From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Satanic Roots of Rock - Creatin
Date: 17 Oct 1992 04:00:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


cberlet@igc.apc.org (NLG Civil Liberties Committee)
(Chip Berlet) writes:

>It is a real chore to try tp keep up with the utter misrepresentations
>of Steve the Crock regarding LaRouche.

Look who's talking. Utter misrepresentations indeed. I don't know whether
to laugh, cry or vomit.

> Steve says LaRouche is not homophobic. Complete lie!. LaRouche has written

That is not what I said. I did not and do not use the term "homophobic" 
because I am not clear what it means. In point of fact, I doubt that it
has a well defined meaning. It strikes me as an epithet whose content
refers to the fact that the user of the term disapproves of the opinions 
or behavior of the individual or group described as regards a particular
subject matter; in this instance homosexuality. (cf. racist, facist, 
communist, a**hole). What I said was:

<begin quote>

  >>What difference does it make that he was a homosexual ?

  >I'm not entirely sure of the point here myself. LaRouche has said that 
  >although he has no animosity toward homosexual individuals, considering 
  >them victims, he does consider homosexuality a sickness. Perhaps the 
  >author intended to imply that Epstein, as exemplified by his 
  >homosexuality, was an emotionally sick person.

<end quote>

Now you may or may not choose to consider LaRouche's viewpoint here
"homophobic" and you may or may not choose to consider LaRouche's
political activities you cite as consistent with that viewpoint, but
I assure you that that IS his viewpoint taken from his own words. And
no, I don't have a source. It is buried somewhare in a stack of New
Federalists several feet deep and I don't have the spare hours to
hunt through them. I'm telling you that I read it and that was what he 
said. You can believe me or not.

And the next time you tell me what I supposedly said, in a public forum,
why don't you try to get it right. For a person who makes his living with
words, you show a remarkable inability to accurately report the sense of
a simple declarative sentence.

>thousands of words attacking homosexuals, engineered two attempts in
>California to round up and detain persons who tested positive with HIV.

In a similar sense to the way people who tested positive for TB were
"rounded up" and "detained" in the in times past. Can you say "humane
quarantine"? Now there is room for reasonable people to disagree about 
whether LaRouche is correct when he claims that mainstream AIDS experts
are understating transmissibility, but IF he is correct in that contention,
then quarantine is just good public health. And if he attacks gay activist
groups, not for being pro-homosexual, but for opposing what he considers
sensible public health measures, then this sounds reasonable to me. 

Plus, if he is "homophobic" as you suggest, why does he advocate spending
billions of dollars on a "Manhattan Project" crash program to seek a
cure. Wouldn't it be more consistent to just let them die? Oh, I forgot.
As a fascist LaRouche is not expected to show ideological consistency. 
The call for researching a cure is obviously an opportunistic ploy to
go after the gay vote :).

>Finally, LaRouche writing about AIDS, said that history would not judge
>harshly those persons who took baseball bats and beat to death homosexuals
>to stop the spread of AIDS. I toured California on behalf of gay and civil

I read something he said in a similar vein, although not that exact quote.
What he said was that if public health measures were NOT taken and AIDS
continued to spread, that people acting out of hysteria would do exactly
that. This was not advocacy of such actions. It was a plea to derail the 
evolving scenario which would inevitably lead to such events. Chip, once
again you show a relationship to language similar to that boasted of by
Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland.

>liberties groups several years ago to stop the LaRouche initiative. There
>was no doubt in anyone's mind that LaRouche was one of the most vicious
>homophobes in the current political scene.

There is usually no doubt in closed-minded intellectual environments
that whatever they have made up their minds to believe must be so.

> Steve cites Phil Ochs as a good folk performer. Surprise, Steve, I worked

And a corageous political leader and one of the great political poets of this 
Century.

>with Phil in antiwar and anti-fascist projects and he used to stay at my
>apartment in Washington. We both thought LaRouche was a fascist, and used to
>argue about whether or not he was an intelligence plant. Turns out Phil's
>suspicions were right. In the early years of the Reagan administration, 
>LaRouche intelligence operatives provided information to the CIA and the
>National Security Council.

Phil Ochs was a hero, and a man whose work touched my own life deeply. 
But such people can still be wrong. And the view of LaRouche that you
and he shared is wrong. 

OF COURSE LaRouche provided information to any policy making body who
would listen. Nobody but a fool would expect him to do otherwise. 
LaRouche had and has a fairly unique perspective on world events, which
he believes (and I agree) is superior to that of other analysts and
competing communities of thought. Of course he will attempt to 
communicate this world view and supporting data to policy makers so
that they might be convinced to adopt better policies and act properly.
In my own small way I do the same. I've even been known to communicate
information to Chip Berlet. But Chip doesn't have the good judgement shown
by Bailey of the NSC. Chip doesn't listen.

> Steve, why post this garbage and then claim you can't verify the
>information? Take responsibility for what you post. Incidently, much of

Because I CAN'T verify it. ("No brag, just fact".) I post it because I
believe it is true, or that it may well be true and should be examined.
As I said on another thread, LaRouche has dozens of full time 
researchers to investigate and report on the various controversial 
issues he seeks to analyze. No one human who has to work at a day
job could independently recreate the research of even one of these 
individuals. On questions about which I consider myself qualified to
have an opinion, LaRouche makes better sense to me than the competing
world views. Thus, I grant him credibility on other matters unless I
see some fairly definite proof that he is wrong (as on the question of
the existence of "psychic" phenomena, for example).

>the LaRouchian rap on rock is "borrowed" from the writings of David
>Noebel of Summit Ministries, author of such lunatic standards as 
>"Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles," and "Rock, Rhythm and Revolution."

I can't comment on this since I haven't read the works in question. Perhaps,
without necessarily being entirely correct, these books have some true facts
or good ideas to draw from.

> -Chip Berlet

who else?

-Steve