Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Jewish issues

< Talk:Lyndon LaRouche

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Tim Ivorson (talk | contribs) at 19:20, 11 April 2006 (Removed duplicate section.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 19:20, 11 April 2006 by Tim Ivorson (talk | contribs) (Removed duplicate section.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Zionism / Zionist

"From the early 1970s LaRouche regularly used the word "Zionist" as a term of abuse." POV. LaRouche uses it to describe an ideology, particularly that of Jabotinsky, which he opposes.

"In this article, LaRouche acknowledges that he accepts the classical anti-Semite conspiracy theory, with the caveat that he ascibes it to groups of Jews rather than to all Jews." LaRouche acknowledges no such thing, and certainly not in the cited passage. This is reasoning typical of those who trivialize anti-Semitism, by branding anyone who calls Meyer Lansky a gangster as an anti-Semite.

"his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy are similar in many respects to those of the left, except that he blames its deficiencies on Zionist conspirators rather than on capitalist imperialism." POV spin-doctoring. LaRouche opposes Zionism (of the Revisionist sort), but he does not ascribe to it the authorship of U.S. foreign policy.

"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."

I think that this sentence is someone's idea of a joke. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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

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."

I think that this sentence is someone's idea of a joke. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

New problems arising from Adam's August 11 re-write:

"The 1978 article quoted above would seem to corroborate this accusation. In this article, LaRouche acknowledges that he accepts the classical anti-Semite conspiracy theory, with the caveat that he ascibes it to groups of Jews rather than to all Jews." LaRouche acknowledges nothing of the sort, and the passage Adam quotes to justify it, doesn't.

"LaRouche's principal target in this article is "Zionism," to which he attributes almost every conceivable type of evil." POV -- this is Adam letting his propagandistic flair get the better of him.

"When LaRouche accuses "Zionists" of treason and conspiracy, he is therefore seen by Jews, and many others, to be levelling those accusations against most Jews. When he accuses organisations such as B'nai B'rith and the ADL, and many individual Jews, of various crimes, he is seen to be attacking the great majority of Jews who support those organisations and those individuals, particularly since he attributes to them the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination." POV speculation. If you know of someone who actually believes these things, quote them.

"In this sense LaRouche can fairly be described as having been an anti-Semite in 1978, when this article was published. He has never explicitly repudiated the views expressed in this article." First of all, the "in this sense" part is a theory that Adam arrives at through the most tortured logic, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. Secondly, LaRouche and his organization have in fact explicitly repudiated the views on Zionism expressed in the 1978 article: he has acknowledged Labor Zionism as a constructive force, exemplified by Ben-Gurion or Rabin, in contradistinction to the Revisionist Zionism of the Jabotinskyites/Likudniks (see ,and .)

"There is even a word of praise for Walther Rathenau, an archetypal Jewish business figure of the kind so savagely denounced by LaRouche throughout his career." Innuendo -- give me one example of a "Jewish business figure" that was savagely denounced by LaRouche.

LaRouche, Holocaust Denial and anti-Semitism

I have now obtained a facsimile copy of Lyndon LaRouche's article "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism," which appeared in the LaRouche publication New Solidarity on December 8, 1978. This enables me to do several things:

1. To attest that the citation by Dennis King of this article on page 138 of his book is correct, and thus to absolve King of the charge of forgery or misrepresentation which Herschelkrustofsky has repeatedly laid against him.

The quotes are apparently legitimate, and I have revised my list accordingly. It is clearly the case, as stated in your verson of the article, that LaRouche has since repudiated this assessment. I don't think, however, that this absolves King of the charge of misrepresentation -- his entire book is imbued with misrepresentation. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's not what you said when this was first raised. You said that LaRouche had not changed his position because King's account of his 1978 position was all lies and fabrications. Most people would have the courtesy to acknowledge that these slanders were unfounded. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) I am taking you at your word that the quotes are legitimate. King provided no quote, perhaps because the context weakened his argument. I still maintain that King's work is a fantastic misrepresentation of who LaRouche is, intended to prevent the reader from getting a complete and useful picture of LaRouche's role in the world of ideas and politics -- much like your article. When an article appears on the Misplaced Pages site that conforms to Misplaced Pages:NPOV, I will be satisfied, and if you play any role at all in that, I will acknowledge it. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) More irrelevant bluster. Why not just admit you were wrong? Adam 06:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2. To demonstrate that LaRouche did indeed assert that "only" 1.5 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis, and even these incidentally rather than as a result of deliberate policy, something which Herschelkrustofsky has repeatedly denounced as a fabrication.

There was a deliberate policy of working people to death, while starving them. These deaths can hardly be described as "incidental," and it is incorrect to draw the inference that LaRouche regards them as such-- he says, in the quote you present, that those who died in this way were "murdered." The slave-labor policy has been glossed over by revisionist historians who wished to rehabilitate the economics of Albert Speer and Hjalmar Schacht. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there was a deliberate policy of working people to death, but it was always secondary to the policy of killing all the Jews in extermination camps, a fact which LaRouche denied in 1978 (see below). Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) Adam Carr, that is inaccurate. There were powerful elements in the SS such as Oswald Pohl who considered economic exploitation of Jews more important than extermination. This should be reflected in the article about Pohl. Source Heinz Hoehne's excellent, well referenced book "Die Geschichte der SS- Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf", also translated into English. Andries 09:59, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) It is completely accurate. Yes there were many people who argued that the policy of killing all the Jews when there was a shortage of skilled labour was irrational, but they did not prevail. All the Jewish labour force, no matter how valuable, was eventually killed.

I do not know who wrote this and whether this is relevant for the article but it is untrue. There were working camps in Auschwitz as well as extermination camps. Big firms had their procuction sites at Auschwitz. By the way, I want to express my sympathy and gratitude to people who work on this article. I know from experience how tedious and difficult it is when the subject is highly polarized. Andries 21:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The relevant passage is:

It is argued that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so eessential to "Jewish survival" that any anti-Zionist is therefore not only an anti-Semite, but that any sort of criminal action is excusable against anti-Zionists in memory of the mythical "six million Jewish victims" of the Nazi "holocaust."

This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races," a small fraction of the tens of million of others - especially Slavs - who were murdered in the same way Jewish refugee Felix Rohaytin proposes today. Even on a relative scale, what the Nazis did to Jewish victims was mild compared with the virtual extermination of gypsies and the butchery of Communists.

(On these two matters both Dennis King and I are entitled to an apology from Herschelkrustofsky, but given my opinion of his personal character I don't expect one and I don't particularly care whether I get one.)

3. To convict LaRouche beyond any possibility of argument of Holocaust denial. Not only does he place "holocaust" in inverted commas and refer to the "the mythical six million Jewish victims", his assertion that Jews died only as a result of forced labour (assuming that is what he means by "labor-intensive appropriate technology for the employment of inferior races") can only be read as a denial that the extermination camps existed, a denial of the fact that the Nazis directly and deliberately killed millions of Jews, both in these camps and by means of the einsatzgruppen. He also makes the false statement that the Nazis killed more Gypsies than Jews. (It is not clear whether he means absolutely or as a proportion of the total, but in either case it is untrue. The relevant Wikpedia article Porajmos estimates the Roma deathtoll at between 200,000 and 800,000.)

No comment from Herschelkrustofsky on this. I take therefore that he concedes the point of this paragraph, that LaRouche was a Holocaust-denier in 1978. Again, he should have the decency to admit that he was wrong to slander King and me for saying this. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether LaRouche can be convicted of anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews as Jews) on the basis of this article is a more complex question. The article does not contain any statements of hostility towards or condemnation of the Jews as a race or of the Jewish religion, or any assertions that the Jews as a people are guilty of any of the crimes that classical anti-Semitism ascribes to them. Since neither Dennis King nor LaRouche's other critics have to my knowledge been able to cite any such statements made by LaRouche it seems reasonable to assume that he has never made any, at least in print or in public. On the basis of this article, therefore, LaRouche should be acquitted of being an anti-Semite of the traditional or classical type.

Agreed-- but now you commence your logical contortionism:

But this does not clear LaRouche of the charge of anti-Semitism in a different sense. Anti-Semitism assumes different guises in different circumstances and at different times: thus the anti-Semitism of Hitler differed in form from that of Torquemada while being equal in intensity. LaRouche's variant is to take the classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and substitute the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew", and also to ascribe the classical anti-Semite's caricature of the evil, scheming Jew to particular, named, Jews and groups of Jews, rather than to the Jews as a whole.

LaRouche himself, in this article, acknowledges that he accepts the classical anti-Semite conspiracy theory, with the single caveat that he ascibes it to groups of Jews rather than to all Jews.

The Czarist Okhrana's "Protocols of Zion" include a hard kernel of truth which no mere Swiss court decision could legislate out of existence. The fallacy of the "Protocols of Zion" is that it attributes the alleged conspiracy to Jews generally, to Judaism. A corrected version of the Protocols would stipulate that the evil oaths cited were actually the practices of variously a Paris branch of B'nai B'rith and the evidence the Okhrana turned up in tracing the penetration of the Romanian branch of B'nai B'rith (Zion) into such Russian centres of relevance as Odessa..."

(B'nai B'rith is a Jewish service organisation. LaRouche's animus towards it is presumably connected to the fact that it is the parent organisation of the Anti-Defamation League, which has been assiduous in researching and documenting LaRouche's activities since the early 1970s. "The ADL," says LaRouche, "is literally the Gestapo of the British secret intelligence in the urban centers of the United States.")

LaRouche criticizes B'nai B'rith for the role they played during the American Civil War, as the only Jewish organization that sided with the Confederacy. As far as the ADL is concerned, they have no shortage of critics, especially since they were raided in the state of California back in 1993, for carrying out activities that were indeed "Gestapo"-like. The Misplaced Pages article, Anti-Defamation League, does touch on these matters.

None of which is remotely relevant. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche's principal target in this article is "Zionism," to which he attributes almost every conceivable type of evil. In the real world, Zionism is a Jewish political movement supporting the creation and (since 1948) defence of a Jewish state in Palestine. In LaRouche's world it is an underground conspiracy, existing since the 16th century, created originally by the Hospitallier Knights and the Cecil family (or something like that: LaRouche's "history" is a farrago of nonsense and rather hard to follow), and having almost no connection with Israel/Palestine at all. "Modern Zionism was not created by Jews, but was a project developed chiefly by Oxford University," LaRouche says. This would be news to Theodor Herzl, who laboured under the delusion that he founded Zionism in 1896.

The Brits found Herzl useful. He labored under the delusion that it was the other way around. Not worth commenting on. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Today, LaRouche says, Zionism is controlled by the financiers of London: "Zionism is the state of collective psychosis through which London manipulates most of the international Jewry", and "Zionist cultism is among the most important of the levers through which British criminality and miscalculation is plunging the world towards ." "The point is," LaRouche says "that the issue is not admissibly a racial matter. The point is that Zionism is precisely the evil, racist doctrine the UN General Assembly resolved it to be."

Despite this reference to the 1975 UN Resolution on Zionism, it is striking that there is not one reference to the Palestinians in this article. The Zionist "crimes" LaRouche is obsessed with have nothing to do with the real-world controversy surrounding Zionism and Israel. They are "crimes" which the classic anti-Semite attributes to Jews: conspiracy, manipulation, treason, subservience to international finance. LaRouche's reference to the manipulative activities of "top Zionist bankers" is a giveaway. Jewish bankers may well be Zionists, but it is in their capacity as Jews that they manipulate.

The above paragraph is a wild, propandistic fantasy which has no bearing whatsoever on Lyndon LaRouche or his ideas. LaRouche is on the record innumerable times as supporting justice for the Palestinians, which would best be achieved by the prompt implementation of the Oslo Accords. And I have no problem with your attacks on the "classic anti-Semite", as long as you don't dishonestly insinuate that LaRouche is one.

So why is there no reference to the Palestinians in the 1978 article? It is because LaRouche is only interested in his fantasy of Zionism-as-world-conspiracy rather than Zionism as it actually is. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The B'nai B'rith today resurrects the tradition of the Jews who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Jews who pleaded with Nero to launch the "holocaust" against the Christians," LaRouche says. This is a classic statement of anti-Semitism, excusable only if LaRouche's assertion that "Jew" and "Zionist" (here in the guise of the B'nai B'rith) are separate, even antithetical, categories. Likewise, LaRouche can be acquitted of the charge of anti-Semtitism only if this premise is accepted. The final sentence of LaRouche's article is: "You cannot be a Zionist and also a Jew." Only if this is accepted can it be argued that LaRouche is not an anti-Semite.

But in the real world "Jew" and "Zionist" are not antithetical categories. They are, in practice, almost synonymous. Although there is a minority of anti-Zionist Jews, the great majority of Jews, and the overwhelming majority of American Jews, since 1948 have identified themselves as Zionists in the sense that they defend the existence of the state of Israel. In the real world the statement that "You cannot be a Zionist and also a Jew" is ridiculous. Thus when LaRouche accuses "Zionists" of treason and conspiracy, he in fact levels those accusations against most Jews, and is understood both by his followers and by Jews to do so, even when he declares that not to be his intention. When he defames Zionism as an ideology, organisations such as B'nai B'rith and the ADL, and individual Jews such as the Rothschilds or Henry Kissinger, he is attacking the great majority of Jews who support Zionism, those organisations and those individuals, particularly since he attributes to them the classic crimes of the sterotypical Jew of the anti-Semitic imagination.

This paragraph is just one fraud after another. Since when is a "Zionist" defined as one who defends the existence of the state of Israel? LaRouche defends the existence of the state of Israel. And if you think LaRouche is a harsh critic of Zionism, you should check out some of the Jewish critics of Zionism, who far surpass LaRouche in ferocity. See if your library contacts can find any of the books of Moshe Menuhin, father of violinist Yehudi Menuhin -- they'll make your hair stand on end. And most of your assertions here might be called "syllogism abuse": LaRouche opposes Henry Kissinger; Henry Kissinger is (supposedly) a Jew; therefore, LaRouche opposes Jews.

Defending the state of Israel has been the main role of the Zionist movement since 1948. What else would it do? Go and look at some Zionist websites. If LaRouche defends the existence of the state of Israel then he is a supporter of Zionism, so he better start being nicer about it. That there are Jewish critics of Zionism is of course true, but quite irrelevant to the points I am making. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) What else would it do? Well, for one thing, it redefines what it is to be a Jew. Where it was once a religious question, it became a racial or ethnic question. Any ideology which obscures the universal human identity of the individual, and focusses on some secondary, particularist feature, is bad for humanity. In this sense, Zionism (and to be as precise as possible, I should say the Revisionist variety) has something in common with anti-Semitism.--Herschelkrustofsky 02:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) I am struggling to make sense of this. Zionism did not redefine Jewish identity from religious to secular - Jews did that for themselves as a consequence of emancipation and the enlightenment. Zionism was a product of that development, not its cause. And if you want to argue that defining Jewishness as an ethnicity rather than a religion is anti-Semitic, that seems to suggest that anyone who defines themselves as a Jew without practising the Jewish religion is an anti-Semite - good luck with that one. Adam 03:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My conclusion, therefore, on the basis of this article, is that when LaRouche wrote it in 1978 he was an anti-Semite, albeit one who disguised his anti-Semitism behind a flimsy veil of "anti-Zionism." He was an anti-Semite in the sense that he had adopted the conspiracy theory of classical anti-Semitism and transferred it from "the Jews" to "the Zionists" - a category which in reality includes the great majority of Jews, a fact of which he must have been aware (unless he was completely delusional, which is a possibility but not a question I am competent to judge).

Adam 12:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is still alot of nonsense on this page and in the LaRouche article. But this is understandable given the abrupt "Machiavellian" turn in LaRouche's political strategy from 1978 through 1991. During that period, much of what LaRouche said can only be understood through a filter. Why? He was purposely being "tricky": he was trying to ingraciate himself with certain "right-wing" elements around US intelligence services and law enforcement that he thought he could use against the Nelson Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski "liberal imperialists" he saw behind the 1980's Project and Global 2000 Report policies dominating the Carter Administration. By my estimation, LLRs hopes turned out to be a fiction (largely)and he ended up cavorting with some pretty questionable characters (like Roy Frankhauser).

So what was he up to? In his mind, I think LLR thought he could trick right-wingers to believe that his distinctive critical take on the political forces pushing the post 1973 shift in economics and society as somehow coherent with certain John Birch-type conspiracy theories. He twisted his rhetoric to appeal to them and tried to "judo throw" them in the direction of perceiving common cause with Third World demands for a "New World Order." He also always saved for himself and his followers the right to claim that they weren't making a racial or religious argument against Jews-- hence his tortured distinctions between Zionism and Judaism. But I think he was taking his Promethean pretentions a bit too seriously in thinking he could bring enlightenment to this benighted constituency.

LaRouche should come clean on this period and acknowledge to his followers and outsiders that much of what was said during this period was a "strategic lie." Ironically, LaRouche has (rightly) attacked the Straussians for their commitment to the "strategic lie." However, it was LaRouche who talked about the Menixenus Principle -- from Plato's strangest dialogue in which Socrates gives a speech in defense of Athens in the Spartan (Nazi) blood and soil style. From my outside view (I have never been on the inside), this must have been hard for many Labor Committee veterans to take. It also meant that no one could defend him, when he was railroaded off to jail. What goes around comes around.

Now, however, there is reason for hope for this movement. I noticed that at the LaRouche Youth Movement site there is a complete set of early Campaigners, from 1968 ultra-Marxism to the tortured "Machiavelian" material from the late 1970's. The young cadre's are encouraged to read all of it. Good for them. Brave. and intellectually honest (finally). Again, I have no way of knowing, but there have had to be alot of interesting conversations in the cadre schools as to the subtleties I refer to here.

Herschelkrustofsky's surrender? Not likely

Herschelkrustofsky has put forward no real attempt to refute the conclusions I have drawn from the 1978 LaRouche article. He has not disputed that LaRouche was a Holocaust-denier in 1978, and nor can he since it is there in black and white in LaRouche's text. I would be entitled on the basis of that alone to conclude that LaRouche was an anti-Semite, since Holocaust denial is always motivated by anti-Semitism. His responses to my later commentary on LaRouche's anti-Semitism are feeble and irrelevant. He does not contest my central point that LaRouche uses "Zionist" as a synonym for "Jew" and that his fulminations against Zionism are therefore evidence of LaRouche's anti-Semitism.

As you point out, the final sentence of LaRouche's article is: "You cannot be a Zionist and also a Jew." Your central point, that LaRouche uses "Zionist" as a synonym for "Jew", falls under that category which I, rather politely, called "logical contortionism." --Herschelkrustofsky 06:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The important point here is that Herschelkrustofsky has spent weeks and weeks calling Dennis King, me, Andy and anyone else within reach liars for saying (among many other things) that LaRouche was a Holocaust-denier and an anti-Semite in the 70s and 80s. All it has taken is the obtaining of one source document to expose all Herschelkrustofsky's slanders as empty bluster. Since he has been a LaRouche activist for 30 years, he must have known the truth of this matter all along. He has been exposed not only as a slanderer but as a deliberate and systematic liar. Adam 02:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam, you write above that you "...have not described LaRouche as a fascist or an anti-Semite in the article, only reported that other people have described him as such, which is a fact." I, in turn, criticized you for allowing your POV to dominate the article, which meant the inclusion of lies and slanders, and there are still plenty left. If you go back and look again at my statement (originally at User_talk:Fred Bauder, now moved to here), you will note that I said "I have been a supporter of the LaRouche movement for going on 30 years," not an activist (although I became one.) I had never seen the quote that you produced. I am still unconvinced that LaRouche is or was an anti-Semite. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, given your past strong words denouncing Adam for saying LaRouche claimed only 1.5 million Holocaust victims you have some explaining to do. Certainly your response to Adam's evidence only states that LaRouche reversed himself a few years later, you fail to explain why LaRouche made the 1.5 million claim in the first place or why this shouldn't be seen as Holocaust denial or anti-Semitic. Also, given your washout on this point, one which you fought quiet resolutely over and on which you staked your credibility, why should we pay any attention whatsoever to your other claims of errata in the article?AndyL 03:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You boys seem to think that this is a game. Meanwhile, the article still reeks of POV, and provides the reader with no explanation at all of why LaRouche is playing a role in the world that would necessitate a Misplaced Pages article -- your article is a smokescreen only (see Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/Significant Omissions from the current version.) You are so eager to prove a point, that your responsibilities as editors never seem to cross your minds. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Au contraire, I think the establishment of historical truth is a matter of considerable importance. That is why I went to the trouble of documenting what LaRouche said about the Holocaust, in the process proving that you are a bare-faced liar and slanderer, of Dennis King's reputation and mine. None of your feeble diversionary bluster can change that. I suggest that you cut the crap and answer Andy's very pertinent question. Adam 07:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the same reasons we have wikipedia articles on Sun Myung Moon and L. Ron Hubbard or (for a different reason still germane to LaRouche) John C. Turmel. AndyL 13:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it was that simple you wouldn't be so obsessive in trying to impose your point of view. Weed Harper 20:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Obsessive? A small percentage of my edits are LaRouche related whereas 80-100% of edits by yourself and Herschel have to do with LaRouche (or in the case of edits on Danby are inspired by LaRouche). The obsession is yours, not mine. AndyL 20:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the "LaRouche and the Jews" section in the light of the document cited above. The article is now much longer than the intrinsic importance of LaRouche merits, but at least it now deals with this issue fully and fairly. If LaRouche is condemned it is out of his own mouth and not by second-hand reporting. I am still waiting on facsimiles of some other LaRouche documents which may enable me to rework some other sections of the article. Adam 10:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this re-written section represents a marginal improvement over the previous version. It is still full of Adam's POV speculation and innuendo (see Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche/Jewish_issues). --Herschelkrustofsky 14:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)