From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Growth of Christian Identity
Date: 7 Oct 1992 22:55:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Well Chip, it looks like you have an apology coming, albeit a srtictly
limited and somewhat grudging one. After looking through my small but
growing collection of Berletia, with particular attention to the three
part article "Larouchians as Fascists", it appears that you do not
routinely make blatant errors of objective fact as I had implied. I 
was misled by the one whopper I legitimately DID catch you in, combined
with my overall disagreement with the thrust of your other work.

That said, hiowever, I want to devote some attention to the sense in 
which I nevertheless think it is fair to call your work inaccurate,
even though the inaccuracies do not in general manifest themselves as
factually incorrect statements. One aspect of this is something which
any advocate of a particular viewpoint must do to some extent, but 
which I think you carry to unwarranted extremes. That is the practice
of selecting facts (and quoting opinions) which support your hypothesis
while ignoring or minimizinng those which contradict it. Thus, for 
example, you play up LaRouche's criticism of Jewish individuals and
organizations while giving only grudging acknowledgement to his 
persistent opposition to Naziism. Additionally, you entirely fail
to compare his criticism of Jews to his very similar criticism of
Gentiles to determine whether he is being even handed. And of course
you entirely fail to consider the question of whether any of his
criticisms are objectively justified based on the known or probable
activities of those whom he has attacked.

This is not your worst failing, however. I reserve that characterization
for the centrally important question you leave unanswered - a question
which was the FIRST question I sought to answer when I first began to
critically examine LaRouche's movement. That deceptively simple question
is this: WHAT DOES LAROUCHE BELIEVE? Now I knew better than this when I 
was writing for a local alternative paper in 1970. I was assigned to do
an article on the local peace movement. I went around to the various 
anti-war groups and employed the innovative and unorthodox research
technique of asking them what their positions were. When I was done I
wrote paragraphs on The New Mobilization Committee, the Resistence, the
Lansing Area Peace Council, and the Student Mobilization Committee 
(including the YSA and WSA/SDS factions). There was general agreement
that I had accurately represented their diverse viewpoints, and even
those who were bitter factional oponents of one another felt that their
views received fair treatment. 

3 to 4 years later when I became aware of the NCLC, I attempted to
employ a similar approach. I attended conferences, read literature,
and talked to organizers. When I heard reference to a concept I
didn't understand, I asked somebody what it meant. It took a while, 
but eventually I was able to grasp the underlying philosophical 
principles which tied together what might seem at first glance to be 
a diverse and unrelated catalog of positions. (To state them in 
overly simplified form, they consist of creativity as a physical
characteristic of the natural universe, self-conscious creative
intelligence as the uniquely defining characteristic of the human 
species, and the Idea of Progress as the central issue separating
the pro and anti humanist factions throughout recorded history).

Now you on the other hand, do not appear to have sought the 
underlying basis of LaRouche's ideology. Had you done so, you
could have performed a useful service, even to your anti-LaRouche
co-thinkers, by identifying the intellectual perspective of your
enemy. You could have attempted to develop arguments against what
LaRouche actually believes, instead of being reduced to the expedient
of arguing that he is racist, fascist, Nazi, etc. and should thus be
avoided. Finally, you would have had the key to what ACTUALLY attracts
people to LaRouche, instead of a rather pathetic reliance on polls
and demographics.

In your "Larouchians as fascist" post we find an intriguing passage
which is perhaps the basis for this glaring omission. You write:

>   Is LaRouche a fascist? The goal of fascism is 
>always raw power, and it will adopt or abandon 
>any principle to obtain power. The chameleon-like 
>nature of fascist theories is one of its 
>hallmarks, and often leads to confusion as to 
>whether it is on the political left or right as 
>it opportunistically gobbles up popular slogans 
>from existing movements.

>   Journalist James Ridgeway notes there are real 
>contradictions in LaRouche's politics: "While it 
>maintains contacts with far-right groups, 
>LaRouche's organization is ideologically at 
>cross-purposes with many which are nativist and 
>anarchist. LaRouche is an internationalist and a 
>totalitarian: he believes the masses are 
>`bestial' and unfit for citizenship."

>   Freelance journalist Nick Gallo takes us a 
>step further. In <The Seattle Weekly> he 
>acknowledges that much of what LaRouche espouses 
>"appears kooky, if only because his ideas 
>certainly defy conventional political analysis. . 
>. .However go beyond the individual positions on 
>different issues and beneath the surface lurk 
>echoes of sinister themes that have been 
>prevalent in the 20th century: preservation of 
>Western Civilization, purity of culture and 
>youth, elimination of Jewish and homosexual 
>influence, suspicion of international 
>banking conspiracies."

>   The opportunistic exploitation of 
>anxiety-producing issues by LaRouchies is no 
>surprise to Clara Fraser who knew LaRouche when 
>he was in the Socialist Workers Party. Writing in the 
><Freedom Socialist> newspaper, she explains, 
> "The pundits are intrigued and puzzled by his 
>amalgam of right and left politics, a tangled web 
>of KKK, Freudian, encounter therapy, Populist, 
>Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notions. They needn't 
>be. His is the prototypical face of fascism, 
>which is classically a hodgepodge of 
>pseudo-theories crafted for mass appeal. . . ."


These paragraphs present a view of fascism which emphasizes its
irrationalism and unprincipled opportunism, and attributes those
same qualities to LaRouche. In one master stroke you have rationalized
your failure to report on LaRouche's ideology. LaRouche has no ideology!, 
you tell us. Only a cynical laundry list of unrelated positions crafted
for mass appeal with no underlying coherence. 

The fact is that the philosophical coherence in LaRouche's work exists,
but is perhaps especially difficult to see if your view of the political
scene relies heavily on the use of terms like "Left" and "Right" as
though THEY identified coherent bodies of opposing thought. As a
then-anarchist I had already learned to view these terms as the 
artificial and misleading constructs they actually are. Thus the failure
of LaRouche's ideology to fit on that presumed spectrum didn't give me
a problem. I just continued to evaluate how their individual positions
related to their own standard of the struggle for Progress, and I found
them extraordinarily principled and consistent. 

Various progressive thinkers have attacked the idea of Progress on
philosophical grounds (Jeremy Rifkin comes to mind) so it is not that
this issue is not recognized on the Left. One is led to suspect that
those who philosophically oppose technologically mediated progress 
would prefer to make their arguments against straw men of their own 
choosing, rather than enter the lists with a living opponent who has
their number and would not hesitate to expose the truly wretched
anti-human implications of their position. They seek to arrogate to
themselves the moral high ground by claiming the anti-technology
position to be the pro-human position. It is not surprising that they
would prefer not to hear from the one voice today who clearly and 
consistently challenges that assumption.

Chip, if you want to do a competent job of researching LaRouche,
figure out for yuorself what he believes and report it. If you 
want to do a competent job of criticizing him, explain why you
think he is wrong.

-Steve