Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

LaRouche, Holocaust Denial and anti-Semitism

I have now obtained a facsimile copy of Lyndon LaRouche's article "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism," which appeared in the LaRouche publication New Solidarity on December 8, 1978. This enables me to do several things:

  • 1. To attest that the citation by Dennis King of this article on page 138 of his book is correct, and thus to absolve King of the charge of forgery or misrepresentation which Herschelkrustofsky has repeatedly laid against him.
The quotes are apparently legitimate, and I have revised my list accordingly. It is clearly the case, as stated in your verson of the article, that LaRouche has since repudiated this assessment. I don't think, however, that this absolves King of the charge of misrepresentation -- his entire book is imbued with misrepresentation. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's not what you said when this was first raised. You said that LaRouche had not changed his position because King's account of his 1978 position was all lies and fabrications. Most people would have the courtesy to acknowledge that these slanders were unfounded. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am taking you at your word that the quotes are legitimate. King provided no quote, perhaps because the context weakened his argument. I still maintain that King's work is a fantastic misrepresentation of who LaRouche is, intended to prevent the reader from getting a complete and useful picture of LaRouche's role in the world of ideas and politics -- much like your article. When an article appears on the Wikipedia site that conforms to Wikipedia:NPOV, I will be satisfied, and if you play any role at all in that, I will acknowledge it. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
More irrelevant bluster. Why not just admit you were wrong? Adam 06:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • 2. To demonstrate that LaRouche did indeed assert that "only" 1.5 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis, and even these incidentally rather than as a result of deliberate policy, something which Herschelkrustofsky has repeatedly denounced as a fabrication.
There was a deliberate policy of working people to death, while starving them. These deaths can hardly be described as "incidental," and it is incorrect to draw the inference that LaRouche regards them as such-- he says, in the quote you present, that those who died in this way were "murdered." The slave-labor policy has been glossed over by revisionist historians who wished to rehabilitate the economics of Albert Speer and Hjalmar Schacht. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there was a deliberate policy of working people to death, but it was always secondary to the policy of killing all the Jews in extermination camps, a fact which LaRouche denied in 1978 (see below). Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Adam Carr, that is inaccurate. There were powerful elements in the SS such as Oswald Pohl who considered economic exploitation of Jews more important than extermination. This should be reflected in the article about Pohl. Source Heinz Hoehne's excellent, well referenced book "Die Geschichte der SS- Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf", also translated into English. Andries 09:59, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is completely accurate. Yes there were many people who argued that the policy of killing all the Jews when there was a shortage of skilled labour was irrational, but they did not prevail. All the Jewish labour force, no matter how valuable, was eventually killed.
I do not know who wrote this and whether this is relevant for the article but it is untrue. There were working camps in Auschwitz as well as extermination camps. Big firms had their procuction sites at Auschwitz. By the way, I want to express my sympathy and gratitude to people who work on this article. I know from experience how tedious and difficult it is when the subject is highly polarized. Andries 21:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The relevant passage is:

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.

(On these two matters both Dennis King and I are entitled to an apology from Herschelkrustofsky, but given my opinion of his personal character I don't expect one and I don't particularly care whether I get one.)

  • 3. To convict LaRouche beyond any possibility of argument of Holocaust denial. Not only does he place "holocaust" in inverted commas and refer to the "the mythical six million Jewish victims", his assertion that Jews died only as a result of forced labour (assuming that is what he means by "labor-intensive appropriate technology for the employment of inferior races") can only be read as a denial that the extermination camps existed, a denial of the fact that the Nazis directly and deliberately killed millions of Jews, both in these camps and by means of the einsatzgruppen. He also makes the false statement that the Nazis killed more Gypsies than Jews. (It is not clear whether he means absolutely or as a proportion of the total, but in either case it is untrue. The relevant Wikpedia article Porajmos estimates the Roma deathtoll at between 200,000 and 800,000.)
No comment from Herschelkrustofsky on this. I take therefore that he concedes the point of this paragraph, that LaRouche was a Holocaust-denier in 1978. Again, he should have the decency to admit that he was wrong to slander King and me for saying this. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether LaRouche can be convicted of anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews as Jews) on the basis of this article is a more complex question. The article does not contain any statements of hostility towards or condemnation of the Jews as a race or of the Jewish religion, or any assertions that the Jews as a people are guilty of any of the crimes that classical anti-Semitism ascribes to them. Since neither Dennis King nor LaRouche's other critics have to my knowledge been able to cite any such statements made by LaRouche it seems reasonable to assume that he has never made any, at least in print or in public. On the basis of this article, therefore, LaRouche should be acquitted of being an anti-Semite of the traditional or classical type.

Agreed-- but now you commence your logical contortionism:

But this does not clear LaRouche of the charge of anti-Semitism in a different sense. Anti-Semitism assumes different guises in different circumstances and at different times: thus the anti-Semitism of Hitler differed in form from that of Torquemada while being equal in intensity. LaRouche's variant is to take the classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and substitute the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew", and also to ascribe the classical anti-Semite's caricature of the evil, scheming Jew to particular, named, Jews and groups of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole.

LaRouche himself, in this article, acknowledges that he accepts the classical anti-Semite conspiracy theory, with the single caveat that he ascibes it to groups of Jews rather than to all Jews.

The Czarist Okhrana's "Protocols of Zion" include a hard kernel of truth which no mere Swiss court decision could legislate out of existence. The fallacy of the "Protocols of Zion" is that it attributes the alleged conspiracy to Jews generally, to Judaism. A corrected version of the Protocols would stipulate that the evil oaths cited were actually the practices of variously a Paris branch of B'nai B'rith and the evidence the Okhrana turned up in tracing the penetration of the Romanian branch of B'nai B'rith (Zion) into such Russian centres of relevance as Odessa..."

(B'nai B'rith is a Jewish service organisation. LaRouche's animus towards it is presumably connected to the fact that it is the parent organisation of the Anti-Defamation League, which has been assiduous in researching and documenting LaRouche's activities since the early 1970s. "The ADL," says LaRouche, "is literally the Gestapo of the British secret intelligence in the urban centers of the United States.")

LaRouche criticizes B'nai B'rith for the role they played during the American Civil War, as the only Jewish organization that sided with the Confederacy. As far as the ADL is concerned, they have no shortage of critics, especially since they were raided in the state of California back in 1993, for carrying out activities that were indeed "Gestapo"-like. The Wikipedia article, Anti-Defamation League, does touch on these matters.
None of which is remotely relevant. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche's principal target in this article is "Zionism," to which he attributes almost every conceivable type of evil. In the real world, Zionism is a Jewish political movement supporting the creation and (since 1948) defence of a Jewish state in Palestine. In LaRouche's world it is an underground conspiracy, existing since the 16th century, created originally by the Hospitallier Knights and the Cecil family (or something like that: LaRouche's "history" is a farrago of nonsense and rather hard to follow), and having almost no connection with Israel/Palestine at all. "Modern Zionism was not created by Jews, but was a project developed chiefly by Oxford University," LaRouche says. This would be news to Theodor Herzl, who laboured under the delusion that he founded Zionism in 1896.

The Brits found Herzl useful. He labored under the delusion that it was the other way around.
Not worth commenting on. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Today, LaRouche says, Zionism is controlled by the financiers of London: "Zionism is the state of collective psychosis through which London manipulates most of the international Jewry", and "Zionist cultism is among the most important of the levers through which British criminality and miscalculation is plunging the world towards [war]." "The point is," LaRouche says "that the issue is not admissibly a racial matter. The point is that Zionism is precisely the evil, racist doctrine the UN General Assembly resolved it to be."

Despite this reference to the 1975 UN Resolution on Zionism, it is striking that there is not one reference to the Palestinians in this article. The Zionist "crimes" LaRouche is obsessed with have nothing to do with the real-world controversy surrounding Zionism and Israel. They are "crimes" which the classic anti-Semite attributes to Jews: conspiracy, manipulation, treason, subservience to international finance. LaRouche's reference to the manipulative activities of "top Zionist bankers" is a giveaway. Jewish bankers may well be Zionists, but it is in their capacity as Jews that they manipulate.

The above paragraph is a wild, propandistic fantasy which has no bearing whatsoever on Lyndon LaRouche or his ideas. LaRouche is on the record innumerable times as supporting justice for the Palestinians, which would best be achieved by the prompt implementation of the Oslo Accords. And I have no problem with your attacks on the "classic anti-Semite", as long as you don't dishonestly insinuate that LaRouche is one.
So why is there no reference to the Palestinians in the 1978 article? It is because LaRouche is only interested in his fantasy of Zionism-as-world-conspiracy rather than Zionism as it actually is. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The B'nai B'rith today resurrects the tradition of the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Jews who pleaded with Nero to launch the "holocaust" against the Christians," LaRouche says. This is a classic statement of anti-Semitism, excusable only if LaRouche's assertion that "Jew" and "Zionist" (here in the guise of the B'nai B'rith) are separate, even antithetical, categories. Likewise, LaRouche can be acquitted of the charge of anti-Semtitism only if this premise is accepted. The final sentence of LaRouche's article is: "You cannot be a Zionist and also a Jew." Only if this is accepted can it be argued that LaRouche is not an anti-Semite.

But in the real world "Jew" and "Zionist" are not antithetical categories. They are, in practice, almost synonymous. Although there is a minority of anti-Zionist Jews, the great majority of Jews, and the overwhelming majority of American Jews, since 1948 have identified themselves as Zionists in the sense that they defend the existence of the state of Israel. In the real world the statement that "You cannot be a Zionist and also a Jew" is ridiculous. Thus when LaRouche accuses "Zionists" of treason and conspiracy, he in fact levels those accusations against most Jews, and is understood both by his followers and by Jews to do so, even when he declares that not to be his intention. When he defames Zionism as an ideology, organisations such as B'nai B'rith and the ADL, and individual Jews such as the Rothschilds or Henry Kissinger, he is attacking the great majority of Jews who support Zionism, those organisations and those individuals, particularly since he attributes to them the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination.

This paragraph is just one fraud after another. Since when is a "Zionist" defined as one who defends the existence of the state of Israel? LaRouche defends the existence of the state of Israel. And if you think LaRouche is a harsh critic of Zionism, you should check out some of the Jewish critics of Zionism, who far surpass LaRouche in ferocity. See if your library contacts can find any of the books of Moshe Menuhin, father of violinist Yehudi Menuhin -- they'll make your hair stand on end. And most of your assertions here might be called "syllogism abuse": LaRouche opposes Henry Kissinger; Henry Kissinger is (supposedly) a Jew; therefore, LaRouche opposes Jews.
Defending the state of Israel has been the main role of the Zionist movement since 1948. What else would it do? Go and look at some Zionist websites. If LaRouche defends the existence of the state of Israel then he is a supporter of Zionism, so he better start being nicer about it. That there are Jewish critics of Zionism is of course true, but quite irrelevant to the points I am making. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What else would it do? Well, for one thing, it redefines what it is to be a Jew. Where it was once a religious question, it became a racial or ethnic question. Any ideology which obscures the universal human identity of the individual, and focusses on some secondary, particularist feature, is bad for humanity. In this sense, Zionism (and to be as precise as possible, I should say the Revisionist variety) has something in common with anti-Semitism.--Herschelkrustofsky 02:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am struggling to make sense of this. Zionism did not redefine Jewish identity from religious to secular - Jews did that for themselves as a consequence of emancipation and the enlightenment. Zionism was a product of that development, not its cause. And if you want to argue that defining Jewishness as an ethnicity rather than a religion is anti-Semitic, that seems to suggest that anyone who defines themselves as a Jew without practising the Jewish religion is an anti-Semite - good luck with that one. Adam 03:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My conclusion, therefore, on the basis of this article, is that when LaRouche wrote it in 1978 he was an anti-Semite, albeit one who disguised his anti-Semitism behind a flimsy veil of "anti-Zionism." He was an anti-Semite in the sense that he had adopted the conspiracy theory of classical anti-Semitism and transferred it from "the Jews" to "the Zionists" - a category which in reality includes the great majority of Jews, a fact of which he must have been aware (unless he was completely delusional, which is a possibility but not a question I am competent to judge).

Adam 12:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is still alot of nonsense on this page and in the LaRouche article. But this is understandable given the abrupt "Machiavellian" turn in LaRouche's political strategy from 1978 through 1991. During that period, much of what LaRouche said can only be understood through a filter. Why? He was purposely being "tricky": he was trying to ingraciate himself with certain "right-wing" elements around US intelligence services and law enforcement that he thought he could use against the Nelson Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski "liberal imperialists" he saw behind the 1980's Project and Global 2000 Report policies dominating the Carter Administration. By my estimation, LLRs hopes turned out to be a fiction (largely)and he ended up cavorting with some pretty questionable characters (like Roy Frankhauser).

So what was he up to? In his mind, I think LLR thought he could trick right-wingers to believe that his distinctive critical take on the political forces pushing the post 1973 shift in economics and society as somehow coherent with certain John Birch-type conspiracy theories. He twisted his rhetoric to appeal to them and tried to "judo throw" them in the direction of perceiving common cause with Third World demands for a "New World Order." He also always saved for himself and his followers the right to claim that they weren't making a racial or religious argument against Jews-- hence his tortured distinctions between Zionism and Judaism. But I think he was taking his Promethean pretentions a bit too seriously in thinking he could bring enlightenment to this benighted constituency.

LaRouche should come clean on this period and acknowledge to his followers and outsiders that much of what was said during this period was a "strategic lie." Ironically, LaRouche has (rightly) attacked the Straussians for their commitment to the "strategic lie." However, it was LaRouche who talked about the Menixenus Principle -- from Plato's strangest dialogue in which Socrates gives a speech in defense of Athens in the Spartan (Nazi) blood and soil style. From my outside view (I have never been on the inside), this must have been hard for many Labor Committee veterans to take. It also meant that no one could defend him, when he was railroaded off to jail. What goes around comes around.

Now, however, there is reason for hope for this movement. I noticed that at the LaRouche Youth Movement site there is a complete set of early Campaigners, from 1968 ultra-Marxism to the tortured "Machiavelian" material from the late 1970's. The young cadre's are encouraged to read all of it. Good for them. Brave. and intellectually honest (finally). Again, I have no way of knowing, but there have had to be alot of interesting conversations in the cadre schools as to the subtleties I refer to here.

Herschelkrustofsky's surrender? Not likely

Herschelkrustofsky has put forward no real attempt to refute the conclusions I have drawn from the 1978 LaRouche article. He has not disputed that LaRouche was a Holocaust-denier in 1978, and nor can he since it is there in black and white in LaRouche's text. I would be entitled on the basis of that alone to conclude that LaRouche was an anti-Semite, since Holocaust denial is always motivated by anti-Semitism. His responses to my later commentary on LaRouche's anti-Semitism are feeble and irrelevant. He does not contest my central point that LaRouche uses "Zionist" as a synonym for "Jew" and that his fulminations against Zionism are therefore evidence of LaRouche's anti-Semitism.

As you point out, the final sentence of LaRouche's article is: "You cannot be a Zionist and also a Jew." Your central point, that LaRouche uses "Zionist" as a synonym for "Jew", falls under that category which I, rather politely, called "logical contortionism." --Herschelkrustofsky 06:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The important point here is that Herschelkrustofsky has spent weeks and weeks calling Dennis King, me, Andy and anyone else within reach liars for saying (among many other things) that LaRouche was a Holocaust-denier and an anti-Semite in the 70s and 80s. All it has taken is the obtaining of one source document to expose all Herschelkrustofsky's slanders as empty bluster. Since he has been a LaRouche activist for 30 years, he must have known the truth of this matter all along. He has been exposed not only as a slanderer but as a deliberate and systematic liar. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam, you write above that you "...have not described LaRouche as a fascist or an anti-Semite in the article, only reported that other people have described him as such, which is a fact." I, in turn, criticized you for allowing your POV to dominate the article, which meant the inclusion of lies and slanders, and there are still plenty left. If you go back and look again at my statement (originally at User_talk:Fred Bauder, now moved to here), you will note that I said "I have been a supporter of the LaRouche movement for going on 30 years," not an activist (although I became one.) I had never seen the quote that you produced. I am still unconvinced that LaRouche is or was an anti-Semite. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, given your past strong words denouncing Adam for saying LaRouche claimed only 1.5 million Holocaust victims you have some explaining to do. Certainly your response to Adam's evidence only states that LaRouche reversed himself a few years later, you fail to explain why LaRouche made the 1.5 million claim in the first place or why this shouldn't be seen as Holocaust denial or anti-Semitic. Also, given your washout on this point, one which you fought quiet resolutely over and on which you staked your credibility, why should we pay any attention whatsoever to your other claims of errata in the article?AndyL 03:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You boys seem to think that this is a game. Meanwhile, the article still reeks of POV, and provides the reader with no explanation at all of why LaRouche is playing a role in the world that would necessitate a Wikipedia article -- your article is a smokescreen only (see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Significant Omissions from the current version.) You are so eager to prove a point, that your responsibilities as editors never seem to cross your minds. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Au contraire, I think the establishment of historical truth is a matter of considerable importance. That is why I went to the trouble of documenting what LaRouche said about the Holocaust, in the process proving that you are a bare-faced liar and slanderer, of Dennis King's reputation and mine. None of your feeble diversionary bluster can change that. I suggest that you cut the crap and answer Andy's very pertinent question. Adam 07:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


You boys seem to think that this is a game. Meanwhile, the article still reeks of POV, and provides the reader with no explanation at all of why LaRouche is playing a role in the world that would necessitate a Wikipedia article

For the same reasons we have wikipedia articles on Sun Myung Moon and L. Ron Hubbard or (for a different reason still germane to LaRouche) John C. Turmel. AndyL 13:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it was that simple you wouldn't be so obsessive in trying to impose your point of view. Weed Harper 20:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Obsessive? A small percentage of my edits are LaRouche related whereas 80-100% of edits by yourself and Herschel have to do with LaRouche (or in the case of edits on Danby are inspired by LaRouche). The obsession is yours, not mine. AndyL 20:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the "LaRouche and the Jews" section in the light of the document cited above. The article is now much longer than the intrinsic importance of LaRouche merits, but at least it now deals with this issue fully and fairly. If LaRouche is condemned it is out of his own mouth and not by second-hand reporting. I am still waiting on facsimiles of some other LaRouche documents which may enable me to rework some other sections of the article. Adam 10:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this re-written section represents a marginal improvement over the previous version. It is still full of Adam's POV speculation and innuendo (see Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Jewish_issues). --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other potential sources

Just recently started reading about this subject after I was approached by a member of the LaRouche Youth outside of a bookstore about a week ago, and thought I'd add my two cents:

LaRouche has written an autobiography called The Power of Reason, which seems like it would be a useful source. I don't have any particularly strong feelings about the guy one way or the other, so if the principals involved here have anything they'd want me to look for, I'd be happy to read it with these points in mind. For example, wasn't there some argument about whether LaRouche was an FBI informant? LaRouche discusses this in his book.

My library also has a copy of a pamphlet by Dennis King called "Nazis without swastikas: the Lyndon LaRouche cult and its war on American labor." Does anyone know about this? Is it a early version of his book? Is it worth looking into?

Finally, there is no shortage of writing on the LaRouche websites, which has brought up some really strange stuff, including implications that the Beatles are part of a British PsyOp project and that Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells are Satanists. In the absence of compelling evidence, statements like these make LaRouche look like a bit of a nutter, frankly.

Ramsey Clark

Sorry Weed, but if you want to help LaRouche's case by pointing out that a former US Attorney General has come to his defence you have to also acknowledge the fact that Ramsey Clark is not any former US Attorney General and has a history of taking on controversial causes (to say the least). The list of people Clark has come to the defence of, not out of a legal obligation to provide a defence to a client but out of personal conviction, is factual and not POV. AndyL 17:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be equally appropriate to provide some biographical detail on Dennis king, Christine Berle, and Fred Newman? They are all whack-jobs that you treat as respectable, because they are anti-LaRouche. --Peter_Abelard@ausi.com
I know nothing about Christine Berle's role in the LaRouche organization, but I saw a favorable write-up on her in the New York Times a few years ago. They were praising her for giving up her career as a classical musician (which is presumably what brought her into contact with LaRouche), and embarking on a new career as a belly dancer. I kid you not. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
While it needs to be said, giving a lengthy list of people seems excessive, considering that this article is plenty long enough already. Just say he's taken on some other controversial political cases, and people can go to Clark's own article for the details. Lots of this article could do with some summarizing or moving details on some things to the article on the LaRouche organization. Everyking 17:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The list in the Ramsey Clark article is longer. AndyL 17:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark has a history of taking all sorts of controversial cases, which is why I admire him: he believes that his opponents deserve the protection of the constitution as much as his friends. However, there is a certain sort of rank dishonesty in the list Andy presented -- he "cherry-picked" all the cases where Clark defended right-wingers, in order to get a sort of "guilt by association" to imply that LaRouche is a right-winger. Over on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List, Andy was asked to corroborate the assertion that LaRouche became a right winger-- the best he could come up with, is that "he abandoned Marxism for one and moved towards some sort of amalgam of 19th century philosophers."
One more note on Clark-- although I'm not certain, I recall that the letter to Janet Reno was written on his own initiative, and not in his capacity as attorney to LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Ramsey Clark has a history of taking all sorts of controversial cases, which is why I admire him: he believes that his opponents deserve the protection of the constitution as much as his friends. However, there is a certain sort of rank dishonesty in the list Andy presented -- he "cherry-picked" all the cases where Clark defended right-wingers, in order to get a sort of "guilt by association" to imply that LaRouche is a right-winger.

Actually no. I took the first part of the list in the Ramsey Clark article. What I left out was:

He also represented PLO leaders in a lawsuit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair bound elderly tourist who was shot and tossed overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists in 1986. Prior to the start of the second Gulf War, Clark was retained by the state of Iraq, serving as legal counsel for the Hussein regime.

If Herschel wishes it I have no opposition to including the Klinghoffer incident or Saddam Hussein in the list of Ramsay Clark's past causes. As for cherry picking right wingers, is Herschel trying to argue that Slobodan Milosovic is a right winger now? AndyL 22:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Herschel but it's you and your colleague who are trying to cherry pick by giving LaRouche the positive benefit of having a former US Attorney General on his side without the downside of listing other unpopular (and questionable) causes he has supported. Obviously what you are trying to communicate is "look, LaRouche must have been railroaded because even a former US Attorney General says it was the case" without allowing people to know that "Ramsay Clark has spent much of the past twenty years speaking out indiscriminately against any attempt by the US to prosecute any figure, even war criminals. This suggests Clark is not too choosy in whom he supports and may even suggest that his judgement is faulty". You can't get one without the other. Sorry.

Wow -- it's a good thing you aren't trying to "denigrate" Ramsey Clark. Imagine if you were trying to "denigrate" Lyndon LaRouche. What would this article look like then. Weed Harper 12:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can be damn sure that if Ramsay Clark were a prominent opponent of LaRouche your publications would spare no effort in pointing out who Clark has linked himself to in the past. AndyL 22:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the LaRouche publications are not in the business of writing encyclopedia articles. But neither are you. Weed Harper 12:51, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I protected the page after the request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. 172 00:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Weed, perhaps you can just tell us whether you're willing to include both the positive and the negative information regarding Clark, after all if we're trying to be balanced and NPOV we can't just focus on one side. AndyL 16:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Include Father Berrigan and Leonard Peltier, along with the people that you want to include. Personally, I don't think the list of Ramsey Clark's clients is necessary, if this is really an encyclopedia article.--Weed Harper 16:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If this is an encyclopedia article than it's not really necessary to mention Clark or LaRouche's other supporters either, is it? Anyway, I'm fine with listing Peltier and Branigan as well. AndyL 01:30, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The LaRouche Position on Sex

I think the quote about LLR's sexual attitudes beginning "The classical case is the sexually athletic Macho..." is far too long. This is a peripheral aspect of LLR's biography and a quote of this length is unencyclopaedic. I think someone should create an archive of LLR verbatim quotes as a back-up for this article, but they don't belong here. Adam 01:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with cutting back the quote. I used the full quotation because I thought if I put in too many ellipses Herschel et al would start making noises alleging that the quotation was being distorted etc. Any suggestions on what to cut and what to keep? AndyL 04:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In one of his articles, "The Sexual Impotency of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party", LaRouche wrote:
The classical case is the sexually athletic Macho who regards himself as a successful performer in bed, the Macho who has much to say and think respecting his capacities for various modes of penetration and frequency and cubic centimeters of ejaculations. The ugly secret of the matter is that he is almost totally sexually impotent.
Firstly, his sexual relations are not relations at all, but are essentially sexual performances before an internalized audience. He is admittedly somewhat ambivalent about inviting a large audience to witness his performance with even a prostitute, which does not inhibit his homosexual impulse to recount his fantasy of the performance in the most painstaking detail (somewhat “improved” in the telling) before the first large audience he deems suitable for this purpose. His relationship to the woman is immediately a relationship of himself, as performer in a fantasy, to an audience for this fantasy.
Secondly, the woman with whom he is psychologically mating is seldom (if ever) the woman in bed with him; he is making love to a woman of pure fantasy. The actual woman's relationship to this fantasy is predominantly negative. She must, of course, suggest the woman of his fantasy to him, either by a resemblance to the fantasy-object or by the law of reaction-formation. Her essential duty to the performer is to play her part in such a way that she re-enforces and does not unmask the fantasy.
Hence, among the Macho's favorite prostitutes and mistresses, the art of playing various fantasy-supporting roles is the quality which the poor, impotent Macho finds most endearing. She, too, is merely giving a performance, and participating in the game in terms of her own fantasies.
Sometimes—often enough—her fantasy is not specifically sexual at all, but rather one of pure female sadism. With the (typically) frigid woman, the gratification of sexual performances originates in the sense of power over the male whom she sees as essentially pathetic.[2] (http://www.ex-iwp.org/docs/1973/sexual_impotency.htm)

Hm, actually perhaps we can just do with the first paragraph and the link to the article and delete the rest of the quotation. I think the last paragraph is interesting because it reveals a rather mysogynistic attitude but since this attitude is addressed later on perhaps the quotation is not needed AndyL 05:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem with Herschelkrustofsky's rather pathetic tactic of accusing everybody of forgery and fabrication every time they quote LLR in a way he doesn't like. (Although the irony of this is that LLR's record of anti-Semitism is now documented here in a way it would not have been had not Herschelkrustofsky challenged us to produce evidence). As I suggested above I think the solution is to place the full text of the quoted documents in a Wikisource file. When I get "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism" scanned, I will establish such a file. Adam 11:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here's an article series from the Washington Post that can be added to the external links once the article's unprotected. [1]. 172 14:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's already listed under "Media Reports" (it's the third one in that section). AndyL 16:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article is now 53KB long. I suggest that some of the many ext. links be trimmed and the extended argumentation about LaRouche's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial be shortened and summarized; I think the quote more or less speaks for itself in any case. Everyking 11:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article is long, but I am reluctant to agree to cutting it, because it is now a very valuable resource for people who want to learn the truth about LaRouche. The reason it is long is that the LaRouchites accuse us of forgery and fabrication, so we have to document everything and provide verbatim texts for everything. I am particularly opposed to cutting the "LaRouche and the Jews" section, because anti-Semitism as at the heart of LaRouche's politics, and is also the accusation that the LaRouchites most vehemently deny. I have to say that I think Andy's section on LaRouche's sexual views, interesting though it is, is rather peripheral by comparison and could be cut. Adam 12:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Excellent article

Hi, I just wanted to say that even if it's topic is somewhat marginal, this is one of the best researched and written articles I until now have found in the Wikipedia! -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche Legal Case

I have made corrections to the "criminal conviction" section, and added the text of the exoneration ad. Whether you are a supporter, opponent, or even (theoretically possible) neutral, I think all will agree that the court case against LaRouche is a very important part of an encyclopedia article about him and should be reported as accurately and completely as possible. --Weed Harper 14:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


So why did you remove the following?

"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. More seriously, however, LaRouche was accused of fraudently soliciting "loans" from vulnerable elderly people, sometimes giving completely misleading explanations for the loan ("funding the Strategic Defense Initiative" or "finding a cure for AIDS"). 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."AndyL 22:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Because that section is inaccurate/POV. Political fundraising is not "telemarketting" -- I get fundraising calls from the Democratic Party all the time, and I would not call it telemarketting, even though the callers are obviously using a script, which no self respecting LaRouche fundraiser would do. Also, from what I have experienced, LaRouche fundraisers always say they are with LaRouche right off the bat -- many people might find a LaRouche call more interesting than other pleas for money, or if they don't, they can hang up and the fundraiser doesn't waste his time. Also, I have contributed to different branches of the LaRouche movement -- they have a science branch called "Twenty First Century Science and Technology" and a cultural branch, "Schiller Institute" -- but these are not "dummy companies." No one has ever asked me to contribute to the federal government, (which is the only thing that funds SDI or AIDS research), except the federal government. Also as I pointed out in my corrections, it was the federal government that blocked attempts to recover the "loans." Weed Harper 03:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the LaRouche fundraising pitch has changed after the fraud charges? Raising money for SDI sounds like a 1980s pitch. In any case, I don't see including the full text of the ad as necessary or relevent. A link to the ad should suffice. This is not a promotional service for LaRouche, after all. AndyL 03:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) AndyL 03:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Quite the contrary.
It's odd that you don't think the ad belongs in the article, since the article is about LaRouche. You seemed to feel that it was necessary to have a long list of Ramsey Clark's clients, which might be more appropriate to an article about Ramsey Clark. Weed Harper 14:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I thought a short list was fine. You wanted to lengthen the list to include Berrigan and Peltier. AndyL 16:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why should anyone care what Salon magazine says about Ramsey Clark? --Peter_Abelard@ausi.com

Because the LaRouchites use him as evidence that LaRouche's conviction for fraud was somehow irregular. "See," they say, "a former US Attorney-General agrees with us." So the fact the Clark defends everybody against the US, and that he is widely regarded as a crank, becomes relevant. Adam 23:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be equally appropriate to provide some biographical detail on Dennis king, Christine Berle, and Fred Newman? They are all whack-jobs that you treat as respectable, because they are anti-LaRouche. --Peter_Abelard@ausi.com