Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:07, 1 July 2004

Archive

• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive1
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive2
• Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive3

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 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. .

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 regime." 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, Misplaced Pages 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? --

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

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 16:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages readership. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:00, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Krusty said in an earlier discussion that King gave no source for attributing that statement to LaRouche. In fact King does give a source, which I have cited, much as I dislike direct citations in encyclopaedia articles. Unless you are going to accuse King of simply inventing the source (something which would be easy to prove and well-known once proved), I think you have to accept that citation. LaRouche never "admits" anything, as is usually the case with megalomaniacs. Adam 16:54, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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 17:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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)

the common extreme right code-word for "Jew"

I don't think it is useful to interpret what others mean in this way. Of course you are right in many circumstances, but you can't fairly suggest it in the sweeping way in which you do, nor can you specifically prove that is what LaRouche means when he says it. Lets allow him to speak for himself, that his own words may condemn or redeem him before the reader, rather than providing our own translation of them. Sam 17:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That "Zionist" is the common extreme right code-word for "Jew" is (a) a fact and (b) relevant to the topic under discussion. I didn't say that everyone who uses the word Zionist means it in an anti-Semitic way. If I say "The Zionists had no right to colonise Palestine," that is clearly a legitimate use of the word. If I say "Zionist bankers rule the world," that it is clearly using Zionist as a code word for Jew. This is necessary information for readers who are being presented with a discussion of LaRouche's writings. It is an encyclpaedia's job to explain things to readers, not just dump primary sources on them. Adam 23:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

However, Adam uses this argument to cover for the fact that he is simply lying. And as for Dennis King, his first, and most honest attack on LaRouche was an article in High Times entitled "They want to take your drugs away."--Herschelkrustofsky 00:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam's wording: The use of "Zionist" (seen by some as a code word for "Jew") is a common practice of certain groups .

The problem with this is that a sentence with a subordinate clause in brackets has to be meaningful if that clause is removed, and the statement: The use of "Zionist" is a common practice of certain groups, while true, is meaningless. Secondly, placing seen by some as a code word for "Jew" in brackets makes it incidental, whereas it is in fact central, to the point of the sentence. Thirdly "some" and "certain groups" are vague and weasely - why don't we say what we mean? Fourth references in the body of the text are ugly. What exactly is Sam's problem with the sentence as it stands? Adam 02:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

the way you had it made him look like an anti-semite. He might be, or he might just be anti-english, or maybe just out of his mind generally, etc.. The way I put it is allows the reader to see what other sorts of folks use the term in this way, and lets them know that some consider this sort of use anti-semitic. I think that allows the reader to make up their own mind, or at least have food for thought (rather than having the conclusion fed to them). Sam 02:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The previous wording stated two facts: 1. In the 1970s LaRouche began making various statements about Zionist conspiracies etc , 2. that the use of the word Zionist in this sense is hallmark of anti-Semites. Do you dispute either of these facts? If not, let's just state them and let readers draw their own conclusions. Adam 03:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It looks fine now, good edit. Sam 04:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that's cleared up. Nothing like a bit of co-operative editing, I always say. Adam 05:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam writes: He explicity states that "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews," a direct repudiation of his 1981 statement that only 1.5 million died and those not as a result of a deliberate plan of extermination. This article can be seen as a significant (if unacknowledged) retreat by LaRouche from his statements of the 1970s and 1980s. However, there is nothing here to retreat from, because there is no "1981 statement that only 1.5 million died." Adam knows it; he cannot document it; but he hopes to get away with it, crudely propagandistic as it is. And the entire article is permeated with similar fabrications. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

He notes a LaRouchite source for that claim. It is up to you to discredit the citation, I should think. john k 06:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--Herschelkrustofsky 06:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) Look again -- he notes Dennis King, alleging the existence of a LaRouchite source. I would be shocked to learn that either of you had ever read something by LaRouche; Adam's assertion that he has difficulty understanding LaRouche is credible, but I suspect that there is simply a passage in Dennis King where it says "LaRouche is difficult to understand." And, we've been over this before:

6. "In 1980 LaRouche said that only 1.5 million Jews had died in World War II, not the generally accepted 6 million." A complete fabrication, and, for obvious reasons, no source cited.

Source should be cited for this, I agree. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 , "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism"; "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis," NSIPS 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)