Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List/Archive 1

message: : These issues appear to be addressed to the satisfaction of all. Herschel: please move issues you have raised here as and when they are addressed to your satisfaction. Thanks. Martin 20:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed issues 

message: * "The group also adopted a position against abortion and ran a front group named "Club of Life" on the issue." The Club of Life was formed in response to attacks on LaRouche by the anti-abortion movement (which is inconvenient for Andy, who is attempting to lump LaRouche in with various "right-wing" causes). LaRouche has consistently refused to take a stand one way or the other on abortion (Andy, your memory must be failing, because you yourself put a link on one of the archived talk pages to a video clip from the Democratic Convention, where an enraged Baby Boomer was demanding that a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement take a position pro or con on abortion, which the youngster was refusing to do.) LaRouche has, however, attacked the philosophy of Malthusianism, and has attacked the right-to-lifers for their hypocritical refusal to fight euthanasia and the genocide being carried out against the Third World. The fact is, Andy, LaRouche has never sucked up to anyone in an attempt to gain support; he has never modified his own views in an attempt to gain support; he didn't modify his views to stay out of jail, although he was given that opportunity; your POV is all wet.
:See  Weed Harper 14:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Club of Life

message: * "During the 1970s LaRouche steered the NCLC away from the left and towards the extreme right, while retaining some of the slogans and attitudes of the left (as did the founder of fascism, the ex-Socialist Benito Mussolini, and many others since)."
The business about steering toward the extreme right is a myth, and even if it were not, trying to make a comparison to Mussolini would be propagandistic innuendo. -- Herschel
:This does seem to be POV, especially the part about Mussolini, which seems to be in there to "prove" that LaRouche is a right winger, rather than to provide information. Certainly connections between NCLC and various far right groups (and also with the Reagan administration) can be discussed, since that is pretty well documented. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a fair observation. LaRouche did swing from the extreme left to the right.
How so? What policies did he change? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, he abandoned Marxism for one and moved towards some sort of amalgam of 19th century philosophers. AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: The attribution has been removed. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:20, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steered to the right 

message: * "Although the expression "Eurasian Land-Bridge," for example, has been used to refer to the proposed Asian Highway, there is no evidence that LaRouche has ever had anything to do with this project."
Deception -- the Landbrige and Asian Highway are not the same thing, nor has anyone outside of Adam asserted that they were -- combined with deliberate fallacy of composition. -- Herschel
:You have yet to provide any independent evidence that the "Eurasian Land-Bridge" as you describe it exists. As I said earlier (see section on this page titled "the Land Bridge") all the articles you cite either do not mention the land bridge at all or cite LaRouche as their source. Despite the fact that you've failed to respond to my comments about the articles you repeat your dubious assertions. 
::The assertion that the "Asian Highway" is also called the "Eurasian Land-bridge" is yours, not mine. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have yet to reply to the points I maike in the "Land-Bridge" section of this page. I have yet to see any evidence outside of the LaRouche movement that this project exists. However, you and the LaRouchites claim that the "Eurasian Land-Bridge" is nicknamed the "New Silk Road" which happens to be the nickname of the "Asian Highway" as it turns out. AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land bridge 

message: * "Since 1979 LaRouche has concentrated on infiltrating his followers into the Democratic Party."
Innuendo. I myself registered as a Democrat in 1972. Did I "infiltrate" the party? Wesley Clark registered as a Democrat just in time to declare his candidacy for the 2004 election. Did he "infiltrate"? -- Herschel
:I agree.  This could be phrased differently. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Democrats consider the LaRouche movement to be infiltrators and have taken action against them. 
"The Democrats" you refer to are a number of Dixiecrats such as Don Fowler, not the party as a whole. I cited examples such as Sen. Eugene McCarthy who have publicly welcomed LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't recall the Democrats being particularly welcoming in the 1980s when LaRouche candidates won a few nominations in Illinois. AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic infiltration 

message: * "The use of the NDPC name has, however, allowed LaRouche followers to compete seriously in Democratic primaries for lesser offices, and even occasionally to win them."
Innuendo. What allows LaRouche followers to compete seriously is the fulfillment of petitioning and othe legal requirements. The NDPC was a Political Action Committee like any other.
:Maybe - some more detail here might be in order. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: the NDPC has no actual link with the Democratic Party though the name implies that it does.
No Political Action Committee has an "actual link". The NDPC (which hasn't existed since the '80s) was no different than any other PAC. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic primaries 

message: *	"LaRouche did not develop his current political and economic ideas in the 1950s or '60s: until at least 1969 he was a Trotskyist, although an increasingly unorthodox one."
Adam is a mind-reader? -- Herschel
:LaRouche was a Trotskyist until the late-1960s, he then "discovered" Rosa Luxermburg's writings on capitalism and adopted them and started making his own revisions. I suggest you read some of LaRouche's own writings from the period though I doubt the "LaRouche movement" will make them available to you.
::I have LaRouche's writings from that period. Do you? Or do you rely on Chip Berlet's characterizations? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I did look through a text by Lyn Marcus called "Dialectical Economics" a few years ago. I also have a copy of Rosa Luxemburg's "Accumulation of Capital" published by LaRouche with an introduction by him. I've also read what varioius contemporaries of LaRouche in the SWP say about him. AndyL 16:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  developing in the fifties 

message: * "LaRouche and his movement continued their journey to the right, abandoning any orientation towards labor in the late 1970s and soliciting funds instead from the wealthy." This is a fantasy, concocted to support bogus POV.
Oh? So you're saying LaRouche gets his support from factory workers then? The fact is that it was in the mid-1970s that the LaRouche movement stopped actively trying to recruit "the working class" and moved their fundraising efforts to airports and the like to target more affluent people. When did you start hanging out in airports instead of by factory gates, Herschel? If this is a "fantasy" then does that mean the LaRouchians one encounters at LAX and JFK are a mere mirage?AndyL 21:27, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am saying that LaRouche gets his support from factory workers, as well as a broad cross-section of the American population. During each of his campaigns during the 80s, LaRouche published lists of endorsements from Union officials. The fact is, Andy, you are engaging in pure POV speculation, and your snotty tone is poor Wikiquette. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Base of support 

message: * "In practice this amounts to advocating centralised, though not socialist, state control of the economy, with heavy state investment in industry and science, and presumably administered by members of the "Promethian" elite such as LaRouche himself."
Clumsy and obvious innuendo. -- Herschel
: seems like a fair description of LaRouche to me.
Is that your conception of NPOV? I hope you are kidding. And if not, the matter is straightforward: LaRouche is on the record of being a supporter of "Big Government" a la FDR. That means that the citizenry would control the regulation of the economy by voting for a government that suits its needs. The alternative is to have the economy regulated by an unelected Wall Street establishment, typified by the Fed. Adam's formulation implies that LaRouche is in favor of some sort of dictatorship. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Promethian elite" clause has been removed in the current version. Martin 18:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  state control 

message: 17. "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."
Bullshit, if you'll pardon my French.
:I would suspect that this is true, but it should be sourced more clearly.  What are the front organizations? john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this was proven in court
Then you should have no problem documenting it. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  telemarketing 

message: *. "Queen Elizabeth was a drug runner."
This opinion is attributed to LaRouche -- it is a well known hoax. The author of the quote was Mark Nykanen, who was working as a telejournalist for NBC in 1980 when the quote was fabricated.
:I don't know about this specific quote.  But a quick look at any issue of the New Federalist shows similarly wacky comments about the British royal family to be omnipresent in LaRouchite publications. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a hoax -- I remember listening to LaRouche explain it on a television interview many years ago.  His explanation was that England did supervise the importation of drugs in the 19th century to other countries (e.g. China), and that Queen Elizabeth symbolizes England.  Both statements are true, although the resulting description of QEII as a drug-runner is misleading (and in my opinion a bizarrely self-defeating way to make a point) Slrubenstein
Your memory does not mislead you. LaRouche did frequently discuss the 19th Century role of the British, although to put it a bit more sharply, they turned India into an opium plantation, and then fought the Opium War against China to force them to buy the product. They also pioneered the business of drug money laundering in colonies like Hong Kong, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. However, LaRouche would never say that QEII "symbolizes" England; he would be more apt to say that she is the titular CEO of one of the world's largest conglomerates, including (as I recall) companies like Rio Tinto Zinc, as well as other, shadier enterprizes. These charges are all completely reasonable and verifiable. Mark Nykanen's role was to substitute a bizarrely self-defeating formulation, attribute it to LaRouche, and use it as a straw man. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen as drug runner 

message: *	"He began to regard himself and his followers as "Prometheans," superior to all other people" This is a fabrication. LaRouche counterposed the term "Promethean" to Friedrich Nietzsche's categories of "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" in the discussion of Aesthetics, arguing that Nietzsche's approach was wrong.
Should be able to be documented from LaRouchite publications of the time period.
:I don't understand this so I can't comment :)
* "He began to regard himself and his followers as "Prometheans," superior to all other people" This is a fabrication. LaRouche counterposed the term "Promethean" to Friedrich Nietzsche's categories of "Apollonian" and "Dionysian" in the discussion of Aesthetics, arguing that Nietzsche's approach was wrong.
I took that line out. Weed Harper 06:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Twice. Adam should provide some justification before he puts it in again. Weed Harper 14:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prometheans 

message: : (added to article: In 1978 LaRouche described the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," and his German second wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, dismissed it as a "swindle." These references are sourced in Dennis King's book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. In 1981 LaRouche said that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis. This statement is also sourced by Dennis King. In January 1981 LaRouche's New Solidarity International Press Service issued a statement titled "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis")
Is Dennis King's book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" the only source for the holocaust denial charges? Does LaRouche admit to having made those statements? If it is, or if he does not, we should change the emphasis regarding them. Sam [Spade] 16:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam did not volunteer the fact that he drew his entire article from the King book. He admitted it when I called him on it. And how did I know? Because the King book is indeed the sole published source for some of the fabulous inventions that Adam now seeks to foist upon the unsuspecting Wikipedia readership. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:00, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: what I was getting at is that these are just the sort of statements used to smear a person, and thus must be treated delicately in case there is any dubious nature to the sourcing. Sam [Spade] 17:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam: academic procedure 101: I have provided a citation for the statement from a published source. If you think the citation is bogus, the onus is now on you to demonstrate that (eg, from an independently published refutation - LaRouche denials won't suffice). Otherwise the citation stands. Adam 23:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: --Herschelkrustofsky 06:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Source should be cited for this, I agree. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I will check this. If I can't find a quote to verify it, I will delete it. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I did check it, and found that King had in fact cited a source, contrary to Krusty's assertion that he had not. The source is a LaRouche press release, as noted in the article. If anyone wants to allege that the citation is bogus, it is up to them to prove it. Adam 07:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source found 

message: No-one can or should believe anything Krusty says on any subject until he answers the questions put to him four or five times now. These are: Does he or does he not allege that Dennis King forged the two citations about LaRouche's comments on the Holocaust in 1978 and 1981? If so, what is his evidence? Unless he either substantiates this allegation, or retracts it, I am entitled to assume that everything Krusty says is untrue. Adam 07:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Holocaust allegations are just that, allegations; Dennis King provides no quotes, and I'm certain that he would if he could. I can only respond to allegations by a counter-assertion that they are false, and that Dennis King's opinion is not credible. Adam considers it to be a legitimate tactic to assert that there are no "academic authorities" in the English-speaking world (I qualify that, because LaRouche is accorded full respect in other parts of the world, such as at the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Zayed Centre. Adam may rail against both institutions, but they are nonetheless institutions) that vouch for LaRouche, so I think that it is fair to add that the same is true for Dennis King. Outside of his sponsors (see above), no one recognizes King as anything other than a piece of sleazy wreckage from the drug culture. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: All King is doing is asserting that documents exist, and asking us to accept his characterizations of what they say. And I am certainly entitled to raise the issue of King's credibility. Adam has been hyperventilating for 2 weeks about LaRouche's. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answer the question! 

message: * "It is unknown if LaRouche's strident criticisms of feminism is a product of the breakdown of his first marriage." Ridiculous, sleazy POV.
I took this one out. Weed Harper 06:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce causes anti-Feminism? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's certainly documentable. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the evidence is against you on this Hershell
Great. Cite some. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews and the slave trade