Wikipedia

Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Archive 4

< Talk:Lyndon LaRouche
(Redirected from Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Krusty's new draft

Nota bene: I argued in favor of the previous article, on the grounds that it had fewer egregious POV problems than the livid rant that is presently found at the Lyndon LaRouche page. However, I agree with John's assessment that the previous article is a somewhat incoherent patchwork quilt, having been rewritten and edited so many times. I withdraw my support from that article, in favor of the new one that I have written at Lyndon LaRouche/draft, and invite comment on that article. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Krusty's new draft is indeed more coherent that the old version, mainly because it borrows some of the biographical material from my draft. But it reproduces most of the LaRouchie nonsense from the old article, and is therefore no more acceptable that it was. This draft again presents a "fantasy biography" of LaRouche, in which he is depicted as a statesman and respected commentator, who meets with world leaders and issues grave pronouncements to a waiting world. This is all garbage, as everyone but committed LaRouchies can see at once. It again makes absurd statements about conspiracies with no credibility or evidence, such as the line about "the Establishment and its media" deciding in 1973 to boycott LaRouche, then a complete unknown. The fact is that Krusty, as a LaRouchie, is incapable of writing an encyclopaedia article of any worth about LaRouche. He should give up and go away. Adam 11:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam complains that, in my article, LaRouche "...is depicted as a statesman and respected commentator, who meets with world leaders and issues grave pronouncements to a waiting world." This is not so; my article merely reports that LaRouche has met with various heads of state, and addressed the Russian Academy of Sciences and Duma. This is factual material, and I do not attempt to cast it in any particular light. In fact, I did not mention that LaRouche also met with Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Özal, Argentine President Raúl Alfonsín, Brazilian President João Figueiredo, Indian President KR Narayanan, and others that I can't recall off the top of my head -- these figures were not especially close to LaRouche, so I don't include them in the article.
The interesting question, to my mind, is why Adam does not believe these matters ought to be mentioned in the article. There is certainly no discussion of these, or in fact, of any of LaRouche's actual policies or activity in Adam's version of the article, beyond mentioning that LaRouche ran for President. Why is that? A cursory glance over some of the articles that Adam has written, suggests that he may be sympathetic to Free trade and globalism, tenets common to both Neoconservatism, and the so-called "Liberal Imperialism" of Tony Blair and Robert Cooper. If true, this would certainly place Adam squarely in disagreement with LaRouche's actual politics. I may be completely off base here, but I am seeking some explanation for why Adam so frantically attempts to cover up what LaRouche actually does and stands for, preferring to retail Dennis King's zany conspiracy theory. I would like to see a bit more candor from Adam. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:30, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1. Let me tell Krusty, and others interested, a story. In 1987 I attended the International AIDS Conference in Washington, along with 15,000 other people. The opening session was addressed by then Vice President Bush, who gave us ten minutes of platitudes. At a reception later I shook hands with the US Health Secretary and exchanged about ten words with him. This enables me to write the following: "In 1987 Adam Carr attended a Washington conference with former CIA chief George Bush, and conducted talks with members of the Reagan Administration." This statement is strictly true, but of course grossly misleading. I am quite certain that all Krusty's assertions about LaRouche's "meetings with world leaders" fall into this category. Before I believe that LaRouche ever met any of these people, I want to see a conformation from an independent source that these meetings took place and a description of what took place at them.
2. There is no secret about my political views. I state at my User page that I am a member of the Australian Labor Party, and this should make clear that I am a moderate social democrat. I also say that I am a gay rights activist, which should indicate that I am in broad terms a social liberal. Do my political views influence my opinion of LaRouche? Of course they do. I think LaRouche is a crank and a fanatic and a homophobe. This view is shared by just about everyone who is not actually a LaRouchy. Does that mean that no-one who is not a LaRouchy can write a LaRouche article? Of course not.
3. I am a professional writer and a trained historian. I am perfectly capable of writing a fair biography of someone whose political views I dislike. I detest Communism, but I have written biographical articles here about Communists which have been accepted as fair and accurate. I agree that my article has deficiencies, mainly due to the narrowness of its source base. When the article is unprotected, I will improve it further, and I am sure others will do the same. The only person in this debate who is not able to make a useful contribution is Krusty, because he is a LaRouchy whose only interest here is promoting LaRouche. I am happy to argue with him because I enjoy arguing, but I will continue to oppose his efforts to propagandise this article. Adam 02:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually the political views that Adam has chosen to disclose are not very revealing. But -- On a hunch, I googled "Adam Carr" "Michael Danby". Bullseye!
Danby is one of the most outspoken fascists on the Australian political scene. He is an ardent supporter of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, which legalizes--under Australian law--the institutions and procedures as specified in an Executive Order by President Bush, which set up the torture regimes at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The act cites the relevant Executive Order by Bush by name, and also cites by name the lawless military detention system at Guantanamo Bay, to which that order gave rise. Danby officially spoke in Parliament for the (nominally) opposition Labor Party on behalf of this bill, which was put forward by the neo-con government of Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard. Back in the days when he was still with the AIR, Danby's wife was employed at the U.S. consulate in Melbourne, and Danby himself organized receptions for visiting neo-cons, such as Michael Ledeen, the self-professed "universal fascist," who is also reportedly a prime suspect in the scheme to forge Niger government documents, purporting that Iraq was seeking uranium precursor to build nuclear bombs. This ws used as a propaganda ploy to justify the invasion of Iraq. So-- I think we may be getting a bit closer to the meat of the matter.
Incidentally, without exception, the meetings I described were face to face consultations between LaRouche and the cited heads of state -- not "chance meetings." And... I continue to marvel at Adam's clairvoyant powers, which enable him to divine that his "view is shared by just about everyone who is not actually a LaRouchy." Impressive. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Krusty continues to seek to turn this into a debate about my alleged political agenda, rather than the content of the article. This is a standard LaRouche ploy, which seeks to portray all critics as being agents of the World Bankers Conspiracy. I have already made it clear that I dislike LaRouche and opopose his politics. I ask again: is it Krusty's position that only LaRouchies are allowed to write about LaRouche? My position is that my political views (let alone my employer's political views) are not relevant to the merits or otherwise of my article. As for Michael Danby, I would just point out that his grandparents were murdered at Auschwitz by real fascists, so I suggest that Krusty be a little more careful in his use of language. Adam 03:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, a Google search for "Michael Danby" "Adam Carr" does not lead to any of the information that Krusty cites. I conclude from this that he is not only a LaRouchie, but apparently an Australian LaRouchy as well, and also one who has access to the CEC's files on Jewish community leaders. This I find more than a little sinister given the CEC's record of anti-Semitic incitement and violence. Only a few weeks ago a crowd of CEC people led by members of the Isherwood family tried to force their way into Danby's office. Was Krusty among them? Just curious. Adam 03:41, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nope -- I live in California. And Adam's rhetorical flourishes are becoming downright funny. His position is that his political views (let alone his employer's political views) are not relevant to the merits or otherwise (sic) of his article -- yet he routinely calls me a "LaRouchy", and asserts that "The fact is that Krusty, as a LaRouchie, is incapable of writing an encyclopaedia article of any worth about LaRouche." The material on Michael Danby is available to any one with internet access. I think it's hilarious that Adam wrote that "there is no secret about my political views," and then threw up an irrelevant smokescreen, failing to admit that he is employed by Australia's leading fascist -- and make no mistake, Danby is a fascist; Whether his grandparents were at Auschwitz is irrelevant. Ariel Sharon could probably make the same claim. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:35, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

I will not debate any futher with a person capable of saying such absurd and disgusting things. I will continue to revert his edits. Adam 03:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could we please have this article unprotected now? There are serious editors (namely me) who want to work on it, and we can deal with LaRouchite vandalism as and when it occurs. Adam 05:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I respectful request for the page to remain protected until we can come to some mutual understanding here in talk. The level of communication here is rather abysmal, and we'll require a good deal more wikipedia:civility / wikiquette if we are going to make any progress in editing the page, IMO. Statements like "I will not debate any futher with a person capable of saying such absurd and disgusting things. I will continue to revert his edits" tell me this page continues to need protection. Until and unless krusty is banned, he has a right to be here, and to be communicated with when and if you disagree with his edits. Sam [Spade] 05:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's no way that we'll ever work out anything on talk. I'd suggest that we at least have a trial unprotection, to see if any kind of editing can relieve HK's objections to Adam's version. Otherwise, it's just going to be locked in this version until he leaves, which isn't helpful to anyone. john k 05:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is far from being the only article in which editing is hampered by a small number of fanatics whose only interest is inserting propaganda (in this case, one person). The correct way to deal with such people is to revert their edits and keep doing so until they go away. This eventually worked with User:172 at Kim Jong-il, and with User:Hanpuk at Khmer Rouge. There is no prospect of "mutual understanding" with Krusty, because he is (in my humble opinion) a malicious vandal and a lying slanderous piece of filth with whom civilised discourse is not possible. Such people must be fought and defeated. We cannot allow them to hold articles hostage, which is what continued protection amounts to. Adam 06:02, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The page history of Kim Jong-il suggests otherwise. I invite other users to review the page history of that articles and the talk archives. 172 12:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What's this? A Stalinist-LaRouche alliance? Now I've seen everything. Adam 14:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I actually prefer Adam's version of the LaRouche article. I'm just here to make a correction; on Kim Jong-il I stopped Adam from turning the article into a case for starting a war with North Korea (see my comments here)-- a case that even George W. Bush would consider extreme. [1].
Adam evidentially feels confident enough to attack me on pages that I'm not monitoring. If he wants to pick a fight with me on an article that I've been writing, I'll take my response from George W. Bush (who's also a friend of Stalin according to his loony standards): Bring it on. 172 23:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
All of which confirms my long-held view that the palaeo-Stalinoid far left and the neo-Nazi far right feed from the same dungheap and belong in the same psych ward. Adam 08:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, there are some ex-Stalinists that can be added to that psych ward. BTW, Unlike Adam, I am not nor have I ever been a Stalinist or a member of a communist party of any stripe. 172 08:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ah yes, so I recall. Which made your desire to grovel at the platform-heeled feet of the Dear Leader all the more puzzling. I eventually concluded that you had been abducted to the Great Socialist Motherland in your youth and had something implanted in your brain. Adam 08:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Did you forget to take your medication today or something? Or was my chip was malfunctioning when I made repeated statements like this: "Adam and I differ on how we'd like to bring an end to [the North Korean] regime." [2] 172 08:48, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I unprotected the article per the requests here. Hopefully everyone can productively and cooperatively edit now, although I find Adam's most recent comments quite discouraging. Everyking 06:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have done an initial edit on Adam's article, which I urge all third parties to carefully examine; I think that you will agree that my edit brings the article considerably closer, not further from, Wikipedia standards on NPOV. I also ask all third parties to carefully watch Adam's "Robust Tactics", which will doubtless ensue. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Which part of my comments does Everyking find discouraging? My character reference for Krusty? I refer him to Krusty's revolting remarks above about a Jewish MP who I happen to work for. Or my comments about how to deal with politically motivated vandalism? I suggest he read the edit histories for Kim Jong-il and Khmer Rouge and he will see that my robust tactics do in fact work. Adam 06:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did Michael Danby advocate the Anti-Terrorism Law, or is Krusty misrepresenting his record? -- [3]
You don't think "slanderous piece of filth" was maybe a tad harsh? And I wouldn't call anything the user in question has done vandalism. Anyway, hopefully he won't revert anymore and will work towards improving the present article, although on the other hand completely rewriting articles from scratch is an aggressive tactic and you have to expect that sometimes people will get upset. Everyking 06:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In fact, what Adam refers to as his "robust tactics", comes perilously close to what I would consider vandalism. I also, with my keen sense of irony, cannot help but chuckle when I see Adam accusing anyone of slander.
I appreciate the fact the John has been flexible enough to make some comments on the material that I present in Lyndon LaRouche/draft. Adam has yet to explain why he feels that any discussion of LaRouche's ideas on politics and economics, or LaRouche's actual political activity, should be excluded from an article on LaRouche (although with my keen sense of irony, I do get a chuckle out of this as well.) --Herschelkrustofsky 14:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • My assessment of Krusty's personal character was a considered judgement and I stand by it.
  • The deliberate insertion of propagandistic material which anyone as intelligent as Krusty obviously is knows must be unacceptable to other users, and is being inserted only to start an edit war and antagonise other ediors, seems to me to meet any reasonable definition of vandalism.
  • This article needed to be completely rewritten from scratch, because the previous version was garbage.

Adam 07:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche and the Jews

-> Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues


Adam's "Robust Tactics"

For those of you just joining us, User:Adam_Carr took it upon himself on June 20, 2004, to delete the long-standing Wikipedia article on Lyndon LaRouche (which may be viewed here), and substitute a new one. I recognized the material in the new article as being entired drawn from one source, an obscure book by poison-pen-for-hire Dennis King entitled Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. When I called him on it, Adam admitted that his article was drawn entirely from this source. King's book was sponsored by the neoconservative Smith-Richardson Foundation, and relies on the "straw man" technique of carefully avoiding any discussion of LaRouche's actual policies and ideas, while asserting that LaRouche uses a code language to secretly convey a message of anti-Semitism. I think it is entirely relevant to note that Adam's employer is Australian M.P. Michael Danby, who routinely outdoes his neoconservative counterparts in the U.S. with blood-curdling demands for war against the Muslim world, and is an ardent supporter for the methods of interrogation which lead to the torture in Iraq, Guantanamo, and other locations -- Danby aggressively advocated this policy as explicitly embodied in the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, which cites cites the relevant Executive Order by Bush by name, and also cites by name the lawless military detention system at Guantanamo Bay, to which that order gave rise. I believe that this is relevant, because it suggests that Adam, like Dennis King, is using the "straw man" technique because he is reluctant to discuss the true motives for his attack.

I should also mention that Michael Danby is a renowned slanderer of LaRouche. Adam's behavior at Wikipedia, with respect to LaRouche, closely resembles that of his employer at the Australian parliament. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam has announced his intention to respond to any efforts to edit his article, by embarking on revert wars. He apparently has a history of this (see Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4#Page_protection, and refers to this approach as his "robust tactics." Adam and his supporter, User:John_Kenney, refused mediation on this article on June 21. When the article was unprotected on June 30, Adam reverted my edit (which I invite 3rd parties to inspect, at the relevant history page), without comment.

I have written a third, alternative article on LaRouche, which is available at Lyndon LaRouche/draft. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky,

No one is nominating Adam for Miss Congeniality here. I don't like him either, but in the interests of this article, the burden is on you to address the strong argument that Adam has laid out in this edit. 172 22:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam provides no quotes from LaRouche, only characterizations of LaRouche's opinion by Dennis King. Even if there were actual alleged quotes provided by King, I would be skeptical, because King's longstanding malice is a matter of record, going back to the High Times article. But since we are only debating the quality of King's assertions about what LaRouche was supposedly intending to say, with no quotes provided, I do not esteem Adam's argument as strongly as you, with all due respect. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Clearly the two articles should be merged. Obviously wikiquette, wikipedia:Civility, and wikipedia:No personal attacks should be observed by all parties. This would include the focus apon adams employer. I must also say bringing in the current events of Bush's widely unpopular foriegn policies is a bit of a Red herring (fallacy) itself, perhaps to even things out w adams/King's strawman? ;) Anyways, lets play nice. I see room within this article for both adams anti-semitic allegations and krusties "celebrity encounters" or meetings w world leaders or whatever. Both of these (and probably several other) contentious topics will need to be scrupulously qualified, cited and NPOV'ed. On the other hand, they are both necessary for a reader to recieve a well rounded presentation of the man who is Lyndon LaRouche. Sam [Spade] 15:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a workable idea, but based on what I've seen in the past 10 days, it will take some sort of neutral ombudsman, with enforcement powers, to make it succeed. I disagree that the controversy over the Iraq war and its repercussions is a "red herring"; I think that it is likely the case, that the Iraq war is more central to this battle over LaRouche than you may suspect. LaRouche opposed it long before it was unpopular. Perhaps all the other apparent bones of contention are in fact the red herrings.

Jeez, no kidding. Take a look at http://psephos.adam-carr.net/iraq/iraqtextindex.html.

I think that you will find that the fabled anti-Semitic quotes from LaRouche are much like the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction: you are assured that there are unimpeachable intelligence sources that know where they are, but when the smoke clears, it appears that they have been misplaced.

One additional caveat: the section in Lyndon LaRouche/draft entitled "Basic theory and policies" should be included, or else the reader will be utterly baffled by what you call the celebrity meetings; LaRouche is certainly not getting these invitations on the strength of the great press he has been getting in the English-speaking world. --Herschelkrustofsky 18:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam's "Robust Tactics"

Thoughts? Sam [Spade] 19:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I of course have no objection to other editors making edits to this article or proposing new drafts. I don't own this article, any more than Krusty owned the previous one. All edits will be judged on merit by me and other editors.

Much more importantly, let everyone note that Krusty has failed to even attempt to answer the very specific questions I put to him about his allegations against me and Dennis King. Since he cannot substantiate these allegations, he should now have the decency to retract them. If he does not, he should be banned from further participation in editing this article. Adam 23:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Text changes

I separated the following from the intro paragraph (with minor rewording) but left it in the article as this is an accurate and NPOV description of how he is commonly perceived:

As a perennial candidate for President of the United States, he has never gained significant electoral support and is not accepted as a legitimate political figure. He is generally seen as an extremist or a cult leader, frequently accused of being a fascist and anti-Semite. His followers, however, regard him as an important economist and a major political figure. LaRouche's came to wider public attention in 1988 when he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment on charges involving illegally soliciting unsecured loans and tax code violations.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 23:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought criticism was traditionally left out of the intro on articles? Sam [Spade] 00:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is true of genuine public figures. The problem for this article is that LaRouche has never actually done anything. His entire career has consisted of denouncing other people and being denounced by them in turn. If this is left out of the opening paragraph, it creates a very misleading impression. Adam 00:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam speaks my mind. Also, the material in question was simply deleted before I restored it, and I did move it into a separate paragraph to try to address Sam's concerns. BCorr|Брайен 00:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK... so the guys a loser, so what? Why does that make criticism in the opening paragraph ok? Sam [Spade] 04:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because there is nothing else to say about him. The only reason we are spending all this time on someone who has never held elective or appointive office, never run a company, never written a book other than political tracts, never built, created or done anything worthwhile in his life, who is nothing but a hate-monger, liar and thief, is because he is a figure of controversy. The whole LaRouche debate is about his attacks on other people, and other people's attacks on him. Personally I think he ought to be politely ignored, like a dogturd on the pavement, but since the article exists we have to engage with it. Adam 04:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam's "merger"

I acknowledge Sam's good intentions here, but just incorporating slabs of LaRouche fantasy biography from the previous article into this article is not acceptable. This material is full of outright falsehoods and many unsubstantiable claims. For example, LaRouche did not form his current economic and political views in the 1940s and 50s, as claimed, because he was then a Trotskyist. Another example: LaRouche joined the Army in 1944 and left in 1946. He therefore cannot have been in India for more than a year, as a 22-year-old Army medical corpsman. What possible involvement could he have had in the Indian independence movement? What eveidence is there for this? All this material is full of this kind of nonsense. I have no objection to including more material about LaRouche's political and economic views, both as he recounts them and as others describe them. But this garbage cannot stand as part of a serious article. Adam 23:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I expected it would be edited, and I didn't expect all the content (his or yours) to stand as is. This is a wiki, eh? Anyhow I prefer his timeline format, and intend to merge [4] into the rest ofthe article. Help if you can, or do what you need to do or sit back or whatever. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 01:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note that in my one attempted edit of Adam's article, which was reverted without comment by Adam, I produced a merger of Adam's material on the LaRouche case, with mine. I think that it is particularly important that this case be discussed in some detail, because it is already one of the most controversial cases in U.S. history, based solely on the number of signers to amicus curae briefs for an appeal that was never heard, and the number of prominent signers to the ads in the NYT and Washington Post for LaRouche's exoneration. It might even be worth an article in itself. It would certainly be unconscionable to present it as a "routine" conspiracy trial, devoid of controversy, which I suspect is what Adam is hoping to do.
Note also that after my initial attempt at editing this article, I have made no further intervention, other than to restore the {{TotallyDisputed}} bug at the top. It is senseless for me to invest the effort as long as Adam is in his auto-revert mode. There are still many insanely original and completely undocumented comments attributed to LaRouche, like the bit about him being an FBI informer, to name only one example. I still suspect that this will end up in arbitration -- which I think were for the best. But I'm glad to see Sam and others making the effort to hash this out. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Krusty's talk archiving

I reverted an attempt by Krusty to archive a substantial portion of the comments in this talk page. I struck me as an attempt to sweep under the rug these comments addressing his own question of sources, which he ignored. 172 07:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(QUESTION FROM ADAM CARR, ARCHIVED BY HERSCHELKRUSTOFSKY, REPRODUCED BELOW)

The question of sources

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. The quote from King's book is: "A few more NCLC members protested when LaRouche announced that only one and a half million Jews, not six million, were killed in the Holocaust. Contemptuously ignoring his followers' complaints, he issued a press release reaffirming the 1.5 million figure." (Lyndon LaRouche, page 43).

King's referencing for this is: "ONLY ONE A HALF MILLION KILLED IN HOLOVCAUST: LHL [Lyndon H LaRouche], "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism"; "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis," NSIPS [New Solidarity International Press Service] news release, Jan. 17, 1981." (Lyndon LaRouche, page 382)

So, King provides two specific citations for his statement about what LaRouche said. This was in a book published by a reputable publisher (Doubleday), 15 years ago.

Krusty, however, says the reference is "a complete fabrication" and later that "there is no "1981 statement that only 1.5 million died."" Krusty's contention therefore is not just that King is biased or unfair or unreliable, but that the documents King cites never existed, that King actually forged these citations.

Does Krusty seriously think that if King had forged the citations in such a hotly contested book this would not have become immediately known and widely publicised? It's not as if this is a difficult thing to check. There must be many archives of LaRouche literature in the US. Either the 1981 press release King cites exists, or it doesn't.

A Google search suggests that King has never been accused of forgery, not even at LaRouche websites. Can Krusty provide evidence of such an accusation being made? If not, can he explain why no-one appears to have mentioned this forgery in the 15 years that the book has been circulating and the LaRouche organisation has been working to discredit it? (The existence of an accusation, of course, would not prove the allefation, but it would be a start.)

It is incumbent on Krusty to make a clear statement on this if he wants anything he says in this debate to be taken seriously. The question to be answered is: Does Krusty allege that King forged the citations in his book? If so, what is his evidence for this proposition? Adam 10:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I archived it because the edit page said WARNING: This page is 40 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB.. And, I also answered your question -- take a look.--Herschelkrustofsky 07:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I see that your reversion eliminated my answer to your question, ironically enough. I'll go back to the early version, find my answer, and re-post it. --Herschelkrustofsky 07:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And for your added convenience, I'll append my answer here as well:
"Adam provides no quotes from LaRouche, only characterizations of LaRouche's opinion by Dennis King. Even if there were actual alleged quotes provided by King, I would be skeptical, because King's longstanding malice is a matter of record, going back to the High Times article. But since we are only debating the quality of King's assertions about what LaRouche was supposedly intending to say, with no quotes provided, I do not esteem Adam's argument as strongly as you, with all due respect. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)"
So what? Whether or not "King's longstanding malice is a matter of record" is beyond the point. The issue now is the citations in his book. Do you or do you not have evidence that King forged the citations in his book? 172 08:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He made his point, king is a pundit and should be regarded as such. He's by no means impartial. Thats obvious. Sam [Spade] 08:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? He could be a baby eater too, but that wouldn't matter. Do you have evidence that King's sources (not King) are not credible or that King forged his sources? 172 08:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Of course they don't, or such evidence would have been aired long ago. Sam should be careful about associating himself in this debate with Krusty, who is clearly a deliberate, calculated liar and slanderer. For the record, I think King's book is a fairly sloppy, polemical and poorly-written hatchet job on LaRouche. It is nevertheless the only attempt at a LaRouche biography and will have to suffice until someone writes a better one. That is a different question to the allegation that he has forged his citations. My grounds for not believing this allegation is not that I think that King is a man of unimpeachable integrity, but that no such allegation seems to have been made in the 15 years since the book was published, and given the keeness of the LaRouche movement to discredit King, this seems conclusive. Adam 08:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a better biography either. I was searching for one earlier today and put together all the public universities in Florida only seem to have King's Lyndon LaRouche and the new American fascism on the shelves. If Sam and Krusty don't like the current version of the article, they're going to have to investigate King's sources themselves. 172 08:53, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If the only biography you can find is King's -- and I hope the animus on King's part is not difficult to discern -- then you might usefully compare King's biography with this one prepared by the LaRouche organization. It may be biased in the other direction, but judge for yourself. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:19, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

?I don't like what? Can someone other than 172 put words in my mouth please? He gave me the wrong horrorscope twice already... Sam [Spade] 09:00, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? What does this have to do with searching for alternative LaRouche biographies (which aren't coming up through my searches of every public university library system in the state of Florida), King's book, or King's sources (which you or Krusty have not yet called into question)? I was referring to these matters, not horoscopes. 172 09:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

'If Sam and Krusty don't like the current version of the article, they're going to have to investigate King's sources themselves.'

I never said I didn't like the article. Don't put words in my mouth, you're a lousy psychic. Sam [Spade] 09:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Okay. That's what you seemed to be doing, at least to me. Where were you going in your point regarding King? 172 09:11, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Basically that King is biased, by anyones view. Thats the best objection to his info which I can think of. Sam [Spade] 19:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky, proven liar and slanderer

I presume the above is meant to be Krusty's response to my earlier questions, which were: Does Krusty allege that King forged the citations in his book? If so, what is his evidence for this proposition? And a pretty pathetic answer it is. I think everyone can now see that he has no answer to offer. In other words, he is, as charged (and like all LaRouche activists), a malicious liar and slanderer. These slimes are very free with wild accusations, made from the cover of anonymity. But they soon shrivel up when confronted. Adam 07:53, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam, take note of the fact that the tone of your posts has become increasingly shrill, which I don't think is helping your case. Your article contains a grand total of three direct quotes:

In 1979 he wrote: "My principal accomplishment is that of being, by a large margin of advantage, the leading economist of the twentieth century to date." I do not dispute this quote.

"Who is pushing the world toward war?" he asked in 1981. "It is the forces behind the World Wildlife Fund, the Club of Rome, and the heritage of H. G. Wells and the evil Bertrand Russell." I don't dispute this quote, although I think it were useful to provide some context, which you will not find in King's book.

"Jewish culture... is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim." I dispute this quote because of the gap after "Jewish Culture" -- it suggests a cut-and-paste job. The original article is available as a .pdf file at this site-- I would request that some energetic researcher with a high speed internet connection, perhaps 172, download it and assess whether Dennis King is pulling a fast one here.

The other material drawn from King's book consists of King's own assertions and innuendo, and I am confident in disputing all of it. Since this entire debate over the article has turned into sort of a courtroom trial of LaRouche's character (the actual LaRouche trial was described in 1989 by German specialist in international law, Professor Friedrich A. Freiherr von der Heydte, as comparable to the scandal of the case of France's Captain Alfred Dreyfus), I would suggest that the burden of proof for any assertions about LaRouche's "state of mind," or any secret intentions on his part, etc., is on you and King. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All these rather childish diversions and dodges are not distracting anyone's attention from the issue under discussion. Krusty must answer the question put to him. 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, he stands exposed as a barefaced liar. I will keep posing these questions until we get an answer. Adam 13:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Incidentally Krusty is wrong to say there is no direct quote on this matter. "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis" is a direct quote from a LaRouche organisation press release. Krusty must either prove this citation is a Dennis King forgery, or admit that it exists and is therefore evidence that LaRouche was at that time at least a partial Holocaust denier, which was the original matter under dispute.) Adam 13:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis" is the alleged title of a press release which I have never seen. You are asking us to accept King's characterization of whatever the "1.5 millions' Analysis" is supposed to mean. Quote something beyond a title, or drop the matter.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:11, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: the quote concerning "Jewish culture:" the elipsis marks the removal of the word "otherwise." The quote by King does not substantively change the original meaning and is not an example of King trying to fool anyone. By the way, the article from which the quote is taken includes many more distortions of Jewish history and slanders of Judaism. Slrubenstein

Since you evidently have downloaded the article, would you be so kind as to quote what immediately precedes that sentence, so that we have some idea of what "otherwise" refers to? --Herschelkrustofsky 11:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, here is the quote I find especially offensive, more than the one in question:

Judaism, which developed as a by-product of the emergence of early Christianity, and was molded in its further evolution as an appendage of Christianity, is also in its general form a truncated reflection of the Christian type of ideology in general. It has also been transformed through specifically feudal, semi-feudal mercantile-capitalist, and capitalist forms. It is not necessary to give special treatment to Judaism here, since it never existed except in myth, but as a by-product of Christianity, and could not exist except as a special predicate of a Christian or Muslim culture, principally Christian. There is no autonomous “Jewish culture,” but only a special variety of (especially) Christian culture.

This is false: Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity both developed out of Hellenic Judaism. To say that Judaism only existed in myth is false (yes, it did exist in myth, but also in history) and to say it is only a variety of Christian culture is both false and anti-Semitic. The quotation you are especially interested in is this:

Judaism is ideological abstraction of the secular life of Christianity's Jew, the Roman merchant-usurer who had not yet evolved to the state of Papal enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not developed a Christian conscience, etc. Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity, entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and secular life of Christianity. In short, a self-subsisting Judaism never existed and never could exist. As for “Jewish culture” otherwise, it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim.

The first sentence is simply false (though perhaps a product of a misreading of Marx's essays on the Jewish Question). Rabbinic Judaism formed largely in Babylonia, outside of the borders of the Roman empire and outside of contact with Christianity. It is true that for a long time thereafter many Rabbinic Jews lived as a minority within Christian societies, but to explain Judaism entirely as a response to Christianity is false and patronizing. I am not sure what a "self-subsisting" Jewish culture means -- no culture is "self-subsisting." Christianity, for example, developed as much in reaction and response to Rome and Rabbinic Judaism, as Medieval Judaism responded to Christianity -- and Islam and other forces as well. Slrubenstein

I appreciate your taking the time to download and examine the Feuerbach article. I think that it is likely that LaRouche would no longer agree with these sentiments, and I tend to agree with your comments. I don't, however, agree that these are anti-Semitic statements; they seem to reflect a Marxist antipathy to both religion generally, and to what a Marxist might characterize as "bourgeois" culture, since he refers to a "Christian type of ideology." I recall that during the period where LaRouche abandoned a Marxist view, he developed an interest in Philo of Alexandria, as a representative of the Hellenic current in Judaism who collaborated with Christians in opposition to Roman tyranny, although he seemed most interested in the current of Platonism that ran through both Philo's Judaism and, say, Paul's Christianity. I think that it would be fair to say that he has subsequently become very pro-religion, but anti-fundamentalism. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Partial List of false and undocumentable assertions in the present version

-> Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List

Krusty must answer the question: 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, he stands exposed as a barefaced liar. I will keep posing these questions until we get an answer. Adam 16:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's checkmate until Krusty attempts to answer this question. Until then, Krusty should be ignored and automatically reverted. 172 01:57, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe he doesn't want to talk to a jerk like you, Carr...Lirath Q. Pynnor

hi lir :). Is this going to be the most verifiable, cited article in wikipedia history? That looks like the plan. Might be a good precedent, who knows... Sam [Spade] 20:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lerner vs LaRouche

I've removed the following:

"During this debate, Lerner stated that "if Germany had accepted Schacht's policies, Hitler would not have been necessary." Afterward, Lerner's closest political associate, Professor Sidney Hook, avowed: Yes, LaRouche had defeated Lerner in the debate, but LaRouche would pay a price for that success."

First of all, I suspect that the Lerner quotation is taken out of context to make it look like Lerner's saying that Hitler coming to power was necessary or even desirable (and perhaps that he was put in power deliberately by unnamed actors). I think the quotation from Lerner itself should be verified before being used and preferably put back in context (ie good to know what was said immediately before and after). Secondly, do we actually have a source for Sidney Hook "avowing" that Larouche either won the debate or would 'pay a price for that success'? The claim that Hook said this sounds just a bit melodramatic - all that's missing is Hook laughing maniacally at the end of the sentence.

And anyway, even if Sidney Hook is an evil genius it's only in Bond films that evil geniuses give away their plans in advance. AndyL 02:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it does make it look like Hitler was put in power deliberately by unnamed sources. Why, you think Hitler was a "lone assassin"? Did you ever hear of the eugenics movement?

A great deal more will be removed when I get time to tackle this article again. And I agree with 172 (let history note), that Krusty should now be reverted on sight. A bit of stalinist rigour is just what this debate needs. Adam 02:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A rare moment of candor from Adam.' --Herschelkrustofsky 20:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article on the Schiller Institute needs to be looked at. AndyL 03:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As does Eurasian Land-Bridge AndyL 03:38, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All the LaRouche propaganda articles need to be either rewritten or deleted. Adam 03:48, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're not going to be able to get these articles deleted. The VFD process is almost always a waste of time; hardly any dumping ground for crap is able to muster the "consensus" on VFD required for deletion. It's a better idea to blank these articles and redirect them to the Lyndon LaRouche article, which can have sections dealing with all of LaRouche's pipe dreams. 172 04:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. - Hephaestos|§ 03:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One of the problems with all these articles is the lack of any genuinely independent and/or scholarly sources. The reason for this is that, as I said above, LaRouche is not actually a particularly important person, and it's unlikely that serious scholars are going to take the necessary time and effort wading through all this vituperation to produce academically respectable history or biography. I agree there are problems with King's book, but since King is all there is, I think we are entitled to use those of his statements which have not been refuted by other writers (as opposed to LaRouchie fools like Krusty), and are properly referenced to primary sources. I disagree, incidentally, with King's central thesis that LaRouche is the spearhead of a "new American fascism." LaRouche is just a venomous old crackpot who has spent his whole life slandering other people. Adam 04:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Add Helga Zepp-LaRouche to the list of dubious articles. AndyL 07:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, check out THe Role of the LaRouche Movement in World History AndyL 08:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eurasian land bridge

I'm quite dubious about this whole Eurasian land bridge thing and even more dubious at the claim that LaRouche is at all involved. Virtually all the sources online that mention this are LaRouche related sites. You'd think such a megaproject would be mentioned on say the People's Daily News in China or the Chinese government's website (given that the "eastern terminius" is in China) but I can find nothing.

I have found this report from the UN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMISSION FOR ASIA AND THE PACIFIC which suggests the project is very preliminary and, of course, makes no mention of LaRouche

In 2002 there was a Eurasian Railways Symposium but, remarkably when you look at the programme neither Lyndon nor Helga Zepp-Larouche are listed as participants let alone as speakers. Now it seems that Markku Heiskanen, one of the proponents of the land bridge and a Finnish government official has spoken at LaRouche sponsored conferences as a guest but he never makes any reference to LaRouche in any document I can find, not even in his speech to the Schiller Institute. Maybe others will be more lucky in their search. So here's my preliminary conclusion this "land bridge" is a concept that some government officials have been talking about. LaRouche has latched on to it and his publications write about it incessently while associating LaRouche and frau with the concept at every opportunity. LaRouche has invited a few government bureaucrats involved with the project to speak at the impressively named "Schiller Institute" and doubtless they've been paid handsome speaking fees etc. But that's it. When I was at university a group I was with once invited Maurice Strong to speak Strong is a senior UN name, he was secretary general of the Rio Earth Summit etc. But you know, the fact that my group had him speak at our conference didn't make us responsible for the Rio Earth Summit. AndyL 07:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guess what? The "Eurasian Land-Bridge" is better known as the Asian Highway!AndyL 09:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could someone in the US with access to a public library check the authenticity of this "September 24, 1976 op-ed by Stephen Rosenfeld in the Washington Post, entitled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," in which he set out a media policy for dealing with LaRouche"? Adam 11:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article is downloadable from the Washington Post website for $2.95. Go to the archive page and input the name of the article under headline in the right hand column AndyL 11:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you have seen the article and vouch for the correctness of the quote in the article I am happy to take your word for it. Adam 12:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen it. Can't spare the $3 at the moment :) AndyL 13:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh - so you are not vouching for the authenticity of the quote? Adam 14:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not vouching for anything. I'm just telling you how you can get the article if you're unable to find someone to look it up in the library. If I had paid for and downloaded the article I would have pasted it here as a referenceAndyL 14:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This article is not disputed?

I note that Adam has now taken to deleting the {{TotallyDisputed}} notice from this article. After all this vituperation, that would seem to be a bit far-fetched. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Herschell, look at the top of the article at the line that says This article is currently being edited. Edits made while this notice is visible will be overwritten.. I suspect you got overwritten in an edit, that's all. It's best to wait until Adam is finished and removes the warning. AndyL 12:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it appears that Adam does intend to delete the {{TotallyDisputed}} bug. I have replaced it. Note, that after my first edit of Adam's article, reverted without comment by Adam, the only intervention I have made is to add the {{TotallyDisputed}}. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kuznetzov

There is a non-Larouche publication reference to Kuznetzov in this article. AndyL 13:58, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. O'Lincoln is an Australian Trotskyist and no more reliable than Krusty. Since he has named Kuznetsov in the context of a Trotskyist polemic about the Soviet Union I thought it better not to open that particular can of worms in an article which already has enough worms to be going on with. I am not disputing that Kuznetsov exists, just that he is or was a well known scientist, or even a scientist at all. Adam 14:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think O'Lincoln is a bit more reliable. Anyway, just glancing over the article the impression I got was that Kuznetzov was something of a shill for the Soviet establishment doing their bidding in hounding dissidents ie his attacked on Yury Afanasyev for "calumny". for suggesting that there was an alternative to the Stalinist method of industrialisation through force. IE it looks like Kuznetzov was a Stalinist apologist. A Soviet historian speaks out Not sure if its at all germane to LaRouche but it's interesting that economist he champions is an apologist for Stalin AndyL 14:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with the article, which is why I didn't want to drag it in. Adam 14:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Declaring that all edits by a user who is not banned will be reverted is a quite unacceptable thing to do. Holding a political view, whatever it might be, does not in any way disqualify one from contributing usefully to an article. Everyking 16:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But being a proven liar and a malevolent slanderer does disqualify one. Everyking should read back through the Talk history before he makes pronouncements on this issue. Krusty will have no standing in this editing process until he either subststiates or retracts his allegations of deliberate falsification against both Dennis King or me. Until he does one or the other I will revert all his edits (which are in any case worthless because he is a nothing but a LaRouche polemicist). Adam 16:48, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is required to resolve any issues they might have with Adam Carr before being allowed to contribute to an article. You can't just revert out of personal animosity. If his edits are highly POV and contain no actual information, then they can perhaps be rightly reverted on a case by case basis, but that's not the same as promising to revert all his edits because you don't like him. Everyking 17:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As it happens his edits are always "highly POV and contain no actual information," so I can revert him for both reasons at once. Adam 17:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Partial List of false and downright bizarre assertions in the present version

-> Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/The Herschelkrustofsky List

This is a partial list. Note that User:John_Kenney has addressed many of these points earlier, but Adam seems to cherish them.

Significant Omissions from the current version

Two of the most revealing, and as well fascinating, aspects of the LaRouche story have been omitted by Adam from this new version. They are:

1. The story of the task force, comprised of an astonishing goulash of leftist counterculture freaks like Dennis King and Chip Berlet, combined with neoconservative billionare funders, intelligence community spooks, and assorted representatives of the "mainstream" press:

2. The details of the LaRouche trial, which Adam seems particular anxious to suppress:

  • The first conspiracy trial, in Boston, ended in a mistrial on May 4, 1988. Judge Robert Keeton had issued subpoenas for the personal files of LaRouche opponent Oliver North, which produced a May 1986 telex from Iran-Contra defendant General Richard Secord to North, discussing the gathering of information to be used against LaRouche. The judge then issued a subpoena for the files of Vice President George Bush, at which point the government shut down the trial. The jurors conducted a poll amongst themselves, and gave a press conference where they unanimously reported that they would have voted to acquit, having heard only the prosecution's case.
On October 14, 1988, LaRouche was re-indicted in a different venue: the so-called "Rocket Docket" in Alexandria, Virginia. The alleged conspiracy, was a conspiracy to obtain loans in the alleged amount of $294,000, with no intention to repay.
To prepare for the trial, the government first filed, on April 20, 1987, an unprecedented involuntary bankruptcy petition against two LaRouche-controlled publications companies on whose behalf the loans had been solicited. Federal trustees were placed in charge of the companies, and they immediately suspended repayment of loans to creditors (who were, for the most part, political supporters of the LaRouche movement). LaRouche and his associates were then indicted for a conspiracy to fail to repay those loans, and the judge in the trial, Albert V. Bryan ruled that the defense would not be permitted to discuss, or even allude to, the involuntary bankruptcy.
In December of 1988, LaRouche was convicted in the conspiracy trial.
On October 25, 1989, Judge Martin V.B. Bostetter ruled that the government's bankruptcy action was illegal. Bostetter said the government acted in "objective bad faith" and the bankruptcy was obtained by a "constructive fraud on the court." However, the appeal on the conspiracy and fraud charges, which were a case completely separate from the involuntary bankruptcy, went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court; at each stage of the appeals process, the courts declined to hear the appeal.
Prominent radical political figure and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has tried to clear LaRouche's name, arguing that investigators and political opponents had abused the legal process to eliminate him. Clark wrote in 1995, in a letter to then serving Attorney General Janet Reno: "I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge."[5]
In the early 1990s, while LaRouche was in prison, full page advertisements, calling for LaRouche to be exonerated, appeared in papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post. Among the signators were heads of state and cabinet-level officials from around the world, including:
  • RNDr. Jozef Miklosko, former Vice-Prime Minister of former Czechoslovakia
  • Prof. Dr. Hans R. Klecatsky, former Justice Minister, Austria
  • Gen. (ret.) Edgardo Mercado Jarrin, former Prime Minister and former Foreign Minister of Peru
  • Gen. (ret.) Joao Baptista de Oliveira Figueredo, former President of Brazil
  • Nedzib Sacirbey, M.D., Ambassador at Large, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
  • Arturo Frondizi, former President of Argentina
  • Manuel Solis Palma, former President of Panama
  • Dr. Abdelhamid Brahimi, former Prime Minister of Algeria (1984-1988)
Veteran leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, including:
Also adding their names were many elected officials, including former Minnesota Senator and Presidential Candidate Eugene McCarthy; and prominent artists, such as violinist Norbert Brainin, former primarius of the Amadeus Quartet.

This is also a partial list of items that Adam has excluded. I prepared an alternate version of the article which is available at Lyndon LaRouche/draft --Herschelkrustofsky 07:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answer the question!

Some of this is copied to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues. Martin 21:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

An ability to answer simple questions suggests that they have something to hide, and thus may not be trustworthy. I agree with Adam Carr. RK 22:13, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
I think that might be a bit of a stretch. While IMHO, your article is a vast, vast improvement on the other one, Krusty still highlights some points that need addressing - outside of the Holocaust allegations (where of course, I wait for an answer with bated breath...) Nevertheless, I think these still need addressing, whether or not Krusty chooses to answer the question. Ambivalenthysteria 08:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what sort of answer you are waiting for, Ambivalenthysteria. 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)

My view on this (as I say in the article) is that it is impossible to know the truth about much of this material, because we only have LaRouche propaganda to go on. Given the proved record for dishonesty of both LaRouche and his followers, none of this stuff can be included unless there is independent verification for it. Andy has set a good example by demolishing the LaRouche fantasy about the "Eurasian Land-Bridge." I suspect most of the rest of this stuff would similarly evaporate if subjected to proper scrutiny. Adam 09:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Too true, I'm afraid. Krusty does himself no favors by simply attacking King's credibility instead of answering the question about his citations. Ambivalenthysteria 16:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What citations? 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)

Adam Carr is an incompetent historian. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Possibly, but I do know how to answer a simple question. Which (let me remind the viewers) was: Does Krusty allege that King forged the citations or doesn't he? Adam 22:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lir's ad homenim attacks on Adam Carr do Lir no service, and only suggest that people are using LaRouchian tactics against him. Such attacks got Lir banned before, by the way. RK

On the other hand, Adam's ad hominem attacks on me are a regular feature of this debate:

There is no prospect of "mutual understanding" with Krusty, because he is (in my humble opinion) a malicious vandal and a lying slanderous piece of filth with whom civilised discourse is not possible.

--Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4#Page_protection

Sam should be careful about associating himself in this debate with Krusty, who is clearly a deliberate, calculated liar and slanderer.

--Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/archive4#Krusty's_talk_archiving

Herschelkrustofsky, proven liar and slanderer

--heading on Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4

As I recall, Wikipedia has an explicit policy against such attacks, whether coming from Lir, or Adam. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am being lectured by a LaRouchie on the wickedness of making personal attacks on people. Now I really have seen everything. It was precisely because of Krusty's disgusting slanders of other people that I called him a malicious vandal and a lying slanderous piece of filth in the first place, an opinion I stand by. "On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral duty to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleasure." (Gwendolyn, in The Importance of Being Earnest). Adam 03:18, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, someone asked you whether you wished to dispute the fact that your employer and fellow LaRouche-hater Michael Danby, M.P., was an ardent supporter of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, which legalizes--under Australian law--the institutions and procedures as specified in an Executive Order by President Bush, which set up the torture regimes at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. You seemed to have declined the opportunity to clear his name. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And Michael Danby is a rabid neo-conservative, not a "Jewish leader". Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg is a Jewish leader. Adam is no "moderate social democrat", either -- take a look at his website. Neo-con all the way.

More about LaRouche's ideas

There was a time that much of what was on this page had been written by myself, prior to the first re-writes by Krusty. There are things which should be restored like LaRouche's ideas about the complex domain, and Gauss. Also, his declared Platonism as opposed to Strauss's Platonism is missing. Krusty will probably agree that these things should be in here. However, the reason I think they should be in there is because I trust the readers to read through all this and see LaRouche for what he is: an ineffective small time swindler ala the music man. Krusty would not agree. However, Krusty is obviously a LaRouchie - he even tries to write in a style identical to the Steinbergs - a couple analogous historically to Ayn Rand's loyal favorite couple in her own ineffective small time cult-racket. Are things I'm saying right now POV? Damn straight - this is the chat area. Here we can speak truth the way we see it. . . Most notable was Krusty's complete and total ignorance of the Socialist Worker's Party, LaRouche's role in it, LaRouche being a Marxist for many years, and this ignorance is something I see across the whole terrain of LaRouchie's I've met, particularly here in the Los Angeles area where they attempt to recruit the unwitting at LACC and other locations.. The problem is that the LaRouche group IS a cult using any meaningfull or helpful definition of the word. His supporters ARE brainwashed, really anything they say is going to have many problems as it is regurgitated crap from their Duce. Students who are in college ARE TOLD to drop out of college AT college BY LaRouche people AT college. They are TOLD that friends outside the group should be kept at arms length if not forgotten completely. This must be included in the article. It is crucial! Let the readers decide for themselves if LaRouche is a demogic cultist neo-platonic 'new-school' fascist - once they are provided with all the facts. The LaRouchies will admit this if you ask them, though they will have their obvious rationalizations of it - but a fact's a fact - they will admit it. In my opinion, you have let Krusty control way too much of this content. LaRouchies almost invariably had no real history of political activism or education prior to becoming a LaRouchie. This is how the Potemkin Village they live in is effected. LaRouchies will blatantly lie or omit information that is suitable to their needs in one context, in one conversation, and in the very next conversation days or moments later, contradict it all. I know they have been trained in conversational and debate methods - methods which have no place in an honest discourse - methods which are aimed at bending reality around the argument - if you can call it an argument at all. One look at a LaRouche pamphlet reveals an endless stream of disconnected, disjointed, factually inaccurate mumbo-jumbo which preys upon the socially inept or psychologically prone (to join a cult, often the young) people. His anal-fecal fixation and fixation on 'filth' 'decadence' 'satanism' and 'zionist-masonic orders' and other conspiratorial cabals should send the alert bells ringing to any politically seasoned citizen. The very structure of the grammar - intentionally meant to be headache-y, the repeated use of esoteric terms at different times in different contexts, is meant to effect a series of mental images in the mind of the reader which render them most confused but yet forced to gape in awe and wonder at the word-smithing. Feeling that they don't understand what it is they are reading, they are compelled to ask the person who gave them the pamphlet what this or that means. This person has just allowed themselves to be schooled and the LaRouchie has the upper hand. Only the LaRouchie can properly understand what LaRouche is saying, so nothing you say about him can make any sense or be accurate unless you are yourself a LaRouchie. To those looking for a strong-man or leader, to those who are unconciously believers of the fuhrer principle, (that great men make history, often reinforced in our own hierarchical societie's culture),LaRouche can be appealing. LaRouche's self-proclaimations that he and he alone is the sole inheritor, walking in the image of christ on earth, solely capable of bettering the situation of life on earth and saving us all from a satanic cabal of corruption and homosexual drug induced filth - ths appeals only to a certain personality type, the very repressed, and for them his rantings will seem believable. While the field is somewhat limited, when you find the people who fit the mold, you must aggressively pursue them until they join. Similar debates rage at the Adolf Hitler page. Should the Hitlerians be able to keep off wikipedia pertinent information about Adolf Hitler or the war effort since 'making people sound bad' seems to have the effect of seeming 'POV'. Capone 7-9-04

Chaim Dauerman! Why are you calling yourself "Capone"? And is your dad still head of "Jews for Jesus"?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Archive_4&oldid=1136972444"