and he detests the mentality that reduces politics to such issues. He has never taken a position either for or against, because it would be simple-minded to do so. You are eager to classify him as pro-abortion, because it suits your POV agenda of trying defend the Blum-Montgomery theory that LaRouche went from being an orthodox leftist to being an orthodox rightist. The truth of the matter is, LaRouche has always been thoroughly unorthodox. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you deny that the National Right ot Life Committee gave LaRouche a score of 75%? AndyL 21:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche vs. Cheney

• "He also claims to be leading a campaign, begun in October 2002[4] (http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2002/020922_cheney_must_resign.html), to have Dick Cheney dumped from the Republican ticket. Like most LaRouche campaigns, this has received little if any notice in the media or among the general public." In fact, there were major attacks on this campaign by the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, which Andy well knows because he attempted to downplay their significance over at Talk:Leo Strauss. As far as the general public is concerned, did Andy travel down to the U.S. and take a poll? Over 4 million pamplets, and a larger number of leaflets, on the question of Cheney and the Straussian Chickenhawks were distributed on the streets of the U.S. And there was nothing the media cartels could do to stop it. (While we are on the subject of the National Review, I note that Andy has taken to quoting Gregory Rose. Rose may not be the most reliable source -- following his period of cohabiting with William F. Buckley, Rose reported, in a private conversation and in all seriousness, that Buckley had sexual relations with his pet spaniel.)

Steered to the right

• "During the 1970s LaRouche steered the NCLC away from the left and towards the extreme right, while retaining some of the slogans and attitudes of the left (as did the founder of fascism, the ex-Socialist Benito Mussolini, and many others since)."

The business about steering toward the extreme right is a myth, and even if it were not, trying to make a comparison to Mussolini would be propagandistic innuendo. -- Herschel

This does seem to be POV, especially the part about Mussolini, which seems to be in there to "prove" that LaRouche is a right winger, rather than to provide information. Certainly connections between NCLC and various far right groups (and also with the Reagan administration) can be discussed, since that is pretty well documented. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a fair observation. LaRouche did swing from the extreme left to the right.

How so? What policies did he change? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, he abandoned Marxism for one and moved towards some sort of amalgam of 19th century philosophers. AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since when is philosophy considered "extreme right"? And LaRouche had the "amalgam of philosphers" thing working as a teenager, back in the 30s, although the philosophers were never predominantly 19th century -- his favorite was Gottfried Leibniz. Also, some may consider Marx a 19th century philosopher. -- Herschel

I attributed the "shift to right" theory to Chip Berlet, and removed the POV about Mussolini. Weed Harper 05:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The attribution has been removed. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby

12. "In the 1970s also, LaRouche developed connections with the Ku Klux Klan and the Liberty Lobby, a leading extreme right group, both well- known for anti-Semitism."

I dare you to attempt to document this. What are "connections"? This is innuendo. -- Herschel

I agree, this could be made more precise. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

see [2]

I'm supposed to accept Chip Berlet's opinion as "documentation"? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Herschel quoted from "A Tactical Alliance with the Reactionary Right" from the above linked article and re-asked the same question - removed due to lack of space - follow the link instead. Martin (reworker)

Land bridge

• "Although the expression "Eurasian Land-Bridge," for example, has been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, there is no evidence that LaRouche has ever had anything to do with this project."

Deception -- the Landbrige and Asian Highway are not the same thing, nor has anyone outside of Adam asserted that they were -- combined with deliberate fallacy of composition. -- Herschel

You have yet to provide any independent evidence that the "Eurasian Land-Bridge" as you describe it exists. As I said earlier (see section on this page titled "the Land Bridge") all the articles you cite either do not mention the land bridge at all or cite LaRouche as their source. Despite the fact that you've failed to respond to my comments about the articles you repeat your dubious assertions.

The assertion that the "Asian Highway" is also called the "Eurasian Land-bridge" is yours, not mine. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You have yet to reply to the points I maike in the "Land-Bridge" section of this page. I have yet to see any evidence outside of the LaRouche movement that this project exists. However, you and the LaRouchites claim that the "Eurasian Land-Bridge" is nicknamed the "New Silk Road" which happens to be the nickname of the "Asian Highway" as it turns out. AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anti-War infiltration

• "He and his movement opposed the Gulf War of 1991 and attempted to infiltrate the anti-war movement." POV. LaRouche opposed the war from the word go. He didn't "infiltrate" anything.

Democratic infiltration

• "Since 1979 LaRouche has concentrated on infiltrating his followers into the Democratic Party."

Innuendo. I myself registered as a Democrat in 1972. Did I "infiltrate" the party? Wesley Clark registered as a Democrat just in time to declare his candidacy for the 2004 election. Did he "infiltrate"? -- Herschel

I agree. This could be phrased differently. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Democrats consider the LaRouche movement to be infiltrators and have taken action against them.

"The Democrats" you refer to are a number of Dixiecrats such as Don Fowler, not the party as a whole. I cited examples such as Sen. Eugene McCarthy who have publicly welcomed LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall the Democrats being particularly welcoming in the 1980s when LaRouche candidates won a few nominations in Illinois. AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Democratic primaries

• "The use of the NDPC name has, however, allowed LaRouche followers to compete seriously in Democratic primaries for lesser offices, and even occasionally to win them."

Innuendo. What allows LaRouche followers to compete seriously is the fulfillment of petitioning and othe legal requirements. The NDPC was a Political Action Committee like any other.

Maybe - some more detail here might be in order. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the NDPC has no actual link with the Democratic Party though the name implies that it does.

No Political Action Committee has an "actual link". The NDPC (which hasn't existed since the '80s) was no different than any other PAC. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "In 1979 he formed a Political Action Committee called the National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC), a name designed to convey the impression that it is part of the Democratic Party." POV speculation. Plus, it wasn't formed until the 80s.

Mark Fairchild

• "The best known example was in 1986, when a LaRouche candidate, Mark Fairchild, won the Democratic primary for the post of Lieutenant-Governor of Illinois."

There were two candidates, the other being Janice Hart, about whom there is an article in Wikipedia. I attempted to correct this early, and my correction was immediately reverted by Adam. -- Herschel

AIDS

10. "Some of the LaRouche organization's successes have come from exploiting public fears about the AIDS epidemic, which they blame on international conspirators."

If this sort of innuendo is given any credence, any candidate who puts forward a concrete solution to a contemporary problem (as LaRouche did, by arguing that AIDS should be restored to California's list of communicable diseases and made subject to public health law), can be charged with "exploiting public fears" about that problem. Did FDR "exploit public fears" about the Great Depression? And, LaRouche never blamed AIDS on any international conspirators.

It were accurate to say that the LaRouche organization "advocated a policy" or "took a position" with respect to AIDS; to say they "exploited public fears" is innuendo. LaRouche never said that AIDS was caused by a conspiracy; he did say that the relevant international institutions made no serious effort to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. Say that, if you wish.

I definitely recall reading some of this in one of the issues of New Federalist that I've read. He says the same thing about drugs, as I recall. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the 1980s he blamed AIDS on Moscow.

Bullshit. Produce a quote. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here's the full quote:

So far, the world's leading experts see no way in which the Soviet biological-warfare apparatus could have created AIDS in a test- tube. However, it is in the strategic interests of Moscow to see to it that the West does nothing to stop this pandemic; within a few years, at the present rates, the spread of AIDS in Asia, Africa, Western Europe, and the Americas would permit Moscow to take over the world almost without firing a shot."

"The Lesson of the Merchant of Venice", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Executive Intelligence Review, November 1, 1985

This quote does not in any way justify the formulation, "he blamed AIDS on international conspirators." --Herschelkrustofsky 20:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

personal corruption

19. "One of the most damning aspects of the trial was the revelation of LaRouche's personal corruption. While lenders were told that LaRouche had no money to repay their loans, he in fact spent US$4.2 million on real estate in Virginia and on "improvements" to his 200-acre Leesburg estate. These included a swimming pool and horse riding ring."

Is this false, or do you think it's POV? john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(time passes)

So what's wrong with this?

Nothing, other than the fact that it ain't so.

Are the court transcripts online?AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there any source at all for this statement? It looks bogus to me. --Peter_Abelard@ausi.com

developing in the fifties

• "LaRouche did not develop his current political and economic ideas in the 1950s or '60s: until at least 1969 he was a Trotskyist, although an increasingly unorthodox one."

Adam is a mind-reader? -- Herschel

LaRouche was a Trotskyist until the late-1960s, he then "discovered" Rosa Luxermburg's writings on capitalism and adopted them and started making his own revisions. I suggest you read some of LaRouche's own writings from the period though I doubt the "LaRouche movement" will make them available to you.

I have LaRouche's writings from that period. Do you? Or do you rely on Chip Berlet's characterizations? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I did look through a text by Lyn Marcus called "Dialectical Economics" a few years ago. I also have a copy of Rosa Luxemburg's "Accumulation of Capital" published by LaRouche with an introduction by him. I've also read what varioius contemporaries of LaRouche in the SWP say about him. AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See, for example,

• Sex Maniac & Demagogue by Clara Fraser, a former colleague of LaRouche in his Trotskyist days - reproduced in the second part of this email to the Marxmail e-list.
• True History of Lyn Marcus (Lyndon LaRouche) and the Labor Committees1975 article published by the International Workers Party whose members joined LaRouche's NCLC for a period in the early 1970s.

Tim Wohlforth has also written two books which I haven't read but which may be useful The Prophet's Children: Travels on the American Left ISBN: 1573922854 and On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left ISBN: 0765606399 The latter has a section on LaRouche and should be of interest given Wohlforth's association with LaRouche in the 1960s. AndyL 16:51, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nazi studies

• "Some ex-NCLC members who left the group at this time say that LaRouche was studying the career of Adolf Hitler and consciously adopting the tactics of the early Nazi Party." An accusation as serious as this cannot responsibly be attributed to dubious, unnamed sources.

So nothing that any ex-NCLC member who wanted to remain anonymous said can be used for the article? john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Under these circumstances, I would say no. It represents a convenient way out, for persons with a desperate need to discredit LaRouche, and no concrete evidence -- although NBC got away with precisely that in the libel suit. Bear in mind, you could probably find an anonymous source to accuse just about any public figure of being Hitlerian, and if you can't find one, you can always say that you did.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you can't quote Ramsey Clark without a big disclaimer, then anonymous sources should be out. I removed that line, and the one below. Weed Harper 06:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Adam_Carr reinserted them without comment. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "In the 1970s LaRouche developed an intense interest in fascism, and began to adopt some of its slogans and practices, while maintaining (as he still does) an outward stance of anti-fascism."

LaRouche developed an intense interest in preventing fascism. What "slogans and practices" does Adam allege that he adopted? -- Herschel

Denying accusations

• (regarding charges of anti-Semitism): "LaRouche for his part has denied these accusations, asserting that those who accuse him are part of the oligarchic conspiracy to rule the world."

Nonsense; LaRouche simply asserted that those who accuse him are liars. Adam's propaganda would be more effective if he didn't lay it on so thick. -- Herschel

need more info before I can comment

Does LaRouche promote a "Jewish Conspiracy" theory?

• "The Marxist concept of the ruling class was converted by LaRouche into a gigantic conspiracy theory, in which world capitalism was controlled by a secret cabal including the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, Henry Kissinger, the Council on Foreign Relations and other standard villains of the extreme right, many though not all of them Jewish."

Propagandistic crap. Adam is pulling a little sleight of hand here, trying to lump LaRouche in with the right-wing conspirophiles. In addition, it is not the case that "many" of LaRouche's opponents are Jewish. And, Adam wishes to imply that LaRouche is attacking someone because they are Jewish; this sort of thing trivializes anti-Semitism, by implying that anyone who ever criticized someone with a Jewish name is an anti-Semite. -- Herschel

Reagan relations

• "This followed a concerted campaign by LaRouche to develop close relations with the Reagan Administration, by publishing flattering articles about administration officials in the LaRouche press." -- Herschel

Innuendo; LaRouche publications wrote articles that were both favorable and highly critical of various officials and policies.

Computers are an Enemy of the People?

• "Following his recovery, LaRouche obtained work as a management consultant including, paradoxically for a Marxist, advising companies on how to use computers to maximise efficiency and speed-up production to the detriment of workers." This is ridiculous, sleazy POV.

Christopher White

• "On a flight from London to the NCLC's national conference, White had a nervous breakdown and declared that the CIA was planning to kill Carol and LaRouche and that he had been brainwashed to assist in the killings." What is your source on this? I have no first-hand knowledge of this affair, but I have heard from others that White said that his flight was inexplicably delayed, and someone slipped him some sort of psychedelic in a cocktail lounge at Heathrow. Please produce a source that is more authoritative than someone's blogspot.

Support for R&D

• "By the 1980s, LaRouche had became a strong advocate of nuclear power and the Strategic Defense Initiative. The LaRouche organization raised funds for the NCLC from supporters of these projects." Andy is re-writing history, in an attempt to support the shopworn "swing from left to right" theory. The LaRouche organization supported nuclear energy, especial fusion, throughout the 1970s. There was an issue of the Campaigner around 1973, I believe, with the cover story on "Nuclear Fusion." In 1977, the U.S. Labor Party put out a mass circulation pamphlet entitled Sputnik of the 70s: the Science Behind the Soviets' Beam Weapon. The Strategic Defense Initiative, which was indeed modeled on LaRouche's proposals, was announced in March of 1983.

Base of support

• "LaRouche and his movement continued their journey to the right, abandoning any orientation towards labor in the late 1970s and soliciting funds instead from the wealthy." This is a fantasy, concocted to support bogus POV.

Oh? So you're saying LaRouche gets his support from factory workers then? The fact is that it was in the mid-1970s that the LaRouche movement stopped actively trying to recruit "the working class" and moved their fundraising efforts to airports and the like to target more affluent people. When did you start hanging out in airports instead of by factory gates, Herschel? If this is a "fantasy" then does that mean the LaRouchians one encounters at LAX and JFK are a mere mirage?AndyL 21:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that LaRouche gets his support from factory workers, as well as a broad cross-section of the American population. During each of his campaigns during the 80s, LaRouche published lists of endorsements from Union officials. The fact is, Andy, you are engaging in pure POV speculation, and your snotty tone is poor Wikiquette. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FBI informer?

• "He now maintains that he was soon disillusioned with Marxism and stayed in the SWP only as an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
• "Once again, LaRouche now maintains that he was an FBI agent during all this activism."

Neither Adam nor Dennis King provides a source for this quote, because there is none. This is a particularly wild and egregious invention.

This should be sourced, I agree. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is certainly not "undocumentable." Since this is describing LaRouche's own claims, it should be able to be documented fairly easily. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They're someone else's claims. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've read this elsewhere. Hershell ,what do you say LaRouche says to excuse his long sojurn in the SWP?

I am a new participant, so I apologize for any violations of etiquette. The whole issue of whether LaRouche shifted from "left" to "right" is a distraction. As is the question as to whether he is a Marxist. LaRouche has not helped by rewriting history in several versions of his biography. What appears to me to be true is that LaRouche has always had distinct ideas about economics. As Lyn Marcus he wrote an a fascinating article in the early 1960s that was anthologized in a book I stumbled across in the University of Delaware library about 20 years ago. In the article, he theorized about the coming "Third Stage of Imperialism." He identified this as the "runaway shop" phenomenon. Capital would move to runaway shops because capitalist society was not yet ready to fully automate factory production in the developed world. Here you have all the classic LaRouche: opposition to financial capitalism, celebration of the march of technology, obsession about the third world and coming crises. These themes have remained constant. Then why the back and forth about Marxism? First, LaRouche as Marcus was always very critical of most economic theory that called itself Marxist and critical of what LaRouche/Marcus saw as Marx's "errors" (the growth tables in Volume II of Capital). Second, as he was finding himself faced with a Left that was confused about whether the Malthusianism of the Club of Rome was the enemy, LaRouche's followers began to do research into economic ideas that could appeal to a "Gaullist" element that LaRouche thought existed among the American upper middle class (he thought he could find them in airports). Allen Salisbury and others found that Henry Carey and others combined many of the elements that LaRouche had been assembling to push the left into a pro-nuclear technological optimism. So he may have been converted (a bit). Again, LaRouche is his own worst enemy here. It simply isn't credible to go from the Marxism of his classic "Dialectical Economics (DC Heath)" to calling Marx a "British agent" in four years. I wish he could straighten all this out. But his ego seems to get in the way. But that doesn't mean that his fans shouldn't help him out by owning up to some of his "Machiavelian" re-inventions. You would establish some well needed credibility.

Your comments are most welcome, although perhaps they would be better located on the more general Talk:Lyndon LaRouche page -- this page is for the discussion of specific assertions in the present article that I, or others, allege to be incorrect or biased. The issue in this section is whether LaRouche claimed to be an FBI agent infiltrating the SWP.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He has said many things, but not that one. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. How does LaRouche explain his long sojurn in the SWP and then continuing to call himself a Marxist until the mid-1970s?AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the fact that he was a Marxist. I'm disputing the allegation that he was an FBI informant. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No one is saying he was an FBI informant. They are saying that LaRouche claimed to be an FBI informant. I seem to recall he explained away his long sojurn with the SWP etc by making that claim in his book "The Power of Reason". Does anyone have access to a copy? I'm amazed there has been no "Collected Works of Lyndon LaRouche" published ;) AndyL 19:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From The Power of Reason: 1988 an autobiography by Lyndon H LaRouche pg 108:

Amidst these developments, I was induced to reencounter the SWP.

I had turned from making my routine purchases at the lobby newsstand in New York City's Chanin Building when I was accosted by an amiable gentleman who identified himself in a hushed voice as Special Agent Coffey of the FBI. He must speak with me about the SWP, which had become the major national security concern of his bureau. Could we step to one side to speak? Being an amiable fellow myself, I gestured to the opposite side of the lobby, where the windows of Longchamps' restaurant overlooked the morning bustle towards the elevator banks

Would I work for the FBI inside the SWP? Against old friends and acquainances, who were essentially as patriotic, in their own way, as the FBI itself? By no means; leave them in peace to find their own way. Yet, although I would not volunteer that fact in an off-chance encounter with the FBI, there were a few aournd the SWP leadership who I thought quite capbable of doing things behind the backs of the SWP membership in general. I offered Coffey a compromise; I would not be an FBI spy, but I would not condone acts against national security. He could assume that I would act accordingly.

AndyL 20:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Say what? Try typing that one again. I assume that the typos are what make it impossible to understand. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed the passage. AndyL 21:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, do you stand by your statement that the claim that LaRouche said he remained in the SWP because of the FBI is "is a particularly wild and egregious invention"? It seems that, as with your other objections (eg the Holocust), this claim of yours is built on sand. Do any of your objections stand up to scrutiny? Are you deliberately lying or do you simply not know what LaRouche has actually said?AndyL 21:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why, yes, I do stand by it. LaRouche isn't saying he would spy for the FBI. He says (allow me to remind you from your own citation): "I would not be an FBI spy, but I would not condone acts against national security." What is unclear about that? LaRouche makes quite clear, in the book you cite, what his reasons were for remaining in the SWP. You have a bad habit of trying to twist all research to suit your own cherished theories, which is particularly inappropriate behavior for a person who aspires to be a Wikipedia editor. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point is that LaRouche is fibbing about his Marxist past. If you read his autobiographies he denies he was a Marxist but claims he was a "Hamiltonian" all along. He makes the bizarre claim that he joined the SWP in 1948 because Eisenhower decided not to seek the Democratic nomination for the presidency (!) and goes to great lengths to explain that he wasn't a Marxist but gives no clear explanation of why he joined the SWP. He then claims he reactivated his SWP membership in the late 50s/early 60s not because he was a Marxist but because of concerns about "national security" prompted by his encounter with an FBI agent. He also denies having been a Marxist in the late 1960s implying that he only taught a course on Marxist dialectics as a way of infiltrating the new left.

So, the point remains, he's not upfront about his past, rather than admit that his ideas have changed, he denies ever having been a Marxist and claims that his later involvement with the SWP was at the behest of the FBIAndyL 23:05, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You said earlier "I'm not disputing the fact that he was a Marxist.", given that LaRouche denies ever having been a Marxist do you stand by your statement?AndyL 23:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where does he deny that he was a Marxist? LaRouche has also mentioned that he sought out the SWP because they were the only organization willing to publicly fight Joe McCarthy. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:26, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the first version of The Power of Reason LaRouche writes "I was never an economic Marxist". AndyL 00:39, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably not. As I recall, his textbook Dialectical Economics (D.C. Heath and Company, 1975) makes all sorts of criticisms and corrections to Marx. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So do you concede that LaRouche "denies ever having been a Marxist" despite having been a member of the SWP for over a decade?AndyL 00:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I do not. LaRouche always had unique and original ideas about economics (as much as you may wish that that were not the case), so I believe him when he says he was "never an economic Marxist." On the other hand, he made common cause with the SWP for a variety of reasons. He clearly respected Marx -- and probably still does -- while pointing to serious flaws in Marx's method. Please curb your impulse to spin everything -- the truth simply does not correspond to your caricature. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is from an interview on KPFK August 24:

LAROUCHE: "But my thrust... you know, in dealing with Marxism, it's very simple. I was not really emotionally a Marxist ever, but coming out of World War II, and seeing the rightwing turn in the United States, under Truman-- it was as if, the day that Roosevelt died, and Truman became President, the direction of the United States had changed for the worse. And I saw people around me going crazy, grovelling before this fear of this new rightwing insurgency, especially by 1948. So, at that point, I found that I thought only socialists, or people associated with them, would fight against the right wing, typified by Trumanism, and then, of course, by Joe McCarthy. And once Eisenhower got rid of McCarthy, and put the lid on that kind of thing, I was no longer interested in being associated with these socialists.

But then came the killing of Kennedy, the Missile Crisis, the launching of the Indo-China war, and I went back into it on the hope that somehow the so-called left would have some spark left in it to fight this new rightwing danger, this utopian danger, typified by the military policy going into Indo-China. So, I was influenced by that, and in dealing with this layer of the population, in the 1960s, and in early 1970s, as young people, younger people who were full of vim and vitality on campuses and elsewhere, and who were pro-Marxist. I tried to give my view of Marx, as much as possible, and I did.

I gave an honest job, but I always kept my own views, independent views, there, and that ended -- but I've always been the same, even though I've run into these things and adopted these various undertakings. I mean, society is like that, you know. Life, when people have lived a longer time, they realize, your life is a social process. You don't always agree with people but you cooperate with them anyway. You find common purposes. You find they should be well-served. You serve the common purpose loyally, and you have a division, and you go in a different direction. That, to me, is history."

Healy influence

3. "LaRouche was heavily influenced by Healy's conspiratorial world-view and his advocacy of violence and intimidation, something foreign to the intellectual tradition of mainstream Trotskyism."

Again, no source cited, because none exists. This is naked propaganda, beyond innuendo. -- Herschel

What part of it is wrong? john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How does Adam know that LaRouche "was heavily influenced by Healy's conspiratorial world-view and his advocacy of violence and intimidation"? Answer: he doesn't. He got it from Dennis King, who presumably is a mind-reader. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

These three objections reflect LaRouche's retrospective re-writing of his biography. He now wishes to deny he was ever a communist, despite being a member of a communist party for nearly 20 years. It is true that he was always a rather eccentric communist (which is why he joined the SWP rather than the CPUSA), and that he got steadily nuttier through the 60s, but that doesn't alter the fact that he was a dedicated communist. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's quite a lot of stuff out there on Healy that could be used to source the statement that Healy had a catastrophist view and was prone to violence. Try Harry Ratner's memoirs of being in the Healy's group. There's quite a lot of good stuff on Healy on the What Next? website. AndyL 04:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Straw man. Put it in article about Healy, unless you can quote LaRouche on Healy. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is innuendo. How does Adam know what LaRouche was thinking? Did LaRouche say he was "heavily influenced" by Healy, or anything Healy advocated? -- Herschel

This should probably be put differently. "Critics have argued that LaRouche was heavily influenced..."

I've modified this. Others on the left have made this observation so I've made a qualification accordingly.

state control

• "In practice this amounts to advocating centralised, though not socialist, state control of the economy, with heavy state investment in industry and science, and presumably administered by members of the "Promethian" elite such as LaRouche himself."

Clumsy and obvious innuendo. -- Herschel

seems like a fair description of LaRouche to me.

Is that your conception of NPOV? I hope you are kidding. And if not, the matter is straightforward: LaRouche is on the record of being a supporter of "Big Government" a la FDR. That means that the citizenry would control the regulation of the economy by voting for a government that suits its needs. The alternative is to have the economy regulated by an unelected Wall Street establishment, typified by the Fed. Adam's formulation implies that LaRouche is in favor of some sort of dictatorship. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "Promethian elite" clause has been removed in the current version. Martin 18:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

fundraising

16. "Like most cults, the LaRouche organisation devotes much of its energy to the sale of literature and the soliciting of small donations at airports and on university campuses."

Innuendo. The LaRouche organization raises money exactly as do other political movements, except without the emphasis on large foundation grants.

I agree that this is problematic. Take out the "like most cults" bit and it should be fine. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps "like most cults" is overselling the argument. A lot of groups that aren't cults sell literature on university campuses or airports. I've removed the first three words from the passage.

telemarketing

17. "It also operates more sophisticated telemarketing groups, soliciting donations by phone, usually under the guise of various patriotic front organisations to conceal the real source of the phone calls."

Bullshit, if you'll pardon my French.

I would suspect that this is true, but it should be sourced more clearly. What are the front organizations? john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I believe this was proven in court

Then you should have no problem documenting it. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed that part. Weed Harper 06:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

what were those convictions?

"In 1988 LaRouche was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for illegally soliciting unsecured loans and tax code violations."

This is inaccurate; the charges were all conspiracy charges, and there was no allegation that the loans were illegally solicited. The alleged conspiracy (see significant omissions from the current version) was to deliberately fail to repay the loans. -- Herschel

I've changed this so its consistent with the Washington Post report.

Rosenfeld

• "He cites as evidence for this a September 24, 1976 opinion piece in the Washington Post, entitled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," and written by Stephen Rosenfeld, a senior editor (who is Jewish)."

Whether Rosenfeld is Jewish is irrelevant; lacking any evidence, Adam is trying to make a case for LaRouche being an anti-Semite, purely through insinuation.

I've removed the reference to Rosenfeld being Jewish

Queen as drug runner

• . "Queen Elizabeth was a drug runner."

This opinion is attributed to LaRouche -- it is a well known hoax. The author of the quote was Mark Nykanen, who was working as a telejournalist for NBC in 1980 when the quote was fabricated.

I don't know about this specific quote. But a quick look at any issue of the New Federalist shows similarly wacky comments about the British royal family to be omnipresent in LaRouchite publications. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Use a real quote, then.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not a hoax -- I remember listening to LaRouche explain it on a television interview many years ago. His explanation was that England did supervise the importation of drugs in the 19th century to other countries (e.g. China), and that Queen Elizabeth symbolizes England. Both statements are true, although the resulting description of QEII as a drug-runner is misleading (and in my opinion a bizarrely self-defeating way to make a point) Slrubenstein

Your memory does not mislead you. LaRouche did frequently discuss the 19th Century role of the British, although to put it a bit more sharply, they turned India into an opium plantation, and then fought the Opium War against China to force them to buy the product. They also pioneered the business of drug money laundering in colonies like Hong Kong, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. However, LaRouche would never say that QEII "symbolizes" England; he would be more apt to say that she is the titular CEO of one of the world's largest conglomerates, including (as I recall) companies like Rio Tinto Zinc, as well as other, shadier enterprizes. These charges are all completely reasonable and verifiable. Mark Nykanen's role was to substitute a bizarrely self-defeating formulation, attribute it to LaRouche, and use it as a straw man. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prometheans

• "He began to regard himself and his followers as "Prometheans," superior to all other people" This is a fabrication. LaRouche counterposed the term "Promethean" to Friedrich Nietzsche's categories of "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" in the discussion of Aesthetics, arguing that Nietzsche's approach was wrong.

Should be able to be documented from LaRouchite publications of the time period.

I don't understand this so I can't comment :)

• "He began to regard himself and his followers as "Prometheans," superior to all other people" This is a fabrication. LaRouche counterposed the term "Promethean" to Friedrich Nietzsche's categories of "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" in the discussion of Aesthetics, arguing that Nietzsche's approach was wrong.

I took that line out. Weed Harper 06:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Twice. Adam should provide some justification before he puts it in again. Weed Harper 14:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

violent and disruptive tactics

• "'Operation Mop-Up' began with LaRouche's declaration that 'We must take hegemony from the CP-from here on in, the CP cannot hold a meeting on the East Coast. We'll mop them up in two months.'" Presumably you have a source for this quote?

• "and under his direction the NCLC adopted the violent and disruptive tactics of fascist groups of the 1920s and '30s."

• "...under his direction the NCLC adopted violent and disruptive tactics, physically attacking meetings of the SWP, the Communist Party and other groups, who were classed by LaRouche as "left-protofascists." During "Operation Mop-Up," NCLC members engaged in a series of well-documented beatings of members of these groups."

"Well-documented" would mean arrests; if you intend to accept allegations in the press by LaRouche's opponents, you ought to also include the FOIA airtel, which is actually "well-documented". -- Herschel

That the NCLC adopted violent and disruptive tactics seems to me indisputable. Comparing them to Fascists seems to me to be rather POV, though.

I have removed that. Weed Harper 05:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why do you feel that police arrests are the only relevant documentation here? Martin 21:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because they have more weight than hearsay. I don't think that anyone will dispute the fact that there are those who are looking for any means possible to discredit LaRouche; Adam has essentially admitted that of himself. Therefore, I think that there ought to be evidence a bit more substantial than someone quoted in the Village Voice, saying that a LaRouche supporter beat them up. Arrests would be an example of something more substantial, although there might be other examples as well. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam has added "But there are no documented incidents of CPUSA or SWP members initiating attacks on NCLC members. According to LaRouche supporters, the FBI sent the NCLC a list of CPUSA members and their home addresses in the hope that the NCLC would attack these individuals." What LaRouche supporter said that? And there is no documented incident of either side starting it -- it's "he said, she said." Weed Harper 14:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Operation Mop-Up Documentation

Herschell asked for documentation re Operation Mop-Up:

Nat Hentoff, Of Thugs and Liars, the Village Voice, 1/24/74, p. 8.

""based on more than 30 interviews…"

"A series of beatings were taking place on the streets, in left-wing party offices, and on college campuses. The perpetrators were members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees. "

"To cite only some of the incidents: "

"Michael Maggio, a graduate student at Temple University: hospitalized. "

"Steve Rasmussen, a student at Temple: nose broken. "

"Two members of the Young Workers Liberation League…and one member of the Communist Party, at a meeting of the NAACP in Buffalo: all hospitalized, one with a deep head cut. "

"Jesse Smith, a member of the Socialist Workers Party in New York, attacked by members of the NCLC on Broadway in lower Manhattan: hospitalized with a severely fractured arm, along with face and head gashes requiring 11 stitches."

---

Charles M. Young, "Mind Control, Political Violence & Sexual Warfare: Inside the NCLC," Crawdaddy, June 1976, p. 48-56.

"Incidents are too numerous to mention, but among the choicer ones were disruption of a Martin Luther King Coalition meeting in Buffalo where they beat a women who was seven months pregnant; a riot at Columbia where about 60 NCLCers stormed a stage during a mayoral debate in a failed attempt to assault the CP candidate, and an attack on an SWP meeting in Detroit where they beat a paraplegic with clubs."

---

According to the Chronology of Labor Committee Attacks, issued by New York Committee to Stop Terrorist Attacks, 1973, after the attack at Columbia, LaRouche's New Solidarity, (4/3-5/5, 1973) wrote:

"The clown show is over. The NCLC warns the SWP and its comrades-in-hysteria: when you did all the fighting for the CP at the Mayoral forum, we held back - we gave you a mild warning, though several of your members were bloodied and broken. But should you repeat as goons for the CP, we will put all of you in the hospital: we will deal with you as we are dealing with the CP."

AndyL 00:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the references andy, thats great. They arn't exactly from impartial sources tho, are they? Sam [Spade] 00:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nat Hentoff hardly seems disreputable. john k 01:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The last source may not be impartial but I don't see how you can doubt the first two. AndyL 01:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Village Voice?? Thats the kind paper I'd try reading for laughs, and end up schredding in disgust ;) Sam [Spade] 01:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is the Washington Post a better source? Ideological Odyssey:From Old Left to Far Right

In April 1973, LaRouche ordered members to attack members of the Communist Party (CPUSA) and others in a plan called "Operation Mop-up," according to ex-members and published reports.

The group's newspaper, New Solidarity, reported then that "the NCLC has launched 'Operation Mop-up,' which will bury the Nixon-allied Communist Party in six to eight weeks." The article said the group would enter Communist meetings to accomplish this. "We destroy the CP," it went on, "because it is an absolutely necessary step to ensure that the working class in the USA and Western Europe is prepared with competent leadership . . . ."

In the following months, there were about 40 fights at gatherings of Communists and others, according to former associates of LaRouche and published reports. Many people were injured, and some LaRouche supporters were arrested, but there apparently were no convictions.

"Mobile squads of helmeted, club-wielding goons invaded bookstores and offices of the CPUSA, Socialist Workers Party and Peking-line groups, attacking their members there and on the street," said the study by journalist Rees.

Former members said some attacks were in retaliation for assaults by Communists, and others were unprovoked. LaRouche said in an interview that his supporters fought only when attacked.

At the time, LaRouche berated his followers for not being tough enough and criticized those who tried to avoid participating in the fights, according to ex-members and persons knowledgeable about the group.

"People would be called on the carpet to explain themselves," said one former member. "They were told, 'If you thought this was bad, wait until the revolution, when people would be carrying guns.' "

"There was a tremendous emphasis on being psychologically ruthless: 'Can you guys really take it?' " another said. "Mop-up" started the organization's move toward being a "security-conscious, paranoid, 24-hour-a-day thing . . . . It changed the organization psychologically."

AndyL 01:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I donno if it actually is better, but I like it better ;). For some reason I found it hard to believe this seemingly harmless old weirdo would be out beating the heck out of pregnant ladies and cripples, but thats plenty of references to say he is (or is in favor of it, or whatever). Good job, I love citations :) Sam [Spade] 01:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jewish deaths in the Holocaust

15. "In 1981 LaRouche said that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis."

A complete fabrication, and, for obvious reasons, no source cited. -- Herschel

Source should be cited for this, I agree. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will check this. If I can't find a quote to verify it, I will delete it. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Source found

(added to article: In 1978 LaRouche described the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," and his German second wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, dismissed it as a "swindle." These references are sourced in Dennis King's book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. In 1981 LaRouche said that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis. This statement is also sourced by Dennis King. In January 1981 LaRouche's New Solidarity International Press Service issued a statement titled "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis")

Is Dennis King's book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" the only source for the holocaust denial charges? Does LaRouche admit to having made those statements? If it is, or if he does not, we should change the emphasis regarding them. Sam [Spade] 16:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam did not volunteer the fact that he drew his entire article from the King book. He admitted it when I called him on it. And how did I know? Because the King book is indeed the sole published source for some of the fabulous inventions that Adam now seeks to foist upon the unsuspecting Wikipedia readership. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:00, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Krusty said in an earlier discussion that King gave no source for attributing that statement to LaRouche. In fact King does give a source, which I have cited, much as I dislike direct citations in encyclopaedia articles. Unless you are going to accuse King of simply inventing the source (something which would be easy to prove and well-known once proved), I think you have to accept that citation. LaRouche never "admits" anything, as is usually the case with megalomaniacs. Adam 16:54, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

what I was getting at is that these are just the sort of statements used to smear a person, and thus must be treated delicately in case there is any dubious nature to the sourcing. Sam [Spade] 17:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam: academic procedure 101: I have provided a citation for the statement from a published source. If you think the citation is bogus, the onus is now on you to demonstrate that (eg, from an independently published refutation - LaRouche denials won't suffice). Otherwise the citation stands. Adam 23:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam writes: He explicity states that "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews," a direct repudiation of his 1981 statement that only 1.5 million died and those not as a result of a deliberate plan of extermination. This article can be seen as a significant (if unacknowledged) retreat by LaRouche from his statements of the 1970s and 1980s. However, there is nothing here to retreat from, because there is no "1981 statement that only 1.5 million died." Adam knows it; he cannot document it; but he hopes to get away with it, crudely propagandistic as it is. And the entire article is permeated with similar fabrications. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He notes a LaRouchite source for that claim. It is up to you to discredit the citation, I should think. john k 06:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--Herschelkrustofsky 06:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) Look again -- he notes Dennis King, alleging the existence of a LaRouchite source. I would be shocked to learn that either of you had ever read something by LaRouche; Adam's assertion that he has difficulty understanding LaRouche is credible, but I suspect that there is simply a passage in Dennis King where it says "LaRouche is difficult to understand." And, we've been over this before:

6. "In 1980 LaRouche said that only 1.5 million Jews had died in World War II, not the generally accepted 6 million." A complete fabrication, and, for obvious reasons, no source cited.

Source should be cited for this, I agree. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I will check this. If I can't find a quote to verify it, I will delete it. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I did check it, and found that King had in fact cited a source, contrary to Krusty's assertion that he had not. The source is a LaRouche press release, as noted in the article. If anyone wants to allege that the citation is bogus, it is up to them to prove it. Adam 07:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The question of sources

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. The quote from King's book is: "A few more NCLC members protested when LaRouche announced that only one and a half million Jews, not six million, were killed in the Holocaust. Contemptuously ignoring his followers' complaints, he issued a press release reaffirming the 1.5 million figure." (Lyndon LaRouche, page 43).

King's referencing for this is: "ONLY ONE A HALF MILLION KILLED IN HOLOVCAUST: LHL [Lyndon H LaRouche], "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism"; "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis," NSIPS [New Solidarity International Press Service] news release, Jan. 17, 1981." (Lyndon LaRouche, page 382)

(In an earlier note, King cites the article "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism" as being from "New Solidarity, Dec. 8, 1978.")

So, King provides two specific citations for his statement about what LaRouche said. This was in a book published by a reputable publisher (Doubleday), 15 years ago.

Krusty, however, says the reference is "a complete fabrication" and later that "there is no "1981 statement that only 1.5 million died."" Krusty's contention therefore is not just that King is biased or unfair or unreliable, but that the documents King cites never existed, that King actually forged these citations.

Does Krusty seriously think that if King had forged the citations in such a hotly contested book this would not have become immediately known and widely publicised? It's not as if this is a difficult thing to check. There must be many archives of LaRouche literature in the US. Either the 1978 article and the 1981 press release King cites exist, or they don't.

It were difficult to debate whether King forged a document, because he doesn't present one. He just says that he heard one exists. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Google search suggests that King has never been accused of forgery, not even at LaRouche websites. Can Krusty provide evidence of such an accusation being made? If not, can he explain why no-one appears to have mentioned this forgery in the 15 years that the book has been circulating and the LaRouche organisation has been working to discredit it? (The existence of an accusation, of course, would not prove the allegation, but it would be a start.)

It is incumbent on Krusty to make a clear statement on this if he wants anything he says in this debate to be taken seriously. The question to be answered is: Does Krusty allege that King forged the citations in his book? If so, what is his evidence for this proposition? Adam 10:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche comments extensively on King's habitual lying in this statement: "The Tale of the Hippopotamus, and there is a discussion of King's, shall we say, unique role in the annals of LaRouche slanderers, here: The John Train Salon.

I do not own a copy of King's book, and I do not recall whether the precise formulation that Adam is using is King's, or whether Adam is putting a bit of spin on King's formulation. I recall reading a copy of LaRouche's Campaigner magazine in 1978, entitled "Zionism is not Judaism", which asserted that the majority of Jews who were killed under the Nazi regime were worked to death in slave labor camps like Auschwitz, rather than simply exterminated out of hand, as happened after the notorious Wahnsee conference. I presume that this is the oblique reference in Adam's article "that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis", which formulation may be a deliberately transmogrified re-write of the assertion in Campaigner.

Answer the question!

No-one can or should believe anything Krusty says on any subject until he answers the questions put to him four or five times now. These are: Does he or does he not allege that Dennis King forged the two citations about LaRouche's comments on the Holocaust in 1978 and 1981? If so, what is his evidence? Unless he either substantiates this allegation, or retracts it, I am entitled to assume that everything Krusty says is untrue. Adam 07:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Holocaust allegations are just that, allegations; Dennis King provides no quotes, and I'm certain that he would if he could. I can only respond to allegations by a counter-assertion that they are false, and that Dennis King's opinion is not credible. Adam considers it to be a legitimate tactic to assert that there are no "academic authorities" in the English-speaking world (I qualify that, because LaRouche is accorded full respect in other parts of the world, such as at the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Zayed Centre. Adam may rail against both institutions, but they are nonetheless institutions) that vouch for LaRouche, so I think that it is fair to add that the same is true for Dennis King. Outside of his sponsors (see above), no one recognizes King as anything other than a piece of sleazy wreckage from the drug culture. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All King is doing is asserting that documents exist, and asking us to accept his characterizations of what they say. And I am certainly entitled to raise the issue of King's credibility. Adam has been hyperventilating for 2 weeks about LaRouche's. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Unanswered Questions

Does Krusty allege that Dennis King forged the two citations about LaRouche's comments on the Holocaust in 1978 and 1981, or does he not? If so, what is his evidence? We are all still waiting for the answer to this simple question.

It were difficult to discuss whether King forged anything, because he neither produces, nor quotes, any such document. As I have pointed out before, in a dozen or so answers to your posts, the "citations" in your article amount to the following: a statement from anonymous sources characterizing LaRouche's views at the time; an assertion by King that a press release exists, which King does not quote, but rather offers his own characterization; and a reference to an (also not quoted) article, which sounds like a distortion of an editorial I recall in the 1978 "Zionism is not Judaism" issue of the Campaigner. This is a full and complete answer to your questions. You may pretend it is not, if you like. You may also continue to insist that you are entitled to set the ground rules for this debate, which you are not. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Still not satisfied

Provide a quote, or delete. -- Herschel

He provided a reference to New Solidarity. It is up to you to prove that reference to be false. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is no specific reference, no quote, so it winds up being a characterization. To put the burden of proof for these kinds of scurrilous charges on LaRouche -- "Prove that you have stopped beating your wife" -- is unreasonable.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In January 1981 LaRouche's New Solidarity International Press Service issued a statement titled "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis"

That's a quote from Dennis King, not LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "In 1978 LaRouche described the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," and his German second wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, dismissed it as a "swindle." These references are sourced in Dennis King's book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism."

They are not "sourced" unless quoted; if King had direct quotes, I am quite certain he would have included them, instead of asking us to accept his characterizations. -- Herschel

perhaps we should cite King as the source ie "Dennis King claims that...."

• "He explicity states that "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews," a direct repudiation of his 1981 statement that only 1.5 million died and those not as a result of a deliberate plan of extermination."

Fallacy of composition; LaRouche cannot "directly repudiate" something that he did not say. -- Herschel

In January 1981 LaRouche's New Solidarity International Press Service issued a statement titled "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis"

Does all your "research" consist of simply cribbing from King and Berlet? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam has found a quotation which appears to be legitimate. I have no objection to using it in the article, in place of the article's present characterizaton that "LaRouche also said that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis." The latter part of the sentence is an incorrect inference by Adam/Dennis King; LaRouche has made clear that there was a deliberate campaign of extermination by means of slave labor and starvation, as distinct from extermination by summary executions. It should also be noted that LaRouche has apparently repudiated significant parts of these remarks. Here is the quote:

It is argued that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so eessential to "Jewish survival" that any anti-Zionist is therefore not only an anti-Semite, but that any sort of criminal action is excusable against anti-Zionists in memory of the mythical "six million Jewish victims" of the Nazi "holocaust."

This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races," a small fraction of the tens of million of others - especially Slavs - who were murdered in the same way Jewish refugee Felix Rohaytin proposes today. Even on a relative scale, what the Nazis did to Jewish victims was mild compared with the virtual extermination of gypsies and the butchery of Communists.

dummy companies

• "The funds thus raised were then directed into a maze of dummy companies so as to avoid both taxation and attempts to recover the 'loans.'"

Attempts to recover the loans were blocked by one source only: the U.S. government trustees that took over the companies, after the government-imposed involuntary bankruptcy. (see significant omissions from the current version). --Herschel

There seem to be two versions of this. Surely there is some reliable reporting on this subject from reputable news organizations to sort this stuff out. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can do better than that -- the court records are public. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, the court findings are against you here.

Again, you haven't seen the court findings. You have read the Washington Post version, probably second hand from King or Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Divorce causes anti-Feminism?

• "It is unknown if LaRouche's strident criticisms of feminism is a product of the breakdown of his first marriage." Ridiculous, sleazy POV.

I took this one out. Weed Harper 06:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "LaRouche is thought to have had a breakdown as a result and his writings became obsessively anti-feminist to the point of misogynism and obsessed with sex." And this is thought by whom?

Zionism / Zionist

• "From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse." POV. LaRouche uses it to describe an ideology, particularly that of Jabotinsky, which he opposes.

• "In this article, LaRouche acknowledges that he accepts the classical anti-Semite conspiracy theory, with the caveat that he ascibes it to groups of Jews rather than to all Jews." LaRouche acknowledges no such thing, and certainly not in the cited passage. This is reasoning typical of those who trivialize anti-Semitism, by branding anyone who calls Meyer Lansky a gangster as an anti-Semite.

• "his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy are similar in many respects to those of the left, except that he blames its deficiencies on Zionist conspirators rather than on capitalist imperialism." POV spin-doctoring. LaRouche opposes Zionism (of the Revisionist sort), but he does not ascribe to it the authorship of U.S. foreign policy.

• "Although LaRouche has always denied accusations of anti-Semitism, the word "Zionist", the common extreme right codeward for "Jew" began to appear in LaRouche propaganda in the 1970s."

This is also propagandistic -- it may hold for some extreme right groups, but it does not hold for LaRouche, or any of the other many legitimate critics of Zionism. LaRouche also supports some Zionist currents, and has often referred to his friendship with Nahum Goldmann and his admiration for Yitzhak Rabin. I note that Adam chose not to include King's formulation that "British" is also a code word for "Jewish" -- perhaps that one is too over-the-top even for Adam. -- Herschel

The whole "financier conspiracy" is rather redolent of anti-semitism. That said, this could and probably should be softened. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't in fact agree with everything King says. I do agree that Zionist is a code-word for Jew in LaRouche's writings, and it is understood to be so by his readers. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And you know this -- how?--Herschelkrustofsky 11:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• ' "Zionist", the common extreme right code word for "Jew" '

this is POV, and must be removed. Sam [Spade] 01:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Although it can certainly be argued that LaRouche uses Zionist as codeword for Jew (although such would have to be supported), it is wrong to say that Zionist is always a codeword for Jew. john k 01:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course Zionist is not always a code-word for Jew, and I didn't say it was. I said it is "the common extreme right code word for "Jew"," which is a fact that can be amply documented (see Zionist Occupied Government for example). Adam 01:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but it currently seems to be saying that. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How can you prove what he means when he says it? He seems pretty crazy from what I read here, maybe when he says "Zionist" he is actually refering to the beatles ;) Sam [Spade] 01:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it certainly can be argued with more precision than it is here - his entire conspiratorial worldview is strongly redolent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for instance. But you're right that we should be very careful about accusations of anti-semitism of this sort. john k 02:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam is correct that it is often impossible to know what LaRouche really means when he talks about Zionists. This is partly because he is deliberately obscure - he talks in riddles and metaphors to keep his enemies guessing. Quite possibly he doesn't know himself. We can only quote what he says and point out how these words and phrases are usually meant. And it is a fact that most people who talk about international bankers conspiracies and how Zionists rule the world are anti-Semites. If this is not LaRouche's view of the world he should say so. Adam 02:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So, Adam, you put words in LaRouche's mouth, and then the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that he doesn't think that way. This is pure, unbridled violation of NPOV. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Riddles, no. Metaphors, yes. And if you have difficulty understanding him, recuse yourself.

Adam is right. Those who are prominently anti-Zionist are often also people who are generally accused of being anti-Semitic (and prob. correctly). On the other hand that by no means everyone who has "anti-Zionism" as one of his or her key issues is therefore an anti-Semite. This "keyword" bit could be much better phrased elsewhere, I suspect (prob on anti-Semitism). From what I read here this guy seems to be perhaps the most duplicitous and misleading politician who is readily available, and that is saying ALOT ;). I frankly doubt we can provide much insight into what he means by what he says, and would prob be best off sticking to the text of his statements, rather than any particular judgments of them. Sam [Spade] 02:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we should quote LaRouche, without speculating about what he may mean, or extrapolating coded messages, or any of the other techniques that form the core of Dennis King's book, and consequently, Adam's article. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to point out what is usually meant by people who talk about Zionist conspiracies. I am not interested in responding to Herschel's wild allegations, which reflect badly only on him. Adam 05:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then, point it out in an article on Zionist Conspiracies. If you can't quote LaRouche, I am entitled to wonder how you know what he is thinking. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is useful to interpret what others mean in this way. Of course you are right in many circumstances, but you can't fairly suggest it in the sweeping way in which you do, nor can you specifically prove that is what LaRouche means when he says it. Lets allow him to speak for himself, that his own words may condemn or redeem him before the reader, rather than providing our own translation of them. Sam [Spade] 17:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That "Zionist" is the common extreme right code-word for "Jew" is (a) a fact and (b) relevant to the topic under discussion. I didn't say that everyone who uses the word Zionist means it in an anti-Semitic way. If I say "The Zionists had no right to colonise Palestine," that is clearly a legitimate use of the word. If I say "Zionist bankers rule the world," that it is clearly using Zionist as a code word for Jew. This is necessary information for readers who are being presented with a discussion of LaRouche's writings. It is an encyclpaedia's job to explain things to readers, not just dump primary sources on them. Adam 23:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

However, Adam uses this argument to cover for the fact that he is simply lying. And as for Dennis King, his first, and most honest attack on LaRouche was an article in High Times entitled "They want to take your drugs away."--Herschelkrustofsky 00:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Sam's wording: The use of "Zionist" (seen by some as a code word for "Jew") is a common practice of certain groups [3][4].

The problem with this is that a sentence with a subordinate clause in brackets has to be meaningful if that clause is removed, and the statement: The use of "Zionist" is a common practice of certain groups, while true, is meaningless. Secondly, placing seen by some as a code word for "Jew" in brackets makes it incidental, whereas it is in fact central, to the point of the sentence. Thirdly "some" and "certain groups" are vague and weasely - why don't we say what we mean? Fourth references in the body of the text are ugly. What exactly is Sam's problem with the sentence as it stands? Adam 02:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the way you had it made him look like an anti-semite. He might be, or he might just be anti-english, or maybe just out of his mind generally, etc.. The way I put it is allows the reader to see what other sorts of folks use the term in this way, and lets them know that some consider this sort of use anti-semitic. I think that allows the reader to make up their own mind, or at least have food for thought (rather than having the conclusion fed to them). Sam [Spade] 02:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The previous wording stated two facts: 1. In the 1970s LaRouche began making various statements about Zionist conspiracies etc , 2. that the use of the word Zionist in this sense is hallmark of anti-Semites. Do you dispute either of these facts? If not, let's just state them and let readers draw their own conclusions. Adam 03:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In the 1970s the LaRouche organization published an issue of the Campaigner with a cover story entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." This also might be relevant to the discussion. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It looks fine now, good edit. Sam [Spade] 04:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that's cleared up. Nothing like a bit of co-operative editing, I always say. Adam 05:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• "From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse. The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is a common practice among anti-Semitic groups."

• "The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is particularly noticeable in the 1978 publication by the LaRouche organisation entitled Zionism is not Judaism."

I think that this sentence is someone's idea of a joke. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deliberate fallacy of composition -- in 1978, the LaRouche organization published a feature article in Campaigner entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." - Herschel

need more info before I can comment

I agree that this part is still problematic. I think it needs to be mentioned that discussion of Zionist conspiracy theories is an extraordinarily common feature of post-1948 anti-semitic literature, and that LaRouche's own comments about Zionism share many similarities with such works. At the same time, we shouldn't say that LaRouche is an anti-semite. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zionist lobby

14. "LaRouche also claimed that the "Zionist lobby" controlled the U.S. government and the United Nations."

Utterly false. LaRouche has accused the "Zionist lobby", by which is meant principally AIPAC and allied organizations, of pursuing a policy that is harmful to both Israel and the U.S. He has never asserted that they control the U.S. government, let alone the United Nations, which has often passed resolutions that displease AIPAC. -- Herschel

He's certainly said things of this nature, although as I recall his favorite punching bags are much more a "world bankers' conspiracy" abetted by the British royal family. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What LaRouche has said, is that the so-called Zionist Lobby -- which is not some arcane conspiracy, but rather organizations like AIPAC -- is itself controlled by more powerful interests, that care nothing for the welfare of Jews or the state of Israel.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

need more info before I can comment

Jews and the slave trade

13. "In NCLC publications during the 1970s the Jews were accused of running the slave trade, controlling organized crime and the drug trade."

LaRouche has never accused "the Jews", nor any other ethnic or religious group, of running orcontrolling anything. He has accused Jewish-surnamed individuals such as Meyer Lansky with trafficking in narcotics, just as he has accused non-Jewish-surnamed individuals. He has never characterized "the Jews", or any other ethnic group, as controlling anything.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's certainly documentable. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the evidence is against you on this Hershell

Great. Cite some. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "LaRouche's principal target in this article is "Zionism," to which he attributes almost every conceivable type of evil." POV -- this is Adam letting his propagandistic flair get the better of him.

• "When LaRouche accuses "Zionists" of treason and conspiracy, he is therefore seen by Jews, and many others, to be levelling those accusations against most Jews. When he accuses organisations such as B'nai B'rith and the ADL, and many individual Jews, of various crimes, he is seen to be attacking the great majority of Jews who support those organisations and those individuals, particularly since he attributes to them the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination." POV speculation. If you know of someone who actually believes these things, quote them.

• "In this sense LaRouche can fairly be described as having been an anti-Semite in 1978, when this article was published. He has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in this article." First of all, the "in this sense" part is a theory that Adam arrives at through the most tortured logic, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Secondly, LaRouche and his organization have in fact explicitly repudiated the views on Zionism expressed in the 1978 article: he has acknowledged Labor Zionism as a constructive force, exemplified by Ben-Gurion or Rabin, in contradistinction to the Revisionist Zionism of the Jabotinskyites/Likudniks (see [5],and [6].)

• "There is even a word of praise for Walther Rathenau, an archetypal Jewish business figure of the kind so savagely denounced by LaRouche throughout his career." Innuendo -- give me one example of a "Jewish business figure" that was savagely denounced by LaRouche.