Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MartinHarper (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 8 August 2004 (→Source found: + the alleged sources that were found). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Zionism / Zionist

5. "Although LaRouche has always denied accusations of anti-Semitism, the word "Zionist", the common extreme right codeward for "Jew" began to appear in LaRouche propaganda in the 1970s."

This is also propagandistic -- it may hold for some extreme right groups, but it does not hold for LaRouche, or any of the other many legitimate critics of Zionism. LaRouche also supports some Zionist currents, and has often referred to his friendship with Nahum Goldmann and his admiration for Yitzhak Rabin. I note that Adam chose not to include King's formulation that "British" is also a code word for "Jewish" -- perhaps that one is too over-the-top even for Adam. -- Herschel

The whole "financier conspiracy" is rather redolent of anti-semitism. That said, this could and probably should be softened. john k 03:35, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't in fact agree with everything King says. I do agree that Zionist is a code-word for Jew in LaRouche's writings, and it is understood to be so by his readers. Adam 04:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And you know this -- how?--Herschelkrustofsky 11:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• ' "Zionist", the common extreme right code word for "Jew" '

this is POV, and must be removed. Sam 01:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this. Although it can certainly be argued that LaRouche uses Zionist as codeword for Jew (although such would have to be supported), it is wrong to say that Zionist is always a codeword for Jew. john k 01:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Of course Zionist is not always a code-word for Jew, and I didn't say it was. I said it is "the common extreme right code word for "Jew"," which is a fact that can be amply documented (see Zionist Occupied Government for example). Adam 01:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but it currently seems to be saying that. john k 01:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How can you prove what he means when he says it? He seems pretty crazy from what I read here, maybe when he says "Zionist" he is actually refering to the beatles ;) Sam 01:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it certainly can be argued with more precision than it is here - his entire conspiratorial worldview is strongly redolent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for instance. But you're right that we should be very careful about accusations of anti-semitism of this sort. john k 02:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam is correct that it is often impossible to know what LaRouche really means when he talks about Zionists. This is partly because he is deliberately obscure - he talks in riddles and metaphors to keep his enemies guessing. Quite possibly he doesn't know himself. We can only quote what he says and point out how these words and phrases are usually meant. And it is a fact that most people who talk about international bankers conspiracies and how Zionists rule the world are anti-Semites. If this is not LaRouche's view of the world he should say so. Adam 02:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So, Adam, you put words in LaRouche's mouth, and then the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that he doesn't think that way. This is pure, unbridled violation of NPOV. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Riddles, no. Metaphors, yes. And if you have difficulty understanding him, recuse yourself.

Adam is right. Those who are prominently anti-Zionist are often also people who are generally accused of being anti-Semitic (and prob. correctly). On the other hand that by no means everyone who has "anti-Zionism" as one of his or her key issues is therefore an anti-Semite. This "keyword" bit could be much better phrased elsewhere, I suspect (prob on anti-Semitism). From what I read here this guy seems to be perhaps the most duplicitous and misleading politician who is readily available, and that is saying ALOT ;). I frankly doubt we can provide much insight into what he means by what he says, and would prob be best off sticking to the text of his statements, rather than any particular judgments of them. Sam 02:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely that we should quote LaRouche, without speculating about what he may mean, or extrapolating coded messages, or any of the other techniques that form the core of Dennis King's book, and consequently, Adam's article. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am perfectly entitled to point out what is usually meant by people who talk about Zionist conspiracies. I am not interested in responding to Herschel's wild allegations, which reflect badly only on him. Adam 05:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then, point it out in an article on Zionist Conspiracies. If you can't quote LaRouche, I am entitled to wonder how you know what he is thinking. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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)

In the 1970s the LaRouche organization published an issue of the Campaigner with a cover story entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." This also might be relevant to the discussion. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:40, 2 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)

• "From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse. The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is a common practice among anti-Semitic groups."

• "The use of "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" is particularly noticeable in the 1978 publication by the LaRouche organisation entitled Zionism is not Judaism."

Deliberate fallacy of composition -- in 1978, the LaRouche organization published a feature article in Campaigner entitled "Zionism is not Judaism." - Herschel

need more info before I can comment

I agree that this part is still problematic. I think it needs to be mentioned that discussion of Zionist conspiracy theories is an extraordinarily common feature of post-1948 anti-semitic literature, and that LaRouche's own comments about Zionism share many similarities with such works. At the same time, we shouldn't say that LaRouche is an anti-semite. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zionist lobby

14. "LaRouche also claimed that the "Zionist lobby" controlled the U.S. government and the United Nations."

Utterly false. LaRouche has accused the "Zionist lobby", by which is meant principally AIPAC and allied organizations, of pursuing a policy that is harmful to both Israel and the U.S. He has never asserted that they control the U.S. government, let alone the United Nations, which has often passed resolutions that displease AIPAC. -- Herschel

He's certainly said things of this nature, although as I recall his favorite punching bags are much more a "world bankers' conspiracy" abetted by the British royal family. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What LaRouche has said, is that the so-called Zionist Lobby -- which is not some arcane conspiracy, but rather organizations like AIPAC -- is itself controlled by more powerful interests, that care nothing for the welfare of Jews or the state of Israel.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

need more info before I can comment

Jews and the slave trade

13. "In NCLC publications during the 1970s the Jews were accused of running the slave trade, controlling organized crime and the drug trade."

LaRouche has never accused "the Jews", nor any other ethnic or religious group, of running orcontrolling anything. He has accused Jewish-surnamed individuals such as Meyer Lansky with trafficking in narcotics, just as he has accused non-Jewish-surnamed individuals. He has never characterized "the Jews", or any other ethnic group, as controlling anything.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's certainly documentable. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the evidence is against you on this Hershell

Great. Cite some. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jewish deaths in the Holocaust

15. "In 1981 LaRouche said that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis."

A complete fabrication, and, for obvious reasons, no source cited. -- Herschel

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)

Source found

(added to article: In 1978 LaRouche described the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," and his German second wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, dismissed it as a "swindle." These references are sourced in Dennis King's book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. In 1981 LaRouche said that "only" 1.5 million Jews died during World War II, and that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis. This statement is also sourced by Dennis King. In January 1981 LaRouche's New Solidarity International Press Service issued a statement titled "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis")

Is Dennis King's book "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" the only source for the holocaust denial charges? Does LaRouche admit to having made those statements? If it is, or if he does not, we should change the emphasis regarding them. Sam 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)

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)

(In an earlier note, King cites the article "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism" as being from "New Solidarity, Dec. 8, 1978.")

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 1978 article and the 1981 press release King cites exist, or they don't.

It were difficult to debate whether King forged a document, because he doesn't present one. He just says that he heard one exists. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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 allegation, 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)

LaRouche comments extensively on King's habitual lying in this statement: "The Tale of the Hippopotamus, and there is a discussion of King's, shall we say, unique role in the annals of LaRouche slanderers, here: The John Train Salon.

I do not own a copy of King's book, and I do not recall whether the precise formulation that Adam is using is King's, or whether Adam is putting a bit of spin on King's formulation. I recall reading a copy of LaRouche's Campaigner magazine in 1978, entitled "Zionism is not Judaism", which asserted that the majority of Jews who were killed under the Nazi regime were worked to death in slave labor camps like Auschwitz, rather than simply exterminated out of hand, as happened after the notorious Wahnsee conference. I presume that this is the oblique reference in Adam's article "that their deaths were not the result of a deliberate campaign of extermination by the Nazis", which formulation may be a deliberately transmogrified re-write of the assertion in Campaigner.

Answer the question!

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)

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)

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)

The Unanswered Questions

Does Krusty allege that Dennis King forged the two citations about LaRouche's comments on the Holocaust in 1978 and 1981, or does he not? If so, what is his evidence? We are all still waiting for the answer to this simple question.

It were difficult to discuss whether King forged anything, because he neither produces, nor quotes, any such document. As I have pointed out before, in a dozen or so answers to your posts, the "citations" in your article amount to the following: a statement from anonymous sources characterizing LaRouche's views at the time; an assertion by King that a press release exists, which King does not quote, but rather offers his own characterization; and a reference to an (also not quoted) article, which sounds like a distortion of an editorial I recall in the 1978 "Zionism is not Judaism" issue of the Campaigner. This is a full and complete answer to your questions. You may pretend it is not, if you like. You may also continue to insist that you are entitled to set the ground rules for this debate, which you are not. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Still not satisfied

Provide a quote, or delete. -- Herschel

He provided a reference to New Solidarity. It is up to you to prove that reference to be false. john k 17:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is no specific reference, no quote, so it winds up being a characterization. To put the burden of proof for these kinds of scurrilous charges on LaRouche -- "Prove that you have stopped beating your wife" -- is unreasonable.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In January 1981 LaRouche's New Solidarity International Press Service issued a statement titled "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis"

That's a quote from Dennis King, not LaRouche. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "In 1978 LaRouche described the Holocaust as mostly "mythical," and his German second wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, dismissed it as a "swindle." These references are sourced in Dennis King's book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism."

They are not "sourced" unless quoted; if King had direct quotes, I am quite certain he would have included them, instead of asking us to accept his characterizations. -- Herschel

perhaps we should cite King as the source ie "Dennis King claims that...."

• "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."

Fallacy of composition; LaRouche cannot "directly repudiate" something that he did not say. -- Herschel

In January 1981 LaRouche's New Solidarity International Press Service issued a statement titled "LaRouche Reaffirms '1.5 millions' Analysis"

Does all your "research" consist of simply cribbing from King and Berlet? --Herschelkrustofsky 15:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)