Corruption on LaRouche pages now off scale, locked indefinitely to uphold POV Options

[Kato]

Total breakdown of reason and deeply corrupt activities persist regarding the LaRouche business. NPOV and Conflict of interest policies remain suspended in a condoned "Ignore All Rules" environment.

User:Georgewilliamherbert has locked Views of Lyndon LaRouche indefinitely in an unprecedented move, claiming on the admins noticeboard that it is subject to "a long-running sustained edit war". According to this Herbert, who is involved in the dispute himself, "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche have clearly been attempting to turn that article (and others) into soapboxes for his political views." He promptly reverted the article to his preferred state before the indefinite locking, and his fellow admins who share his views applauded his "Ignore all rules" methods on the admins noticeboard.

A look at the article diffs shows a different story of course, and one doesn't need to know much about LaRouche to know that this is a complete racket. On no other subject on Wikipedia has NPOV been so openly suspended. Ignore all rules? You're not kidding.

In my continued mission to figure out this Wikipedia - LaRouche puzzle, which looks outrageous to any intelligent outsider from a distance, I delved into the background of the POV dispute and the latest developments. Some of LaRouche's historical analysis looks pretty poor in my view, and other ideas are way off kilter. But his opponent, Dennis King, who is involved in the POV dispute and long time anti-LaRouche activist is just absurd, and clearly not a reliable or legitimate source. Let alone someone who should be anywhere near a LaRouche article.

The latest dispute on the locked page led me to this site by Dennis King called LyndonLaRoucheWatch.org. I read some stuff and scrolled down the page until I caught something about Walter Lippman, who always catches my eye due to some of his later writings, and how a LaRouche piece about Lippman, alongside "Anti-Dirigism Is British Tory Propaganda," is evidence that LaRouche is using "British" as a code word for "Jews"!

According to King (left) when LaRouche refers to the British, he actually means Jews.
Ergo, LaRouche is spreading anti-Semite propaganda by criticising the British Empire.

You can't turn this kind of thing down, so I scanned more evidence, and absolutely none of this adds up. King is basing his piece on LaRouche's various theories about the Rothschild family’s historical influence in the financial sectors of London and other later bits and bobs including the early days of George Soros. But then who doesn't have theories about the Rothschilds and Soros? Hardly controversial and the Rothschild family remain extremely powerful to this day. They just happen to be Jewish. Other claims of "anti-Semitism" laid by Dennis King elsewhere include LaRouche criticisms of Kissinger, Leo Stauss and Paul Wolfowitz amidst his criticisms of others. I mean, who hasn't criticised Kissinger, Strauss and Wolfowitz other than their own mothers?

Before the article was locked, it was restored to state that LaRouche attacks "a cabal of mostly Jewish banking families in London". With the bolded wording readded. What I gather LaRouche was doing was talking about the leading historical figures in banking, the Rothschilds etc, some of whom happen to be Jewish. I could find no mention of "Jewish" in LaRouche's writings, and of course, if you were to criticise British capitalism over the past two centuries, there's no doubt you'd cover the likes of the Rothschilds. Everyone does.

This absolutely stinks.

Wikipedia admins such as Georgewilliamherbert, David Gerard, JPGordon and others who've been supporting Dennis King have been duped. They've been conned by unscrupulous propagandists: King and Berlet. And they don't know it. All they're doing is acting reflexively against perceived WP "trolls" and "outsiders", and have winded up pushing the most bizarre conspiracy theories on the page.

Let's just restate Dennis King's theory again: "When LaRouche refers to the British. He actually means Jews. Ergo, LaRouche is an anti-Semite!" And King's actually being allowed to spread his theory on biographical articles with the protection of WP admins.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Let's just restate Dennis King's theory again: "When LaRouche refers to the British. He actually means Jews. Ergo, LaRouche is an anti-Semite!"

This has been noticed by other commentators. According to the Wikipedia bio of LaRouche,

This latter claim is disputed by author Daniel Pipes, who writes: "Dennis King insists that [LaRouche's] references to the British as the ultimate conspirators are really `code language' to refer to Jews. In fact, these are references to the British."

Pipes himself is no friend of LaRouche. But even for him, King's tripe is too much to take.

[GlassBeadGame]

The latest dispute on the locked page led me to this site by Dennis King called LyndonLaRoucheWatch.org. I read some stuff and scrolled down the page until I caught something about Walter Lippman, who always catches my eye due to some of his later writings, and how a LaRouche piece about Lippman, alongside "Anti-Dirigism Is British Tory Propaganda," is evidence that LaRouche is using "British" as a code word for "Jews"!

Isn't this "my adversaries speak in code and here is the real meaning" the worst of the worst of tin-foil-hat nutter conspiracy theories? With the proper word substitution you can prove anything. If "milk" is code for "the blood of babies" then the National Dairy Council wants you to drink the blood of babies. It is a resort to special revealed knowledge that is the death of reason. Why doesn't Morton Devonshire and the anti-conspiratorial cabal jump all over this nonsense? I guess they must actually have some other agenda than exposing bad reasoning.

[jorge]

Can anyone point to something specifically anti-semitic LaRouche has said or done? Or has he actually just criticised Israel and Israeli lobbying within the US?

[Jonny Cache]

Mack's Law

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Holocaust Denial approaches one.

I heard it on the Gripewhine …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sun 21st October 2007, 12:07am

[Kato]

Can anyone point to something specifically anti-semitic LaRouche has said or done? Or has he actually just criticised Israel and Israeli lobbying within the US?

I don't know if he's a particular critic of Israel, perhaps Herschel can elaborate?

But the main point is: There isn't a hope that a professional or serious encyclopaedia would use Dennis King's "analysis" in a biographical article about this guy. It takes a very short space of time to realise what King is up to and why he's doing it. And it makes Wikipedia look really bad.

The fact that ignorant or unworldy WP admins still buy this claptrap pushed by King and Berlet, and then blindly support it without question, is the really disgraceful element.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Can anyone point to something specifically anti-semitic LaRouche has said or done? Or has he actually just criticised Israel and Israeli lobbying within the US?

I don't know if he's a particular critic of Israel, perhaps Herschel can elaborate?

He's aligned with the pro-negotiation elements in Israeli politics, has supported recent initiatives by Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, and is an admirer of Yitzhak Rabin and the Oslo accords.

Although the history of his conflicts with Berlet and King is long and tortuous, I think that I would summarize it as follows: Berlet and King are simply poison-pens-for-hire. The motive for siccing them on LaRouche was primarily LaRouche's relentless critique of the banking establishment. LaRouche is not the only target of these sorts of tactics; German vice-chancellor and SPD head Franz Muenterfering referred to hedge funds as "Locusts," and next thing he knew, he was being accused of anti-Semitism, because hedge funds involve bankers and as we all know, "bankers" is secret code for "Jews."

I think what LaRouche did that pissed them off the most was his 1971 debate with Abba Lerner. Lerner was a noted Keynesian economist who was there to defend certain policies, including "labor recycling" in Brazil, that LaRouche had characterized as a revival of the fascist economics of Hitler's Reichsbank president Hjalmar Schacht. LaRouche backed Lerner into a corner during the debate, to the point where Lerner said, "But if Germany had accepted Schacht's policies, Hitler would not have been necessary." The financial establishment had been striving to quietly revive Schacht's policies while maintaining a publicly "liberal" stance of opposition to fascism, and this debate was a major embarassment for them. It made LaRouche very unpopular in these circles, and one of the tactics that was chosen for the purpose of "dealing with LaRouche" was the charge of anti-Semitism (which is quite a pernicious charge -- even saying "I'm not anti-Semitic" makes you into a dubious character.)

[blissyu2]

People looking for hidden meanings in things sometimes hit the nail on the head and expose conspiracies and corruption. But without finding substantial non-hidden meanings beneath the surface, it ends up all looking like hogwash.

In this instance, saying that criticism of Britain is a codeword for criticism of Jews is just plain stupid.

I mean I have said elsewhere that I was very disappointed to learn that renowned conspiracy theorist Joe Vialls had at the end of 90% of his theories that "secretly the Jews did it", which indicated that most of the time his theories were a load of nonsense, even if everything bar the conclusion was well reasoned and in some cases had a lot of merit.

Such people do exist, and if LaRouche is the same, then I don't know how much credibility we should give him too.

But I am not convinced that LaRouche is another Vialls. If he is, there should be some clue, like there was with Vialls. There should be, in every single conclusion, or at least most of them, something along the lines of "Mossad agents were behind all of this" or something like that.

[guy]

Australian B'nai B'rith clearly disapproves of LaRouche and his followers:

http://www.bnaibrith.org.au/images/%7BD50F...B7E8CBD2%7D.doc

THE CEC EXPOSES NEW HITLERS

The Australian International LaRouche Youth Movement (ILYM) has become central to the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC) campaigns and strategies aimed at recruiting new members, raising funds and publicising its agenda. The CEC is the mouthpiece in Australia for the extreme ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, an American who has served time in prison for fraud and tax evasion.

Deployed to a peace rally in March, the ILYM and CEC field team handed out copies of LaRouche?��s statement ?ǣWar, Hitler and Cheney?ǥ. This argues that the world is plunging into economic depression, and that new would-be Adolf Hitlers have now appeared in the U.S.A. and Britain. ?ǣThey threaten the whole world with the kinds of wars for which the world later hung Nazi leaders at Nuremberg.?ǥ Eventually, the Victorian Peace Network sought to remove the CEC, announcing, ?ǣthere is a right-wing group handing out flyers and making trouble.?ǥ


LAROUCHE YOUTH MOVEMENT TARGETS TERTIARY STUDENTS

The ILYM has been actively campaigning to recruit tertiary student membership and interest in the CEC, by setting up tables outside campuses including Victoria University of Technology (Footscray), Melbourne, Swinburne and Monash (Caulfield) universities, seeking donations and currently distributing a publication entitled ?ǣChildren of Satan?ǥ. According to the CEC website, 50,000 copies of this material have been printed, since Australia is allegedly involved in the launch of a new fascist world empire by participating in the ?ǣCoalition of the Willing?ǥ.

The pamphlet?��s introduction by CEC National Director Craig Isherwood describes what it terms the Cheney/Rumsfeld ?ǣchickenhawk?ǥ or ?ǣneo-conservatives?��?�� cabal; this purportedly controls President Bush, dreams of imperialist globalist conquest and domestic police states, and wholeheartedly supports Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?��s anti-Palestinian policies.

According to Isherwood, many of the conservative chickenhawks are Jewish and pro-fascist, ?ǣthe errant weed within Judaism denounced by the martyred Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin?ǥ.

There have also been reports of CEC material being placed on student union notice boards without university permission. Monash University Caulfield Student Union (MONSU) President Tim Wilson recently wrote to CEC Victorian State Secretary Gabrielle Peut, objecting to the organisation?��s use of notice boards reserved for clubs and other university groups. Meanwhile, MONSU Caulfield Clubs Council Co-ordinator Michael Josem issued a bulletin to all clubs and students, alerting them to the activities and nature of this conspiracy-based group.

[jorge]

Australian B'nai B'rith clearly disapproves of LaRouche and his followers:

http://www.bnaibrith.org.au/images/%7BD50F...B7E8CBD2%7D.doc

THE CEC EXPOSES NEW HITLERS

The Australian International LaRouche Youth Movement (ILYM) has become central to the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC) campaigns and strategies aimed at recruiting new members, raising funds and publicising its agenda. The CEC is the mouthpiece in Australia for the extreme ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, an American who has served time in prison for fraud and tax evasion.

Guy, I don't actually see any actual criticism in that at all except a quote pointing out that many neo conservatives are Jewish which is actually true. People who are Jewish are more likely to be supporters of Israel but obviously some, but probably a minority of Jews are openly critical of Israel.

[guy]

The pamphlet?��s introduction by CEC National Director Craig Isherwood describes what it terms the Cheney/Rumsfeld ?ǣchickenhawk?ǥ or ?ǣneo-conservatives?��?�� cabal; this purportedly controls President Bush, dreams of imperialist globalist conquest and domestic police states, and wholeheartedly supports Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?��s anti-Palestinian policies.

According to Isherwood, many of the conservative chickenhawks are Jewish and pro-fascist, ?ǣthe errant weed within Judaism denounced by the martyred Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin?ǥ.

[jorge]

The pamphlet’s introduction by CEC National Director Craig Isherwood describes what it terms the Cheney/Rumsfeld “chickenhawk” or “neo-conservatives’’ cabal; this purportedly controls President Bush, dreams of imperialist globalist conquest and domestic police states, and wholeheartedly supports Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s anti-Palestinian policies.

According to Isherwood, many of the conservative chickenhawks are Jewish and pro-fascist, “the errant weed within Judaism denounced by the martyred Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin”.

Cheney and Rumsfeld aren't Jewish are they? I already mentioned the last bit. The fact that LaRouche seems to support the moderate elements within Israel such as Rabin was suggest that he is not anti-semitic.

[LamontStormstar]

Australian B'nai B'rith clearly disapproves of LaRouche and his followers:

B'nai B'rith sounds like a character in scifi/fantasy.

[Jonny Cache]

Australian B'nai B'rith clearly disapproves of LaRouche and his followers:

B'nai B'rith sounds like a character in scifi/fantasy.

Gratuitous.

Jonny

[alienus]

According to some recent newspaper articles, Zionism is much less popular among younger American Jews than older ones, but still relatively popular among those who are particularly conservative. Those are the demographics; draw your own conclusions.

Al

[Kato]

The point here though is that Wikipedia admins are doing the dirty work of Dennis King, a blatant propagandist. A man who writes that LaRouche is "The American Hitler".

In this article, King writes:

LaRouche worked out his ideology and tactics in the late 1970s, in a series of books and articles with such titles as The Case of Walter Lippman, The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites, and A Machiavellian Solution for Israel. In these tracts and in writings by several of LaRouche's top lieutenants, history was depicted as a struggle for the true human race to assert itself against the degenerative influence of assorted subhumans such as Jews, gays, Freemasons, witches, Jesuits, and (most recently) the Slavs behind the Iron Curtain.

LaRouche's piece, The Case of Walter Lippman, which Dennis King claims is an attack on Jews and gays is available here:

http://www.archive.org/details/TheCaseOfWa...dentialStrategy

I had a look at it, which is probably more than any of these Wikipedia admins have managed to do. Though some of it is pretty bizarre, at no point in the 200+ pages does LaRouche mention Jews or gays, or even vaguely implies that “the human race has to assert itself against assorted subhumans”. He attacks all kinds of institutions and government activities in a myriad of tenuous connections, and his main targets are the decidedly un-Jewish nor gay Rockefeller family and the British establishment. The article does not remotely imply King's conclusion.

Dennis King is using wikipedia to spread smears without any foundation, and seems to be hoping that no one actually checks his claims. And it’s as clear as day if you do. Wikipedia admins who haven’t bothered to do their homework have fallen for these tricks.

Dopes!

[GlassBeadGame]

The point here though is that Wikipedia admins are doing the dirty work of Dennis King, a blatant propagandist. A man who writes that LaRouche is "The American Hitler".

In this article, King writes:

LaRouche worked out his ideology and tactics in the late 1970s, in a series of books and articles with such titles as The Case of Walter Lippman, The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites, and A Machiavellian Solution for Israel. In these tracts and in writings by several of LaRouche's top lieutenants, history was depicted as a struggle for the true human race to assert itself against the degenerative influence of assorted subhumans such as Jews, gays, Freemasons, witches, Jesuits, and (most recently) the Slavs behind the Iron Curtain.

LaRouche's piece, The Case of Walter Lippman, which Dennis King claims is an attack on Jews and gays is available here:

http://www.archive.org/details/TheCaseOfWa...dentialStrategy

I had a look at it, which is probably more than any of these Wikipedia admins have managed to do. Though some of it is pretty bizarre, at no point in the 200+ pages does LaRouche mention Jews or gays, or even vaguely imply that “the human race has to assert itself against assorted subhumans”. He attacks all kinds of institutions and government activities in a myriad of tenuous connections, and his main targets are the decidedly un-Jewish nor gay Rockefeller family and the British establishment. The article does not remotely imply King's conclusion.

Dennis King is using wikipedia to spread smears without any foundation, and seems to be hoping that no one actually checks his claims. And it’s as clear as day if you do. Wikipedia admins who haven’t bothered to do their homework have fallen for these tricks.

Dopes!

I don't mean any disrespect toward LaRouche or his followers, but my first response is why go about a "code attack" when addressing the fabric of tentative connections should be an effective rebuttal to LaRouche's positions? But then I realize that once you gain acceptance of this type of attack the sky is the limit. You can attack any opponent on any issue without regard to the merits. I think they select LaRouche because his complexity and convoluted nature of his arguments will deter any examination of the merits and make Berlet's and King's "revealed knowledge" an attractive alternative to sorting things out. Once you get your audience used to accepting your "revealed knowledge" you can apply the attack to targets with whose merits could otherwise be appreciated. It truly is a case of first they came for the LaRouchies, but I was not a LaRouchie..."

[Kato]

I don't mean any disrespect toward LaRouche or his followers, but my first response is why go about a "code attack" when addressing the fabric of tentative connections should be an effective rebuttal to LaRouche's positions? But then I realize that once you gain acceptance of this type of attack the sky is the limit. You can attack any opponent on any issue without regard to the merits. I think they select LaRouche because his complexity and convoluted nature of his arguments will deter any examination of the merits and make Berlet's and King's "revealed knowledge" an attractive alternative to sorting things out. Once you get your audience used to accepting your "revealed knowledge" you can apply the attack to targets with whose merits could otherwise be appreciated. It truly is a case of first they came for the LaRouchies, but I was not a LaRouchie..."

I know. It wouldn't be difficult to criticise many of LaRouche's assertions using contradictory evidence. But why bother? If you can make up a load of old false crap about his views, call the guy "the American Hitler", and get all kinds of neutrals on your side to support you based on this, who needs reasoned critiques?

[the fieryangel]

If these people are so against Larouche, then why are they giving him almost 200,000 bytes of webspace (between the main bio page and the "views of" page--the "views of" page being one of the shining examples of POV pushing ever to grace Wikipedia)à to explain everything that he ever said? Wouldn't it be much more effective to give him a little less than the 70.000 bytes allocated to Karl Marx or the 47.000 given to Schopenhauer?

I mean, are they really against this if they want to go on at such great lengths to discuss everything that the man has said and done? And aren't most people who are already for this kind of thing already going to think that this is peachy-keen regardless of what they say?

It seems to me that the agenda here is not exactly what one might think at first glance....

[Yehudi]

If these people are so against Larouche, then why are they giving him almost 200,000 bytes of webspace ... It seems to me that the agenda here is not exactly what one might think at first glance

I was just saying elsewhere that I only heard of him via Wikipedia. Actually, the likeliest explanation is that the anti-LaRouche people just aren't thinking what they're doing.