Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Facts about LaRouche & Democracy

I posted:

"He does not currently appear to advocate the abolition of democracy or the imposition of authoritarian rule."

Herschelkrustofsky changed this to:

"He has never publicly advocated the abolition of democracy or the imposition of authoritarian rule."

Here are quotes from LaRouche:

___

"We shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of 'democracy.'"

"Creating a Republican Labor Party" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Citizens for LaRouche Policy Statement, c. 1980

This indicates LaRouche's preference for a Constitutional Republic, Chip, as opposed to, for example, the tactics of Arnold Schwarzenneger, who wishes to bypass the California State legislature by running lots of deceptive initiative campaigns. To extrapolate from that LaRouche wants to abolish democracy or impose authoritarian rule is sophistry, of the type that has earned you the bad reputation among serious opponents of authoritarianism. --H.K. 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

___

"America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry, and labor."

"A War-winning Strategy", Editorial, New Solidarity, March 1978

It would appear that someone is taking LaRouche's advice right now, given that AIPAC has been raided for the second time in several months. And although I know you wish to insinuate that this quote is anti-Semitic, what does it have to do with democracy or authoritarianism? --H.K. 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

___

LaRouche wrote that history would not judge harshly those who beat homosexuals to death with baseball bats to stop the spread of AIDS.

He did? When and in what publication did he do that? --H.K. 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche: "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?"

Please provide a reference for this quote, so that the context may be established. --H.K. 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Larouche 1973 memo to members, reported in Wasington Post, 1/14/1985 --Cberlet 04:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. What is the context?

2. What does it have to do with democracy? Weed Harper 06:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche wrote that most Chinese people are "approximating the lower animal species" by manifesting a "paranoid personality....a parallel general form of fundamental distinction from actual human personalities."

Please provide a reference for this quote, so that the context may be established. And having done that, please explain how these purported quotes represent an advocacy of authoritarianism. --H.K. 22:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

___

So I think it is legitimate to suggest that in the past LaRouche has written material that seems "to advocate the abolition of democracy or the imposition of authoritarian rule."

But perhaps it should be "In the past LaRouche has scoffed at parliamentary democracy, suggested the appropriateness of physically attacking his political enemies, and issued racist staements about Blacks and Chinese."

Is that a more neutral Point of View given LaRouche's past quotes? --Cberlet 23:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chip, you can include any material that is properly referenced. In the case of quoting LaRouche, you'd have to be able to provide either a link to that quote, or a date and name of publication. If you're providing a more general criticism of LaRouche, without an actual quote, you'd have to provide the name and date of a reputable publication (Washington Post, just as an example). So long as you stick to those rules (see Wikipedia:cite sources and Wikipedia:verifiability), you can use the material, and if Herschelkrustofsky reverts it, you can change it back again. He is not allowed to delete properly referenced material, and he is not allowed to insert material of his own that is not properly referenced. Slim 23:35, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I need to dig up some of my archives to get some of the cites, then I will edit the page and provide links to a list of cites.--Cberlet 06:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a longer version of the quote that I argue shows that LaRouche has, at least in the past, dismissed the idea of electoral democracy:

" ‘Democracy’ is like a farm without a farmer, in which the chickens, sheep, cows, horses and pigs form ‘constituencies’ according to Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau or John Stuart Mill. Each constituency is but a collection of beasts, each with special ‘self-interests’ defined as animals might define self interests. The highest level of law in such a democratic animal farm is the ‘social contracts’ among these bestial constituencies.

The human species is not a collection of chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and so forth. Therefore, ‘pluralism’ and other British notions of ‘democracy’ are fit only for British aristocrats, not for self-respecting human beings such as the citizens of the United States.

The essence of republican organization, including republican parties, is the mobilization of a majority of the citizens as a conscious force engaged in direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation, of discovering which policies are in fact currently in the interest of the nation and its posterity. By creating a republican labor party of such trade unionists and ethnic minorities, we shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of ‘democracy.’ "

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “Creating a Republican Labor Party.” Citizens for LaRouche, circa 1980.

I think this cleary is evidence of LaRouche's disdain for electoral democracy. Comments? --Cberlet 21:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have two comments: first, that LaRouche appeared to be aware of the danger of Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" a decade and a half before Gingrich became prominent. Second, that your argument, that this quote represents evidence of a "disdain for electoral democracy", is a joke. LaRouche is talking about organizing labor and minorities, who have been ignored by the dominant parties for decades, and bringing them into "direct deliberation of the policymaking of the nation." You find that undemocratic? Weed Harper 01:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Train meeting claims by LaRouchites

Much of the LaRouche material about the Train meetings is simply a series of unsubstantiated claims that are not linked by logic to their conclusions. The affidavit by Quinde is simply his point of view. An affidavit not tested in court is not a proof. As I have mentioned on several other LaRouche-linked pages, I propose moving all the discussion of the Train meetings to one page so that it can be debated and edited in one place. --Cberlet 06:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The essential facts about the meetings are undisputed: a whole gaggle of LaRouche's opponents got together at Train's home, talked about LaRouche, and then trotted off to write articles accusing him of various things. Chip characterizes the meeting he attended as a "debate", but the thing that I find most revealing about the meetings is the "strange bedfellows" aspect, particularly because Chip is always denouncing certain leftwingers for consorting with certain rightwingers -- and Chip does not deny (see Talk:Chip Berlet) that his travel expenses to attend his particular Train Salon meeting were paid by the representative of the John Birch Society. --HK 15:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rees was not a representative of the John Birch Society. That's just false. I am willing to debate the Train meeting text, but not spread across many pages. This page is already over length. Moving details to United States v. LaRouche --Cberlet 16:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just how would you describe Rees, then? See [1].

The Train meetings are essential to understanding the controversy about LaRouche's views, and must not be deleted from this article -- or the one about Chip Berlet. --HK 16:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rees was then with the Maldon Institute, not the JBS, a group with which he no longer worked.--Cberlet 16:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After digging through my archives, I found that in 1985 Rees was with Mid-Atlantic Research Associates, which may have turned into the Maldon Institute, or may coexist as a Rees project. Hard to tell.

Herschelkrustofsky Interference

Herschelkrustofsky's reversion is unfair and creates much repetition. This page was over length. The discussion of the Train meeting belongs in the United States v. LaRouche page because the LaRouche people themselves claim it is central to his prosecution, a claim that is disputed. It makes no sense to have the same material on two or three pages. My edit included a mention of the Train meeting and a link to its new location United States v. LaRouche. This is blatant pro-LaRouche propaganda and interference; not fair and accurate editing. I protest. --Cberlet 16:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have noted on the talk page for United States v. LaRouche that I don't think the Train material is needed on that page. Bear in mind that 6 months ago, there was only one article, of modest length; the present, relatively voluminous set of articles was the result of extensive negotiations and compromise, in order to bring fierce edit wars to a close. I asked that the Train material be included in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, because that was where the majority of the propagandistic slurs and unfounded speculation, coming from Berlet and others, was posted, and the Train material helps explain the discrepancy between LaRouche's stated views, and those imputed to him by his critics. The inclusion of the Train material was essentially part of a compromise which also included the inclusion of material from Berlet and from the International Workers Party. The edit wars over LaRouche articles have largely subsided since early October, and I would certainly prefer that it remain that way. --HK 22:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only a tiny handful of LaRouche followers and an even smaller group of conspiracy buffs thinks the Train material is important. This page is already too long. The Train material has been moved to United States v. LaRouche.--Cberlet 00:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More unfair conduct by HK. If we are going to be forced to debate the Train meeting material, it should only be on one page. HK keeps placing it on several pages. This is not fair. It has no value on this page. It is just another place where HK wants to engage in a personal attack on me.--Cberlet 13:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am deleting the duplicate material on all pages except the Train meeting page. --Cberlet 13:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip appears to be attempting to whitewash his role in the whole LaRouche affair. Since this article serves as a forum of sorts for the scurrilous attacks of Chip and his colleagues, some minimal discussion of LaRouche's critics is essential. It is not "duplicate material" -- it is a succinct description, linked to an article with more detail. --HK 16:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A succinct description seems like it would also mention that the idea has minimal respect outside of LaRouche followers, no? Snowspinner 16:22, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain how you could document that -- perhaps by conducting a scientific opinion poll? -- but you could certainly say that the characterization of the meetings is disputed by LaRouche's opponents, as is clear in the Train article. --22:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have serious trouble believing the alternative, which is that the Train theory is widely accepted. Regardless, it seems a major enough point that it ought to be mentioned whenever the Train theory is brought up. Snowspinner 23:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Berlet

It is clear to me that Berlet is trying to hijack Wikipedia to promote his (ahem) commercial endeavors. The Train Meetings material never should have been removed from Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. Berlet wants to promote his POV by quoting from his own website (SlimVirgin take note: Wikipedia prohibits original research) and he wants to ban any scrutiny of his role as a quote unquote "researcher." There is absolutely no reason for a seperate article on the Train Salon. Weed Harper 22:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely about the original research point, and I agree that it's not appropriate for Chip to be editing these articles, but it's also not appropriate for LaRouche supporters to be editing them, for the same reasons, and my suspicion is that Chip is doing so only to stop unverified claims being inserted by others. I also agree that there shouldn't be an article on these meetings, but regardless of whether the material is on a separate page, or part of a Lyndon LaRouche article, the details of the John Train meetings should be verified by third-party publications. The ArbCom allows LaRouche publications to be used in LaRouche-related articles, but doesn't say they can be used exclusively.

I also fail to see the relevance of the meetings. So far, a bunch of journalists has met with a bunch of sources to discuss a person (LaRouche) regarded by large numbers of people as dangerous. There's nothing unusual about that. It would become unusual if those journalists were persuaded to broadcast or publish false material, wittingly or otherwise, as a result of those meetings. But that has not been shown. Even if you read LaRouche's own publications, it has not been shown.

Weed, I was wondering, regarding your edit to Dennis King, who is Mark Evans and where that piece was published? Also, the NBC programs alleging that LaRouche was plotting to kill Kissinger, and that he may have been involved in Olaf Palme's death: Does anyone know how we can verify that these broadcasts took place, and that they made these claims, apart from obtaining transcripts from NBC? Slim 22:57, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Although I think that the case against Chip Berlet editing articles on himself is slightly better than the case against LaRouche supporters editing articles on LaRouche, I think the real point to be made here is that editing to advance a point of view is bad. Snowspinner 03:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I first got involved with Wikipedia in an article on Mussolini. I would prefer not to edit any material on myself. But here is the problem. I started to get email from people saying outrageous claims about me were showing up on the web all over the world, sometimes in foreign languages. These turned out to be websites porting over entries posted by LaRouche supporters on Wikipedia. I never expected to find anything about myself on Wikipedia. I write encyclopedia articles for the academic print press; I do not think I belong in a serious encyclopedia entry, except perhaps as a published expert on apocalypticism, neofascism, and right-wing populism.

It is easy to dismiss the material published by LaRouche. He has been attacking me for years. He is a convicted crook and his views are frankly lunatic conspiracy theories that few people on the planet have ever heard of and even fewer believe in. But Wikipedia has earned a reputation for solid research and an attempt to be fair and accurate through group process. The LaRouchite claims on Wikipedia were not just false, but defamatory in the sense that they call into question my integity as a journalist; and if they remained unchallenged they could hurt my ability to sell freelance articles. I was never involved with SDS. I worked for the National Student Association years after the CIA was exposed and booted out. LaRouchites posted false data about both these matters. Meanwhile, in the discussion pages, even more vicious personal attacks were being posted for public scrutiny.

A few LaRouche supporters continue to flagrantly and repeatedly violate the ground rules of Wikipedia, and continue to post unsubstantiated rumor and attacks on me as if they were based on serious research. If you saw that the other Wikipedians were not dealing with such a situation, what would you do if it were aimed at you? If Wikipedia enforced its own rules and standards I would not need to be involved in these tiresome disputes.--Cberlet 04:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What Chip has written above is very true, and I suggest that a few Wikipedia editors of good faith get together here and do something about it. There have been a number of problems with LaRouche editors over the last few months, some of which I've been involved in, and some not, so I don't know the details of each dispute. But they all boil down to unverifiable claims, and Wikipedia is opposed to that, regardless of POV. When the disputed claims are in articles about the Schiller Institute or Frederick Wills, for example, it's very irritating to have them in Wikipedia, but at least the claims are usually not causing direct harm. However, in this case, a real, live individual is arguably being damaged, which is unfair and unencyclopedic, so we have a responsibility to sort it out. Even when claims are deleted, they're often cached by Google, and some very contemptuous claims have also been made on Talk pages.

Herschel and Weed, I am asking you here to volunteer to stop editing this article (or rather, to stop editing the references in it to Chip), and also to stop editing Chip Berlet, Dennis King, Political Research Associates and John Train Salon, and to allow others to edit them into some kind of NPOV state; and also to stop inserting references to Chip into other articles. Will you agree to that proposal? Chip, if Herschel and Weed agree to stop editing these articles, and provided other editors are working to NPOV them, will you also stop editing them? Slim 06:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fair. Thanks. --Cberlet 13:07, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with that, Slim, because despite your protestations to the contrary, I regard you as an anti-LaRouche POV editor, and I would not trust you to edit these articles into "some kind of NPOV state." I still regard your Jeremiah Duggan article as the introduction of an unfounded, anti-LaRouche conspiracy theory (I had to crack a smile the other day when I saw you refer, on one of these talk pages, to affidavits as a tool of conspiracy theorists; when the British government wants to promote a conspiracy theory, they use an inquest.)

With respect to Chip's lengthy and pious statement about how he only edits Wikipedia because he must defend himself against unsubstantiated rumor and attacks, I originally started editing Wikipedia because I thought someone should defend LaRouche against unsubstantiated rumor and attacks (much of which originated with Berlet). I have also edited other articles, for example the ones having to do with Manuel Noriega, because they were being used as vehicles for propaganda. I think that the best insurance that these articles stay in "some kind of NPOV state" would be to attract and engage relatively neutral editors; I think Snowspinner falls into that category, despite his acknowledged opposition to LaRouche. Perhaps DanKeshet, when he returns from vacation, will do as well. But I cannot reliquish my option of stepping in if something really off the charts, like Berlet's attempt to suppress the Train material, transpires. --HK 15:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, HK, stop the personal attacks on me. You are violating Wikipedia policy. If you have any evidence that there is factually false text in any of my articles on LaRouche, please cite them. Otherwise, I have a right to my opinion about LaRouche. Some of my articles on LaRouche have appeared in mainstream or reliable alternative publications. Most of your claims about LaRouche originate in LaRouche publications and websites. The LaRouche material is a marginal view of reality, and to claim that the LaRouche material should have the same space to provide an NPOV here is simply not correct and not based on Wickipedia standards. At best, on Wikipedia, LaRouche claims should be mentioned in one article on him, in which the widespread criticism of him by journalists across the political spectrum provides the bulk of the text. This page on the Political views of Lyndon LaRouche should be deleted, as should the page on the so-called John Train Salon; as should the many other pages created to extol the views and allies of LaRouche. I propose this page be deleted. Let's discuss this proposal. --Cberlet 20:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chip, none of the comments attributed to you in this article are factual in nature; they are all theories that you propound, things that fall under that category of "POV speculation". I have often wondered what your motive is for this stuff, since I am certain that, in the process of combing through LaRouche's writings in search of quotes to be taken out of context, that you have read enough of LaRouche to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all that the names you call him, such as "fascist", "anti-Semite", and so on, are completely without foundation. As to why your theories have been promoted in "mainstream or reliable alternative publications", I think the Train Salon material provides an insight. LaRouche's publications certainly enjoy a wider readership, and arguably a greater degree of respect, than yours; yet you have no apparent inhibitions about hurling all manner of insults at LaRouche.

With respect to your proposal that this page be deleted, this page was created by an opponent of LaRouche, User:AndyL. The better part of the page is devoted to criticism of LaRouche; your description of it as a page "created to extol the views and allies of LaRouche" is ridiculous. The NPOV policy at Wikipedia is designed to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a vehicle for any particular brand of propaganda, and since, as User:Snowspinner observed in the introduction he wrote for this article, there is virtually no actually neutral material available on LaRouche's views, Wikipedia is providing a service by at least giving the reader an opportunity to review the differences between the characterizations of LaRouche's views by his supporters and detractors. --HK 21:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so Chip has agreed to the proposal, but Herschelkrustofsky does not agree, and Weed Harper has not responded. Willmcw and I are going to try to start by editing Chip Berlet and make it NPOV. Herschel, that is not an article "closely related" to LaRouche within the terms of ArbCom, so you are not allowed to engage in an edit war by reinserting LaRouche material. The fact that Chip has been a LaRouche critic will not be left out but it is not his only defining feature. Chip, can you direct us to any published material about yourself, good or bad, apart from LaRouche publications? Herschel, can you direct us to any non-LaRouche published material about Chip? Slim 22:54, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, your proposal is meaningless unless you also offer not to edit LaRouche related articles, because you are an anti-LaRouche editor. Also, you do not propose that Berlet stop editing articles on LaRouche. Also, there is no LaRouche-sourced material in the Berlet article, so what are you going to remove? Weed Harper 01:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not an "anti-LaRouche editor". You've decided to smear me with a label in the same way you smear people like Chip Berlet and Dennis King, and anyone else who stands up against you, because you've learned the LaRouche way of marginalizing, stigmatizing and discrediting people by erecting signposts over their names. Your tactics won't work on Wikipedia. My edit history speaks for itself, as does yours.

My position on LaRouche is clear and simple: I do not regard LaRouche publications as credible sources, and I follow Wikipedia policy of using only reputable, published sources.

Do not label me again in relation to LaRouche. I find it deeply insulting. Slim 02:52, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, Slim. On the basis of your edit history, if this were a trial, as it seems to be, you would most certainly be asked to recuse yourself. --HK 15:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look at the histories of Lyndon LaRouche, Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, and United States v. LaRouche, and see how few edits I've made to those pages. My main concern is that unsubstantiated LaRouche claims should not spill over into other pages. It's not that they come from LaRouche that I object to them. It's because they're almost always unsubstantiated, and even when you and Weed Harper take material from Larouche publications, you often take it further than they do. Please stop personalizing everything and concentrate on content and on finding decent sources. Slim 16:03, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Return of the John Train material

HK, moving an article and rewriting made it impossible to see what you had changed. I don't object to merging the articles, but please do it in steps so we can follow your work. We're not as smart as you are. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 07:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a detailed summary of my edits, because I don't have all night. My critics will have changed everything before long, anyway.

• • I retained, from the orginal version in the "Views" article, AndyL's rebuttal material (which did not appear in the "Salon" article), where Andy argues that much criticism of LHL came after the electoral victories in Illinois. I also retained the rebuttal to Andy's rebuttal, which points out that Pat Lynch, producer of much post-Illinois stuff, was an alleged Train Salon attendee. In this version, we solve the riddle of the "two NBC programs in that year" that was troubling Slim when it appeared in the "Salon" version.
  • I did not retain, from the "Salon" article, Slim's obligatory quote from the ADL about how LaRouche is an antisemitic SOB, since that duplicates material already in the "Views" article.
  • I used the list format from "Salon" in presenting the alleged attendees. I think it provides greater clarity.
  • I provided slightly new characterizations of Berlet and King ("generally regarded as leftists") and Rees ("generally regarded as a rightist.") I think that those are NPOV descriptions, but I'm prepared for all sorts of contention.
  • I attribute the various NBC programs cited to a media log kept by LaRouche researchers.
  • I dropped the external links from "Salon" because they aren't really appropriate to the longer "views" article, or are duplicates. Put them back if you like.

--HK 07:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HK, Thanks for listing what you changed. That's a lot! I think some of this stuff was discussed in the previous article, so just changing it here, as part of the merge, isn't the best way to build consensus among editors. If you feel that the material needs to be cut down because it is too long, maybe it should be in an article of its own? (Just kidding). Anyway, let's start rom where we arrived in the old article and build on that. This is a collaborative effort and I'm sure we all appreciate having respect for the process. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, I removed some unreferenced parts of your edit. (1) The reference to intelligence agents being present is not shown. You've quoted the Quinde affidavit, which mentions Berlet's claim that he was introduced to gentlemen from . . . I forget the phrase. There's no indication that the Quinde affidavit goes further than that; (2) The LaRouche media log: Can you show where it describes the contents of the programs because I can't find a reference to this anywhere? My apologies f it's obvious and I missed it. (3) Where you say "LaRouche supporters" believe the odd mix of people at the meeting etc. If by "LaRouche supporters," you mean a LaRouche publication, could you provide a short quote where it says that, just to be clear? Many thanks, Slim 16:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

HK, thanks for taking the edits a little slower. As you predicted, some were not agreeable to everyone. I'm also curious to see this "LaRouche organization media log". Cheers, -Willmcw 19:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There Was no reference to "intelligence agents" being present. There was a reference to "the presence of persons such as Godson and Lansky Boland who have documented connections to the intelligence community," Godson being a consultant to PFIAB, and Lansky Boland being a former CIA employee. No mystery there. The media log is here. You also removed the reference to Rees writing for JBS publications, which is amply documented -- you want footnotes? And you also continue to remove, without explanation, the discussion of Mellon Scaife. It belongs there. As far as "LaRouche supporters" is concerned, I will replace that with "representatives of LaRouche's 2004 campaign," which issued the statement on the Train Salon. --HK 23:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding it hard to believe that NBC accused LaRouche in three separate broadcasts of planning to kill President Carter, of planning to kill Henry Kissinger, and of having killed Olaf Palme. Perhaps they said he had been investigated or something, but for them actually to have accused him? If they did, there are bound to be non-LaRouche sources for this on the Internet, so would you mind providing one or two?

Mellon Scaife: I can't remember what you said about him, and I can't get check because the page won't load, but it was something extreme and unproven. If you could always supply references, these discussions would be unnecessary, because then other editors could simply click on them, and wouldn't have to bother you. Readers could do the same. Many thanks, Slim 00:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Berlet again

I just reverted a number of edits by Cberlet which were rife with POV speculation, quotes out of context, and quotes which I suspect are simply invented. I have been complying, informally, with Slim's request that I not edit the Berlet article, and I have done so with the expectation that Berlet would make no further attempts to vandalize this one. --HK 23:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, regarding the deal about editing the pages, you turned it down. So as things stand, it's only the Chip Berlet article that CBerlet isn't editing, and LaRouche material or POV can't be inserted by you into that article anyway, as it isn't "closely related." Slim 00:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the source on the NBC/Palme allegation. Regarding CBerlet, his edits do not appear to be vandalism. You may not agree with them, but vandalism is something else entirely. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, you deleted some material quoting LaRouche, commenting that you thought it was a misquote. Rather than deleting it can you please correct it, provide the context, etc? Cheers, -Willmcw 00:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like Cberlet to provide the context, on this talk page, before re-inserting it, since he presumably claims to have the original hard copies of the documents he purports to quote. If the context demonstrates that he is not misrepresenting the quotes, I will search out the originals to verify it. --HK 00:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "context"? He has given the referencs, which are to Larouche publications. Typing the entire article would be excessive. By "context" do you mean whether it is an interview, and if so the question? The title of the article? What is it that you want? Cheers, -Willmcw 01:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By "context," I mean enough of the article to verify that Cberlet is not performing a deliberately deceptive cut-and-paste job, such as the one I discovered (see below) in his recent edits. --HK 15:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed, as you know, (see below) by two other editors who agree that Cberlet has quoted LaRouche accurately and in context. If you have evidence of a cut and paste job, please produce it, but so far you have not done so. Slim 15:48, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, I feel we're at a crucial point here regarding sources. I applaud your attention to detail regarding the quotes from Cberlet. You're well within your rights to want to know a bit more about the context in which these things were said. I mean that very sincerely. I don't fault you for it at all. However, can't you see that you need to apply the same standards to the various claims and quotes that you provide? You and Weed often provide quotes with no citations at all, or makes claims without quoting. Every citation has to be dragged out of you, and often you can only point to LaRouche sources; sometimes not even those. Can I please ask that, from now, everyone adopt an encylopedic standard for sourcing, regardless of our POV or of other people's: that we simply reference all our substantial edits to appropriate, reputable sources, or at least he prepared to do so if we are challenged. If everyone would do that, these disputes would melt away. Slim 02:28, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is outrageous to suggest I am inventing quotes. I have the original documents for all the quotes that I am citing. I work at a library archive. I have over 35,000 pages of material by and about Lyndon LaRouche and his affiliated groups. Every time I am challenged about the accuracy of a LaRouche quote on Wikipedia, I will not only fully document the quote, but I will also dig into the archive and post on the PRA website another quote documenting my claims that LaRouche is a fascist, antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, crackpot, and crook. I am scanning these quotes using a text recognition program. Visit the growing collection at [2]. I suggest folks visit the page and then we can discuss the sourcing and context. --Cberlet 03:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I visited the page and found what appears to be exactly what you inserted into the Wikipedia article. --HK 13:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at the part about China on Cberlet's web page to see that he lies about Lyndon LaRouche. --198.81.26.44 15:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that information, Cberlet. It's very helpful. Personally, I'm happy with the quotes about gays and AIDS, as you've given complete citations, which Herschel can now check the originals of, if he wants to:

• Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The End of the Age of Aquarius?", Executive Intelligence Review, January 10, 1986, p. 40
• Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Teenage Gangs’ Lynchings of Gays is Foreseen Soon,” New Solidarity, February 9, 1987, p. 8

I'm less happy abour the democracy citation, because it's without a date (Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “Creating a Republican Labor Party.” Citizens for LaRouche, circa 1980), so it would be hard for Herschel to find. Slim 06:17, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

The “Creating a Republican Labor Party” booklet is undated itself, but I will post a gif of the cover and page on which the quote appears on Monday at the PRA website with a link at: [3]. I will reinsert that quote here at that time. I have reinserted the LaRouche quotes on assaulting gay people because HK not only deleted those quotes, but then proceeded to rewrite the entire gay section into a form of LaRouche propaganda. HK calls LaRouche propaganda NPOV? I urge everyone to compare the two versions. It is a prime example of why HK should not be allowed to continue to edit these pages. His bias is clear. I do not dispute I am a critic of LaRouche, but I am a published expert on LaRouche. HK is an anonymous LaRouche supporter with a long history of posting material that cannnot be verified. It is not fair to allow HK to challenge every quote I insert, and then allow him to delete these quotes and pad the article with material that is 100% supportive of LaRouche. As stated previously, my initial goal is to see that every article that mentions LaRouche is brought to the point where it contains no more than 50% unverified and unchallenged LaRouche propaganda. Of course, in the real world, an encyclopedia entry that contained more than 50% unverified and unchallenged LaRouche propaganda would not exist. It would be outrageous. I suspect that it exists on Wikipedia because serious editors have grown tired of the relentless bullying and wheedling of LaRouche supporters. Of course, this is the type of tactic typical of LaRouche supporters that I have written about for decades. At some point Wikipedia as a community will come to realize that it has to continue to take steps to protect itself from this type of relentless attack on the credibility of Wikipedia. Once is not enough. Also, as promised, I have added another quote from the LaRouche group documenting my allegations. As I said before, Every time I am challenged about the accuracy of a LaRouche quote on Wikipedia, I will not only fully document the quote, but I will also dig into the archive and post a new one. I have a right to defend my reputation until Wikipedia finds a way to resolve this situation. I have faith that in the long run, the Wikipedia community will arrive at a solution that will be both fair and ethical. The current situation is neither. --Cberlet 14:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just as I suspected

The material inserted by Berlet did in fact quote LaRouche out of context, to the effect of making it appear that LaRouche was expressing a view opposite to that which he intended. The full passage is quoted here, with the sections omitted by Berlet in bold:

'Civil rights' to kill

"What was the problem? The problem was the cultural paradigm shift. If someone comes up and says, "Yeah, but you can't interfere with the civil rights of an AIDS victim"-- what the devil is this? You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax-- if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword-- shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscrimately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights?

"Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don’t want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

"They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!"

In other words, in case there is someone here who doesn't get it, LaRouche is making the point that if public health officials cannot intervene to prevent someone from transmitting AIDS through sexual contact, because transmitting AIDS through sexual contact is considered a "civil right," then the same illogic could be used to justify all sorts of violent crimes, even those perpetrated by homophobes. The entire passage quoted by Berlet is meant ironically, as is clear from the previous, omitted passage.

No, Herschel, you've got that wrong. The section you have added only confirms that Cberlet's interpretation is correct. LaRouche is comparing people with AIDS to people with guns. He is arguing that, because people with guns are restricted, people with AIDS should be restricted, because both are just as dangerous. He further argues that, as gay people are being attacked anyway (he says), by children and others, it would therefore help gays if government were to step in and act in some way e.g. by restricting people with AIDS who, he seems to indicate, may also be pederasts. (This is necessarily a tentative summary, as what LaRouche is saying is insane and therefore hard to sum up). Slim 21:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[Herschelkrustofsy continues:] Cberlet not only quotes the passage out of context, but reinforces the misleading impression by stating that LaRouche was "writing that people who physically attack gay people are merely exercising their civil rights." From this I draw the following conclusions:

• Any Wikipedia edit by Berlet should be given the closest scrutiny, because he has a history of this sort of deception

• Since the material inserted yesterday by Cberlet was lifted verbatim from his website, he should be reminded that Wikipedia does not allow the insertion of original research

• Since the cited material on his website is deliberately misleading, Cberlet's website should not be considered a reputable source unless it can be corroborated.

--HK 21:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the LaRouche quote has been published. But where has the Cberlet "analysis" of the quote been published, outside of his website? Weed Harper 06:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're twisting what "original research" means. This is an article about Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche said these things. Cberlet has given a full citation from a LaRouche publication. It was an accurate citation because you were able to find it. Therefore, this is perfectly legitimate material for Wikipedia. Whether Cberlet ALSO places this on the PRA website is completely irrevelant and does not make it original research.

As a matter of interest, as the LaRouche publication material was not online, and was from several years ago, how were you able to find it so quickly? Slim 21:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Like Cberlet, I also have access to an archive of back EIR issues. But I hope you aren't implying that Cberlet's distortion of the context was an innocent mistake; the same deliberate deception is on his website, making it, to my mind, an unreliable source. --HK 22:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that he distorted the context. I reverted back to Will's version. I feel you should stop editing these articles now, as you're trying to stop LaRouche's own words from appearing in an article about LaRouche, which means you're acting against Wikipedia's interests. You're also seeking to discredit people who know enough about LaRouche to be in a position to write about him accurately and comprehensively. Cberlet is right about LaRouche activists having worn down successive Wikipedia editors through "bullying and wheedling", as he puts it, and it has to stop. As you wanted the context of the gay quote to appear, I've added the paragraph you provided. I also deleted the interpretation of the quote, which you objected to, because it said that LaRouche was saying it was okay to attack people with AIDS. Below is what I added. Readers can make up their own minds regarding what it means. Slim 22:20, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

"In 1986, LaRouche wrote the following about gay people, AIDS and civil rights:

"What was the problem? The problem was the cultural paradigm shift. If someone comes up and says, "Yeah, but you can't interfere with the civil rights of an AIDS victim" — what the devil is this? You can't interfere with an AIDS victim killing hundreds of people, by spreading the disease to hundreds of people, which will kill them, during the period before he himself dies? So therefore, should we allow people with guns to go out and shoot people as they choose? Isn't that a matter of the civil rights of gun carriers? Or, if you've got an ax — if you can't aim too well, and just have an ax or a broad sword — shouldn't we allow people with broad swords and axes to go out and kill people indiscrimately as they choose, as a matter of their civil rights?

"Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don’t want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!

"They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up—which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!"

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.

Cberlet has access to an EIR archive at PRA because he's a researcher. Where and why do you have access to one? And if you have access to this material, why haven't you been adding some of these LaRouche quotes yourself? Slim 22:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky's reversions

Herschel, your actions are disruptive and against Wikipedia policy. You're causing several editors many hours extra work and you're acting against the consensus. You're also acting to promote the LaRouche organization, which you're prohibited from doing by the ArbCom. You asked Chip for full citations, which he gave. You asked him for the context of the gay quote, which he gave. Even so, you deleted it, and have also deleted another quote of his that is fully cited, where LaRouche talks about lynch mobs. You're also adding "LaRouche supporters believe" passages, and then giving your own analysis. If you are a LaRouche activist that has written about this somewhere, please use your real name, and quote from yourself openly with citations, but you can't do it by inserting your own anonymous analysis (that is original research). SlimVirgin

Slim, who are you trying to kid? Cberlet didn't give the context to that quote -- Herschel had to look it up himself! And he has yet to provide a context for the other quote, and I will revert it until he does. You are once again making a mockery of your claim not to be an anti-LaRouche activist. Weed Harper 07:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weed, you should think about that again. It sounds like you are saying that a direct quotation from Lyndon Larouche cannot be accepted unless it is presented "in context". If that is the case, then we'd have to remove all the LaRouche quotations from Wikipedia until they can be carefully vetted, one by one, to check for correct context. I think that you would be well advised to give quotations by Lyndon LaRouche the benefit of the doubt. In the case of the "baseball bats and gays" quote, the additional paragraph did not alter the context significantly, IMO. Simply excerpting the last two sentences would be sufficient to get the clear message of his words. -Willmcw 07:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I propose that a direct quote from LaRouche can be accepted either from 1) a linked web page, or 2) any other source except Cberlet, because he has clearly demontrated a propensity for deliberate deception. The additional paragraph does alter the context significantly, because it refutes Cberlet's assertion that LaRouche was "writing that people who physically attack gay people are merely exercising their civil rights." If Willmcw or anyone else is laboring under the false impression that LaRouche intended that meaning, say so now; I am certain that Berlet had no such delusions when he deliberately posted misleading material. --HK 15:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the quotes that Cberlet added. I added a quote from the Wall Street Journal that explains how the LaRouche AIDS proposals were viewed by its opponents. I retained the 1999 quote you added from LaRouche where he appears to have modified his views. Please do not make any more changes without discussing them first to find out whether people agree with you; and do not delete any more quotes that have full citations. I left this quote that I assume is from you: 'LaRouche supporters argued that "These measures are not new; they are the same health measures applied, {by law,} every day, to every other contagious disease." ' [4] But this is not a proper citation. The link goes to someone's webpage, saying only "chapter 13." If you can give a full citation, that would be appreciated, or else it will have to be deleted. Many thanks, Slim 23:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, your recent edit also needs some citations. You've added:

LaRouche critics argue that the claims of the LaRouche group regarding the Train meetings are without foundation. They point out that as early as 1980, an article by Chip Berlet in the weekly Chicago Reader, (March 7, 1981), had prompted an investigation by the state Attorney General's office into LaRouche group fundraising in Illinois--an investigation applauded later in the Chicago Sun-Times after they also covered the story. In 1981, journalists Russ Bellant, Chip Berlet, and Dennis King released a set of documents to the press which they claimed revealed a pattern of potentially illegal activity by LaRouche and his followers.[5]. They called for government investigations. Other critics and some major media joined in this call. Several investigations on the state and federal level were launched. LaRouche critics charged that LaRouche group fundraising activity appeared to involve tax law violations; the conversion of publication sales into donations for LaRouche political campaigns that were then matched by the Federal Election Commission; and fraudulent soliciting of "loans" from vulnerable elderly people. These claims are similar to the government charges that resulted in the indictment and conviction of LaRouche and top aides United States v. LaRouche. </small.

We need:

• (1) a source saying your 1980 article prompted an investigation by the state Attorney General's office;
• (2) a date for the Chicago Sun Times article (would this article also cover (1)?);
• (3) sources for: "Other critics and some major media joined in this call" and "several investigations on the state and federal level were launched," If the investigations were launched much later, that needs to be specified, because there were quite a few years (I'm recalling eight?) between your article and the conviction, so if the two are being linked, it would help to have that backed up by published sources.

Sorry to be a nuisance, everyone, over continually asking for sources, but it's the best way to keep everything on the straight and narrow. Slim 00:36, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Source for 1 is the letter I will post Monday at the PRA website from the Illinois State Attorney General's office asking me to docuemnt my claims in the Chicago Reader article. The investigation was launched from the files I provided. For 2 I will provide the cites Monday when I get back to the office. Same with 3. Will rewrite until I post citations.

Thanks. Slim 04:21, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet self-promotion

Cberlet has attempted to insert material giving himself, Dennis King and Russ Bellant credit for launching the criminal investigations of LaRouche. This is just more (ahem) commercial self-promotion. Cberlet and his pals were late-comers to this effort. It was already well underway before Cberlet ever published an article on LaRouche (see material on New York Times et al.) Weed Harper 07:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if self-promotion is the right phrase, but it would be better for the editing process if user:CBerlet refrained from adding self-referential material. The same goes for user:LaRouche Supporters, such as yourself. The truth is that Wikipedia would be best served if every one of us created and edited other articles. Since it's unlikely that everyone is going to stop re-working a few articles, then may I at least suggest that we aim toward trying to get a (mostly) completed article, rather than an ongoing bickering match? Cheers, -Willmcw 09:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This issue was discussed recently on the mailing list. Editors may make self-referential edits so long as their ideas/statements have been published (or otherwise referred to by third parties in a way that can be checked by other editors), and so long as they give full citations and write about themselves in the third person. In other words, they must follow the same rules as for any other author. I agree that we should move toward getting a stable version of this article completed. Slim 15:14, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Weed, you deleted four of Cberlet's edits without saying why, so I have restored them. Could I ask please that you don't delete material without discussing it on this page? It becomes hard to follow who's writing what if there are continual deletions. Many thanks, Slim 15:20, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, you have just inserted above a belated response to a question Will asked, which has already been dealt with, but to any reader who chances upon this discussion, your edit will make it look as though Cberlet has been dishonest. I am therefore copying your comments and my response here. It would be helpful if you could post your new comments at the bottom of the page in future so we can keep track. Many thanks, Slim 15:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would like Chip to provide the context, on this talk page, before re-inserting it, since he presumably claims to have the original hard copies of the documents he purports to quote. If the context demonstrates that he is not misrepresenting the quotes, I will search out the originals to verify it. --HK 00:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "context"? He has given the referencs, which are to Larouche publications. Typing the entire article would be excessive. By "context" do you mean whether it is an interview, and if so the question? The title of the article? What is it that you want? Cheers, -Willmcw 01:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By "context," I mean enough of the article to verify that Cberlet is not performing a deliberately deceptive cut-and-paste job, such as the one I discovered (see below) in his recent edits. --HK 15:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed, as you know, (see below) by two other editors who agree that CBerlet has quoted LaRouche accurately and in context. If you have evidence of a cut and paste job, please produce it, but so far you have not done so. Slim 15:48, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, you've just buried another of your comments. I'm reposting here:

• I propose that a direct quote from LaRouche can be accepted either from 1) a linked web page, or 2) any other source except Cberlet, because he has clearly demontrated a propensity for deliberate deception. The additional paragraph does alter the context significantly, because it refutes Cberlet's assertion that LaRouche was "writing that people who physically attack gay people are merely exercising their civil rights." If Willmcw or anyone else is laboring under the false impression that LaRouche intended that meaning, say so now; I am certain that Cberlet had no such delusions when he deliberately posted misleading material. --HK 15:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made a number of edits to the "gays" section, with extremely scrupulous and complete edit summaries. I would like to request that anti-LaRouche editors (you know who you are) not revert these edits without addressing the concerns cited in the edit summaries. --HK 16:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Railroading Train

LaRouche publications have repeatedly said that the so-called "Train Salon" was the nexus of both the plan for more criminal investigations of LaRouche AS WELL AS a wave of publicity that would justify indictments. That is the point of the LaRouchite book "Railroad." That is why I suggested the so-called "Train Salon" material belonged on the Unites States v. LaRouche page. My argument is that both claims are a conspiracy theory without foundation. To show that, I need to demonstrate that criminal investigations into the SPECIFIC illegal fundraising activities for which the LaRouchites were later indicted began BEFORE the first Train meeting. Also, I can show that the significant NBC coverage of LaRouche and his activities began in 1984, BEFORE the meeting I attended in 1985, making claims I was a party to it unsubstantiated. Furthermore, I can substantiate that I suggested in a letter to NBC that they do such a program in 1983, before I had ever heard of Train. This is the only way to debunk the LaRouchite conspiracy theory, and false claims about me. --Cberlet 16:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the long and convoluted history of this article, the Train material was orginally added to balance what is euphemistically termed "criticism" coming from Cberlet and others. The material on the Train meetings comes as a subtopic to "LaRouche's Critics", and any additions to that section should be germane to that topic. To my knowledge, no one is claiming that Cberlet was a party to the NBC coverage beginning in 1984. Further, it is unclear to me to what Cberlet is specifically referring as the "LaRouchite conspiracy theory" -- the Train meetings are alleged to have planned the substantial wave of hostile press coverage which folowed them. If Chip wants to raise issues about the relationship of the press coverage to the prosecution, then perhaps it would be appropriate to do this on the United States v. LaRouche page. --HK 16:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it was you, Herschelkrutofsky and Weed Harper, who raised the issue that the John Train meetings were intended, in whole or in part, to help justify the criminal proceedings. Therefore, if it can be shown that the criminal investigation was triggered before those meetings, it weakens your point substantially. SlimVirgin 22:31, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky's deletions

I've reverted your deletions of Cberlet's gay quotes because they're fully cited and you have no right to remove them. You don't provide full citations and the contexts of quotes you add, as you know, but Cberlet did so, at your request. If you continue to delete referenced material, I will report this to the ArbCom. I have left your version of the John Train connection up (or rather your deletion of it), because I agree with you that whether or not there's a link would benefit from being fleshed out with citations, bearing in mind that the job of Wikipedia is to describe disputes, not engage in them. Slim 16:38, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Slim, learn to edit responsibly. You deleted my correction to the attribution of the ballot statement on Proposition 69 -- which you yourself had requested; you deleted my correction to a factual inaccuracy respecting the so-call "Illinois Tribunal"; You reinserted a quote in a false context (let me make this as clear as possible: the paragraph beginning "We have another purpose in fighting AIDS" does not appear in LaRouche's speech, prior to the paragraph beginning "What was the problem?" -- this is what I refer to as a "cut-and-paste job); and you reinserted, without explanation, the POV characterization, "In the 1970s and 1980s, LaRouche and his supporters frequently wrote articles containing animosity toward gay people." In addition, you reinserted a quote which I dispute, with good reason -- do I need to repeat my comments about Berlet's deceptive practices? --HK 17:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not the one who needs to learn to edit responsibly. You are deleting and reverting without discussion on Talk. Please discuss your major changes here first, not after the fact. SlimVirgin 17:07, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• I propose that a direct quote from LaRouche can be accepted either from 1) a linked web page, or 2) any other source except Cberlet, because he has clearly demontrated a propensity for deliberate deception. Cberlet posted a quote from LaRouche which was taken deliberately out of context (see this.) The additional paragraph does alter the context significantly, because it refutes Cberlet's assertion that LaRouche was "writing that people who physically attack gay people are merely exercising their civil rights." If Willmcw or anyone else is laboring under the false impression that LaRouche intended that meaning, say so now; I am certain that Berlet had no such delusions when he deliberately posted misleading material. --HK 17:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please stop deleting material. I have restored the quote beginning with: "What was the problem? The problem was the cultural paradigm shift." You say it is a cut-and-paste job but have not explained in what way. What does come before the paragraph beginning with: "Where did this nonsense come from? Oh, we don’t want to offend the gays! Gays are sensitive to their civil rights; this will lead to discrimination against gays!" if it's not the paragraph Cberlet says it is?

I have also restored: "In 1986, an editorial appeared in a publication produced by LaRouche supporters in Illinois. The Illinois Tribunal wrote that "... as a category, gays and lesbians do not represent a valid voting consituency, and neither do prostitutes, drug pushers, child molesters, warlocks, witches, pornographers, or others who are morally equivalent." ("End Harold Washington's Consistently Disgusting Career," Illinois Tribunal, July 7, 1986, editorial page). It is properly referenced. Cberlet may be able to post it for you on Monday if you ask him (but note: you will now be held to the same high standards regarding any material you submit).

In that regard, please provide a citation for: "The argument in support of Proposition 69 which appeared in the Voter's Guide published by the State of California said that "These measures are not new; they are the same health measures applied, {by law,} every day, to every other contagious disease." [6] The link is just a page saying "chapter 13". What is it?

Also, please provide a reference for the claims about the NBC programs. SlimVirgin 17:32, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche "Aquarius" speech quote about AIDS and gays in context

[first full sentence on left column]"... But if you could pass a law, pass a reform and so forth, it would mean nothing, absolutely nothing. If the cultural paradigm which currently prevails in Washington, in the political process, existed, youcould pass any law in name; the implementation will be conducted by the State Department and other agencies, according to the existing cultural paradigm. If you cannot change the cultural paradigm which presently prevails in the United States, if you cannot change the philosophical outlook among the majority of Americans; you can't do anything very good; and everything you accomplish is worthless-your life will be worthless, as the life of all others. Yours will be a little better than worthless because you tried.

"But we must have a change in the cultural paradigms, in the United States. There is a function I have laid out in the case of the AIDS problem: Yes, we must destroy AIDS. It's . going to destroy everybody otherwise; we've got to contain it, we can't find a miracle cure that fast; we're going to have to use methods of public health, which means we're going to have to put away every carrier until they can no longer carry; and if you won't do that, you don't care about your neighbor or your children. If you do that with tuberculosis, how much more must you do it with this, which is a disease which is 100% fatal to all infected? No cure--you die like a poor Iceland sheep. You die in 5 years-maybe earlier-you die in 5 years of pneumonia; or you die in about 10 years or so, as your central nervous system just turns into a pile of garbage. You die because your central nervous system has totally broken down. We have to fight this disease. You have to go to public-health measures, if we have to bum the GayCLU to do it!

"But: What is it worth to fight AIDS, if there are no human beings to survive that victory? What if the human race is turned into a pile of moral garbage, unfit to be saved? What's the advantage of fighting AIDS then? It's sort of God's mercy-killing, or Soviet agents' mercy-killing, who think they're God.

"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS--for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay," they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw! The socalled gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote! It also, I think, affects their employability. They ought to be taxed 100% of their income,..." [end of left column].

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.

HK should provide the next few paragraphs since he has a copy. --Cberlet 17:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I requested page protection, because all these deletions are going to cause mistakes to be made, and we'll end up with inaccurate quotes because of editing error rather than malice. Herschel, you have accused Cberlet of doing a cut-and-paste job. Could you please say very clearly what you mean, and exactly which quotes you are referring to? And also could you continue the quote above, as Cberlet has requested.

Please note everyone that Wikipedia is experiencing software or server problems, which have been causing edits not to be saved, even though the editor's name appears in the edit history, so if someone says they made a certain edit which isn't there, please assume good faith in the first instance. SlimVirgin 18:14, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

I will continue the quote, but I must transcribe it by hand, since I don't have the high-tech gizmo that Cberlet has. Just out of curiosity, why didn't Cberlet, using his gizmo, simply provide the rest of the quote? --HK 16:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because I only scanned the left column because that's where the quote in question was located. I don't drag my LaRouche archives home with me on weekends. If you wait a few days, I will scan in the right column, too.--Cberlet 20:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschel, if you could type in the next part of the quote, I'd appreciate it, even if only a short part, because it'd be useful to check that you and Cberlet are looking at the same thing. SlimVirgin 22:05, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that we have been referring to Cberlet using his real name throughout this discussion, instead of his user name, so I've gone back and changed these to Cberlet, otherwise they'll show up in Google under his name. I understand it's a blockable offense to use a person's real name without their consent; there's a case currently approaching the ArbCom about it. Herschel, can I ask you for a third time for a proper reference for: "The argument in support of Proposition 69 which appeared in the Voter's Guide published by the State of California said that "These measures are not new; they are the same health measures applied, {by law,} every day, to every other contagious disease." [7] The link is just a page saying "chapter 13". What is it, and where does it say what you wrote? Also please provide a non-LaRouche reference for the claims about the contents of the NBC programs (i.e. that NBC accused LaRouche - accused him, not reported someone else's accusation - of plotting to kill Kissinger and Carter, and of being involved in the murder of Palme. This is the last time of asking; without references, I'll be deleting those claims on all the pages they appear. SlimVirgin 22:31, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, it might be useful for all contributers to this and related pages to read Wikipedia:Libel. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 22:41, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

The issue of Cberlet's name is complicated by the fact that he is using himself as a source, inserting frequent references to "criticism by Chip Berlet", and so forth, so we are not always discussing Cberlet the putative editor. --HK 01:39, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He is only referencing articles he has had published, so it's not a problem. When you're talking about his edits to Wikipedia, you're talking about him qua Wikipedia editor. It doesn't matter who has written the articles; all we need to care about is whether it's a publication regarded as reputable by most people. I would appreciate it if you would stop using his name until he gives you permission, stop making insulting remarks, and please read the page I referred to above, because it is directly relevant to this conversation. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 02:19, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, the arbcom decision does not give you license to delete material sourced to LaRouche publications in LaRouche-related articles. Additionally, you have yet to fully respond to my query about LaRouche sources. However, I don't mind modifying the description of the NBC broadcast to make it quotes from the LaRouche log, e.g.:

• "two successive April 1986 NBC-TV News broadcasts produced by Lynch, which accused LaRouche of plotting the assassination of Henry Kissinger, and included leaked Boston grand jury information and unfounded claims that the IRS had launched a nationwide probe of LaRouche;"
• "March and December 1986 NBC-TV News broadcasts claiming that LaRouche had been responsible for the assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme on Feb. 28, 1986. The December broadcast included material provided by federal prosecutors in Boston, despite the fact that they had already been told by Swedish authorities that the charges of LaRouche involvement in the Palme murder had been thoroughly probed and proven false" --HK 16:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)