Talk:John Train Salon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is not needed, and is another example of LaRouche supporters proliferationg their views at the expense of the seriousness and concern for accuracy of the Wikipedia community. I actually think the Train meeting should simply be a pro-LaRouche link on some page that already exists. The meeting has been blown out of proportion by LaRouche supporters. This new page created by HK on the Train meetings now contains false information, and HK has deleted some specific criticisms of LaRouche and rebutal to LaRouche claims that appeared previously. --Cberlet 18:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those visitors to this page that may be unfamiliar with the controversy, User:Cberlet is indeed the very same Chip Berlet that is referenced in the article. --HK 03:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And Herschelkrustofsy is a Lyndon LaRouche activist. Slim 07:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

What references are there to support this article? I understand that the Wikipedia community has decided that non-Larouche sources should be relied upon for articles like this. If Berlet is the only non-LaRouche source, then this article needs a major re-write. Please direct me to where I can check the facts. Is the Quinde affadavit available online? Cheers, -Willmcw 06:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, you're heading for trouble here. The ArbCom ruling against you says you must not act to further the cause of Lyndon LaRouche. (I'm not quoting; I'll try to find the exact words.) Also, you need to use non-LaRouche, authoritative sources. Every claim in this article will have to be fully sourced. Slim 07:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've put the disputed tag on the article. Below are the key decisions of the Arbitration Committee regarding LaRouche supporters. Slim 07:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

• Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

• Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

• If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions

More information is available at

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Evidence

Herschel, if you're going to claim this is a "closely related" article, you run into the problem that you created the article in order to be able to claim that, which is engaging in activity that might be perceived as promotion of Lyndon LaRouche. Either way, you run into a problem. The new ArbCom is unlikely to uphold what you're doing, as they've signalled they're going to get tough with this kind of thing. Slim 07:26, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's very simple, Slim -- I created this article in response to Chip Berlet's attempts to suppress the information in in other articles. Please explain how this article serves to "promote LaRouche." And, Chip is not only an anti-LaRouche activist, but a professional anti-LaRouche activist. His participation in the editing of LaRouche-related articles can hardly be considered neutral. --HK 15:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that Chip Berlet is only editing these articles because you are. As I've said before, I feel both of you should step back and let other editors sort this out. It's not appropriate that members of the LaRouche organization should be creating and editing articles about people Lyndon LaRouche has targeted. Slim 20:54, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 John Rees 1.1 SlimVirgin 2 NBC 3 Berlet

[edit] John Rees

I have clarified Rees' relationship to the John Birch Society, and added references. Clearly Chip would prefer that Rees be identified with the very obscure Maldon Institute, but it is obvious to me that he wishes to obscure the nature of Rees' activity, not to elucidate it. --15:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The material cited by HK did not show that Rees was ever a member of the John Birch Society. Rees wrote articles for JBS publications. The Western Goals Foundation (mentioned in the underlying cite) was not a project of the JBS. In any case, Rees was not at the meeting representing the JBS. This is just another attempt by HK to engage in guilt by association. Rees is affiliated with the Maldon Institute. HK keeps re-inserting material that has no basis in fact and originates in LaRouche publications which are notoriously sloppy with facts. Rees handed me the travel reimbursement in cash. I have no idea of the source of the funds, but it is highly unlikely that Rees paid for them out of his own pocket. I have no information on the actual source of the funds for my travel expenses. Again, the only purpose served by HK adding this material is guilt by association to support an unverified conspiracy theory by LaRouchites. No one is disputing the Train meetings took place. No purpose is served in adding that Boland of ADL confirmed the meeting in a deposition. The fact of the meeting is not in dispute. Again, the only purpose served by HK adding this material is guilt by association. If this keeps up I will ask for page protection and an arbitration concerning repeated unsubstantiated posts, personal attacks, and general vandalism of Wikipedia by HK. --Cberlet 17:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Larry McDonald, John Rees, and Sherman Unkefer were members of the John Birch Society." The source is the Groupwatch web site of the Interhemispheric Resource Center, which monitors rightwing groups. It was duly footnoted in the section deleted by Chip. We could add to the article that Chip said he merely accepted a cash payment and did not inquire where the money came from, if that would make it more acceptable.

There is no conspiracy theory presented in this article. The purpose of adding that Boland of the ADL confirmed the meeting in a deposition is that other editors demanded it in the past, and I sure that Slim would demand it were it not there. It is generally best to err on the side of more documentation, not less. --HK 22:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your "Resource Center" link appears not to be working. Heschel, you must find reputable sources for the claims in this article. You can't use something Chip Berlet has told you. Everything in Wikipedia must have been published elsewhere already. Have all the claims in this article been published elsewhere? If so, where exactly? Slim 22:29, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the link. The material in this article was published primarily on LaRouche websites, and since this is a LaRouche article, that is appropriate. Frankly, I preferred the status quo, where this material was incorporated into Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, but Chip made it clear that he was prepared to go to revert war, and I took what appeared to be a suggestion from User:Wally over at Talk:Chip Berlet as a compromise solution. --HK 22:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have created this page solely to get round the "closely related pages" rule, and that you are thereby promoting LaRouche, which the ArbCom ruling specifically says you must not do, so I sense you won't get supported over this. My suggestion is that you rewrite this article to include only information from external, reliable sources. If there aren't any, that should tell you something. Slim 02:45, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

The cite about Rees being a member of the JBS is from a single article in the alternative leftwing magazine, the 'National Reporter.' That is the source in the footnote on the page from the "Resource Center." There is no doubt that Rees wrote for and worked with the JBS. He is also a right-wing intelligence gatherer. But can anyone find a mainstream or documented source demonstrating Rees was a JBS member? The JBS does not discuss membership, nor has Rees, to my knowledge. In fact he has denied it. What does it matter if Rees handed me my travel reimbursement? The office manager at PRA hands me my reimbursements, but it would be silly to write in an article that she pays my reimbursements. That would be misleading...as it is here. --Cberlet 02:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the page for NPOV, although really I think it ought not to exist. I've removed the POV descriptions of the alleged participants. Also removed that Rees is a member of the John Birch Society as I see above that it's in doubt, and in any event, what's the relevance? I've added that the LaRouche version of the meetings has not been independently verified. Please remember that everything in Wikipedia must have been published elsewhere. Even if Herschel and Chip both agree that John Train personally handed everyone at the meeting $10,000 in cash, that can't go into the article unless it has been published somewhere. Slim 04:07, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SlimVirgin

Slim, you have claimed on half a dozen different talk pages that you are not an anti-LaRouche activist, but I think at this point your claim has no credibility. "POV descriptions of the alleged participants"? Give me a break. These are notorious people, and you even went so far as to de-wikify Richard Mellon Scaife. You ought to practice what you preach and refrain from editing LaRouche-related pages, including the one you created as your debut. As far as LaRouche "targeting" Berlet, to my knowledge, no article specificly on Berlet has ever appeared in a LaRouche publication; when Berlet's name comes up, he as simply dismissed as a two-bit propagandist. Berlet, on the other had, has written article after article about LaRouche, full of wacky conspiracy theories. Weed Harper 16:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The LaRouchites have not just printed dozens of articles attacking me in the most vicious personal terms, but also distributed nasty flyers to my neighbors. One LaRouche agent proposed (to a Chicago police informer) that my car brake lines be tampered with or that some other physical attack take place. I documented this in an affidavit filed in the Virginia case seeking to be dropped from the defamation lawsuit filed by LaRouche. I stand behind every one of my articles about LaRouche. Can anyone find a factual error? It's possible. Post it here. I will correct the record and apologize for my error. The LaRouche articles are full of factual errors about me that have repeatedly been posted on Wikipedia. --Cberlet 21:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NBC

I've made the claim about the NBC programs invisible (not deleted), because we should find confirmation that the programs exist; that they did accuse LaRouche of involvement in the death of Palme and of plotting to kill Kissinger; the dates they aired; and that Pat Lynch produced one or more.

Before my edit, Herschel's edit read: NBC broadcast two programs that year, produced by Pat Lynch, in which she accused LaRouche of plotting the assassination of Henry Kissinger, and others in March and December 1986, which claimed that LaRouche was responsible for the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme (my emphasis).

There was no indication of what "that year" might refer to, which makes me think this sentence may have been copied from somewhere, raising copyright and POV issues. Elsewhere, LaRouche publications refer to the year of the Kissinger plot programs as 1986. If this is correct, it casts doubt on the claim that the Train meetings led to these broadcasts, given the three-year gap between the meetings and the programs, unless some of the meetings are alleged to have been held later than 1983.

It would be helpful if no more material could be added without reference to a source. Slim 08:12, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that "that year" is an artifact of the editing job I did in creating this article, because every time Chip moved the material from article to article he changed it somewhat, and it was difficult to pull the various versions of the article together (Slim, I see that you have now thoroughly deconstructed it again). If you look at the material as it originally appeared in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, you can see where the "that year" comes from, and it was my mistake that it came out a bit incoherent. However, Slim, it appears that you are now trying to depict the meetings as an unremarkable grouping of academics having a tea party and chatting about LaRouche -- which is entirely a reflection of the POV that you say you don't have. The deletion of the descriptions (and as Weed points out, de-wikification of some participants) demonstrates your bias. I also note that Chip has taken exception to the use of the word "claims", which is standard wikipedia usage in articles about political controversies. --HK 16:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the record, there apparently were at least three meetings about LaRouche at Train's NYC townhouse, in 1983, 1984, and 1985. I attended the meeting in 1985, after the grand jury in Boston had been seated (in 1984) to investigate LaRouche's financial crimes. In a September 1983 letter I proposed a news feature on LaRouche to NBC's First Camera program, and this was over a year before I spoke to John Train, and a year before the Boston grand jury was seated. The LaRouchite version of events is a conspiracy theory without foundation. They confuse the dates of the Train meetings and conflate the various NBC programs critical of LaRouche. --Cberlet 21:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, Herschel and Chip, I have no POV about this, and in fact don't know anything about it. And so this is a good exercise for me in being purely encylopedic, because we can only publish what has been published elsewhere, and can't rely on our personal knowledge. Chip, has any of this been written about in a non-LaRouche publication? Chip and Herschel, do you know whether NBC really did air claims about the Kissinger plot; and the programs claiming LaRouche may have been involved in Olaf Palme's death? These sound like strange claims for a network to make. Weed, if I de-wikified names, that was an error, for which I apologize: I deleted some red links and may have inadvertently deleted real links in the process. Slim 22:06, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Another point, Chip — I noticed a discussion between you and Herschel about traveling expenses, and how it didn't matter who had handed them out. Regardless of who distributed them, who was paying the expenses and for which of the participants? Slim 22:06, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. The 1985 meeting I attended was almost 20 years ago. I recall being invited to the meeting as editor of the Public Eye and a freelancer who had written about LaRouche. I was only working part time for Midwest Research at that point. I stated that I would have to have travel expenses reimbursed. I recall saying I wanted cash because I didn't trust Rees or the other right-wingers not to stiff me, or use my attendance at the meeting against me. I had been writing very critical articles about Rees for years and had even worked on a lawsuit against his right-wing spy network. These were not my political allies. I thought the invitation was extraordinary. The meeting was described as a debate where the leftists would present their research and then face questions from the conservatives. That is just what happened. When I arrived at the meeting, Rees (who I had known as a leftist before his cover was blown) introduced me to Train and Scaife. At some point Rees gave me the reimbursement. I never thought it came out of his pocket. At the time I did not know he had set up a new right-wing foundation-funded research group. I was shocked to see Rees working with Mira Boland of the ADL. When I got back to Chicago I immediately began to do research into this weird coalition. When Herb Quinde contacted me much later, I agreed to give him some limited information about the meeting on the basis of the tiny possibility that some intelligence agency misconduct might have been involved. Quinde even sent me some "documentation" he had collected. His research was industrious, but I was not impressed with his analysis. I did, however, offer to let The LaRouchites hire a National Lawyers Guild attorney of their choice to file for any government agency files on me available through the federal FOIA. The caveat was that all the files produced would all have to be made public. They rebuffed this offer. When the Quinde affidavit came out, there were a number of errors, especially around dates. I believe these were simply mistakes, and have no reason to believe Quinde made these mistakes intentionally. The mistakes, and omissions, however, undermine the LaRouche claim of a government conspiracy resulting from the Train meetings. --Cberlet 23:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I note that Dennis King elsewhere has said that he walked to the meeting because he lives in NYC; and that he therefore did not get any reimbursement.--Cberlet 13:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incidently, over the years I requested some obscure published documents and court records from Quinde when he was a LaRouchite; and in exchange I sent him some hard-to-find published material, (I never sent anything other than material that was public in some way, and never sent anything that would have hurt a political ally); and sometimes I provided a personal anecdote about my childhood, which the LaRouchites delighted in publishing as if they had discovered it on their own. That's where they picked up on my birth name. I started using 'Chip' as an antiwar activist to distance myself from the Cold War zealot John Foster Dulles. Actually, 'John' and 'Foster' are both family names from my mom's side of the family; and I never knew if my parents were joking when they said I had been named, in part, after Dulles. They only started to say that after I drifted to the political left; and they did have a sense of humor. Anyway, the point is, using this information, a conspiracy buff could claim that by trading documents and personal information, I was in a conspiracy with the LaRouchites. Therefore the Train meeting was part of the LaRouche conspiracy. This illustrates the problem of guilt by association.--Cberlet 13:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Berlet

It is clear to me that Berlet is trying to hijack Wikipedia to promote his (ahem) commercial endeavors. The Train Meetings material never should have been removed from Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Berlet wants to promote his POV by quoting from his own website (SlimVirgin take note: Wikipedia prohibits original research) and he wants to ban any scrutiny of his role as a quote unquote "researcher." There is absolutely no reason for a seperate article on the Train Salon. Weed Harper 22:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely about the original research point, and I agree that it's not appropriate for Chip to be editing these articles, but it's also not appropriate for LaRouche supporters to be editing them, for the same reasons, and my suspicion is that Chip is doing so only to stop unverified claims being inserted by others. I also agree that there shouldn't be an article on these meetings, but regardless of whether the material is on a separate page, or part of a Lyndon LaRouche article, the details of the John Train meetings should be verified by third-party publications. The ArbCom allows LaRouche publications to be used in LaRouche-related articles, but doesn't say they can be used exclusively.

I also fail to see the relevance of the meetings. So far, a bunch of journalists has met with a bunch of sources to discuss a person (LaRouche) regarded by large numbers of people as dangerous. There's nothing unusual about that. It would become unusual if those journalists were persuaded to broadcast or publish false material, wittingly or otherwise, as a result of those meetings. But that has not been shown. Even if you read LaRouche's own publications, it has not been shown. Slim 22:48, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Let's be clear. I took duplicate text about the Train meetings from several pages and put them on the United States V. LaRouche page because the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche had a notice that it was already too long, and I thought the Train allegations were linked to the court cases by the LaRouchites. I objected to chasing the false and defamatory allegations by the LaRouchites around Wikipedia, and wanted to have a debate about the Train meeting on just one page. I did not create this page, HK created this page. Please feel free to move this text and debate back to another page of your choice. I do not think any of the Train material should be on Wikipedia. It is all an unproven conspiracy theory by the LaRouchites. I fully understand that an entry on me will contain criticisms. What I object to is totally false and defamatory claims being posted on Wikipedia from where they are duplicated around the world. This page is now a compendium of baseless accusations. Brandt has no direct knowledge of the meeting. His comments are a personal attack based on hearsay twice removed. The Quinde affidavit is flawed, and is the unvarnished conspiracy propaganda of the LaRouchites who have attacked me for decades. This page is a disgrace and an affront to the Wikipedia community with its goal of fairness and accuracy. --Cberlet 23:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed, I removed Daniel Brandt. He's not a credible source, not a journalist, and seems to write only for his own website i.e. he's a blogger. It's not appropriate to use someone's personal website as a source. There's no evidence that Roy Godson is an intelligence operative and the weasel catch-all phrase "representatives from intelligence-linked funding sources" is typical Brandt and typical LaRouche. This article is turning into an EIR piece. People are being associated with other people they once stood next to for 10 minutes etc. Please stop or this issue will have to go back to the ArbCom, with all the work for all of us that will entail.

Slim, you also removed the material on Richard Melon Scaife, and his history of activism is not some obscure conspiracy researcher's speculation. Meanwhile, you left intact the hostile (and irrelevant) characterization of LaRouche by the ADL, confirming once again my suspicion that you are editing these articles as an anti-LaRouche activist.--HK 16:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, Weed, with reference to your Dennis King edit, who is Mark Evans and where was that article published? Slim 23:47, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, it seems the consensus is that this page should not exist, so do you agree that the material should be moved? My own view is that it belongs in United States v. LaRouche, because the LaRouche organization is claiming the conviction is directly connected to the meetings, whereas LaRouche's political views are not. Slim 23:51, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am not terribly surprised that you should side with Berlet on this. My view is that this material is essentially rebuttal information for the extensive sections of innuendo and POV speculation found in the "Views" article, which AndyL and Adam defended on the grounds that they came from "journalists" and "researchers." The U.S. V. LaRouche article, on the other hand, is primarily factual, and I do not feel rebuttal material is necessary in order to achieve NPOV. I would agree to move it back where it came from. --HK 15:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I note above that Chip is now saying that this material may be moved to any LaRouche article. I will wait 48 hours for further debate, and then restore it to "Views", making this article a redirect page. --HK 16:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now Berlet says he wants to delete the "Views" page too, so this conflict may be far from resolved. --HK 22:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Before you do that, can you please answer the question that I've asked a few times before: what are the immediate sources for this material? It looks like you created the first draft of this. Thanks, -Willmcw 16:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The material comes almost exclusively from LaRouche websites. There was a third-party assessment of the Quinde Affidavit that came from Daniel Brandt, but this has been deleted by SlimVirgin on the grounds that he considers Brandt unreliable (I would like him to provide more of a rationale on this -- from looking at the internet citations, it appears that Brandt's organization, Public Information Research, Inc, is larger and less controversial than Berlet's PRA. Brandt certainly has some admirers on the Left -- see [1]) --HK 22:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a fantastic claim. Political Research Associates has a full-time staff of eight. Mainstream publications quote PRA staff regularly. Try an actual news archive search. Google searches are an incompetent way to conduct serious research.--Cberlet 22:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Others should chip in with what they think of Daniel Brandt as a source. I know he wouldn't be used by mainstream journalists unless they checked his information independently, which isn't to say they wouldn't use him to point them in a certain direction. My main concern about Brandt is that he self-publishes. The few things I believe he published in the 80s were in outlets with little, if any, editorial oversight. Herschel, do you know whether he has published anywhere reputable; or whether he is quoted in the mainstream press? I know he's been quoted a bit regarding GoogleWatch, but it's not clear it's taken seriously. We can't use information from people who only self-publish on their websites, otherwise any of us could start up a website today then quote ourselves in Wikipedia. (Not that this would surprise me, mind you.)

Herschel, it might be helpful if you were to try a proper news archive rather than Google. Slim 05:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what Mr. Berlet makes of this, which is from the sort of mainstream publication that Slim seems to love. One problem with Wikipedia is that if it isn't on the web, it apparently does not exist. So I'll key in a paragraph from some hard copy in my files, which predates the web.

From Doug Birch, "Master of the Politics of Paranoia," Baltimore Sun Magazine, June 5, 1988, page 27. (This is a long article about John Rees.)

"Information Digest and its network couldn't continue, Mr. Rees says, without a little help from 'unnamed patrons.' Mr. Berlet says he doesn't know who they are. But he adds he was introduced by Mr. Rees to Richard Mellon Scaife, the conservative multimillionaire from Pittsburgh, at a recent conference about extremist Lyndon LaRouche staged by Information Digest."

This little paragraph sounds like confirmation of the John Train salon to me. The Quinde affidavit is extremely detailed; he spent years researching it. I talked to Quinde about it, and I don't believe he made up this much detail. But it wasn't until I came across this old article in the Baltimore Sun Magazine that I decided to index the Quinde affidavit in NameBase. The affidavit states that John Rees provided funding for Berlet to attend the meeting, and that Dennis King and Russ Bellant were also brought to the 1984 meeting at Train's residence. Quinde says in the affidavit that he interviewed Mr. Berlet on August 9, 1990, and that is how he got this information. The Quinde affidavit has been indexed in NameBase for more than ten years now, and Mr. Berlet has never contacted me to challenge its accuracy. -- Daniel Brandt

Hi Daniel, good to see you've registered. In order to sign your posts, you can add four tildes after them like this ~~~~ That will put the time, date, and your name after your posts, which we need for clarity and page archiving. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Baloney. The Quinde affidavit is full of errors. And Dan Brandt has a bone to pick with me ever since I confronted him about being an apologist for antisemitic publications amd publishers that promoted conspiracy theories he favored. Hi, Dan. Consider yourself notified that I challenge the accuracy of the Quinde affidavit. I didn't know you were sucking up the the neofascist LaRouchites. Also note that I provided some limited information to Quinde to allow the LaRouchites to pursue the possibility that there was intelligence agency misconduct involved in the Train meetings. Quinde didn't even get the year I attended one of the Train meetings correct. I also offered to let the LaRouchites have one of their attorneys obtain an FOIA/Privacy Act waiver from me to try to obtain my files which have been withheld due to an "active investigation." My request was denied. Anyway all of this is original research, and has no place on Wikipedia. So, Dan, still serving as an apologist for conspiracist antisemitism?--Cberlet 01:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw -- why did you revert? The information in this article is not found in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche -- not even close. --NathanDW 16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Then add it there. -Willmcw 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)