Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 1

Regarding the Adam and Andy version

 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List of wild fabrications and propagandistic slurs in the present version.


 * Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Significant Omissions from the current version

What little of LaRouche's ideas that actually appears in this article has been "spun" so much as to be unrecognizable. Your chances of understanding LaRouche by reading this article are nil. Instead, read LaRouche for yourself: The Substance of Morality.

Weed Harper 05:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I wrote a new article which is a concise summary of LaRouche's basic ideas, the sort of thing that would be useful to an encyclopedia reader. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it will quickly be reverted by a group of anti-LaRouche activists that want to suppress LaRouche's ideas, and to flog their personal theories and POV. However, at least it will be available on the history pages. (see here)172.193.204.146 21:41, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The views of LaRouche activists on this article are well-known. Adam 05:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Unless specific, fixable objections are stated, the accuracy and NPOV warnings should be removed promptly - David Gerard 11:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No, they need to be here on the talk page so that the objections can be crossed off as each is resolved or invalidated - David Gerard 23:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * As you wish. The article was only recently split into three parts; the centralized list was painstakingly organized from previous talk pages by Martin AKA MyRedDice. But I have no problem reproducing it here. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While we hopefully give Snowspinner's mediation efforts a chance, I have removed my list from this page (it is still available at the above link), with the exception of the parts germane to the discussion of "LaRouche and the Jews." --Herschelkrustofsky 21:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry but people who speak of vast conspiracys to smear the name of a leader of a minor fringe group have no place on this website, often reading straight from the source is one of the worst places to obtain a neutral point of view, especially a fringe group which actively seeks to recruit new members. Only a naievetè would believe otherwise.

After all, if you wanted to get an accurate and unbiased understanding of the practices and controversies of even a mainstream political party would you talk to the candidate that is up for re-election? Of course not. On The other hand one would not ask his opponent either. An intelligent person would ask someone with absolutley no stake in the election either way. Now I apoligise if this offends Larougites but it is absolutley irrational to believe that almost every single person in power in virtually the entire industrialized world has an interest in seeing Larouge fail. More than likely, at least the vast majority of them could care less.- 67.169.170.140 06:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tags
Removing dispute tags is vandalism. If you remove a dispute tag when a dispute has not been resolved (And if you find your edits being generally reverted, it's a good sign the dispute has not been resolved), you are vandalizing the page, and you will find the entirety of your edit reverted. Furthermore, if you repeatedly remove dispute tags, you will find yourself blocked from editing.

This page has been spending far too much time protected, and the people who are causing its continual protection are either going to stop disrupting the page or stop editing Wikipedia entirely. The choice is theirs. Snowspinner 16:10, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Another note here. Although the removal of the dispute tags is unacceptable, this article does have some problems with NPOV. It's not that the article shouldn't make clear the generally accepted view of LaRouche's opinions. It's that it should not make the blanket statement that they are "incoherent" or disconnected from "general reality." Regardless of personal opinions of LaRouche and his followers (Opinions, I assure you, I share with Adam and David), he has followers who do not believe him to be incoherent or disconnected from reality. Thus it is not objecctive fact that he is either of these things. Thus it is POV to state it as objective fact.

I encourage someone on the anti-LaRouche side to make a pass through this article that separates the editorial comments about the validity of LaRouche's views from the descriptions of those views. Snowspinner 19:02, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why don't you have a go at it? john k 20:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Because I'm trying to remain uninvolved so that I can effectively mediate and moderate this dispute. And because I'd rather see the edit warriors learn how to handle this than have to do it myself. Snowspinner 20:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I could have a go at it, I suppose. john k 22:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the alternate version
I trimmed the quote at the beginning down to one paragraph, and added my own gloss. I don't know the legal distinction between a "quote" and a "copyright violation" -- perhaps Snowspinner or someone else could clue me in. Presumably there is a size limit to an acceptable quote. I am also not convinced that this quote is the best one, but I think it would be appropriate to provide a quote that more or less summarizes LaRouche's political views, since there has been a definite forest vs. trees problem here, and the Adam and Andy version seems, IMHO, designed to hide the forest altogether. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair use is a notoriously nebulous concept, but a paragraph is probably OK. Snowspinner 02:56, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Immediate reversion
In an effort to help mediate and calm down this dispute, I'm going to rope off some things and say "Don't do this." The list will be added to as needed. But for now, if you do any of these things, your edit will be reverted, plain and simple.


 * 1) Misleading edit summaries. If your summary says "Added X" and neglects to mention that it also removes a whole bunch of stuff, your edit will be reverted.
 * 2) Removing the dispute tag. If you remove the dispute tag, your edit will be reverted, and you will probably get a 24 hour block for vandalism, as everybody has now been warned about this.

Not yet on this list, but very, very close to being on this list is insertion of flagrantly POV phrases.

Let's try to be civil here. I still encourage someone on the anti-LaRouche side to take a pass either through their own preferred version or through Herchel's preferred version and try to NPOV it instead of a revert war. Either take out the claims of "incoherence" (Or, better yet, note that they are points of view) or, probably even better, take the version that most represents the POV opposite yours and insert paragraphs explaining your POV. Snowspinner 21:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

The LaRoucheite version of this article is complete rubbish, but since other people are working towards a "compromise" version of the article I will refrain for now from reverting it. HOWEVER to delete the "LaRouche and the Jews" section, which documents LaRouche's Holocaust denial, is completely unacceptable, and unless any compromise version of the article includes this section, I will revert to my last edit. And since the version currently visible to the public is grossly dishonest and misleading, I will not wait long before doing so. Adam 01:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just so I know what I'm dealing with here (I'm very deliberately not educating myself on LaRouche here, so that I remain unbiased), what is wrong with their version? I mean, are there factual inaccuracies, and if so, will you indicate exactly what they are? Snowspinner 01:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, someone who is not educated about LaRouche, deliberately or otherwise, is in no position to arbitrate on these matters. I suggest you read the edit history of the Lyndon LaRouche article and get up to speed. In the meantime, I would like a response to my point about the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. If I am not assured that this section will be included in your compromise version, I will revert to the most recent version which does include it. This is a matter of principle on which compromise is not possible. Adam 01:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to arbitrate it - I'm trying to mediate it, and to evaluate the positions based on the evidence. I mean, I'm not unaware of LaRouche and the controversy that surrounds him - but I'm also not prejudging specific opinions. LaRouche is a controversial figure. I expect that he will have lots of controversial views that most people think are absurd. I expect that an NPOV article will present these views, as well as people's objections to them. Am I mistaken in any of these? Snowspinner 01:48, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I would like a response to my point about the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. If I am not assured that this section will be included in your compromise version, I will revert to the most recent version which does include it. This is a matter of principle on which compromise is not possible. Adam 03:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche on the Jews
Just so I can be clear on this, then, does anyone have specific and factual objections to this section? Or are they POV objections, which can be worked out much more easily. Snowspinner 03:08, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have consolidated below my specific objections to the "LaRouche and the Jews" section. I have no problem with including Adam's quotes from LaRouche. I do maintain that his personal theories and spin-doctoring are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I would also suggest that the section be balanced by including some of LaRouche's comments on the importance of Philo of Alexandria, made in the 70s and contemporaneous with the Zionism quotes. Adam is attempting to make a case for his theory that LaRouche is or was an anti-Semite; again, Wikipedia is not the proper forum. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the case that LaRouche is an anti-Semite is not restricted to Adam. (At a glance, looking at his works and repeated attacks on Zionism, it would be my default assumption that he was, simply because "Zionist" is so often used as a code-word for "Jew" in anti-Semitic literature. WHich is not to say LaRouche does this - just that I can see why people would say he does.) Can, perhaps, Adam's arguments be kept in his preferred form, and you could compose a paragraph or two to go at the end of the LaRouche and the Jews section which depicts the LaRouche defense against accusations of anti-Semitism? Snowspinner 23:34, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Zionism / Zionist

 * "Zionism is a Jewish political movement supporting the creation and (since 1948) defence of a Jewish state in Palestine." I think even this definition is debatable -- see Zionism. Weed Harper 06:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "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.


 * This is a bare-faced lie. LaRouche's literature attacks "Zionists" as an undifferentiated category. Since the great majority of Jews consider themselves to be Zionists, this is seen by Jews to be an attack on them. Since Jabotinsky has been dead for more than 60 years this is a typical LaRouchite red herring. If there's anything worse than an open anti-Semite it's a dissembling anti-Semite. Adam 00:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "In the event of additional personal attacks by either party, either User Herschelkrustofsky or User Adam Carr are subject to short bans (around a day), the duration of the ban to gradually increase upon subsequent offenses to a two week maximum." -- arbcom decision. Weed Harper 21:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "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. ''

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 ,and .)


 * "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.

Does it matter
I'd like to make a point, here, in the hopes of defusing an argument that I think is ultimately off-topic. I don't think it matters whether LaRouche is an anti-Semite or not. He may be. He may not be. I don't care. What I care about is that both sides of this dispute be represented evenhandedly. REGARDLESS of whether or not you think the LaRouche side is reasonable, or the anti-LaRouche side is a conspiracy. That's what NPOV means. Representing sides of an argument you think suck and are invald. So let's just take it as a given that there's a controversy here, assume that neither Adam nor Hersch are ever going to agree on whether Lyndon LaRouche is an anti-Semite, and write an encyclopedia article that includes both POVs, shall we? I mean, does anyone actually have any objections to this plan? Snowspinner 00:52, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

The section "LaRouche and the Jews" was carefully written and moderately phrased, and seeks to set out and analyse documentary evidence pertinent to the question of whether LaRouche is or was an anti-Semite and/or a Holocuast denier. You are welcome to try to rewrite it but I will oppose any attempt to water it down or allow it to be contaminated with LaRouche nonsense such as that set out by Herschelkrustofsky above. Adam 02:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * While I understand your feelings on LaRouche and his followers, I am unable to reconcile them with the NPOV policy. Snowspinner 04:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * That said, looking at the section, I find it to be quite even-handed, with only one or two lapses. I'm gonna go ahead and make a quick NPOV pass on it, but my feeling is that it should certaiinly be included. That said, due to its length, I would not be averse to breaking it off to a separate article with a one paragraph summary in this one and a link. I'm not wedded to that idea either, though - thoughts on it? Snowspinner 05:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * As much as I appreciate the attempt to make this site as neutral as possible I recognize the great flaw of Wikipedia. I basically attempts to create history through consensus.  At times people are forced to water down events that actually happened because either someone doesn't think they really did, or they are offended by it because it contradicts their world view and personal politics.  No matter what evidence one presents, the other disagees.- 67.169.170.140 06:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche and the Jews - Current Version
What do people think of the current version? I've taken out the editorializing comments, and tried to make it so that the quotes from LaRouche speak for themselves, instead of the article saying what to think about them. I don't see much that speculates about LaRouche's motives or is dodgy in there, though if I'm missing something Herschel should feel free to point it out. But my feeling at the moment is that, yes, this section is certainly good enough to go in any version of the article. Any thoughts? Snowspinner 05:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to Snowspinner's edit on this section. I have very strenuous objections to the LaRouche propaganda tract which Weed Harper is attempting to foist on us. Unless Snowspinner or someone else comes up with their "compromise" version very soon I will revert to the last version. Adam 08:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate greatly if you did not place a deadline on this. Snowspinner 14:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

The Basic Version
I've still not come down and said "X is the basic version." I think both versions are seriously flawed. Weed/Herschel's version, I think, has the distinct advantage of actually containing a summary of Lyndon LaRouche's political system. It contains the massive weakness, however, of not indicating A) that this system is highly controversial, B) that people outside of LaRouche's supporters tend not to find LaRouche as coherent as all that, and C) that LaRouche has taken controversial views on other issues beyond his general philosophy. Since this is an article on his views, not his philosophy, I think sections like the anti-Semitism section are very, very important to have. I also think an account of his political philosophy is important to have.

My problems with the Adam/Andy version, as I have said, is that it's a mess of POV editorial comments about LaRouche, and that its organizational structure is to move through controversial points about LaRouche instead of through LaRouche's views in an NPOV manner.

My feeling is that a "default version" would probably be an amalgamation of the two articles. I've got an incredibly busy morning ahead of me, so if someone else wants to try to merge the two articles into one version, that'd be neat. Otherwise, I'll get it this evening.

My sense would be, basically, the Hersch/Weed version followed by the Adam/Andy version, with a new introductory paragraph being inserted, and with the current lead of the Hersch/Weed version being the first paragraph of a section called "LaRouche's political philosophy," and the Adam/Andy section being titled something like "Controversial views of Lyndon LaRouche." Snowspinner 14:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am making an initial attempt to carry out your proposal. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to Snowspinner or some other User not previously involved attempting to write a compromise or composite article incorporating elements of the pro-LaRouche and anti-LaRouche articles. I am not optimistic of their chances of success (it will be like trying to write an article on evolution by merging a Darwinian article and a creationist article), but I am willing to wait and see what they come up with. I am emphatically not willing that Herschelkrustofsky should be the person to undertake this task, since he is a partisan in this controversy. Adam 11:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Critics of LaRouche
Adam deleted this section, saying "it doesn't belong in the article." By the same token, Weed objected to the insertion of a paragraph of opinions about why Ramsey Clark ought not to be taken seriously, over at Lyndon LaRouche. I now believe that they are both mistaken in their judgement, based on some reading that I have done (at the suggestion of others on the talk page) about the fine points of Wikipedia NPOV policy. When opinions of someone who purports to be an expert are introduced to the article, it is fitting and proper to explore the qualifications and possible biases of the cited expert (in this case, King, Berlet, and so forth.) So, I would argue that this section belongs in the article, without question. It is definately in keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing sources -- the reader should know something about the source. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you give the citation for their admitting to these meetings taking place? And also some source of the causality? (That is, that the meetings directly led to waves of anti-LaRouche criticism?) Snowspinner 03:57, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I actually deleted it primarily because I don't believe it and won't do so until I see some independent (ie, non-LaRouche) evidence for it. Adam 04:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If you saw a LaRouche source for it, would you accept its addition if its source were clearly indicated? Snowspinner 06:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

No. Adam 07:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I linked the passage to an assessment by Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase.org, who has no affiliation with LaRouche. He is discussing the "Quinde Affidavit," filed under oath by former LaRouche investigator Herbert Quinde. Quinde interviewed Berlet, Hudson and Sanders (a former editor of Business Week) about their involvement in the Train meetings. A more detailed description of the Quinde affidavit is available on this LaRouche site. In addition, Mira Lansky Boland testified under oath at a hearing during the appeals process, as to her involvement in the meetings -- I am looking for internet documentation on this. On Aug. 6, 1984, attorneys for LaRouche depositioned Dennis King. When asked about the circumstances under which he was introduced to Pat Lynch, King was silent. His attorney, Scott McLaughlin, interrupted the deposition, and took King out into the hallway for 20 minutes; when they returned, King claimed he could not recall how he had first met Lynch.

--Herschelkrustofsky 10:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Postscript: I note that an individual purporting to be Chip Berlet (although his writing style and POV is remarkably similar to that of Adam Carr) has just edited the article on himself, and posted to Talk:Chip Berlet. On the talk page User:Cberlet admits to attending the meetings, although he asserts that Quinde got the year of the meeting wrong. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have never edited the Chip Berlet article. I had never heard of him till I got involved in editing this article and I still know nothing about him.
 * I have never heard of Daniel Brandt, either, but I will accept the reference given as evidence that this anti-LaRouche meeting took place in 1983 unless someone has evidence which would discredit the reference. That does not mean, of course, that the sinister aspect Herschelkrustofsky places on the meeting is necessarily accurate, but I don't have enough knowledge about this to edit the section.
 * Apart from that, this section belongs in the Lyndon LaRouche article, not in this one. Adam 12:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The section is relevant to both articles, but it would seem to me to be more relevant to the article where the opnions of LaRouche's critics are most prominently featured. Incidentally, I believe that much of what AndyL has added to the various articles comes from Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I emailed User:Cberlet through his user page and it is indeed Chip Berlet himself -- not Adam Carr. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 18:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche and the Jews section
I removed the following addition by User:C Colden:


 * However, during this period LaRouche publications such as Campaigner magazine often promoted Philo of Alexandria and Maimonides as positive examples of the "Platonic humanist current in Judaism," and most of the leadership of the NCLC was Jewish.

Perhaps it may make sense to reinsert some version of it if the follwoing questions are discussed: 1) Is there any evidence for this? and 2) If so, it is a relevant "balance" to the other material in the paragraph. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 19:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I reinserted it with the source: Dec 1978 issue of "Campaigner." I have seen it in other publications from that era, but that one I specifically remember. As far as the Jewish members, even Chip Berlet, who hates LaRouche, admits to that.

Weed Harper 21:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche's rhetorical flourishes about Philo of Wherever are just part of his usual bullshit about how he is the heir of Franklin and Douglass and Roosevelt etc etc. It in no way balances his record of Holocaust denial and Zionist conspiracies. Adam 01:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, as I understand the NPOV policy, the objective is to provide the Wikipedia reader with enough information so that they may draw their own informed conclusions, rather than having the editors attempt to force-feed their own. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Is LaRouche a Fascist?" section
This entire section reads like someone's personal theory, not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I inserted a "dubious" label after this: "LaRouche's political organization is built entirely around his own personality and the promotion of his words and ideas." It should be removed, because no one joins the LaRouche movement as an activist without becoming thoroughly acquainted with Henry Carey, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich Schiller, Plato, Gauss, FDR, and so on. Weed Harper 14:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's mediation
I am informed that Snowspinner is on a Wikivacation, which is unfortunate, because I think he had a pronounced civilizing impact on the editing here. I would like to urge editors to stick to his guidelines: provide a clear an honest rationale for each edit, and do not revert multiple edits with a single misleading edit memo. The LaRouche-related pages have made a noticeable shift towards compliance with the NPOV guidelines, and while there is much work left to be done, I hope that all parties concerned recognize that there has been progress.

--Herschelkrustofsky 21:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche's critics
The majority of this article is not about LaRouche's views per se; it is about the characterization of his views by Berlet, King et al. Therefore the section on LaRouche's critics is appropriate and indispensable. Andy refers to the Train Salon meetings as a "fantasy," but this assertion doesn't stand up to scrutiny, particularly since Berlet himself weighed in over at Talk:Chip Berlet and admitted attending the meetings (although he offers a different characterization of what the agenda was.) The Quinde affidavit, cited in this article, is based on interviews with three different participants, one of them being Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky

Actually Berlet used the singular, he said "meeting" not "meetings" and said nothing that supports your characterisation of them. Please provide some evidence of the content of these "meetings" or even that there was more than one get together.You post an affadavit but was this supported by the testimony of the participants? What was the court finding in regards to LaRouche's claims re the "John Train Salon" as you call it? AndyL 22:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Berlet admits to attending one of the meetings, but there were three different participants interviewed. The court hearing was an evidentiary hearing as part of a complicated deal around LaRouche's appeals process -- there was no verdict, just a lot of sworn testimony. I have changed the first sentence to make it fit the Daniel Brandt article in NameBase -- Adam demanded a non-LaRouche source, and one was provided. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph is misleading because, in part due to its placement, it implies that all criticisms of LaRouche flow from the "John Train Salon". In fact, much of the criticism has nothing to do with those alleged to be at the meeting. Certainaly Clara Fraser, Tim Wohlforth and various former members of the LaRouche movement were not present. Basically, what you are trying to do is use that paragraph as a disclaimer to dismiss all criticism of LaRouche as the product of some sort of conspiracy. AndyL 01:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will re-write the section. However, almost all press coverage of LaRouche did in fact flow from the meetings. I had certainly never heard of Clara Fraser or Tim Wohlforth prior to your inserting their views in the article. Tell me, did you know of them before you began googling in search of anti-LaRouche citations? The high-profile critics of LaRouche are those who were present at the meetings. To my knowledge, no ex-member, however disgruntled, has ever launched a significant public attack on LaRouche -- they were solicited by King and Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Tell me, did you know of them before you began googling in search of anti-LaRouche citations?

As a matter of fact, I did. Clara Fraser was co-founder and leader of the Freedom Socialist Party. I've met one or two members of that party over the years. Tim Wohlforth was leader of the Workers League in the US, a Healyite formation. I actually corresponded with him over email a few years ago over matters not relating to LaRouche. AndyL 22:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andy, you deleted the section with an edit summary that consisted only of "moving." Moving to where? It ought to be in proximity to the section which propounds the views of LaRouche's critics. I have replaced it until you want to make some sort of counter-proposal.--Herschelkrustofsky 05:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You should have looked at my subsequent edit. It was a two step move due to the size of the article. AndyL 05:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I found it. I can live with the new location, but the list of participants should stay. Even a person who was completely neutral on LaRouche would have to marvel at the amazing diversity of the attendees -- strange bedfellows, indeed. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I said earlier you need to provide citations other than this affadavit by a LaRouche supporter. AndyL 12:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What I provided was an objective, third party assessment of the affidavit by Daniel Brandt. Also, the citation of testimony by Lansky Boland, which was deleted, has been restored: she simply acknowledged that she had attended meetings, and confirmed the names of those participants that attended those meetings.


 * It appears that Andy is advocating the creation of yet another article on the John Train Salon. I don't think this is necessary, but I won't oppose it.


 * There is no published criticism, to my knowledge, of LaRouche by former members, except in cases where it was solicited by King and Berlet.


 * I oppose the edits which "sanitize" the description of Richard Mellon Scaife; I put in a compromise version.

--Herschelkrustofsky 15:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see the actual text of Boland's statement as there has been a "credibility gap" in the past between what LaRouche proponents claim and reality (see Talk:Eurasian_Land-Bridge in regards to this Turkish magazine which apparently is not the major publication you claimed it was and past claims denying that LaRouche ever said only 1.5 million Jews died in WWII). I understand you claim Boland's testimony supports the "John Train Salon" claim but I'd like to see for myself what she actually said as far as who the participants were and the purpose of the meeting(s). Given all the material the LaRouche camp has placed online I see no reason why this testimony, if it is so important, wouldn't be online somewhere so please provide a link so I can see it for myself. AndyL 15:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * National press coverage during this period included stories charging that LaRouche had orchestrated the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, and that he had attempted to assassinate U.S. President Jimmy Carter.

Please provide dates and newspapers/magazines/tv shows in which these stories were disseminiated. AndyL 15:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given the already voluminous family of LaRouche articles, I don't think it necessary to have another on the John Train Salon. I would suggest removing the Wiki link to a yet unwritten article. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to see a transcript of Boland's testimony. AndyL 15:35, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any such transcripts online, but if you really want to read the transcript, the Schiller Institute site has the information to find it: it is from the "2255 hearing" (a particular kind of hearing) in Roanoke Virginia, May 24 1990, appendix 54. Weed Harper 23:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the transcript says what you folks suggest it says I don't see why it isn't online given the eagerness of the LaRouche movement to convert documents into html.

And I fail to see the relevence of the "critics" section to an article on "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche" given that your accusations re the "John Train Salon" is that they were responsible for media accusing LaRouche of criminal activity rather than for producing a political critique. What does a reference to NBC running an piece on assassinations have to do with "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche"?AndyL 01:02, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you about the NBC pieces being not particularly relevant, but they do establish that a significant amount of the post-Illinois election coverage was in fact just a further extension of the Train Salon activity. The main relevance of the Train Salon meetings is that they were responsible for the sudden media prominence of Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who graduated from High Times to the big leagues. Most of what is offered in the article as a "political critique" comes from King and Berlet. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:51, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Can we remove the NPOV notice now?AndyL 21:49, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On October 10, 2004, 4 months of intensive edit warring over the content of this and related articles were resolved through compromise. The previous discussion on this talk page has been archived at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/archive1. I sincerely hope that future editing of this article can be done in conformity with Wikipedia NPOV policy. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Im suprised that this page doesn't talk about certain things. I picked up what appeared to be a LaRouce written magazine which appeared to set forth his political outlook, and essentially it sayed that FDR was the best president and laid down what might be called a "conspiracy" theory that politicians afterwards were influenced away from FDR's direction by this group of people associated with this international meeting, one I had never heard about before. Can anyone chime in on this?


 * I think LaRouche's view is that FDR was the best president of the 20th Century -- if I'm not mistaken, he has said that Lincoln was the best president overall. If you could be more specific about the "international meeting," I might be able to chime in on it. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't remember the name of it at all, but it took place back in the era of black and white pictures ;). What I read basically said it was these men at that meeting who eventually got control of the government and instigated that bread and circuses that is the 60's with programs like MKULTRA.
 * That would be the Congress for Cultural Freedom. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So if, at least in the present views of LaRouche, the CCF is like the center of the conspiracy, how does that gel with like the others mentioned in this article, such as Rockefeller, etc.?

SlimVirgin's latest contribution
The purpose of the first section of the article is to present LaRouche's core beliefs and provide a summary of his world view. The "conspiracy theory" section comes under "criticism of LaRouche" because it is a discussion of things that LaRouche may actually have said, which his opponents believe fall under the pejorative category of "conspiracy theories."

SlimVirgin has inserted the material from Take a Break magazine into this section, and then tried to move the entire section into the "core beliefs" portion of the article, because he wishes to assert that it is just unforgiveably wacky and iconoclastic to suggest that the world's weathiest and most visible aristocratic family acts like a bunch of overdressed refugees from The Godfather, even to the point of "bumping off" its perceived enemies, and that anyone (such as Princess Diana herself) who would suggest such a thing must be avoided, ridiculed, banned from Wikipedia, or dealt with even more harshly. It is for this reason that Slim's latest contribution belongs under "criticism of LaRouche." I am leaving the NPOV dispute tag up until there is a consensus on this topic. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The structure of the article
The structure came about as a result of the mediation of Snowspinner, which ended four months of incessant edit wars. The first section of the article is comprised of views of LaRouche that his supporters, such as myself, consider most important. The second section is comprised of views, or in some cases alleged views, that anti-LaRouche activists such as yourself, Slim, prefer to emphasize. I have re-worked the subject headers to make this more explicit. Please do not move your edits into the first section without first presenting an argument on this talk page as to why the present structure is unfair or misleading. The present structure came about as a result of much hard work and compromise. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)