💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › conspiracy › right-lf.txt captured on 2023-11-14 at 09:22:38.

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-14)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-



Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected


by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991


"Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite."

(George Seldes )

<You Can't Do That>, 1938


Political Research Associates
678 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 661-9313

------------------- Part 1 begins here ---------------------------------

Introduction

"...fascism is not confined to any specific era, culture or countries.
Far from being a phenomenon limited to the European states which
have experienced fascist regimes, movements of this type are to be
found in practically every western country, and indeed are growing
more strident in the leading democratic societies which have never
experienced fascist rule--Britain and America."

(Paul Wilkinson )

<The New Fascists>, 1981

Fascist political movements are experiencing a resurgence around
the world. In Eastern Europe, racial nationalism, a key component
of fascism, has surfaced in many new political parties. In the
United States, the presidential campaigns of David Duke and Patrick
Buchanan echo two different strains of historical fascism. Duke's
neo-Nazi past resonates, in a consciously sanitized form, in his
current formulations of white supremacist and anti-Jewish political
theories. Buchanan's theories of isolationist nationalism and
xenophobia hearken back to the proto-fascist ideas of the 1930's
"America First" movement and its well-known promoters, Charles
Lindbergh and Father Charles Coughlin. Both Duke and Buchanan blame
our societal problems on handy scapegoats, and both feed on the
politics of resentment, anger and fear. Most progressives vigorously
reject Duke and Buchanan, and are not reluctant to point out fascist
elements in both candidacies.

But there are other strains of domestic fascism active today, and
the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize progressives whose
anti-government fervor blinds them to historical lessons. Since
the early 1980's, persons from far-right and fascist political
groups in the United States have attempted to convince progressive
activists to join forces to oppose certain government policies.
The fascist right has wooed the progressive left primarily around
opposition to such issues as the use of U.S.  troops in foreign
military interventions, the CIA and covert action, and domestic
government repression and civil liberties.

As the far right made overtures to the left, some of the classic
conspiracy theories of the far right began to seep into progressive,
and even mainstream, analyses of foreign policy and domestic
repression. An audience was created for these conspiratorial
assertions through public speaking, radio interviews, sales of
audiotapes and published articles. This audience elevated to
leadership roles those persons who were willing to make the boldest
and most critical (albeit unsubstantiated) pronouncements about
the U.S.  government and U.S. society. As a result, some progressives
now confuse demagoguery with leadership, and undocumented conspiracism
with serious research, and are unable to determine when an analysis
supports or undermines the progressive goals of peace, social
justice and economic fairness. This is primarily a problem within
the white left, but in some Black nationalist constituencies the
same dynamic has also popularized conspiracy theories which in some
cases reflect anti-Jewish themes long circulated by the far right.

While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements,
the far-right sector being discussed in this study is separate and
distinct from traditional conservatism, the right wing of the
Republican Party, libertarianism, anarchism, and other political
movements sometimes characterized as right wing. The John Birch
Society, discussed here, is a far-right reactionary political
movement, but it attempts to distance itself from racialist and
anti-Jewish theories. Other groups analyzed in this paper, such as
the Populist Party, Liberty Lobby, and the LaRouchians, on the
other hand, represent a continuation of the racialist, anti-democratic
theories of fascism.

The phenomenon of the right wooing the left became highly visible
during the Gulf War.  Followers of Lyndon LaRouche attended antiwar
meetings and rallies in some thirty cities, and other right-wing
organizers from groups such as the John Birch Society and the
Populist Party passed out flyers at antiwar demonstrations across
the country. While these right-wing groups undeniably opposed war
with Iraq, they also promoted ideas that peace and social justice
activists have historically found objectionable.  Many people
seeking to forge alliances with the left around anti-government
and anti-interventionist policies also promote Eurocentric, anti-
pluralist, patriarchal, or homophobic views. Some are profoundly
anti-democratic; others support the idea that the U.S. is a Christian
republic. A few openly promote white supremacist, anti- Jewish, or
neo-Nazi theories.

The John Birch Society, for instance, is highly critical of mass
democratic movements for social change, including those that seek
equality for women, gay men and lesbians, Blacks, Hispanics, and
recent immigrants from Asia and Central America. The Birchers
believe most world governments, including the U.S. and the Soviet
Union, are secretly controlled by a handful of conspirators they
dub "The Insiders."

The Populist Party (and groups to which it has historically been
related such as the Liberty Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper),
created a national constituency for David Duke and other white
supremacist political candidates. Duke was the 1988 Populist Party
presidential candidate.  These forces believe a conspiracy of rich
and powerful Jews and their allies control banking, foreign policy,
the CIA and the media in the United States. Like Duke, they also
believe in an America controlled by white Christians of exclusively
European heritage.

The LaRouchians have supported foreign dictatorships such as the
Marcos regime in the Philippines and the Noriega regime in Panama.
LaRouche has written that history would not judge harshly those
who beat homosexuals to death with baseball bats to stop the spread
of AIDS. For LaRouchians the conspiracy consists of secret elite
groups engaged in an epic battle between moral forces who want
order, and sinister forces who champion chaos. LaRouche claims he
can trace the key players in these secret conspiracies decade-by-decade
back to Plato and Aristotle--and beyond. A remarkable number of
the sinister conspirators turn out to be Jewish.

This study seeks to sharpen the debate over how to handle the
phenomenon of the right wooing the left, and is not meant to divide
or attack the left, which is being victimized by these approaches.
As anti-fascist author George Seldes pointed out over fifty years
ago, "The enemy is always the Right. Fascism and Reaction inevitably
attack. They have won against disunion. They will fail if we unite."

There is considerable evidence to show that far-right groups are
serious about wooing the political left and that their conspiracist
theories have been taken seriously in some quarters. Consider the
following, all of which will be discussed in greater detail later:


Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper sought and obtained lengthy
interviews on radio stations affiliated with the progressive Pacifica
network. KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFA in San Francisco also aired
long programs with radio personality Craig Hulet whose cynical
views echo longstanding Birch Society conspiracy theories.  Hulet
urges progressives to join with rightists in attacking the government,
and audiotapes of his radio interviews quickly became some of the
Pacifica Archives' best-selling tapes. According to the program
manager of KPFA, Hulet was one of the most requested radio
personalities during and after the Gulf War.


mainstream, progressive, and far-right sources. One can order
material from the Christic Institute (a public-interest law foundation
based in Washington, D.C.) and dozens of other left and liberal
organizations and writers (including this author). Also available
is material from persons affiliated with the fascist Populist Party
or the Liberty Lobby network, and information on how to order a
tape of a speech by Eustace Mullins, one of the world's most
notorious anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists. Mullins envisions a
world where Jews have been exterminated by Christians.


Guns and Drugs Reader>, edited by Prevailing Winds. Prominently
featured in the publication is material by Bo Gritz, presidential
candidate of the Populist Party, and David Duke's original
vice-presidential running mate in 1988. Gritz, one of the most
decorated veterans of the Vietnam war (his exploits were used in
scripting the popular Rambo movies) has told his constituents to
reach out to recruit from the left. Gritz himself invited Father
Bill Davis of the Christic Institute to speak at a 1990 Las Vegas
conference organized by Gritz's Center for Action.


Studies Association in Washington, a panel on Panama included Carlos
Wesley, the LaRouche organization's Central America operative. The
LaRouchians have been involved in the Panamanian anti-intervention
movement for years.


in Barbara Honneger's widely-popularized book <October Surprise>
cite LaRouche publications such as <Executive Intelligence Review>
and <New Solidarity> (now <New Federalist>). Honneger, a former
White House aide, alleges in her book that officials connected to
the Reagan Presidential campaign plotted with Iranian officials to
delay the release of hostages in the Middle East until after the
election. In one chapter on "Project Diplomacy," LaRouche-linked
citations account for over 22 percent of the total number of
footnotes.  While information from the LaRouchians is sometimes
accurate, it is often laced with unsubstantiated assertions and
biased by the peculiar LaRouchian brand of conspiracist bigotry
against Jews and homosexuals.


promoting the idea that the historical account of the Holocaust is
a hoax, contains an article urging recruitment from "a powerful
potential source of supporters--the radical Left!  Leftist
disillusionment with Israel and Zionism is growing rapidly."

Further confusing matters is the rebirth in Europe of the national
socialist wing of fascism, with adherents calling themselves
Strasserites or Third Positionists. These groups, which now operate
in the U.S., are critical of Hitler's Nazi brand of fascism; they
support the working class and encourage environmentalism. They
also, however, promote racially segregated nation-states. Third
Position groups claim to have evolved an ideology "beyond communism
and capitalism," and actively seek to recruit from the left. One
such group is the American Front in Portland, Oregon, which runs
a phone hotline that in late November, 1991 featured an attack on
critics of left/right coalitions.

Conspiracism and demagoguery feature simplistic answers to complex
problems. During periods of economic or social crisis, people may
seek to alleviate anxiety by embracing simple solutions, often
including scapegoating. This scapegoating often manifests itself
in virulent attacks on persons of different races and cultures who
are painted as alien conspiratorial forces undermining the coherent
national will.

In part, the fascist right has been able to forge ties to the left
due to a serious lack of knowledge on the left regarding the complex
history, different forms, and multiple tactics of fascism. Among
those tactics are the use of scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic
solutions, demagoguery, and a a conspiracy theory of history.

Theories of racialist nationalism and national socialism are not
widely known in the United States. If they were, it is unlikely
that any serious progressive would be seduced by the right's idea
of an alliance to smash the powerful corrupt center, based on a
shared agenda critical of government policies. This concept has an
unsavory historical track record. The European fascist movements
in the 1930's flourished in a period of economic collapse, political
turmoil, and social crisis. The German Nazi party, during its early
national socialist phase, openly enlisted progressive support to
smash the corrupt and elitist Weimar government. But when the
government began to collapse, powerful industrial and banking
interests recruited Hitler to take control the government in order
to prevent economic chaos, which would have displaced them as power
brokers. In return for state control, Hitler quickly liquidated
the leadership of his national socialist allies in a murderous
spree called the "Night of the Long Knives." Once state power had
been consolidated, the Nazis went on to liquidate the left before
lining up Jews, labor leaders, intellectuals, dissidents, homosexuals,
Poles, Gypsies (the Romani), dark-skinned immigrants, the infirm,
and others deemed undesirable.

While conditions in the United States may only faintly echo the
financial and social turmoil of the Weimar regime, the similarities
cannot be dismissed lightly, nor should the catastrophic power of
state fascism and the repression of an authoritarian government be
confused.

Some people who consider themselves progressive even argue that a
fascist government could not be any worse than the Reagan and Bush
Administrations, with their devastating effects on the poor and
persons of color. Because current policies are nearly genocidal,
they say they will work with any ally to smash the status quo. This
view dangerously underestimates the murderous quality of fascism.
Similarly, other progressives argue in favor of supporting Duke or
Buchanan for President in order to draw votes away from Bush and
thus elect the Democratic candidate. While Duke and Buchanan
currently have little chance of election, any progressive support
for their candidacies minimizes the dangers involved in supporting
a national political movement which uses fascist themes.[f-1]

The largest problem, however, remains the unnerving ability of
fascist and right-wing conspiracists to attract a left audience
through attacks on the government and its policies. There are four
separate but related dilemmas posed by the phenomenon of the fascist
right wooing the left:


so the left is not lured into a repetition of past mistakes, and
can more readily identify anti-democratic theories.


and scapegoating (from the right or the left), while at the same
time promoting a vigorous critique of government repression, covert
action, and social injustice.


contacts with the political far right, and how rightists should be
identified by journalists when they are used as sources.


by the political right which suggest tactical or strategic alliances
around issues of common concern, and to what extent it is necessary
for groups and individuals to distance themselves publicly from
fascists who imply an alliance when one does not exist.

In some cases progressive groups have begun to address the problems
created by this courtship by the right. Radio station WBAI aired
several hours of programming within a week of discovering that
their broadcasts had included interviews with persons whose right-wing
affiliations were not disclosed to the listeners. The progressive
periodicals <Guardian> and <In These Times> have run articles and
commentaries on the situation.  KPFK and KPFA in California, however,
waited months before their listeners even learned there was a debate
over these issues. The Christic Institute has been especially
reluctant to renounce publicly attempts by the fascist right to
imply an alliance with their organization.

 Conspiratorial Roots

While some information provided by the far right may be factual,
other material is unsubstantiated rumor or lunatic conspiracy
theories. Some material is bigoted. Widely publicized examples of
right-wing conspiracism creeping into popular critiques of government
misconduct can be found to varying degrees in the "October Surprise"
story, the Christic Institute's "Secret Team" theory, and the late
writer Danny Casolaro's "Octopus" theory. While some of these
conspiracy theories are very attractive on the surface, and are
undeniably entertaining, they ultimately serve to distract people
from serious analysis.  All of these theories share elements of
traditional right-wing conspiracy themes in which sinister global
elites secretly manipulate world events. The theories echo themes
promoted by the LaRouchians, the John Birch Society and the Liberty
Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories usually start with a basis in
fact and relate to a legitimate issue. The current phenomenon traces
back to the rise of counterinsurgency as an arm of U.S.  foreign
policy, and the role it played in the Vietnam War. The public debate
over this issue expanded in 1973 with publication of <The Secret
Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and
the World> by retired Air Force Colonel and intelligence specialist
L.  Fletcher Prouty. In the book, Prouty criticized the CIA's
penchant for counterinsurgency and clandestine operations, which
he argued prolonged the war in Vietnam and resulted in the unnecessary
deaths of many U.S. soldiers.

The Liberty Lobby's <Spotlight> newspaper took Prouty's thesis and
overlaid it with a conspiracy theory regarding Jewish influence in
U.S. foreign policy. Sometime in the 1980's, a number of right-wing
critics of U.S. intelligence operations began to drift towards the
<Spotlight> analysis. The "Secret Team" apparently became the
"Secret Jewish Team" in their eyes. They began to feed information
from their sources inside the government to publications with an
anti-Jewish agenda.

While the Liberty Lobby network was recruiting Fletcher Prouty, Bo
Gritz, longtime CIA critic Victor Marchetti, and assassination
conspiracy researchers Mark Lane and Dick Gregory, the LaRouchians
were probing government misconduct and linking U.S. political elites
to their global conspiracy theory.

The LaRouchians were among the beneficiaries of the information
flow from right-wing anti-CIA circles. LaRouche's periodicals mix
anti-Israel views with anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, but they
also were among the first publications in the U.S. to cover aspects
of the covert Contra aid network, although their coverage included
typical LaRouchian distortions. Many reporters in the mid 1980's
were contacted by LaRouchians who offered assistance and documents
to help research the Iran-Contra story.

Critics of the Christic Institute say undocumented conspiracy
theories, perhaps first circulated by the LaRouchians and the
<Spotlight>, were inadvertently drawn into Christic's lawsuit
against key figures in the Iran-Contra Scandal. The Christic
Institute no longer uses the "Secret Team" slogan, which it employed
for the first few years of its Iran-Contra lawsuit, <Avirgan v.
Hull>. The suit, filed in 1986, is also called the La Penca case,
after the Nicaraguan town where a 1984 bombing killed three
journalists and at least one Contra and wounded dozens, including
television camera operator Avirgan and the intended target, Contra
leader Eden Pastora. The named plaintiffs in the Christic La Penca
case were Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey. According to Avirgan,
"There were, indeed, numerous undocumented allegations in the suit,
particularly in Sheehan's Affidavit of Fact. As plaintiffs in the
suit, Martha Honey and I struggled for years to try to bring the
case down to earth."

Dr. Diana Reynolds, an assistant professor of politics at Bradford
College in Massachusetts, read thousands of pages of depositions
taken during the Christic case and has concluded, "Leaving out the
circumstances of the La Penca bombing and the specific Iran-Contra
material, I think it is fair to say that some right- wing conspiracy
theories were woven into the theory behind the Christic case."

Author Jane Hunter, editor of <Israeli Foreign Affairs>, worries
about the rise of conspiracism on the left, including some of the
allegations made in the Christic lawsuit. "If you keep looking for
all the connections, all you are going to see is something so
powerful that there is no way to fight it. We have to look at the
system that produces these covert and illegal operations, not who
knew so and so three years ago."

Hunter and some two-dozen other progressive researchers (including
the author) have been discussing these issues for several years.
The one point of agreement is that this is a problem long overdue
for debate. As Hunter explains, "In my speaking engagements I have
found in audience questions an alarming increase in conspiracy
theories and anti-Semitism." She also is worried that as conditions
for African-Americans in the U.S. have continued to deteriorate,
there has been an increase in the scapegoating of Jews by
African-Americans. While scapegoating and turning to conspiracy
theories is a common phenomenon in communities experiencing financial
or social stress, it should never be tolerated.

It is important to differentiate between the fascist right and
persons on the left who in a variety of ways have been lured by
the overtures of the fascist right and its conspiracist theories,
or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with
spokespersons for the fascist right, or who have contact with the
fascist right as part of serious and legitimate research into
political issues.

Nonetheless, there is substantial evidence to suggest that the
circulation and tolerance of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories
by groups such as the Christic Institute and Pacifica Radio stations
has created a large audience, especially on the West Coast, that
gullibly accepts undocumented anti-government assertions alongside
scrupulous documented research, with little ability to tell the
two apart. In some cases, people who believe themselves to be
progressive activists see no moral problem with alliances with the
fascist right, so long as the shared enemy is the Bush Administration.
Furthermore, rightists such as Bo Gritz and Craig Hulet continue
to imply that they work closely with Daniel Sheehan and Father Bill
Davis of the Christic Institute, while the response from the Christic
Institute has been tardy and equivocal.  The most troublesome and
widespread aspects of this phenomenon have occurred in California
where some radio hosts have promoted Sheehan and Davis of Christic
along with right-wing persons in Liberty Lobby and the conspiratorial
right as jointly working together to expose the government's corrupt
maneuverings. Radio personality Craig Hulet has encouraged this
belief in interviews by warning of attempts to criticize those who
are "kicking George Bush." Hulet, in fact, specifically named
Sheehan, Davis, Marchetti, Prouty, Gritz, and himself as researchers
who needed to be defended against those who criticized coalitions
between the left and the right.

There is little agreement among progressive researchers and
journalists on how material from far-right sources should be handled.
Some progressive researchers are suspicious that government
intelligence agents and rightist researchers may leak information
to progressive journalists to achieve a right-wing political goal,
perhaps as part of a faction fight over government foreign policy
strategies.

Journalist Russ Bellant is highly critical of those who tolerate
or apologize for people who work with the LaRouchians, the Populist
Party or the Liberty Lobby network. "I think you discredit yourself
when you work with these bigoted forces," says Bellant, "and mere
association tends to lend credence to these rightist groups because
people assume the group can't be that bad if a respected person on
the left is associated with them."

This study begins with a brief overview of several paranoid conspiracy
theories prevalent in contemporary right-wing circles.

It then examines the right wing's anti-government critique and
rightist influences on Christic Institute's theories of Iran-
Contragate.

There is an extensive examination of the LaRouchians' attempts to
penetrate the progressive antiwar movement, as well as a brief look
at the activities of other far-right groups (both pro-war and
anti-interventionist) during the Gulf War. This section includes
a discussion of the surprising involvement of some formerly prominent
civil rights leaders with LaRouchian and other neo-fascist groups.

This is followed by a discussion of how prejudice, racism and
anti-Jewish theories are enmeshed in a variety of political movements
in the U.S., especially the Populist Party. The next section examines
the emergence of anti-Jewish bigotry within Black nationalist
movements.

A discussion of left/right coalition building is followed by a
preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of
these complex political issues, including sections on logical
fallacies and the pitfalls of unsubstantiated conspiracism.

Finally, there is a brief discussion of the overall dilemma and a
suggestion that further study and open discussion are needed to
sort out the complex and confusing issues raised by but, alas, not
answered by this report.


Right-Wing Critics of U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Foreign Policy

Populist Party/Liberty Lobby Recruitment of Anti-CIA Critics

It was the casualties of the Vietnam war that crystallized a
right-wing critique of U.S.  foreign policy for its reliance on
covert action, counterinsurgency and political deals as tactical
alternatives to military confrontation to achieve geo-political
goals. The right-wing analysis raised questions that many citizens
were asking.  If we didn't want to fight a war to win in the
traditional sense, then why did all those soldiers have to die?
What was the purpose? Where was the benefit to the U.S.? Who gained
from this process? These questions were not asked only by persons
on the right, but the answers and theories the right developed were
far different than those proposed by the left.

Fletcher Prouty's 1973 book <The Secret Team> was among the first
wave of non-left treatises to take a critical view of the U.S.
intelligence establishment's role in designing the failed
counterinsurgency policies in Vietnam.

Liberty Lobby and the <Spotlight> took the Prouty thesis and combined
it with its bigoted conspiracy theory about Jewish control of U.S.
foreign policy. Since writing the book, Prouty has drifted far to
the right, as has another CIA critic, Victor Marchetti, and both
now have allied themselves with the Liberty Lobby network.  Prouty's
<The Secret Team> was recently republished by Noontide Press, the
publishing arm of the historical revisionist Institute for Historical
Review (IHR). IHR promotes the theory that the accepted history of
the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jews.

In 1974, Marchetti, a former executive assistant to the deputy
director of the CIA, co-authored <The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence>,
a well-received best-seller and the first book the CIA tried to
suppress through court action. By 1989, however, Marchetti had been
recruited into a close alliance with Carto's Liberty Lobby network.
In 1989, Marchetti presented a paper at the Ninth International
Revisionist Conference held by the Institute for Historical Review.
The title of Marchetti's paper, published in IHR's <Journal of
Historical Review>, was "Propaganda and Disinformation: How the
CIA Manufactures History." Marchetti edits the <New American View>
newsletter, which as one promotional flyer explained, was designed
to "document for patriotic Americans like yourself the excess of
pro-Israelism, which warps the news we see and hear from our media,
cows our Congress into submission, and has already cost us hundreds
of innocent, young Americans in Lebanon and elsewhere."

Marchetti describes himself as a person whose "intelligence expertise
and well-placed contacts have provided me with a unique insight
into the subversion of our democratic process and foreign policy
by those who would put the interests of Israel <above> those of
America and Americans." Marchetti is also the publisher of a
Japanese-language book <ADL and Zionism>, written by LaRouche
followers Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg.

Marchetti was co-publisher of the <Zionist Watch> newsletter when
it was endorsed in direct mail appeals on Liberty Lobby stationery
by the now deceased Lois Petersen, who for many years was the
influential secretary of the Liberty Lobby board of directors. The
October 5, 1987 <Spotlight> reported that Mark Lane had been named
associate editor of <Zionist Watch>, which is housed in the same
small converted Capitol Hill townhouse as Liberty Lobby/<Spotlight>.

While concern over Reagan Administration participation in joint
intelligence operations with Mossad is legitimate, the use of
anti-Zionism as a cover for conspiracist anti-Jewish bigotry can
be seen in an article in the August 24, 1981 issue of <Spotlight>:

"A brazen attempt by influential "Israel-firsters" in the policy
echelons of the Reagan administration to extend their control to
the day-to-day espionage and covert-action operations of the CIA
was the hidden source of the controversy and scandals that shook
the U.S.  intelligence establishment this summer. "

"The dual loyalists, whose domination over the federal executive's
high planning and strategy-making resources is now just about total,
have long wanted to grab a hand in the on-the-spot "field control"
of the CIA's worldwide clandestine services. They want this control,
not just for themselves, but on behalf of the Mossad, Israel's
terrorist secret police. "


 The LaRouchian Critique

While the Carto empire was recruiting Prouty, Marchetti and other
critics of the CIA, the LaRouchians were probing government misconduct
and linking U.S. political elites to their worldview in which the
oligarchic families of Great Britain are the font of all world
evil.  Over the years LaRouchian literature has maintained that
political leadership in Great Britain is really controlled by Jewish
banking families such as the Rothschilds, a standard anti-Jewish
theory that influenced such bigots as Henry Ford and Adolph Hitler.

In their book [f-2] first published in 1978, the LaRouchians assert
that the oligarchy in Great Britain is in league with Jewish bankers
to control the smuggling of drugs into the United States. Arch-rightist
and former U.S.  intelligence operative, the late Mitchell WerBell
said the book was of "outstanding importance," because it told "the
history of a political strike against the United States in an
undeclared war being waged by Great Britain."

LaRouche's publications were among the first periodicals to run
articles exposing aspects of the covert Contra aid network, well
before a fateful plane crash first tipped off the mainstream press
to the full extent of the story.  Right-wing coverage of government
intelligence abuse is not unique to the LaRouchians. Other far-right
groups such as Liberty Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper have
also circulated similar information.

Herb Quinde, an intelligence policy analyst for the LaRouchians,
says that in the 1980's the LaRouchians were contacted by a group
of disaffected former and current intelligence specialists who
Quinde referred to as "the Arabists." Both government and private
sector analysts confirm that there are persons critical of current
U.S. foreign policy reliance on Israel whose ideas are discussed
in policy meetings.  These persons are sometimes referred to as
"Arabists." They represent a minority viewpoint in government
circles that needs to be factored into political equations. Most
of these persons are geo-political pragmatists who think that oil
is the key to the Middle East and so support for Israel is misguided
since Israel doesn't have oil. Others simply support a more
even-handed policy in the Middle East, especially concerning
Palestinian rights. The so-called "Arabists" are more accurately
seen as a diffuse and broad theoretical tendency rather than an
ethnic group, pro-Arab faction, or specific political organization.

Some of these persons, however, have fierce anti-Jewish views and
have sought alliances with overt bigots and persons who circulate
paranoid conspiracy theories in which Jews are believed to control
the world. Their theory at its most paranoid believes Great Britain's
intelligence services have influenced U.S. intelligence agencies
since the inception of the Office of Strategic Services, precursor
to the CIA. Great Britain's intelligence empire is seen as
predominantly Jewish, riddled with communists and homosexuals, and
with an open line to Moscow.  Mossad is believed to manipulate U.S.
foreign policy and direct much of U.S. intelligence activity. The
CIA is believed to be full of moles, probably inserted by a
Anglophile/Jewish/Communist network. True patriots are urged to
try to expose this "dual loyalist" reality and push the U.S. to
ally with its real friends in the Middle East, the Arab monarchies
and familial oligarchies.

These theories have little to do with democracy, social justice or
peace in the Middle East, and they use legitimate criticisms of
Israeli policies and U.S. pro-Israel policies as a screen to cover
prejudice against Jews.

Many reporters were contacted by the LaRouchians offering assistance
and documents to help research the Iran-Contra story. LaRouche's
<Executive Intelligence Review> even gets a passing nod from author
Ben Bradlee, Jr. in his <Guts and Glory: The Rise and Fall of Oliver
North>. Bradlee acknowledges the help of <EIR> in decoding the
shorthand used by North in his notebooks.

Peter Dale Scott, Jonathan Marshall and other authors who researched
the Iran-Contra story say that in the mid to late 1980's, LaRouchians
such as Herb Quinde, who had researched the Oliver North network,
were involved in the traditional game of the Capitol press
corps--circulating documents and trading theories.



 The LaRouchians as Anti-Interventionists

During the late 1980's the LaRouchians covertly sought to expand
their contacts with the left and attempted to link up with progressive
groups over issues such as anti-interventionism, covert action,
government domestic repression, civil liberties and Third World
debt. Many progressive researchers report that during this period
they began to receive telephone calls from LaRouchian operatives
suggesting joint work or offering documents or story ideas.

Progressive activists also were targeted. For instance, LaRouche
organizers involved themselves in an international anti-interventionist
conference held in Panama, and have worked behind the scenes around
the issue of U.S. involvement in Panamanian affairs ever since.
Although conference organizers say they tried to isolate the
LaRouchians at the conference, there is little doubt that the
LaRouchians managed to leave the impression with some activists
that they were a key component in the alliance against U.S.
intervention in Panama.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has become a vocal
opponent of U.S. intervention and was a major critic of the U.S.
invasion of Panama. Clark has regularly worked in the same
anti-intervention projects as the LaRouchians, where their presence
would have been difficult not to notice. While there is no evidence
(or even a reasonable suspicion) that Clark willingly works with
the LaRouchians or shares any of their bigoted views, it is clear
the LaRouchians delight in implying that just such a relationship
exists between themselves and Clark, especially since Clark agreed
to represent the LaRouchians in filing legal appeals flowing out
of a series of federal criminal convictions of LaRouchian fundraisers
and LaRouche himself.

The ability of the LaRouchians to inject themselves into mainstream
debate around the issue of Panama is astonishing. For instance, at
the April, 1991 conference of the Latin American Studies Association
in Washington, D.C., a panel on Panama included LaRouchian expert
Carlos Wesley. Wesley was not the first choice. Two panelists from
Panama who were originally scheduled to appear did not receive
funding to attend the conference, so panel co-coordinator Donald
Bray from California State University in Los Angeles then called
a person he respected as an expert on Panama for advice on a last
minute replacement. "I called Carlos Russell, a Panamanian who now
teaches in the U.S., and who was a former Ambassador to the OAS
for a former Panamanian government," explains Bray. "He said `you
are not going to believe this, but I am going to recommend a
LaRouchite, Carlos Wesley.'" A slightly bemused Bray says he knew
Wesley from long ago and knew he was a reporter for LaRouche's
<Executive Intelligence Review>.  Still, this was a recommendation
from a credible Panamanian source so with some misgivings Bray
scheduled Wesley as a panelist.

Wesley was identified as a correspondent for <Executive Intelligence
Review> (<EIR>) but, according to author Holly Sklar, who attended
the session, many in the audience were not aware that <EIR> was a
LaRouche publication. "Of course if we had identified him as a
LaRouchian, nobody would have paid any attention to what he said,"
explained Bray.

The ties between LaRouche and Panama go back several years to when
LaRouche intelligence collectors began trading tidbits of information
with Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. Following Noriega's indictment
for conspiracy in drug deals, journalist William Branigin, writing
in the <Washington Post> of June 18, 1988, noted that among Noriega's
few supporters in the United States was "political extremist Lyndon
H. LaRouche Jr., who has praised the general as a leader in the
war on drugs."

According to a January, 1990 <Associated Press> report, LaRouche
sent Noriega a cable after his indictment, telling the dictator "I
extend to you my apologies for what the government of the United
States is doing to the Republic of Panama." LaRouche told Noriega
"I reiterate to you what I have stated publicly. That the Reagan
administration current policies towards Panama are absolutely an
offense to your nation and all of Latin America." This type of
rhetoric shows how the LaRouchians can adopt a critique of U.S.
foreign policy ostensibly similar to that of the left, while weaving
in an <apologia> converting a drug-running dictator into a
drug-fighting humanitarian. LaRouche also has high praise for other
dictators, including the late Ferdinand Marcos. The LaRouchians
claim Marcos actually won his last election.

Another example of ideological cross-fertilization involves Cecilio
Simon, a Panamanian who is an administrator at the University of
Panama. Simon spoke along with Ramsey Clark and others at the April
6, 1990 "Voices from Panama" forum held at New York City's Town
Hall auditorium. Simon later spoke at the LaRouchian "Fifth
International Martin Luther King Tribunal of the Schiller Institute,"
on June 2, 1990 in Silver Spring, Maryland. These incidents
demonstrate how the LaRouchians continue to insert themselves into
anti-interventionist work and gain credibility on the left.


 Rightist Influences on the Christic Institute Theories

The problem of conflating documentable facts with analysis and
conclusions and then merging them with unsubstantiated conspiracy
theories popular on the far right has plagued progressive foreign
policy critiques for several years. The Christic Institute's "Secret
Team" theory is perhaps the most widespread example of the phenomenon.
While many of the charges raised by Christic regarding the La Penca
bombing and the private pro-Contra network are documented, some of
their assertions regarding the nature and operations of a long-standing
conspiracy of high-level CIA, military, and foreign policy advisors
inside the executive branch remain undocumented, and in a few
instances, are factually inaccurate.

There are two related questions in this matter.  One is whether or
not the case was handled properly with regard to the actual clients,
Martha Honey and Tony Avirgan. The other is how much unsubstantiated
conspiracism was made part of the case and its surrounding publicity.
This paper will focus on the issue of the undocumented conspiracy
theories.

It is arguable that while Christic pursued the broad conspiracy of
the "Secret Team", the bedrock portions of the case involving the
actual La Penca incidents took a back seat. A few weeks before the
case was slated for trial, the Christic Institute still had not
diagramed the elements of proof, a legal procedure where the text
of the complaint is broken down into a list of single elements that
have to be proven with either valid documentation, a sworn affidavit,
or a live witness. This had created problems for researchers and
lawyers who had no master list of what needed to be proven when
devising questions for depositions and witnesses.

When a special meeting was convened shortly before trial, it turned
out that for some of allegations concerning the alleged broad
"Secret Team" conspiracy, the only evidence in possession of the
Christic Institute was newspaper clippings and excerpts from
books--and in a few instances there was no evidence other than
uncorroborated assertions collected by researchers.

Raised at the meeting was the issue of whether or not the case had
unwittingly incorporated unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from
right-wing groups such as the LaRouchians. The staff was warned
that some defendants would likely prevail at trial due to lack of
court-quality evidence and would then likely pursue financial
penalties (called Rule 11 sanctions).[f-3]

These matters are important because Christic press statements have
fueled the idea, and many Christic Institute supporters believe,
that the dismissal of the case was just another example of a massive
government conspiracy and cover-up. It is undeniable that the
presiding judge was hostile to Christic and stretched judicial
discretion to the breaking point in dismissing the case. The
dismissal was unfair. However, according to a statement issued by
Christic client Tony Avirgan, the Institute must share at least
"partial responsibility for the dismissal of the La Penca law suit."

"It's sad that these issues have to be raised by `outsiders' such
as Berlet. But the truth is that criticism-self criticism, an
essential tool in any social movement, has never been tolerated by
the leaders of the Christic Institute. Those who criticized the
legal work of Sheehan were labelled as enemies and ignored. "

"There were, indeed, numerous undocumented allegations in the suit,
particularly in Sheehan's Affidavit of Fact. As plaintiffs in the
suit, Martha Honey and I struggled for years to try to bring the
case down to earth, to bringing it away from Sheehan's wild
allegations. Over the years, numerous staff lawyers quit over their
inability to control Sheehan. We stuck with it--and continued to
struggle--because we felt that the issues being raised were important.
But this was a law suit, not a political rally, and the hostile
judges latched on to the lack of proof and the sloppy legal work.
"

"The case, before it was inflated by Sheehan, was supposed to center
on the La Penca bombing. On this, there is a strong body of evidence
here in Costa Rica. It is enough evidence to get a reluctant Costa
Rican judiciary to indict two CIA operatives, John Hull and Felipe
Vidal, for murder and drug trafficking. Unfortunately, little of
this evidence was successfully transformed into evidence acceptable
to U.S.  courts. It was either never submitted or was poorly
prepared. In large part, this was because Sheehan was concentrating
on his broad, 30-year conspiracy. "

"The exercise Berlet suggested--breaking each allegation down and
compiling evidentiary proof for it--was indeed undertaken by
competent lawyers on the Christic Institute staff. But it was an
exercise begun too late. The case had already been spiked by
Sheehan's Affidavit. "

"We feel that it is important to openly discuss these things so
that similar mistakes are avoided in the future. "

Jane Hunter of <Israeli Foreign Affairs> agrees that some of the
Christic research is problematic. "As a researcher I have over the
years found nothing in the Christic case worth citing," says Hunter.
A number of other researchers and journalists have raised similarly
harsh criticisms of some of the allegations made in the Christic
case. David Corn, for instance, wrote a stinging assessment of the
Secret Team theory for the <Nation>. Other criticisms were aired
in other Jones>.

Dr. Diana Reynolds is one of the many critics of portions of the
Christic thesis. Reynolds thinks undocumented conspiracy theories
hurt the case.  She believes there is much solid evidence concerning
the actual La Penca bombing and aftermath, and some specific
Iran-Contra material, but she thinks "it is fair to say that some
right-wing conspiracy theories were woven into the theory behind
the Christic case." Reynolds read thousands of pages of depositions
taken by the Christic Institute while she was researching a story
on federal emergency planning, later published in <Covert Action
Information Bulletin>. According to Reynolds:

"It is clear to me from the depositions of Ed Wilson and Gene
Wheaton that the notion of a broad conspiracy conducted by the
so-called Enterprise, beyond the La Penca bombing and the specific
Iran-Contra scandal, has many holes. I am thoroughly convinced that
those two depositions contain the nub of the unsubstantiated
conspiracy theory, and I have said this for a very long time. When
we get into the Christic allegations regarding the Middle East and
Asia and the Camp David accords and forty years of conspiracy,
their thesis falls apart. "

Reynolds suggests it is fair to ask whether or not Christic was
manipulated by right-wing persons associated with factions in the
intelligence community. "It is curious that Wilson is a former
intelligence operative, and that Wheaton, at the same time he was
working for Christic, was also alleged by Mr. Owen in his Christic
deposition to be passing information to Neil Livingston at the
National Security Council to protect some of the people who were
implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal," says Reynolds. At least
two former Christic investigators say they warned Sheehan not to
rely on conspiratorial analysis and to be suspicious of material
from right-wing sources. Nevertheless, Sheehan was rebuked by his
own staff and others in Christic leadership for repeatedly lapsing
into an overly conspiratorial analysis in public appearances, and
for making claims that the Christic staff could not document or
otherwise support when responding to follow-up inquiries by reporters.

While the allegation that right-wing conspiracy theories were woven
into the case is hotly denied by Christic, the contacts by the
LaRouchians during the mid and late 1980's are not disputed.
According to a Christic spokesperson:

"In conducting investigations historically we have sometimes had
to get information from persons with whom one would not normally
associate. People like drug dealers, mercenaries and intelligence
agents. During our investigation, there were some meetings with
LaRouche staffers conducted by Lanny Sinkin and David MacMichael.
The information was always viewed very skeptically and none of it
found its way into our casework or courtroom materials. All those
contacts were stopped by 1989. We take seriously the view that the
LaRouche organization is an organization with whom progressives
should be very wary. "

David MacMichael and Lanny Sinkin are no longer affiliated with
the Christic Institute. Sinkin says his contact with the LaRouchians
while at Christic was limited to a few brief conversations.
MacMichael, a former CIA analyst turned agency critic who now writes
and lectures on covert action, has had a more extensive relationship
to the LaRouchians. MacMichael and Sinkin, however, were not the
only Christic investigators who received information from the
LaRouchians. Christic investigator Bill McCoy also received
information from the LaRouchians as did at least one other Christic
researcher, according to former staffers.

Sheehan was warned by his own staff in 1988 that contacts with the
research circles around LaRouche and Liberty Lobby were a problem
on both factual and moral grounds. Later Danny Sheehan appeared on
the <Undercurrents> program broadcast on WBAI-FM and other Pacifica
and progressive radio stations. Christic told the radio audience
that it was untrue that LaRouchians had supplied information to
the Christic Institute, and blasted a passing reference to this
matter in Dennis King's book, <Lyndon LaRouche and the New American
Fascism>. Shortly after Sheehan's statements, an offer to promote
King's book as a premium gift during an annual fundraising drive
for the radio station was withdrawn. King believes Sheehan's
unequivocal denial undercut the credibility of his book and was
responsible for WBAI withdrawing the original offer.

- The Right-Wing Roots of the "Secret Team" Theory -

Christic no longer uses the "Secret Team" slogan, but for the first
several years of the case, the Christic Institute used the term
"Secret Team" to describe the legal conspiracy they alleged in
court (a copy of the Prouty book sat in Sheehan's personal bookshelf
in his Christic office). There is no dispute that the "Secret Team"
theory came from the political right. The "Affidavit of Daniel P.
Sheehan" filed on December 12, 1986 and revised on January 31,
1987, refers frequently to the "Secret Team," and states explicitly
that the term came from right-wing sources.

"...I was contacted by Source #47, a right-wing para-military
specialist, former U.S. Army pilot in Vietnam and military reform
specialist in January of 1986. "

"Source #47, the Specialist, who was unaware of my investigation,
informed me that he had met--at a right-wing function--a former
U.S. military intelligence officer, Source #48...this source began
to discuss with Source #47 the existence of a "Secret Team" of
former high-ranking American CIA officials, former high-ranking
U.S. military officials and Middle Eastern arms merchants--who also
specialized in the performance of covert political assassinations
of communists and "enemies" of this "Secret Team" which carried on
its own independent, American foreign policy--regardless of the
will of Congress, the will of the President, or even the will of
the American Central Intelligence Agency. "

Critics of the Christic thesis say the "Secret Team" was not a
cabal operating against the will of the president or the CIA, but
was an illegal, secret government-sponsored operation established
by CIA director William Casey and coordinated by White House aide
Oliver North, with assistance from a network of ultra-right groups
who were determined to circumvent the will of Congress.  This
"Enterprise" at times worked closely with the Mossad and carried
out clandestine counterinsurgency missions. Some of these
counterinsurgency missions were based on the same model of pacification
used by U.S. Special Forces and clandestine CIA operations in
Vietnam. It is just this emphasis on counterinsurgency and clandestine
operations rather than direct military battles that forms the basis
of criticism in Fletcher Prouty's book <Secret Team>. Prouty
criticized the CIA for promoting covert action techniques which he
traced to the influence of the British intelligence service MI5 on
the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the CIA. Prouty
said such meddling and convoluted efforts at fighting communism
resulted in the needless deaths of American servicemen. There is
no evidence of any obvious anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in the
Prouty book.

Some of the undocumented conspiracy theories regarding the CIA and
U.S. foreign policy that were widely circulated in progressive
circles before the Iran-Contragate scandal hit the headlines seem
to have appeared first in the LaRouchian's <Executive Intelligence
Review> or <New Solidarity> (later <New Federalist>), or in the
pages of Liberty Lobby's <Spotlight> newspaper.

The <Spotlight> for instance carried the first exclusive story on
"Rex 84" by writer James Harrer. "Rex 84" was one of a long series
of readiness exercises for government military, security and police
forces. "Rex 84"--Readiness Exercise, 1984--was a drill which
postulated a scenario of massive civil unrest and the need to round
up and detain large numbers of demonstrators and dissidents. While
creating scenarios and carrying out mock exercises is common, the
potential for Constitutional abuses under the contingency plans
drawn up for "Rex 84" was, and is, very real. The legislative
authorization and Executive agency capacity for such a round-up of
dissidents remains operational.

The April 23, 1984 <Spotlight> article ran with a banner headline
"Reagan Orders Concentration Camps." The article, true to form,
took a problematic swipe at the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith along with reporting the facts of the story. The Harrer
article was based primarily on two unnamed government sources, and
follow-up confirmations. Mainstream reporters pursued the allegations
through interviews and Freedom of Information Act requests, and
ultimately the Harrer <Spotlight> article proved to be a substantially
accurate account of the readiness exercise, although <Spotlight>
did underplay the fact that this was a scenario and drill, not an
actual order to round up dissidents.

Many people believe that Christic was the first group to reveal
the "Rex 84" story. According to the 1986 Sheehan "Affidavit"
revised in 1987:

"During the second week of April of 1984, I was informed by Source
#4 that President Ronald Reagan had, on April 6, 1984, issued
National Security Decision Directive #52 authorizing the Federal
Emergency Management Agency director Louis O. Giuffrida and his
Deputy Frank Salcedo to undertake a secret nation-wide, `readiness
exercise' code-named `Rex 84....' "

The impression left is that a Christic source exclusively developed
this information and quietly handed it over to Sheehan. In fact,
the second week of April 1984, the "Rex 84" story was bannered on
the front page of the <Spotlight> and available in coin-boxes all
over Capitol Hill.  <Spotlight> had previously reported extensively
on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government
initiatives that threatened civil liberties.

Sheehan has told reporters that the "Rex 84" story did not come
from <Spotlight>, but would not respond to questions as to whether
or not Source #4 could document where the information came from.
This is important because in at least one other instance, previously
published research was attributed by Sheehan to Source #4. According
to the 1986 Sheehan "Affidavit" revised in 1987:

"In early May of 1984, I was supplied by Source #4 with a number
of documents describing, in some detail, a project supervised by
then Special Assistant California State Attorney General Edwin
Meese code-named "Project Cable Splicer"...part of a larger program,
code-named "Project Garden Plot"--which was a nation-wide war games
scenario...to establish a nation-wide state of martial law if
Richard Nixon's "political enemies" required him to declare a State
of National Emergency. "

While the descriptions of Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are accurate,
the source is deceptively obscured. The original story of Cable
Splicer and Garden Plot broke in the alternative press in 1975 in
an article by Ron Ridenhour with Arthur Lublow published in Arizona's
<New Times>.  Garden Plot was also the cover story for the Winter
1976 issue of <CounterSpy> magazine.  Dozens of pages of the unedited
official documents from Garden Plot and Cable Splicer were reprinted
in the magazine. Copies of the official documents were made available
to trial teams in several cities litigating against illegal government
intelligence abuse.

Several former Christic staffers, who asked to remain nameless,
suggest that, at the very least, a critical reevaluation of some
allegations made in the Christic case would be beneficial in light
of the possibility that material from far-right, conspiracist or
anti-Jewish sources was uncritically woven into the original "Secret
Team" Christic thesis. They say that the Christic theories need to
be reassessed with the ulterior motives and credibility of those
sources in mind.

The Christic Institute was supplied with the text of the criticisms
raised in this section of the report, as well as an extensive list
of written questions. With the exception of the quote regarding
the LaRouchians, they chose not to respond.


Barbara Honneger, The October Surprise & The LaRouchians

In many way the LaRouche organization, with its slickly repackaged
conspiracy theories, serves as a nexus for a number of tendencies
on the political right, ranging from ultra-conservatives to outright
fascists and white supremacists.  LaRouchian material on AIDS, for
instance, is cited by homophobic organizations such as the
fundamentalist Christian group Summit Ministries.  It seems clear
that the LaRouche network reaches out to many constituencies,
including some that seem improbable on the surface, including some
on the left.

Over the past few years the LaRouchians have solicited contacts
with a number of critics of U.S. foreign policy and intelligence
agency practices, sometimes with surprising success. In many cases,
it is the LaRouchian intelligence network that serves as a broker
for information flowing between left-wing and right-wing groups.
LaRouchians appear to have first penetrated the left in recent
years when they began to trade information on covert action and
CIA misconduct.  The LaRouchians were early critics of the Oliver
North network. In the early 1980's, LaRouche intelligence operatives
such as Jeffrey Steinberg maintained close ties to a faction in
the National Security Council which opposed Oliver North's activities.
At the same time the LaRouchians quietly began providing information
to mainstream and progressive reporters and researchers.

The Christic Institute and the Empowerment Project which distributes
the film "CoverUp:  Behind the Iran-Contra Affair" are major
promoters of Barbara Honegger's theories regarding an alleged
"October Surprise." The October Surprise was the term used among
Reagan campaign aides to describe the possibility that the Iranian
government might arrange for the release of U.S. hostages prior to
the election which pitted incumbent Jimmy Carter against challenger
Ronald Reagan. Barbara Honneger alleges in her book <October
Surprise> that Reagan campaign aides did negotiate with representatives
of the Iranian government to delay any hostage release until after
the 1980 election. Substantial circumstantial evidence exists to
suggest such a charge might be true, but there is little incontrovertible
proof.

Honneger's research and analysis are questionable. In the 1989
edition of her book <October Surprise>, Honneger cites frequently
to LaRouche's <Executive Intelligence Review>. While some material
in EIR is factual, other material presented as fact is unsubstantiated
rumor or lunatic conspiracy theories. Some anti-fascist researchers
also assume that information in EIR occasionally represents calculated
leaks by current and former government intelligence agents and
right-wing activists to achieve a desired political goal. This
practice is a common tactic in power struggles and faction fights
over policy.

While Honneger sometimes cites to progressive periodicals such as
<In These Times> and <The Nation>,, more than six percent (49 out
of a total 771) of the footnotes in Honneger's book cite LaRouchian
publications such as <EIR, New Solidarity, >and <New Federalist>.
In one chapter on "Project Diplomacy," Honneger LaRouchian cites
account for over 22 percent of the total number of footnotes.

Honneger also makes assertions that strain credulity. She quotes
without comment the claim of Eugene Wheaton that the CIA is actually
secretly controlled by a group of retired members of the OSS.

In the July/August 1991 issue of <The Humanist>, both David MacMichael
and Barbara Trent of the Empowerment project defend Honneger and
suggest PBS refused to show "Coverup" because it contained serious
charges against the U.S.  government. As Trent put it:

"It was no big surprise that there was a problem getting `Coverup'
on PBS. Programs that address U.S. foreign policy in particular
and are not in agreement with the policies of the sitting president
rarely get much of a chance on TV. "

In fact, PBS has aired on the "Frontline" series programs about
the October Surprise and CIA involvement in drug trafficking. PBS
has also aired two Bill Moyers specials on Iran-Contragate that
concluded that Reagan lied repeatedly and may have committed
impeachable offenses, and that evidence exists to suggest that
Bush's role in the Contra resupply operation was far more direct
than he has admitted. The primary difference between the shows
broadcast by PBS and "Coverup" is the reliance in "Coverup" on
Barbara Honneger and Danny Sheehan and their unsubstantiated and
undocumented charges. It would have been difficult for PBS to
justify running Honneger's assertions given her reliance on material
supplied by neo-Nazis with a history of circulating unreliable
information.

"Coverup" also promotes the Christic theme that Iran-Contragate
was caused by a long-standing conspiracy of individual agents. In
contrast to this individualistic formulation, the Moyers programs
stress a systemic failure: that the lack of congressional oversight
over foreign policy and covert action has created a Constitutional
crisis where the balance of powers between branches of government
has been skewed toward the executive branch.



The Gulf War

The right's attempt to influence and recruit the left became highly
visible during the Gulf War crisis in late 1990 and early 1991. As
the movement against the war in the Middle East began to build, a
handful of far-right and anti-Jewish groups began to seek alliances
with liberal, progressive, and left antiwar coalitions. It is
important to recognize that as a whole the antiwar movement
overwhelmingly rejected these overtures by the political right,
while recognizing that the attempt reflects a larger ongoing problem.


 Sowing Confusion

The rightist efforts caused problems across the country, especially
attempts by followers of neo-fascist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. to
forge ties with liberal and left antiwar coalitions. Other fascist
groups organizing against the war included the Populist Party,
Liberty Lobby, and some elements of the white supremacist movement.
Other far-right and ultra-conservative groups opposing the war
included some factions in the Libertarian movement, the John Birch
Society, and groups purveying general rightist conspiracy theories.

Most persons in the antiwar movement seemed unaware of the backgrounds
and ideology of the several rightist groups that sought alliances
during the Gulf War period, and merely were hoping to build a
broad-based alliance. Still, some activists fear that in the future,
fragile coalitions around peace and social justice issues could be
seriously damaged by the presence of bigoted ultra-right forces,
and argue that on moral grounds alone, coalitions with fascist,
racist, and anti-Jewish groups are not acceptable.

Some of the rightist and anti-Jewish groups that opposed the Gulf
War also have a racialist white supremacist ideology that not only
considers persons of Jewish and Arab heritage to be inferior, but
believes no person of color has a legitimate claim to citizenship
in the United States. Within weeks of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait,
there were reports of physical attacks on and threats against both
Arab and Jewish institutions and persons of Arab and Jewish descent.
Left groups which tolerate or apologize for persons who have allied
themselves with the racialist ultra-right send a message that such
views, which motivate acts of discrimination and assault, are an
acceptable part of political debate in our society.

Most conservatives and rightists supported the U.S. involvement in
the Gulf War. The actual attempts by the sectors of the political
right who opposed the war were varied by both locale and method.

The antiwar rightist groups generally did not seek actual coalitions
with the left, but instead passed out handbills at large antiwar
demonstrations as a recruitment mechanism. For example, the
ultra-conservative and conspiracist John Birch Society distributed
antiwar flyers at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, and at a
downtown Boston antiwar rally.

For many on the left, this was their first experience with a
courtship by the ultra-right.  Author Sara Diamond urges left
activists to be suspicious of the motives of the opportunistic
right which approached the left during the Gulf War. Diamond, whose
book <Spiritual Warfare> chronicled the religious right in America,
warned, "one can only speculate that they wanted to recruit people
into their own organizations and then leave the left discredited."
She added that no matter what the motivation, however, the proposed
alliance was a bad idea.

One danger posed by the right wing's recruitment attempts is that
the widespread conspiracism in some sectors of the far right has
found fertile ground among naive or uncritical forces on the left.
The problem is exacerbated when rightists put forward their paranoid
and sometimes anti-Jewish theories in progressive circles where
conspiracist or prejudiced sentiments have been tolerated rather
than routinely confronted.  Within the U.S. progressive movement,
the issue of an undercurrent of anti-Jewish bigotry among some
pro-Palestinian, Black nationalist, and left groups has been under
discussion for several years.

What the left faces is the task of carefully drawing distinctions
between views that are solely anti-Zionist or critical of the state
of Israel's policies, and views that reflect bigoted conspiracy
theories about persons of Jewish heritage. If peace and social
justice forces do not publicly reject anti-Jewish bigots, this task
becomes impossible, and the charge of anti-Semitism will taint the
entire progressive movement.

The utilization of scapegoating conspiracies is by no means limited
to the fascist right, but during the Gulf War some antiwar activists
became attracted to scurrilous conspiratorial theories of elite
control circulated by right-wing researchers. One conspiracy theorist
who gained high visibility during the Gulf War was Craig Hulet.
Another conspiracy theorist, Antony Sutton, avoids explicit
anti-Jewish rhetoric, but pursues a line promoting arcane banking
conspiracies (often involving Jewish banking families traditionally
scapegoated by bigots).  Sutton also has supported racial separatism
between Blacks and whites in South Africa.  Another theorist,
Eustace Mullins, is a notorious anti-Jewish bigot who focuses on
anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in which the Rothschilds and other
Jews control the world economy. Mullins' work is promoted by U.S.
white supremacist and neo-Nazi circles. Persons supporting the
neo-fascist Populist Party used Hulet's radio appearances on
progressive Pacifica network radio station KPFA in San Francisco
to organize study groups where the theories of Mullins and Sutton
were promoted.


 The LaRouchians and the Gulf War

The most disruptive rightist penetration of antiwar groups was by
the LaRouchians. The LaRouchians generally operate under front
groups such as Food for Peace, Schiller Institute, and <Executive
Intelligence Review>. Some local antiwar groups have worked with
the LaRouchians, while others have not. While often described merely
as conservative or extremist, the LaRouche organization and its
various front groups are a fascist political movement with echoes
of neo-Nazi ideology. The group's ultimate leader, Lyndon H.
LaRouche, Jr., is currently in jail because his fundraisers sold
unsecured securities to the elderly and because LaRouche paid no
taxes while living in a Virginia mansion. LaRouche was sentenced
in January, 1989 to fifteen years in prison after a federal court
found LaRouche and six codefendants guilty of a mail fraud conspiracy
related to fundraising. LaRouche was also convicted of tax evasion.
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court let the convictions stand without
comment.

LaRouche's lawyers have repeatedly sued activist critics who describe
him as a fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Jewish bigot,
lunatic cult leader, neo-Nazi racial theorist, crook, and demagogue.
LaRouche has lost every case. One jury in Virginia found that
calling LaRouche a "small-time Hitler" was not defamatory and then
awarded damages to the news organization sued by LaRouche.

During the Gulf War the LaRouchians appeared at antiwar rallies
and meetings in thirty cities, including New York, Boston, Washington,
D.C., Richmond, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Ann Arbor,
St. Louis, Omaha, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

At the University of Ottawa in Canada, LaRouche's Schiller Institute
co-sponsored an antiwar event with an organization of Middle Eastern
students.  At an October 20, 1990 antiwar demonstration in New York
City, the Schiller Institute had four people carrying a large banner
and a small group of supporters organized in a contingent. The
LaRouchians have passed out petitions at antiwar rallies, and then
called the persons who signed the petitions to solicit money for
the LaRouche organization. Other fundraising pitches are made at
antiwar rallies.

In a flyer announcing a December 15, 1990 rally, a group called
simply the "LaRouche Organization" was originally listed as a
coalition member. The presence of the LaRouchians, as well as other
anti-Jewish bigots, in the St. Louis antiwar coalition originally
caused consternation, especially among members of New Jewish Agenda,
a group which supports a democratic Israel, Palestinian rights,
and a Palestinian homeland.  When coalition leaders were provided
with documentation of LaRouchian attacks on Jews, Blacks and other
minorities, including LaRouchian support for the apartheid government
of South Africa, the LaRouche supporters were booted out of the
coalition.

In Los Angeles, several LaRouchians were dismayed when the local
antiwar coalition pointed to its principles of unity, which included
a call for a sensible non-nuclear energy policy. The LaRouchians
are vocal supporters of nuclear power. In Richmond, Virginia, local
antiwar organizers simply kept shouting at the LaRouchians to "shut
up" when they began their bizarre spiels and for a time the
LaRouchians stopped coming to meetings. The LaRouchians soon
returned, but attempted to keep a low profile while persistently
circulating their literature.

During December, LaRouche's followers held vigils on a number of
campuses to build support for a touted "National Teach-In to Stop
the War" held December 15-16 in Chicago. The Chicago conference,
titled "Development is the New Name for Peace," turned out to be
the annual LaRouche-sponsored Food for Peace Conference, repackaged
to attract antiwar activists. The conference drew over 350 attendees.
Several persons active with the St. Louis African-American
Anti-War/Peace Coalition who attended the conference were later
asked to leave the Coalition for being disruptive and spreading
anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, according to several St. Louis
activists who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Only three dozen students were sprinkled among the crowd which drew
persons from California, Oregon, North and South Dakota, Maryland,
New Jersey, Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nebraska, and the
Canadian province of Quebec.  Many in the audience were farmers.
Close to one-third of the conference attendees were African-Americans.

While the number of students was small, the emphasis on the situation
in the Middle East was not neglected. LaRouche regulars Mel Klenetsky
and Nancy Spannaus moderated the program which included a videotaped
message and live phone patch from the cultural attache for the
Iraqi embassy, Dr. Mayser Al Mallah. The LaRouche organization has
maintained ties with the Iraqi Ba'ath Party for many years, according
to several former LaRouchian intelligence gatherers who have left
the group.

Other panelists at the LaRouchian conference included the Rev.
James Bevel, an early civil rights leader now active in several
LaRouchian front groups; a representative from Minister Louis
Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad, editor of
the <Final Call>; and Gene Wheaton, a private investigator who
works with both left-wing and right-wing critics of U.S.  clandestine
operations.


How The LaRouchians Exploited Antiwar Organizers

A long-time political activist who marched with the Cleveland
contingent in the January 19th antiwar demonstration in Washington,
D.C. was more than a little surprised when he noticed that people
in the contingent next to him were passing out literature from
Lyndon LaRouche's political front groups. "They were beating a drum
and chanting `George Bush, You Can't Hide, the New World Order is
Genocide,'" he reports. "There were about 100 people, many elderly,
some Black," he says, and one flyer they handed out carried a
headline scolding, "U.S. Citizens Must Recognize Their Past Mistakes
and Support LaRouche." There was a large banner and some people
carried signs that said "Free LaRouche, Jail the ADL." At the march
the LaRouchians passed out their <New Federalist> newspaper. "A
lot of people who remember <New Solidarity> don't realize its new
name is <New Federalist>," said the Cleveland activist.

According to Gavrielle Gemma, coordinator of the National Coalition
to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East (the group that
sponsored the January 19th antiwar demonstration in Washington,
D.C.), the official policy of the Coalition is to reject any work
with the LaRouchians. Although the LaRouchians and their supporters
involved themselves in Coalition activities during the Gulf War,
these incidents did not reflect the official policy of the Coalition,
according to several Coalition spokespersons, but were attempts
(sometimes successful) by the LaRouchians and their allies to
portray themselves as part of the Coalition.

Specifically, in interviews with several Coalition spokespersons
the following picture of how the LaRouchians manipulated and
exploited the Coalition emerged:


Coalition press conference featuring former U.S. Attorney General
Ramsey Clark which was aired on the C-SPAN cable channel. Bevel
arrived with an invited speaker, a Black serviceman resisting
assignment to the Gulf. Although Bevel had worked with the LaRouchians
for many months prior to the press conference, it was not until
weeks after the press conference that Coalition leadership became
aware that Bevel had ties to the LaRouche organization.


of Bevel, were reacting to Bevel's past history as a respected
civil rights leader, and were not aware, or found it impossible to
accept, that Bevel had now aligned himself with far-right groups.


January 19th demonstration in Washington, D.C. did so against the
expressed wishes of Coalition leadership.


to continue a chant critical of the LaRouchians was unaware of who
the LaRouchians were, and was merely trying to enforce the policy
of ensuring peaceful relations among contingents.


of the LaRouchians due to his representation of them in legal
matters, the Coalition does not hesitate to criticize roundly the
LaRouchians as fascists and anti-Semites.


Coalition to discuss charges of LaRouchian involvement with reporters
did not reflect the views of the leadership of the Coalition, and
in some cases appears to reflect a disbelief among these persons
that the LaRouchians had managed successfully to portray themselves
as part of the Coalition.


months and the official position of the Coalition regarding a
refusal to work with the LaRouchians was perhaps not made clear to
all persons actively organizing Coalition events around the country.


to attorney Clark by using his name in their publicity and implying
his political support, it is the firm belief of the Coalition that
Clark's refusal to comment on this circumstance reflects a personal
ethical position, and in no way implies any connection between
Clark and the political work of the LaRouchians.

Leaders of the National Coalition to Stop U.S.  Intervention in
the Middle East are aware that the LaRouchians continue to attempt
to penetrate their organization, and urge persons who find LaRouchians
portraying themselves as official members of the Coalition to
challenge that claim.  Anyone who continues to claim the Coalition
tolerates the presence of the LaRouchians should be referred to
the national office of the Coalition for a short and clear rejection
of that contention.

"We do not work with fascists or anti-Semites," said Coalition
coordinator Gavrielle Gemma, "and that includes the LaRouchites."
Gemma says this is not only the Coalition attitude, but her own as
well, noting that she once personally threw some LaRouchians off
a picket line during the Greyhound strike.

Apparently the position of the Coalition leadership against working
with the LaRouchians, now clearly unequivocal, was slow to reach
all organizers during the chaotic months of December, 1990 and
January, 1991. This lack of clarity among rank-and-file organizers,
some of whom were inexperienced, coupled with the LaRouchians'
manipulative opportunism, the Coalition's uncertainty over Bevel's
tie to the LaRouchians, and Ramsey Clark's silence on the LaRouchians'
use of his name, created enough confusion so that some organizers
for the Coalition at first defended Bevel's appearance at the
January 4th press conference, and defended the participation of
various LaRouchian front groups in Coalition events. It also turns
out that a report issued by the LaRouchian Schiller Institute, and
cited at the January 4th press conference was in fact introduced
by a LaRouchian attending the press conference as a reporter.

Chicago antiwar organizer Alynne Romo reports the local Emergency
Coalition for Peace in the Middle East has "asked the LaRouchians
not to participate when they have appeared at our demonstrations."
According to Romo, "The LaRouche people called us several times.
They told us Margaret Thatcher was behind the situation in Iraq
and that she put George Bush up to it." Romo adds that "they also
said they were working with Ramsey Clark as a way to get us to
cooperate."

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark is the lead legal counsel
for an appeal filed by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. and six followers
convicted of loan fraud. On October 6, 1989, Clark appeared and
gave oral arguments in the case before a three judge panel of the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia to argue for
the reversal of the convictions.

The right of Mr. Clark to represent the LaRouche organization is
not disputed, but when the LaRouchians use his name in a political
rather than legal context, problems arise. Based on several dozen
interviews with antiwar activists in twenty cities, it appears that
sometimes LaRouchians fundraisers and organizers mention they work
with Ramsey Clark, while other times they do not. The use by the
LaRouchians of Clark's name has been very effective at college
student government meetings where many students have never heard
of LaRouche, and tend to be sympathetic to his claims of government
harassment. After gaining an audience, the LaRouchians encourage
the student leaders to join their "coalition" and to authorize
college funding.

Sam Schwartz, a faculty member at Bronx Community College in New
York, received a phone call from a LaRouche attorney threatening
to sue Schwartz penniless unless he stopped telling students that
LaRouche was an anti-Semite and fascist. Several African-Americans
active in St. Louis who objected to the presence of the LaRouchians
in a local antiwar coalition were also threatened with lawsuits
for their critical characterization of the LaRouche movement. Clark
has not been involved in these threats of lawsuits.

Since Clark took on the LaRouche appeal, the LaRouchians have
blazoned Clark's name across a substantial amount of propaganda
used both in fundraising and in coaxing persons into consideration
of the political message of the organization. Sometimes the LaRouchian
references to Clark simply cause confusion. One antiwar activist
who was handed a LaRouchian pamphlet mentioning Clark was at first
convinced the LaRouchians were cleverly trying to smear Clark by
using his name.

The LaRouchians frequently attempt to build coalitions in a sly
manner. For instance activist Lanny Sinkin, a former attorney for
the Christic Institute, appeared at a March, 1991 post-war panel
sponsored by a Washington, D.C. group called The Time is Now. Also
on the panel were two key LaRouche operatives and a leader of The
Time is Now. According to a staff member of the Washington Peace
Center, members of The Time is Now worked closely with the LaRouchians
and thoroughly disrupted the political work of the Washington Area
Coalition to Stop U.S.  Intervention in the Middle East during
January and February, 1991. When members of The Time is Now passed
out LaRouche's <Executive Intelligence Review> at a February meeting,
they were asked to leave the coalition. When criticized by the
Peace Center staffer, Sinkin defended his appearance at the conference
as legitimate outreach, according to the staffer.

Sinkin says he was unaware when invited that LaRouchians would also
be on the panel, and he vigorously denies that he has ever had any
ongoing relationship with the LaRouchians or that his actions were
improper. Sinkin says that his appearance reflected his commitment
to speaking to broad audiences. Organizers at the Washington Peace
Center counter that Sinkin's presence at the meeting lent credibility
to two groups that were disrupting their work.

The issue here is not one of implying any type of ongoing relationship
between Sinkin and the LaRouchians. No such relationship exists.
But for the Washington Peace Center, Sinkin's appearance on the
same platform with the LaRouchians served as an implicit endorsement,
suggesting by example that joint work with the LaRouchians was
acceptable at the same time that the Peace Center was telling
members of the local antiwar coalition that joint work with the
LaRouchians was unacceptable.A number of experienced antiwar
activists warn that working with the LaRouchians and other far-right
and bigoted forces will only discredit serious work towards peace
in the Middle East. Jon Hillson is a seasoned political organizer
and peace activist based in Ohio who already knew the history of
the LaRouchians.  Hillson reported LaRouche organizers at events
sponsored by the Cleveland Committee Against War in the Persian
Gulf. At one meeting, "Two people went through the crowd handing
out LaRouche's <New Federalist>," says Hillson. "I was shocked,
but then I realized most students had never heard of LaRouche,"
says Hillson. "I would urge people to disavow any collaboration
with them because of their past ties to government agencies...and
their homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic agenda." Hillson
notes that it will take patience to explain to new activists why
a broad-based coalition should exclude anyone, but that the task
of educating people that coalitions with fascists should be rejected
is not one to be ignored.


 How the LaRouchians Exploit Ramsey Clark

An <Associated Press (AP)> account of Clark's Fourth Circuit oral
arguments noted that "former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, chief
attorney for LaRouche's appeal, argued that U.S. District Judge
Albert V. Bryan Jr. of Alexandria allowed only thirty-four days
from arraignment to trial and failed to adequately question jurors
on how much they knew about the defendant."

The Fourth Circuit ruled against LaRouche, saying LaRouche's original
attorneys had waited eighteen days before asking for a continuance.
An <AP> story about the decision reported that the appeals panel
"also said LaRouche's attorneys made no attempt to press potential
jurors to determine `individually anyone who had ever heard of
LaRouche,' although certain jurors who said they were familiar with
the case or who had worked in law enforcement or had accounting or
tax backgrounds were questioned individually."

On further appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court let the convictions stand
without a hearing or comment.

In fact, more than a few civil libertarians agree there was evidence
of misconduct in the government's investigation of LaRouche, and
the closing of LaRouche's newspaper <New Solidarity> in a federal
bankruptcy proceeding raised serious constitutional issues. Still,
there is no clear evidence that the alleged government misconduct
had a direct bearing on the criminal prosecution of LaRouche and
his aides.

When Clark has spoken at LaRouchian-sponsored press conferences
concerning the case, there has been extensive coverage in the
LaRouchian press.  One such story featuring Clark appeared in
LaRouche's <New Federalist> on October 13, 1989.  Clark was quoted
as saying that even though he had once been a political opponent
of LaRouche, he had now come to his defense because of constitutional
abuses such as a fast jury selection process, massive prejudicial
pretrial publicity, and a jury pool which contained numerous
government employees, including law enforcement agents from agencies
that had allegedly targeted LaRouche.

Ramsey Clark has steadfastly refused to disassociate his legal work
for the LaRouchians from the political work of the LaRouchians,
despite the fact that the LaRouchians imply Clark's support in
numerous newspaper and magazine articles. Most critics of Clark's
silence regarding the LaRouchians say they understand he has a duty
as an attorney to represent the LaRouchians fully and vigorously,
but feel he has not been sensitive to the ways in which the
LaRouchians are using his name in the political arena. These critics
point out that the ethical imperatives for an attorney are different
than the moral obligations of a leader of an antiwar movement. They
say Clark has a political responsibility to distance himself from
the LaRouche organization, which is separate from his role as their
attorney.

Sometimes it appears that Clark's support of the LaRouche cause
has moved beyond mere legal representation. According to the July
6, 1990 <New Federalist>, on June 19, 1990, Clark spoke at a private
meeting coordinated with the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe (CSCE), a multi-governmental association and human rights
forum that solicits input from non-governmental groups. The <New
Federalist> reported that "Clark's trip was sponsored by the Schiller
Institute's Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, a
non-governmental organization which is urging the CSCE to take up
the case of Lyndon LaRouche, the U.S. economist and statesman who
is now America's most prominent political prisoner." The Schiller
Institute is a LaRouchian front group which once published a book
claiming British Jews helped put Hitler into power.

In his CSCE speech, Clark is reported to have said he had reviewed
a random selection of sixty-five published articles on LaRouche
appearing in the several years prior to LaRouche's prosecution.
Clark reportedly said "here you see that he's called every bad
thing you can imagine--Nazi, anti-Semitic, violence-prone, thief--over
and over again.  Vilification...it was absolutely astounding."

The <New Federalist> article reported that Clark said that LaRouche
was prosecuted on "economic crimes that didn't exist, because this
was a political movement, it was not a for-profit activity and
wasn't intended to be a for-profit activity, it was a political
movement. You make three sentences for five years each to impose
a fifteen-year sentence on a man who's sixty-six years old. To
destroy a political movement.  Obviously....Unless you can wrench
[the political process] free from [the] plutocracy that absolutely
controls with an iron hand that essentially one-party system, you
won't have that change. And that's what the Lyndon LaRouche case
is about: you."

At a February 28, 1991 international conference in Algeria to oppose
U.S. intervention in the Gulf, Clark shared the podium with long-time
LaRouche associate Jacques Cheminade, president of the Schiller
Institute in France.

- Clark Responds -

Clark confirmed in an interview that he had spoken about the LaRouche
case in Europe at the CSCE conference, but said he had not seen
the transcript of his speech that appeared in LaRouche's <New
Federalist>, and said his speech was not written in advance so he
had no copy. If the report of Clark's comments in <New Federalist>
are accurate--and to a large degree they reflect wording in the
appeals brief he signed--then there are serious questions as to
what he thinks of the LaRouchians. Clark seems to discount as
propaganda the charges that the LaRouchians are fascists, anti-Semites,
or neo-Nazis. Other critics question Mr. Clark's decision to appear
at the CSCE-related meeting at all, pointing out that such appearances
go beyond legal representation.

Clark said he had not seen any materials suggesting the LaRouche
people were using his name to organize students and others into
their antiwar work but he would like to see that material or any
other related information. But Clark seemed relatively unconcerned
that the LaRouchians might be using or abusing his name in their
political work. "That's a risk you always have," as a defense
counsel, said Clark.

Clark said that the somewhat glowing description of the LaRouche
political movement in the appeals brief he signed reflected the
right of any defendant to portray itself in a positive light.

According to Clark, the prosecution of LaRouche in Virginia was a
travesty of procedure and a clear violation of the Constitutional
right to a fair trial. Clark said the issue was not whether or not
the LaRouche people were guilty of crimes, but whether or not they
had received a fair trial. On the question of representation of
controversial clients on legal appeals, Clark said:

"It's a question of rights, not a question of facts. I remain
focused on the legal rights and not the nature of the person
involved. I oppose the death penalty on principle, I assume many
of the people who I represent on death penalty appeals are in fact
guilty, but that is not the point. If you have to apologize first
you have a done a disservice to the case. I resist government abuses
of people's rights. The government demonizes people...once you have
conceded the demon you have lost the principle involved in the
defense. By prefacing a defense by first saying `of course, he is
a terrible person' it disables people from considering the matter
fairly. "

Clark said the government had demonized people like Saddam Hussein
and Lyndon LaRouche and that he felt it was not appropriate to give
in to the pejorative labeling of such persons when discussing their
activities. This is the same rationale used by Clark in 1986 when
he was criticized for not distancing himself from his client Karl
Linnas, a Nazi collaborator who was eventually deported because he
had lied about his past to gain entrance to the U.S. after World
War II. Clark represented Linnas in an appeal which objected to
the procedures followed in the deportation. Critics of Clark,
including Daniel Levitas of the Center for Democratic Renewal, said
Clark was insensitive to the fact that anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi
groups were using Clark's appeal to buttress their claims that
Linnas was innocent or that the Holocaust was a hoax.[f-5]


 Rev. James Bevel

The Rev. James Bevel is an African-American minister from Chicago
with a long history of civil rights work but a recent reputation
as an opportunist who has swung far to the right. Rev.  Bevel now
works closely with groups controlled by two neo-fascists, the Rev.
Sun Myung Moon and Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The Moon network supported
the war effort, while the LaRouchians did not. Bevel focused his
energy in opposing the Gulf War, primarily through an alliance with
the LaRouchians. Bevel's ties to the LaRouchians go back several
years. Bevel not only appeared as a panelist at the LaRouchian
antiwar conference in Chicago, but he also has endorsed LaRouche's
congressional candidacy, and speaks regularly at LaRouchian forums.
Bevel has served on committees created by several LaRouchian front
groups, and writes a column for the LaRouchian newspaper <New
Federalist>. Bevel has been an effective organizer for the LaRouchians,
and took a high profile in their antiwar organizing.

Dr. Manning Marable, in a 1986 column, listed Bevel among a small
group of "prominent civil rights spokesmen [who] have gone so far
as to form alliances with ultra-right groups, which might give
lipservice to blacks' traditional interests." The LaRouchians have
sought coalitions with local African-American community activists
for many years, often working through religious leaders. A recent
example was the LaRouchian support for then Washington, D.C.  Mayor
Marion Barry. During Barry's trial on drug charges, the LaRouchians
and the Nation of Islam helped organize protests on behalf of Barry.
The LaRouchian representative during these protests was Bevel.

When Bevel endorsed Lyndon LaRouche's congressional candidacy (in
Virginia's 10th Congressional District), he signed a statement
which included the claim, "Lyndon LaRouche is known and respected
in every nation of the Third World as the primary opponent of the
genocide policies of the IMF and as the architect and principal
spokesman for a new and more just world economic order that guarantees
the inalienable rights of all people." The statement speaks glowingly
of LaRouche's early theorizing about the AIDS virus and his
recommendations for fighting the spread of the virus. In fact, as
mentioned before, LaRouche has written that history would not judge
harshly those persons who took to the streets and beat homosexuals
to death with baseball bats to stop the spread of AIDS.

Bevel represented the LaRouchian Schiller Institute in Omaha,
Nebraska. The <Omaha World-Herald> reported on January 6, 1991:

""Bevel was one of 10 people who came to Nebraska in October as
members of a group calling itself the Citizens Fact-Finding Commission
to Investigate Human rights Violations of Children in Nebraska.
That group was organized by the Schiller Institute of Washington,
D.C., and Wiesbaden, Germany. The institute was founded in 1984 by
Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She is the wife of Lyndon LaRouche, who is
serving a 15-year sentence for fraud and tax evasion....The Schiller
group's printed statement disputed the findings of two grand juries
in the Franklin case. A check by the <World-Herald> of some of the
`facts' in the statement turned up several apparent errors. "

While Rev. Bevel's historic role as a valued civil rights leader
is unquestioned, he has in recent years lost his constituency and
his political moorings. Dr. Manning Marable noted noted in 1986
that Bevel, had become "a Republican party leader in Chicago's
Black community, and soon earned the reputation as an extremist of
the right."

Some time after the LaRouche conviction in January 1989, Bevel
began to appear as a featured speaker at LaRouchian conferences,
and began to write a column in the LaRouchian <New Federalist>. As
Marable noted in 1986:

"The right-wing sect of Lyndon LaRouche has also initiated a campaign
to recruit black supporters.  As in the case of the Unification
Church, the LaRouchians work primarily through several fronts, the
Schiller Institute and the National Democratic Policy Committee.
Again, the LaRouchians have been linked to a number of racist and
extremist groups, including the Liberty Lobby, the Klan and neo-Nazis.
Currently, the LaRouchians are vigorously opposing sanctions against
South African apartheid. "

While in Chicago, Bevel regularly broke ranks with the African-American-led
coalition behind the late Mayor Harold Washington. At the same
time, Bevel was working with Moon's front group CAUSA. In an
interview with Bevel at an Illinois CAUSA meeting, I asked him why
he would ally himself with a religious/political movement such as
that run by Rev. Moon. Bevel replied that it was a tactical coalition
based on agreement that the main danger in the world was communism.
Bevel argued that communism was a godless philosophy, and that as
a Christian, it was his obligation to fight godlessness.

Bevel's CAUSA ties garnered him some unflattering publicity.
According to the December 12, 1987 <Chicago Sun-Times>, Bevel was
one of four persons belonging to "groups created by the Rev.  Sun
Myung Moon's Unification Church" who erected a creche and nativity
scene at Chicago's Daley Center Plaza. The <Chicago Sun-Times>
reported that "William J. Grutzmacher, who obtained the permit and
paid $2000 for the creche, gave a speech in October to a business
group in Merrillville, Ind., apparently so anti-Semitic that a
local newspaper ran an editorial denouncing him." The head of the
Rotary Club that had co-sponsored Grutzmacher's speech told the
reporter, "He made charges...that the Communist Party is headed by
Jews, and that the Jews were responsible for every negative thing
that has happened since World War II."

Bevel has also worked with other Moon fronts. In the October, 1990
issue of <American Freedom Journal>, Bevel is listed as serving on
the National Policy Board of the American Freedom Coalition, chaired
by the ultra-conservative Hon.  Richard Ichord. The American Freedom
Coalition (AFC) is a joint project of Rev. Moon and the Rev. Robert
G. Grant of the ultra-right Christian fundamentalist group Christian
Voice. AFC fundraised for Oliver North, and Bevel sits on the AFC
National Policy Board with Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub, implicated
in the Iran-Contragate scandal; Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham of High
Frontier, the pro-Star Wars lobby; and rightist historian Dr. Cleon
Skousen. The late Dr. Ralph David Abernathy was a long-time member
of the AFC Board of Directors along with pro-interventionist
Ambassador Phillip Sanchez. On the AFC National Advisory Board sit
rightist fundraising guru Richard Viguerie, and Slava Stetsko,
president of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN). ABN is
notorious because it is the descendant and spiritual heir of the
Committee of Subjugated Nations, formed in 1943 by Hitler's allies.
According to author Russ Bellant, "The ABN brought together fascist
forces from Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine, the Baltic
States, Slovenia and other nations." Slava Stetsko is the widow of
Yaroslav Stetsko, leader of the Nazi puppet government in the
Ukraine during World War II. She once wrote a glowing introduction
to a book that defined anti-Semitism as a "smear word used by
Communists against those who effectively oppose and expose them."

These are the fascist forces with which Bevel has allied himself,
and is a striking example of the opportunistic flexibility of
fascism as a political ideology, able not only to embrace
Nazi-collaborators but also to entice Black civil rights activists.
Bevel's ties to the fascist Moon circles are through a shared
loathing of communism as a godless ideology, an issue which resonates
with many Black church-based constituencies. Another congruent
theme that fascism can employ to seek alliances with African-Americans
and Hispanic-Americans is the opportunistic manipulation of the
issues of nationalism and self determination.

Other Black leaders such as Roy Innis and the late Ralph David
Abernathy have forged alliances with the fascist right. Innis has
worked in alliance with the LaRouchians. Abernathy worked with
Moon's Unification movement until his death.

Other Right-Wing Groups and the Gulf War

Conservative groups overwhelmingly supported sending U.S. troops
to the Gulf. Right-wing forces aligned with Rev. Sun Myung Moon
and those supportive of the Israeli political right forged a pro-war
coalition that placed ads in newspapers and purchased television
commercials.

Other rightists, primarily those who have politics that are more
accurately termed reactionary than conservative, staked out an
isolationist or "America First" position, and opposed sending U.S.
troops to fight the Gulf War.

The LaRouchian antiwar theories parallel many of the themes promoted
by the Liberty Lobby, the Birch Society, and author Fletcher Prouty.
According to one flyer issued by the LaRouchians, "If war is to
come, it will be the result of deliberate `geopolitical' plotting
by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Lord Carrington, and
other London friends of Henry Kissinger."

Some white supremacists outlined a frank racist agenda in their
Gulf War publications. The Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux
Klan, in the January/February, 1991 issue of <The Klansman>, ran
a banner headline "War in the Middle East? Another Blood Sacrifice
on the Altar of International Jewry. Integrated Effeminate U.S.
Military Will Not Win!" <On Target>, published by Northpoint Tactical
Teams in North Carolina, released a forty-page special edition,
"Desert Shield and the New World Order," which ascribes the conflict
to a Jewish-Communist conspiracy involving Henry Kissinger, David
Rockefeller, George Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachev.

At the 35th Anniversary Liberty Lobby convention held in September,
1990 there was considerable antiwar sentiment expressed by speakers
who tied the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia to pressure from Israel
and its intelligence agency, Mossad.  No matter what actual political
involvement, if any, forces that support Israel may have had in
shaping the events that led to the Gulf War, the history of Liberty
Lobby is to circulate lurid anti-Jewish propaganda, not principled
factual criticisms.

At the conference Fletcher Prouty released the new Institute for
Historical Review's Noontide Press edition of his book on CIA
intrigue, <The Secret Team>. Prouty moderated a panel where
much-decorated Vietnam veteran Bo Gritz wove a conspiracy theory
which explained the U.S.  confrontation with Iraq as a product of
the same "Secret Team" outlined by Prouty. Both Prouty and Gritz
serve on the advisory board of Liberty Lobby's Populist Action
Committee. <Spotlight's> coverage of Gritz featured a headline
proclaiming "Gritz Warns...Get Ready to Fight or Lose Freedom:
Links Drugs, CIA, Mossad; Slams U.S.  Foreign Policy; Alerts Patriots
to Martial Law Threat."

Other conference speakers and moderators at the September 1990
Liberty Lobby convention included attorney Mark Lane, who has
drifted into alliances with Liberty Lobby that far transcend his
role as the group's lawyer, and comedian and activist Dick Gregory,
whose anti-government rhetoric finds fertile soil on the far right.
Dick Gregory also spoke in 1991 at the January 19th antiwar rally
in Washington, D.C. Organizers of the antiwar event say they were
unaware of Gregory's previous appearance at the Liberty Lobby
meeting.

Mark Lane and Dick Gregory co-authored a 1977 book on the assassination
of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and both have circulated complex
conspiracy theories about other world events which could account
in part for their drift towards the conspiratorial Liberty Lobby
network.

The attempts by some of the rightist groups who opposed the war to
penetrate the progressive antiwar movement came during a period of
significant realignment among U.S. right-wing and conservative
political groups. In some rightist groups, long hidden racialist
theories are being dusted off and recirculated, which has caused
further splits. One of the most significant historical divisions
on the American political right is between those groups that espouse
racialist (race-based) theories--generally anti-Jewish and white
supremacist--and those that do not.

People associated with Liberty Lobby and the historically-related
Populist Party circulated antiwar and pro-isolationist literature,
including Liberty Lobby's weekly newspaper <Spotlight>, at several
antiwar rallies, including demonstrations in Boston, Washington,
D.C., Los Angeles, and West Palm Beach, Florida.  <Spotlight> cheers
the activities of U.S.  neo-Nazis and skinheads but masks its
anti-Jewish stance behind coded phrases such as "dual-loyalist."
According to the Center for Democratic Renewal:

"The Florida Populist Party attended [the Florida] anti-war
rally...handing out a leaflet that read in part: `The most conspicuous
foes of war have been on the left, and we in the Populist Party
support their efforts.' Don Black, a former Klan leader, had a
taped message on the Party's phone line: `Make no mistake, this is
Israel's war, and American sons and daughters are fighting it for
them.' "

In its January 7-14, 1991 edition, <Spotlight> carried an article
titled "Volunteers Flock to Iraq To Help Fight U.S., Israel." This
phenomenon was favorably compared to "the building of the Waffen
SS legions in Europe during World War II, when almost 1 million
men from all over Europe and as far away as India voluntarily
enlisted to fight communism under the leadership of the German high
command. That development was also suppressed and never mentioned
by the Anglo-American press. Allied commanders, however, knew the
Waffen SS as an extremely effective fighting force."

An advertisement in the same issue of <Spotlight> touted a book
"Israel: Our Duty...Our Dilemma" under the headline "How Will You
Respond To The Next Mid-East War?" While <Spotlight> itself usually
avoids the loaded language of this ad, the pages of <Spotlight>
are frequently used by racist, anti-Jewish, and pro-Nazi groups to
call attention to their products, publications, events, and views.
The ad copy is also significant because it encapsulates many of
the themes used by anti-Jewish bigots in criticizing Israel and
Jews:

"If you are like most Americans you will react as the pro-Zionist
media has <BI>programmed< you to react. "

"But if you have read "Israel: Our Duty...Our Dilemma" you will
see the <BI>whole< picture--how Israel's ruling elite are using
terrorism, Holocaust sympathy, twisted Bible verses--toward one
objective: Power. "

"Power in America. Power in the Middle East.  Power in the world.
"

"Distilling 14 years' research in semi-secret Jewish sources,
evangelical writer Theodore Winston Pike demonstrates that through
Kabbalistic occultism, international banking, communism, liberalism,
and media control, Israel is doing exactly what the Bible prophesies:
establishing a power base in the Middle East upon which her false
messiah, AntiChrist, will someday rule. "

- The Buchanan Controversy The issue of anti-Jewish rhetoric over
the Gulf crisis first surfaced in September, 1990 as part of a long
simmering feud within the political right in the United States.
Ultra-conservative columnist Pat Buchanan fired the first salvo to
reach the mainstream media when he declared on the McLaughlin Group
roundtable television program that the two groups most favoring
war in the Middle East were "the Israeli Defense Ministry and its
amen chorus in the United States." <New York Times> columnist A.M.
Rosenthal charged that Buchanan's comments reflected anti-Semitism,
to which Buchanan retorted that Rosenthal had made a "contract hit"
on him in collusion with the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
(ADL).

To unravel the background of the dispute takes a political scorecard.
Buchanan is allied with reactionary and hard-line rightist forces
in the U.S. who sometimes are called paleo-conservatives or
"Paleocons" due to their ties to the "Old Right" in the United
States. Racism and anti-Jewish bigotry were common themes in some
(although not all) Old Right groups. ADL is a Jewish human rights
group often allied with the "Neocons," the neo-conservative movement
in the Unites States. ADL leaders are also frequently ardent and
uncritical supporters of Israeli government policies, as are many
Neocons. ADL has produced some excellent material on bigotry and
prejudice, but its leaders have labeled as anti-Semitic statements
which are solely political criticisms of Israel or Zionism. Since
there are some high-profile Jews in the intellectual leadership of
the neo-conservative movement, some persons have concluded that
neo-conservatism is a Jewish ideology. This is as prejudiced an
assertion as the claim that communism is a Jewish ideology because
of the role played in it by some Jewish intellectuals.

Buchanan's statement in and of itself was not necessarily anti-Jewish,
but in the context of Buchanan's long record of insensitivity when
writing about Jews, the contention that Buchanan is an anti-Semite
is not without foundation.  Buchanan has not only defended those
who say the Holocaust was a hoax, but implied their views have some
merit. Buchanan endorsed the work of the Rockford Institute after
other conservatives criticized it for its tolerance of apparently
anti-Jewish sentiments. In his January 25, 1990 newsletter, Buchanan
penned what was in essence an ode to fascism which celebrated the
efficiency of autocracy, and concluded with the line, "If the people
are corrupt, the more democracy, the worse the government." The
column also echoed historically racialist themes.

Actually, the Neocons for ten years quietly have tolerated more
than a little anti-democratic authoritarianism, anti-Jewish bigotry,
and racism from their tactical allies on the Paleocon right.  Their
alliance was based on shared support for militant anti-communism,
celebration of unfettered free enterprise, calls for high levels
of U.S. spending on the U.S. military, and support for a militarily
strong Israel dominated by hard-line ultra-conservative political
parties that would stand as a bulwark against communism in the
Middle East.

Author Sara Diamond (who covered the Buchanan/Rosenthal feud in <Z
Magazine>) notes "the Buchanan forces explicitly rejected coalition
with the left on the issue of opposing intervention in the Gulf."



The Courtship Continues

"Reactionary concepts plus revolutionary emotion result in Fascist
mentality. "

(Wilhelm Reich)


Craig Hulet's Reductionist Gulf War Critiques

One critic of government policies who draws from both left and
right sources and perspectives is Seattle-based analyst Craig B.
Hulet. During the past year, progressive radio stations including
KPFA in San Francisco and KPFK in Los Angeles aired compelling
condemnations of the Gulf War produced by Hulet, also known as K.C.
DePass. A number of study groups were formed in California following
Hulet's radio and personal appearances.  Hulet claimed in an
interview that his theories have no relation to conspiracist theories
such as those circulated by the John Birch Society, and he is quick
to distance himself from the racialist and anti-Jewish theories of
far-right groups such as Liberty Lobby. Still, Hulet's analysis,
which exaggerates the role of the Al Sabah family in world affairs,
has many of the hallmarks of other oversimplified conspiracist
theories which reduce complex issues to simple equations; and it
seems to scapegoat one family of Arabs, albeit one with powerful
financial holdings, in a way that would be equally unacceptable if
their name was Rothschild rather than Al Sabah. No matter what his
actual affiliations, Hulet essentially employs a variation on the
elite financial insider conspiracy of the John Birch Society.

Hulet has a smooth style and self-confident tone, but in essence,
Hulet's analysis reflects a cynical right-wing libertarian perspective
laced with conspiratorial theories. The basic theme of his Gulf
War analysis boils down to an assertion that Kuwait's ruling Al
Sabah family dictated U.S. policy in the Gulf War in concert with
ruling financial elites in the United States.  According to Hulet,
the Al Sabah family could do this because they controlled vast
financial holdings in the U.S. and they threatened to withdraw
those holdings and collapse the U.S.  economy unless the U.S. pushed
Iraq out of Kuwait. Hulet also maintains that the investments of
George Bush and his father Prescott make George Bush vulnerable to
manipulation by the Al Sabah family.

A Hulet promotional brochure reveals a pattern of similar reductionist
statements and unsubstantiated conspiratorial claims. According to
the brochure:

"Hulet outlines the actual political objectives of the Bush
administration regarding the Middle East...why we gave Hussein the
green light to invade Kuwait and why Bush will disallow any
legitimate cease fire overture by Hussein....volatile...material
concerning George Bush's connections as well as those of his father,
Prescott Bush...Middle East and the New World Order discussed in
detail... "

The brochure claims that the Hulet report <Overview of Government
Corruption and Manipulation> provides "an excellent understanding
identifying the elite and how and why they control society". In a
similar vein, the brochure claims the Hulet report <The Gnomes of
Zurich> provides, "...an overview identifying the elites who manage
this country and how and why they control it's aim...."

The text of <The Gnomes of Zurich> shows a more detailed yet
consistent reliance on conspiratorial assertions:

"Keeping the left wing grass roots at the throat of the right wing
grass roots, serves the purpose, the means, and ultimately..., the
END, of these quite powerful elitists. As each side at the basic
root level; the grass roots level if you will, are both being used,
duped, and manipulated by the Elite...They are quite simply, these
sincere yet almost silly at times local people, unwittingly part
of an ingenious plan to create a <synthesis...ingenious because of
its simplicity...For you see the Elite in the Kremlin>, and the
<Elite in Washington> quite agree on the end at which they both
aim (the synthesis). <A Global Regime>. "

These are just a few examples of Hulet's conspiracist style. Most
of Hulet's work concerns conspiracies of the "elites." Actually,
much of Hulet's thesis is an echo of the book "Call it Conspiracy"
by Larry Abraham, which is itself a rewrite and expansion of the
book "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham.
Allen's writings were widely popularized by the John Birch Society.
Hulet's intellectual tradition can clearly be shown to be congruent
with that of the John Birch Society.

In at least one case, Hulet moves beyond conspiracism into elevating
a satire to documentary status. Hulet labels as fact material from
the book <Report from Iron Mountain>. Hulet refers to the work as
if it were a secret government document. Actually, <Report from
Iron Mountain> is an allegorical critique of the pro-militarist
lobby and a well-known example of political satire. [f-6] While an
excellent philosophical discussion of the errors of the Cold War,
it should be noted that it was produced by Leonard C. Lewin,
described on the book jacket as a "critic and satirist" who was
editor of <A Treasury of American Political Humor>.  Apparently
Hulet didn't get the joke.

Hulet also plows the ground of left/right coalition. Hulet says
that he works closely with former Christic Institute attorney Lanny
Sinkin to buttress his credibility on the left.

On one radio interview, Hulet responded to a question regarding
third parties in the U.S. by saying:

"The problem with those third parties is that they are such a tiny,
tiny minority of the intelligentsia. Many of them like the Libertarian
Party is splintered between factions. They are fighting amongst
themselves. They still see it as a left-wing right-wing dialectic
that they must oppose. And all I'm trying to make very clear to
the American people, including the ones that read all the right
books, is that the enemy is our government. The enemy is not part
of our society.  It has always historically been them versus us.
The government versus the people. And the American people have to
stop fighting amongst themselves. "

Hulet recommends the research on Trilateralism of Antony C. Sutton,
a far-right theorist who publishes the <Phoenix Letter: A Report
on the Abuse of Power>, and <Future Technology Intelligence Report>.
The latter carried Sutton's sentiment that "without political
intervention cancer would have been cured decades ago." Citing
Sutton in any context is problematic given Sutton's exotic views.
Sutton, for instance, asserts that various government and political
operatives, controlled by international bankers, have suppressed
the technology to control the weather, produce free energy, and
achieve "Acoustical Levitation." Sutton also reports on "possible
advanced alien technology" including anti-gravity devices recovered
from UFOs by the U.S. government. When Hulet was asked why he would
put forward Sutton as someone to prove his thesis, he replied that
it was a choice between Sutton and Holly Sklar, and he considered
Sklar a Marxist. This says much about the political milieu from
which Hulet is emerging.

Sklar, who has written progressive critiques of the Trilateralists,
warns antiwar activists that "there is a big difference between
understanding the influence of the Trilateral Commission on world
affairs and the paranoid right-wing fantasy that the Trilateralists
and their allies are an omnipotent cabal controlling the world.
It's important for people to base their political decisions on
facts, not lazy catch-all conspiracy theories."

Journalist David Barsamian interviewed Hulet for a Boulder, Colorado
radio station and his Alternative Radio tape series which is aired
on numerous local radio stations nationwide. The <Open Magazine>
pamphlet series reproduced a transcript of Barsamian's interview
with Hulet, and sold them alongside interviews with researchers
who have a more substantial and serious track record, including
Noam Chomsky, Helen Caldicott, and John Stockwell. After selling
one thousand copies of the pamphlet--far less than the others,
<Open Magazine> did not reprint the pamphlet and it went out of
print, according to co-owner Stuart Sahulka. According to Sahulka,
the Hulet pamphlet was published because there was "such an
overpressing need for information about the war," and that except
for exaggerating the amount of Kuwaiti investment in the U.S., it
seemed accurate.

Barsamian is troubled by some of Hulet's assertions regarding the
genesis of the Gulf War, and Hulet's apparent claim that the Kuwaiti
royal families control of $300 billion in U.S.  investments was
the key issue in prompting the war. (Most newspapers and financial
reporting services place the Kuwaiti/U.S. investment figure in the
range of 30-50 billion dollars, with a low of 15 and a high of 80
in current documented mainstream and alternative press accounts.)
Barsamian and other progressive researchers and journalists have
been unable to document some of Hulet's claims, which may represent
legitimate suppositions, but were presented by Hulet in numerous
radio interviews as facts. Hulet argues that the integrity of his
research should not be judged on the basis of radio interviews
where discussions are often hectic and condensed. On the other
hand, Hulet gained his influence as a Gulf War critic and his
largest audience through radio talk shows.

Barsamian warns progressives of falling for the type of "left
guruism" where sensational anti-government theories are accepted
without any independent critical analysis. He notes that during
the Gulf crisis Craig Hulet was elevated to expert status by
progressives who accepted his pronouncements as fact without
seriously examining his credentials, which he sometimes inflates.

For instance, one Hulet brochure describes him as a "Published
columnist and political cartoonist.  Articles frequently appear in
national publications: <Financial Security Digest, International
Combat Arms, Seattle Times, LA Weekly, SF Examiner, Oakland Tribune>
and more." In fact, while the phrasing strongly suggests Hulet has
written for the latter four publications, Hulet admits those cites
actually refer to instances when he was quoted or his research used
in preparing the article. Most journalists and academics would
consider that a misrepresentation. In the long run, whether or not
Hulet's analysis stands up to intellectual criticism will be
determined by his ability to defend his thesis--a defense that can
only take place if his views are vigorously debated, not uncritically
accepted as gospel. That is the same critical standard to which
all researchers should be held.

An especially useful book in understanding how Hulet's conspiracy
theories of oligarchic manipulation, anti-government demagoguery,
and appeal to individualism fits into the fascist tradition is "The
Fascist Ego" by William R.  Tucker.[f-7] The book is a study of
the French intellectual fascist, Robert Brasillach, whose egocentric
flirtation with fascism ended with his execution as a collaborator
at the end of WWII.

Author Tucker, as the jacket blurb explains:

"...sees in Brasillach's involvement in fascism a form of anarchic
individualism or `right-wing anarchism.' He suggests that, far from
being a form of social or moral conservatism, Brasillach's fascism
was inspired by an anti-modernism that placed the creative individuals
sensibilities and his ego at the center of things. Brasillach's
fear that the individualist prerogatives of the creative elite
would be submerged in the industrialized and rationalized society
that loomed on the horizon was important as a basis for his thoughts
and actions. "

To understand Brasillach and his soul-mates is to understand Craig
Hulet, and his followers.


How the Populist Party Uses Hulet

While Craig Hulet, featured on the California Pacifica radio
stations, is careful to distance himself from views that are racist
or anti-Jewish, not everyone who champions Hulet as an commentator
on the Gulf War or Bush's New World Order makes those distinctions.
Some persons, wittingly or not, use Hulet's theories to introduce
others to the more bigoted theorists. Hulet helped spark a political
movement in California following the Gulf War that, according to
persons attending the meetings, fed scores, perhaps hundreds, of
political activists into a far-right, racist, and anti-Jewish
political organizing drive supporting the Presidential candidacy
of Col. James Bo Gritz of the Populist Party.

The story of one person living in the Bay Area, called here Dana
Pierce, illustrates the study group phenomenon sparked by Hulet's
presentations. The story shows an organizing dynamic in action,
and is not meant to imply that Hulet is a party to the dynamic,
merely that others opportunistically use Hulet as bait.

Dana Pierce had become critical of domestic U.S.  financial policies,
and attended a meeting of others who shared that view. Pierce was
invited by the leader of the group, an older man with "a pro-democracy
demeanor," to a meeting in the San Rafael area to meet someone who
might assist with a particular financial problem.

At that second meeting, the facilitator announced the group was
trying to understand George Bush and the New World Order. They were
studying history and political science, and were reading material
by Noam Chomsky. It was explained that the group had formed after
several core persons, who opposed sending U.S. troops to the Gulf,
had heard Craig Hulet's speeches in the Bay Area, primarily on
radio station KPFA, both in live interviews and on tape. Some people
had seen Hulet on videotape. They had responded to Hulet's call
for people to educate themselves by forming the group.

The group consisted of at least thirty people and had met about
four times when Pierce attended the meeting. For the main program
of the meeting, the group watched a videotape of Eustace Mullins
talking about the sinister aspects of the Federal Reserve system.
As the tape progressed, Pierce became increasingly uneasy.

"Mullins was jumping back and forth, claiming bankers supported
both the Bolshevik revolution and the Nazis, he praised the right-wing
Hunt brothers, and then began to mention the Rothschild family. He
said the CIA was part of the plot, and William F. Buckley is CIA
which was why some conservative groups dismissed his theories. All
the while I watched people smiling and nodding their heads and I
began to wonder if I was the only one to catch the reference to
the Rothschilds and wondered if I was being over-sensitive because
I was Jewish. "

After the tape, according to Pierce, "the host stood up and praised
Mullins and said he was a close associate of Ezra Pound. The host
also said that the banking system is communistic because both are
monopolistic."

Pierce went to the local library and looked up a biography of Ezra
Pound and discovered that Mullins had been associated with Pound,
and that Pound was a virulent anti-Semite. Pierce then read Hannah
Arendt's treatise on the origins of anti-Semitism, and pieces of
the puzzle began to fall into place.

Pierce had not heard Hulet before and so went to hear a July 1991
speech at the First Unitarian Church in San Francisco. Admission
was ten dollars and the audience numbered at least 100.

"He was a glib speaker, and he presents concerns all of us
have--concerns many people on the left certainly have about the
Bush administration and how there is no effective congressional
oversight. I can listen to him and agree he is focused on some real
problems in this country.  What he does is bring into the open a
lot of concerns and he discusses issues succinctly and in ways that
people can follow. If I had just gone to hear him I probably would
have been quite taken with him, but in the context of the first
meeting, I listened with skepticism, and am worried. People want
so much to believe in him they don't want to hear any criticism.
I saw how people can hear Hulet and then be led to Mullins.  If
you look at the origins of anti- Semitism described by Arendt, you
can see how a self-confident person who provides simple explanations
can offer comfort to people who sense that something is wrong with
our society and that they are being lied to, which is true.  But
it was scary to see how easily people were then led into accepting
the scapegoating of Jews and the other conspiracy theories discussed
by Eustace Mullins on the videotape. At first I thought there was
something wrong with me, but now I think there is a serious problem
that people on the left need to talk about. "

Hulet was listed in a 1986 <Spotlight> advertisement as a speaker
at a day-long seminar with ultra-rightist Australian Eric D. Butler
and pro-apartheid writer Ivor Benson, a notorious anti-Semite. Both
men are leading theorists affiliated with Liberty Lobby. Also on
the 1986 panel was rightist newsletter editor Lawrence Patterson,
recently named to the Liberty Lobby PAC, and David Irving, an author
who claims the Holocaust was a Jewish hoax. Repeated attempts to
interview Hulet regarding this meeting and the California study
groups, including a visit to his base in a town north of Seattle,
were brushed off by his wife, Kathleen DePass Hulet, who handles
his publicity from a frame shop in downtown Everett, Washington.
Hulet has told one newspaper that he did not attend the event. The
matter is unimportant in an overall assessment of Hulet's
ideological--as opposed to organizational--allegiances.


Left/Right Critiques and Coalitions

It would be grossly unfair to suggest that all information from
the political right is inaccurate conspiracism. Right-wing groups
are quite capable of producing factual investigative material and
persuasive journalistic stories. For instance, every year "Project
Censored" runs a contest to pick the ten top stories not adequately
covered by the mainstream press. On a 1991 PBS television program
reviewing the 1990 Project Censored stories, commentator Bill Moyers
held up a copy of the <Spotlight> as an example of two such
stories--one on aspects of U.S.  foreign policy in the early days
of the Gulf crisis, another highlighting repressive features of an
anti-crime bill. Not all stories surfaced by the far right are
accurate, however, and many feature convoluted and undocumented
conspiracy theories featuring a paranoid analysis.

At the same time the right has been wooing the left, right-wing
groups have been promoting a number of left resources such as books
and videos that criticize certain aspects of government policy or
ruling elites. For instance, Noam Chomsky's critiques of U.S.
foreign policy, Holly Sklar's studies of the Trilateral Commission,
and Brian Glick's manual on domestic repression are praised and
distributed by right-wing book peddlers.

These cross-ideological pollinations do not imply any ideological
connection between the left researchers and the right--any group
can distribute a book--but demonstrates that the political right
sees points of alliance with the left, especially around issues
relating to government abuses of power.

Government repression and intelligence abuse are not the only areas
of research on the left where convoluted theories are circulated.
Unsubstantiated conspiracist theories, claiming secret circles of
corporate influence in the United States, also flow between left
and right pro-environmentalists. One Massachusetts environmental
activist researches alternative energy sources, circulates materials
on elite control of energy policy, and refers interested
environmentalists to the work of Eustace Mullins who writes about
the so-called Jewish international banking conspiracy. In his
worldview, Mullins' research unraveling powerful industrial and
banking conspiracies can help explain government antagonism toward
environmental reform[f-8]

On one forum for activists on a national electronic computer based
network, excerpts from LaRouchian and Liberty Lobby publications
have been uncritically posted by persons who primarily circulate
information from left and progressive sources. This builds the
credibility of the LaRouchians and Liberty Lobby circles and implies
that they are natural allies.

An example of one left/right information alliance involves Dan
Brandt, creator of the Namebase software program, an immensely
useful computer tool which searches a huge index of CIA-related
publications and documents. Brandt has created a non-profit group
with a board of advisors composed of both left and right critics
of U.S.  intelligence agencies, including LaRouche-defender Fletcher
Prouty who joined the advisory board of Liberty Lobby's Populist
Action Committee. On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of
the LaRouchians.


True Gritz

In 1991, ultra-right political groups began organizing a nationwide
campaign to build support for Populist Party candidate Bo Gritz.
Gritz was named in 1991 to the advisory board of the Populist Action
Committee created by the quasi-Nazi Liberty Lobby, publisher of
the weekly newspaper <Spotlight>. The Populist Party organizing
drive is of interest to progressives because Gritz told a July,
1991 meeting in Palo Alto, California that they should reach out
and attempt to recruit persons from the left.

Also named to the Liberty Lobby Populist Action Committee was
retired Air Force Colonel and intelligence specialist Fletcher
Prouty, author of the 1973 book <The Secret Team>, now published
by IHR. Prouty has been appearing at conferences and on radio
programs sponsored by the Liberty Lobby.

Others named to the Liberty Lobby Populist Action Committee were
Abe Austin, described as an Illinois businessman and expert on
money; Mike Blair, <Spotlight> writer whose articles on government
repression were highlighted by Project Censored; Ken Bohnsack, an
Illinois resident called the founder of the Sovereignty movement;
Howard Carson, a <Spotlight> distributor; William Gill, president
of the protectionist American Coalition for Competitive Trade; Boyd
Godlove Jr., chairman of the Populist Party of Maryland; Martin
Larson, a contributor to <The Journal of Historical Review> which
maintains the Holocaust was a Jewish hoax; Roger Lourie, president
of Devin-Adair Publishing; Pauline Mackey, national treasurer for
the 1988 David Duke Populist Party Presidential campaign; Tom
McIntyre, national chairman of the Populist Party from 1987-1990;
John Nugent, who ran for Congress from Tennessee as a Republican
in 1990; Lawrence Patterson, publisher of the far-right
ultra-conspiratorial <Criminal Politics> newsletter; Jerry Pope,
chair of the Kentucky Populist Party; John Rakus, president of the
National Justice Foundation; Hon. John R. Rarick, former Democratic
House member now in Louisiana; Sherman Skolnick, a Chicagoan who
has peddled bizarre conspiracy theories for over a decade; Major
James H.  Townsend, editor of the <National Educator> from California;
Jim Tucker, <Spotlight> contributor who specializes on covering
the Bilderberger banking group; Tom Valentine, Midwest bureau chief
for <Spotlight>; Raymond Walk, an Illinois critic of free trade;
and Robert H. Weems, founding national chairman of the Populist
Party.

The Populist Party has long been a meeting ground for segregationists,
anti-Jewish conspiracy mongers, white supremacists and former
members of the Ku Klux Klan. The formation of the Liberty Lobby
Populist Action Committee comes at a time when some right wing
groups are attempting to build bridges to the left around shared
critiques of government misconduct, a process that was accelerated
during the Gulf War.

In the June, 1991 issue of <The Populist Observer>, Gritz wrote,
"I call upon you as Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent,
right, left, conservative, liberal, et.al., to UNITE AS POPULISTS
[emphasis in original] until we have our nation firmly back on her
feet." Gritz made a similar plea at a July meeting in Palo Alto,
California.

Gritz's call for the left/right coalition apparently first surfaced
publicly at his Freedom Call '90 conference held in July, 1990 in
Las Vegas. Speakers at that conference included Gritz and anti-Semite
Eustace Mullins, as well as Father Bill Davis of the Christic
Institute, ex-CIA official (now critic) John Stockwell, and author
Barbara Honneger. This fact of attendance is not meant to imply
that all these persons share the same views. It is meant to
demonstrate that Gritz is attempting to draw a broad range of
government critics into a coalition. Stockwell, Honneger, and Davis
have all said their appearance at the conference should not be
interpreted as an endorsement of Gritz's research or political
views. Gritz's Center for Action still sells a set of tapes from
the conference, including speeches by Gritz and Mullins, along with
Father Davis, Barbara Honneger, and John Stockwell. This set of
tapes is advertised in the Prevailing Winds catalog.

John Stockwell has expressed concern over the the way Prevailing
Winds has lumped his research together with research he finds
problematic. In the past, Stockwell has been highly critical of
Honneger as a reliable source of information, and has had criticisms
of some aspects of Christic research as well. Stockwell says he
"met Gritz there on stage" at the 1990 conference and "came away
greatly unimpressed," and he was quick to distance himself from
the Populist Party.

After the controversy broke in the left press, a spokesperson at
Prevailing Winds (who asked to be identified simply as Patrick)
said they were now considering at least including a warning in
their catalog about Bo Gritz's ties to the Populist Party and other
rightist and anti-Jewish groups and individuals. Patrick said their
catalog came out before Gritz accepted the Populist Party presidential
nomination, but defended the inclusion of the Gritz material, saying
that "middle America needs this kind of information" because "Bush
is basically a dope-peddling Nazi."

Patrick said the appropriateness of carrying Gritz's material,
given his ties to the anti-Jewish far right, has been discussed by
the Prevailing Winds staff, and also discussed with Bo Gritz and
with Father Davis of Christic.

According to the Prevailing Winds representative:

"Its an argument we've gone back and forth on, it's a tough question,
whether or not to make it available and to preserve it for research.
We are interested in getting the information to the people. The
good thing about it is no one else is trying to build these bridges
between groups. We need to reach a rainbow of people." "

Christic's Father Bill Davis walked out of the 1990 Gritz conference
when Mullins gave his speech. Yet over a year after the event,
Christic still had made no public statement distancing itself from
Gritz or Mullins. In the meantime, Gritz was touring the country
promoting Christic's Iran-Contra research and implying a friendly
working relationship between himself and key Christic figures,
especially Danny Sheehan.  Sheehan is featured in a privately-distributed
videotape program focusing on Gritz's research which takes a critical
look at the Reagan and Bush Administrations' intelligence and drug
policies. That videotape, circulated by Gritz and his allies, also
uncritically shows a headline from the LaRouchian newspaper <New
Federalist> to illustrate a point.

Christic's national director, Sara Nelson, told <In These Times>
that Christic apologizes for the appearance of Davis at the conference
with Mullins, and no one is suggesting that Christic harbors any
racist, anti-Jewish or fascist views.  But Christic has not issued
a clear and widely disseminated public statement alerting people
who may have seen the Prevailing Winds catalog or the Gritz material
and who now seem confused over who supports whom. This is not meant
to be interpreted as a blanket criticism of the Christic Institute.
Many Christic projects have been valuable. They circulated a
tremendous amount of useful information about the issue of covert
action and the Iran-Contra scandal.  Especially notable in other
areas are the work of Lewis Pitts at Christic South and the project
by Andy Lang to illustrate problems with forging democracy in
eastern Europe. Yet Christic's Sheehan, Davis, and Nelson have not
taken seriously the problem of right-wing groups and individuals
linking themselves to the Christic case and recruiting Christic
supporters in a way that implies a shared agenda. While this is
not just a problem with Christic, the role that Christic could,
and should, be playing in providing leadership on this question
would be extremely useful.

In <Front Man for Fascism: Bo Gritz and the Racist Populist Party>,
a report issued by the California anti-fascist group People Against
Racist Terror, the extent to which Gritz has promoted himself on
the left is thoroughly detailed. The report urges Christic to be
more vocal:

"Christic should join the campaign to expose Bo's campaign for the
fascist vehicle it is. Christic should take the lead in condemning
the Gritz campaign, rather than demanding retractions from those
who have raised criticisms and concerns. It should share frankly
and self-critically with its followers the process of deception
and rationalization by which it was hoodwinked, so that others can
escape the same fate.

It is the failure of alternative and left critics of government
policy to take responsibility for clarifying the confusion being
intentionally sown by the far right that is the key issue. If the
problem is turned on its head, it is easier to understand why the
issue of public statements by groups such as Christic is so important.
In the course of preparing this study scores of persons were
interviewed in a dozen cities. Here is a summary of some of the
questions raised by persons who reject the criticism.

On the LaRouchians:

"Were they not victims of government repression and FBI harassment
just like CISPES? Wasn't that what James Ridgeway said in the
<Village Voice>? Didn't their views get reported by David MacMichael
in the newsletter of the former intelligence officers turned critics?
Isn't Ramsey Clark their attorney? Isn't it true that they were
reporting on the Iran-Contra affair before the mainstream media
and Congress publicized the matter? Don't several former Christic
investigators recommend their work? "

"Are they not our natural allies? "


On the Liberty Lobby/Populist network:

"Didn't <Spotlight> get mentioned by Bill Moyers on the PBS program
on the Most Censored Stories awards as an excellent source of
information? Doesn't Bill Davis appear with Bo Gritz at conferences?
Doesn't Danny Sheehan appear on the Bo Gritz videotape? Can't we
buy Gritz' writings by sending a check to the Christic Institute's
West Coast office? Wasn't that Danny Sheehan on the cover of the
Prevailing Winds catalog with Christic material along with material
from Gritz and Prouty? "

"Are they not our natural allies? "

On Craig Hulet:

"Isn't he on KPFA and KPFK? Can't we order Hulet tapes from the
Pacifica Archive? Doesn't he say he works with Lanny Sinkin who
was an attorney at Christic? Doesn't he say he isn't a right-winger?
Didn't the San Francisco Mime Troupe thank Hulet for his research?
"

"Is he not our natural ally? "

This raises a question for every progressive political leader,
journalist and attorney whose name has been used by the fascist
right to build their movement. If hundreds (perhaps thousands) of
people have come to believe there is a coalition or alliance that
involves the left and fascist right, is there not an an obligation
to speak out publicly and deny what the right is suggesting publicly?

In fact, some of the above questions clearly represent misunderstandings
and erroneous assumptions. But when the right is making the assertion,
silence implies consent, or as the button says: "Silence is the
voice of complicity."


 The Fascist Response

Telephone call to 503-796-2124

November 20, 1991 10:00 PM

[Man's voice:]

"Greetings, you have reached the American Front Ministry of
Information hot line. COINTELPRO, the counter-intelligence agency
of the Jew S. of A., or ZOG [Zionist Occupational Government], is
a group of well financed government agents who have not only
infiltrated but absolutely control a great portion of the so-called
left wing in America. Their purpose is to make sure that these
self-styled progressive organizations don't actually take any action
against the true enemy of the people, the U.S. government. "

"They have been doing a very good job at keeping radical elements
of the supposed left and right fighting each other, thereby nullifying
a great deal of revolutionary activity, and keeping the fat-cat
warmonger capitalists who run this government safe from the bloody
tide of reprisal they so richly deserve. "

"No matter where you stand on the political spectrum this abhorrent
undertaking affects you.  ZOG is bound and determined to make sure
the trend of increasing anti-government unity of radical factions
in Europe doesn't take effect here. "

"For local evidence of this lefty alliance with Big Brother, you
need go no further than Jonathan Mozzochi of the Coalition for
Human Dignity. He's an avid follower of renowned COINTELPRO guru
Chip Berlet. Mozzochi has even been known to plagiarize the writings
of Mr. Berlet, and as is very evident by the CHD's activity, Mozzochi
has completely dedicated himself to the government program of
keeping the radicals fighting each other instead of Big Brother.
Just because he serves you cappuccino at La Patisserie and pretends
to be a so-called progressive, the fact remains that he is nothing
but the CIA in alternative geek clothing. This further illustrates
the fact that the anti-racist movement as a whole is nothing but
a tool of the capitalist regime, designed to destroy the
self-determination of all races and keep ZOG as the ruler of all.
"

"For more information, contact American Front at P.O. Box 68333,
Portland, Oregon, 97268. White Victory. "

[Woman's voice:]

"You may start your message now. "


Anti-Jewish Scapegoating & Black Nationalism

Unraveling the overlapping tendencies of reactionary politics,
conspiracism, scapegoating, opportunism, demagoguery, nationalism,
racism, anti-Jewish theories, and fascism is a difficult but
necessary task. This section will discuss several situations and
trends where these issues are involved, focusing on the rise of
right-wing anti-Jewish theories in some nationalist sectors of the
African-American community.

Any serious discussion of these issues needs first to be grounded
on at least a working knowledge of the theories of racialism and
nationalism, as well as familiarity with the characteristics of
mass fascist political movements prior to their ascendancy to state
power. Especially useful is a study of the nationalist movements
of Europe at the beginning of this century. The nationalism of
pre-World War II Europe included movements based on racialist
theories. This racial nationalism took several forms, including
the heroic mythical racial nationalism of Italy and Spain which
glorified the organic leadership of autocratic father-figures, the
ego-centric anti-modernist intellectual fascism of France, the
religious/racial clerical fascist movements of Croatia and Rumania,
and the scapegoating demagogic movement of German Nazism with its
anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

Nazism was a fascist movement, but not all mid-century European
fascist movements employed a master race theory. Nevertheless,
fascism as a political form is premised on racial or cultural
nationalism.

As scholar Barry Mehler, a leading researcher on the history of
racial eugenics, points out:

"Classical eugenic theories of the nineteen-twenties and thirties
emphasized that nations were biological entities and that political
ideologies emerge from racial characteristics which in turn have
developed out of evolutionary changes in racial groups. The classic
expression of these theories can be found in Madison Grant's <The
Passing of the Great Race>. This was, of course, the foundation of
both Nazi racism and American white supremacism.  It is not
surprising, therefore, that white supremacist organizations continue
to reprint and sell these expressions of American racism. "

In fact, the white supremacist movement is the largest and most
significant purveyor of theories of racial nationalism in the U.S.,
and its threat to democracy and pluralism far outweighs that posed
by the misguided participants in the tragic and counterproductive
current dispute between Blacks and Jews. Further, the single greatest
impediment to racial justice in the U.S. is not the policies and
practices of any one political group or individual, but the
institutional racism in the government and business sectors that
is still so widespread yet so invisible in our society, and which
has deeply undermined the ability of African-Americans, Hispanics,
North-American Indians, and other racial groups in this country to
share in the bounty and freedoms described in school textbooks as
a birthright in our country. It is within that framework that the
following discussion must be set.


Black Nationalism and Anti-Jewish Conspiracy Theories

Some members of Black nationalist groups in the U.S. circulate
conspiracist theories about Black oppression where discredited
ultra-right theories of exaggerated Jewish power and manipulation
have found new life and a new audience. While in the past some
pro-Palestinian and even anti-Israel sentiments made by African-Americans
have been mislabeled as anti-Semitism by groups promoting pro-Israel
policies, there is still plenty of evidence that anti-Jewish
conspiracy theories are discussed openly in some segments of the
Black community

For example, in Chicago, during the late 1980's, Black activist
Steve Cokely taught classes at a Nation of Islam center where he
alleged that Jewish doctors were injecting Black children with the
AIDS virus. When Cokely was exposed, NOI leader Louis Farrakhan,
rather than rejecting Cokely's assertions as bigoted lunacy, issued
a statement saying that if Cokely could document his charges, the
Nation of Islam would provide a public forum for the discussion.

At a February 28, 1991 anti-abortion lecture by Barbara Bell,
founder of Massachusetts Blacks for Life, Bell asserted that "it
is the Jewish doctors that are the ones that are the ones trying
to wipe out the black society." The statement came in the context
of an assertion that Planned Parenthood wanted to wipe out all
minority populations.

The Detroit magazine <Alkebulanian> is dedicated to providing the
reader with "the power of African pride and dignity" and seeks to
"speak the truth and expose the falsehoods that have weakened a
precious people through the course of history." But according to
anti-eugenics scholar Barry Mehler, the magazine carries articles
that assert "the Jewish Talmud was written by `racist dogs,' that
Jews have manipulated the world into grieving over the Holocaust
as a way to make `black people forget that the it was same handful
who participated in the African Holocaust.' "

At a July, 1990 meeting in Cairo, Illinois, several Black nationalist
groups under the leadership of the All African Peoples Revolutionary
Party (AAPRP) proposed the formation of an "Afrikan Anti-Zionist
Front." Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) of AAPRP was
elected chairperson of the front. At the time, several spokespersons
made careful distinctions concerning their criticisms of Israel
and Zionism. For instance, a statement issued by the Front at a
planning meeting held in Tripoli, Libya included the disclaimer
that, "The founders of the Front state that the struggle against
zionism is not a struggle against Jews or Judaism but rather a
struggle against zionism as a racist and imperialist ideology and
movement."

Although extreme, and implying objection to the state of Israel
itself, the statement by the Front is not fairly characterized as
anti-Jewish.  However, the careful distinctions in the Front's
statement are missing in a current educational brochure by the All
African Peoples Revolutionary Party.

The brochure starts out criticizing Zionism and Israeli politics
but soon descends into rampant anti-Jewish conspiracism. "ZIONISM
is a well organized and financed, international conspiracy which
controls the economic and political life of the United States and
Europe," says the brochure.  Although accurately noting, "All Jews
are not Zionists," the brochure goes on to claim, "The international
Zionist movement exerts an almost total strangle-hold over the
economic, political, social and cultural life of the African
community." It also claims that Zionism, "controls...all of the
banks, businesses and financial institutions in our community," as
well as the mass media and the entertainment industry.  According
to the brochure, the international Zionist movement controls:

"The political, social, cultural, educational and legal institutions,
agencies and organizations in the African community. Almost all of
the civil rights and political groups in our community are controlled
by zionists and Jews. They use their money, their power, the FBI,
CIA, IRS, the courts and prisons; and many other ways to control
and destroy our movements, leaders and people. "

Many of these sentiments regarding Jews are virtually identical to
charges in white supremacist publications which claim that Jews
play a similar role in oppressing white christians. One mail order
videotape lecture by a leading Christian Identity pastor is a
lengthy exposition of his theory that slavery was the result of
the usury employed by Jewish bankers in Britain when financing
colonial enterprises.


 Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam

Although the Rev. Louis Farrakhan denies he is a bigot, and some
of his critics have themselves used racist appeals, Farrakhan has
in fact made a number of statements concerning Jews over the past
few years that reflect disdain and prejudice.

Yet the most troubling aspect of Farrakhan is not his demagogic
bigotry. Writing in the January 28, 1991 issue of <The Nation>,
professor Adolph Reed, Jr. cautions that "demonizing" Farrakhan,
or focusing merely on his prejudice, misses the main point, which
is the troubling nature of Farrakhan's reactionary political views
and anti-democratic "racial organicism." As Reed explains, Farrakhan's
use of racial organicism is found in the belief that Black leaders
"emerge organically from the population and that the objectives
and interests of those organic leaders are identical with those of
the general racial constituency." Reed notes that this theory has
been used by white majoritarian leadership to justify and manage
racial subordination by "allowing white elites to pick and choose
among pretenders to race leadership."

Equally dangerous, however, are the themes of authoritarianism and
racial nationalism which underlie racial organicism. Reed warns
that "because of his organization and ideology, however, Farrakhan
more than his predecessors throws into relief the dangerous,
fascistic presumptions inscribed at the foundation of that model."

In July, 1990 Farrakhan granted an extensive exclusive interview
to <Spotlight> where his views of separate development for the
Black and white communities was stressed. The interview was presented
in an overwhelmingly sympathetic and supportive fashion, with an
introduction by the editors where Farrakhan's movement was described
as "based on the cultivation of spiritual, education, and family
values, as well as racial separation."

The idea of racial or national organicism, that leaders emerged
from homogeneous national groupings and metaphysically expressed
the collective will of the people, was a basic tenet of fascism,
especially the form of fascism called national socialism. In the
1988 report of the small American Nazi Party in Chicago, the term
national socialism was defined as "the organized will of the race,
in its quest for racial survival, and physical, mental, and spiritual
self betterment." One modern offshoot of national socialism, called
the "Third Position," has adherents in both Europe and the United
States, and is known for its attempts to build bridges to the left,
especially around the issues of protecting the environment and
support for the working class.

Racialist nationalism, anti-Jewish bigotry, and fascist principles
have provided a basis in the past for white supremacists and
anti-Jewish bigots such as Tom Metzger to voice support for Farrakhan.
The October 12, 1985 <New York Times> reported on a Michigan meeting
of white supremacists where Metzger told his audience of neo-Nazis
and Klan members, "America is like a rotting carcass. The Jews are
living off the carcass like the parasites they are. Farrakhan
understands this." That meeting was attended by Political Research
Associates author and freelance journalist Russ Bellant who reported
the Metzger quote and incidently disclosed the attendance of another
white supremacist, Roy Frankhouser, a former Ku Klux Klan leader
from Pennsylvania who was for many years a top security consultant
to Lyndon LaRouche.

The beginning of the 1990's saw increasing joint political work
between various LaRouchian front groups and Rev. Farrakhan's Black
nationalist Nation of Islam (NOI). For instance, the NOI's newspaper
<Final Call> ran an article by Carlos Wesley on Panama in its issue
of May 31, 1990, which was credited as a reprint from the LaRouchian
magazine <Executive Intelligence Review>. The LaRouchian <New
Federalist> has run several articles praising the political work
of Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad, editor of NOI's <Final Call>.

Another group allied with Farrakhan that promotes the idea of racial
or national organicism is the political organization run by Dr.
Fred Newman, a former protege of LaRouche. Persons who extol Newman's
idiosyncratic form of "social therapy" control a variety of political
organizations under Newman's influence, including the New Alliance
Party (NAP), Rainbow Lobby, New York's Castillo Cultural Center,
and various Centers for Short-Term Therapy. NAP promotes the
political theories of Farrakhan, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and Dr.
Lenora Fulani, presidential candidate of the New Alliance Party.
The Rainbow Lobby has forged a working coalition with the Libertarian
Party and the racialist Populist Party to challenge state laws
limiting ballot access. At the same time NAP's Lenora Fulani stood
side-by-side with Al Sharpton and other Black nationalists in the
summer of 1991 as they inflamed an already tense and tragic situation
in the Crown Heights neighborhood in Brooklyn, which has seen a
long-simmering dispute between Blacks and a sect of Orthodox Jews.



Sorting out the Dilemma

We are all aware that there are shifting factions in political
groups, government bureaucracies, and intelligence agencies. Even
though there is an historic overlap of government repression and
reactionary politics, at the same time, factions of the right have
from time to time made a tactical decision to expose government
wrongdoing to smash an opposing faction on the right or derail a
bothersome government project.

Around the world the right has adopted a strategy of tension to
smash the center, and one part of that strategy is to seek temporary
tactical alliances with left groups in attacking government policies.
The left/right alliance seeks to displace the center, but historically
the right always triumphs and then smashes the left. This is
certainly one lesson of Italian fascism and German national socialism.
Do we really think a corrupt wealthy anti-labor repressive centrist
power is worse than fascist power? As the health of the American
economy declines, it will generate a move towards alternative
political viewpoints and either new political parties or realignment
of current parties. A left/right alliance under such circumstances
would be precarious and dangerous.

Serious anti-repression researchers frequently find themselves in
contact with elements of the ruling center, opposition centrist
parties, and far right in the normal course of their research.
The mere contact between left and right is not the issue, but when
left researchers become <de facto> conduits for the right's
information, and do so uncritically and without revealing their
sources at least by general description, serious ethical and
pragmatic problems arise.


 The Problem of Fascists as Research Sources

Herb Quinde is one of the main LaRouchian intelligence contacts
for reporters in the Washington, D.C. area. Quinde boasts that the
LaRouchians maintain ties with a network of current and former
intelligence agents and military specialists who oppose current
U.S.  foreign policy and its reliance on covert action over direct
military engagement.

Quinde confirms that he and his fellow LaRouchian investigators
are in constant touch with journalists and researchers across the
political spectrum. In several interviews in 1990 and 1991 Quinde
refused to go on the record with the names of any of his regular
contacts among left political groups and critics of government
repression, although he bragged that such contacts are a regular
part of his work.

While Christic now says they no longer have any contact with the
LaRouchians, some former Christic staff seem willing to keep some
doors open. Investigators formerly connected to Christic have
maintained information ties to the LaRouchians, and advised
progressive researchers to rely on the LaRouchians as experts in
the area of government intelligence abuse. These referrals have
over a period of several years helped forge an information exchange
network that has drawn some left researchers, journalists and radio
talk show hosts further into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories
and into ongoing relationships with fascist and anti-Jewish groups
and individuals.

David MacMichael still maintains close ties to Herb Quinde, meets
with him personally, and advises researchers probing government
intelligence abuse to contact Quinde for help.  MacMichael defends
his association with Quinde as legitimate, albeit sometimes
embarrassing.

Russ Bellant is the author of <Old Nazis, The New Right and the
Republican Party> and has extensively studied Nazi-linked emigre
intelligence and political networks. In the course of his research,
he has found several authors in this field who have developed a
working relationship with LaRouchians. Bellant says he raised the
ethical problems of working with the LaRouchians with these authors,
generally to no avail. To be sure, there is no consensus among
reporters, mainstream or progressive, on what is an ethical way to
deal with information from groups such as the LaRouchians.

According to Peter Dale Scott, "My own ground rules are that until
something happens where I feel someone is manipulating me or they
have <personally> done something horrible that I feel is objectionable,
I feel it is a matter of intellectual freedom to keep the lines of
communication open. As long as they deal with me as a human being
I will treat them as such." Scott, however, balked at signing a
petition about LaRouche being a victim of human rights abuse because
he felt there was "enough evidence to show the LaRouche people were
probably guilty of some criminal conduct."

Author Jonathan Marshall, now with the <San Francisco Chronicle>,
says the LaRouchians "have given me information, but given their
history, I never take it at face value." Marshall says "sometimes
they are a source of good leads, their work on Panama has been of
particular use." Marshall does not accept the LaRouchian premise
that Noriega was a humanitarian, but neither does he accept the
idea that opposition to Noriega was pure. "Here you have a case of
evil versus evil, and the enemies of someone are often a good place
to go for information." According to Marshall, he will sometimes
pursue LaRouchian leads, "and then do my own independent research."
If something turns up, he considers it his own effort, and does
not credit the LaRouchians, in part, he admits, because it would
lessen his credibility as a journalist.

"If you look across the board at cultish groups that do `research'
you find sometimes that they have found amazing documents that do
in fact check out," says Marshall. But he hastens to add that
"documents are one thing, but accepting their analysis is simply
not responsible."

In the late 1980's author Carl Ogelsby considered working with
LaRouchian Herb Quinde to unravel the story of the recruitment of
the Gehlen Nazi spy apparatus into U.S. intelligence. Ogelsby
comments:

"If Quinde had been able to provide even a single scrap of useful
information I would have turned a cartwheel in excitement, but he
never did.  Everything he sent me was bullshit. He was trying to
convince me to depend on the LaRouche information network. He was
always boasting about the documents he could send me, but he never
gave me a useful thing about Gehlen or anything else about the
Nazification of U.S. intelligence. "

During the Gulf War, Quinde asked Ogelsby to speak at a LaRouchian
antiwar conference, but Ogelsby declined, "because whatever Herb's
essential charm and persuasion, I would never publicly associate
myself with them, primarily because my friends warn me it would
damage my credibility. In fact, I've never initiated a contact with
them." Putting up with an occasional phone call from Quinde is one
thing, said Ogelsby, but appearing at a conference is another.
Still, Ogelsby isn't convinced that they are really a neo-Nazi
outfit. "My advice is not to make such a big deal about this guy.
I think that he is basically comic relief." Ogelsby, however, is
suspicious of the actual purpose of the LaRouchians:

"I think it's an intelligence operation, and the only question is
what's animating it. I don't think it is, strictly speaking, an
organization representing one individual--LaRouche. I believe it
has access to sources of information that reflect official circuits,
most likely European, but I don't think he's officially CIA or FBI.
I think U.S. intelligence is a little baffled by them too, although
in the first few years of the Reagan Administration they clearly
allowed them privileged access. "

Journalists James Ridgeway and David MacMichael have defended their
contacts with the LaRouchian network as part of the standard
journalistic practice of cultivating a wide range of sources of
information. They and other journalists argue that taking information
from someone in no way implies any agreement whatsoever with the
information provider. In fact, reporters at a number of mainstream
daily newspapers admit off-the-record that they frequently receive
material from the LaRouchians, and in some cases develop stories
from the documents supplied by the LaRouchians. Ridgeway, however,
acknowledges that the LaRouchians are a "neo-Nazi or fascist
movement." and warns that journalists need to exercise extreme
caution when contacting them for information.

This is a real issue since a score of progressive researchers and
journalists report that in the past two years, operatives from the
LaRouchians and the far-right have stepped up their attempts to
forge working relationships with them over the basis of shared
criticism of the government.

A West Coast journalist, Ed Connolly, recalls an incident in the
fall of 1990:

"I was tracking a story on Air Force Intelligence and I called
everyone I could think of. Two weeks later Gene Wheaton called me,
which was odd because I hadn't called him. Wheaton tells me, "You
know the people who have very good intelligence on these things
are the LaRouche people, you should call the people that put out
<Executive Intelligence Review>, call Herb Quinde." So I did, but
they wanted more information than they were willing to give out
and I was immediately skeptical. I never talked to them again. "

Eugene Wheaton, an early adviser to the Christic Institute, accepted
an invitation to speak at the December, 1990 LaRouche antiwar
conference in Chicago.

Journalist Jim Naurekas of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
bemoans the fact that LaRouchian Herb Quinde has followed him
through three jobs trying to pester him with tidbits of information.
One academic who wrote a 1990 article on government civil liberties
infringements in a left journal says she was quickly contacted by
several persons who recommended she share her material with
<Spotlight> and other far-right anti-Jewish publications.

Russ Bellant, who is critical of persons who accept material from
the LaRouchians, also warns that some of the LaRouchian documents
may be forged. "They did create a passable bogus copy of a section
of the <New York Times> blasting their enemies," he points out.
Bellant thinks the LaRouchians "don't give you anything that you
can rely on," and that by talking with them about research issues,
"you allow them to track what you are up to which lets them go back
to their Nazi friends and report on you to them."

Bellant and others say they are not troubled by intellectual
curiosity and open-mindedness that bridge ideological lines, but
they do have concerns when left and right groups and individuals
forge covert relationships. There is a big difference between
reading books by or interviewing members of far-right and racialist
groups, and working in what amounts to an ad-hoc investigative
coalition with members of these groups. There is a serious difference
of opinion among progressive researchers as to the propriety of
working with the LaRouchians or other ultra- right groups, especially
those that preach bigotry. Some say they cannot, in good conscience,
even accept unsolicited information from such groups, while others
argue they need to interview members of these groups for their
research.

Journalist Jane Hunter says she has consistently rejected overtures
from the anti-Jewish far right. Hunter is highly critical of anyone
who would covertly or overtly work with racists, anti-Jewish bigots,
or neo-Nazis. She notes that even on a pragmatic level, "Any
information that these people have is bound to show up someplace,
free for the taking, for what it's worth. Our energies need to be
spent in reaching out to people who are victims of the system--the
people with whom we share a common interest in changing it."

Not all the rightist groups seeking an alliance or information
exchange with the left are bigoted or fascist. Some are principled
conservatives or libertarians seeking an open debate. However, some
of the groups seeking to link up with the left have openly neo-fascist
or neo-Nazi agendas, including some that call themselves conservative
or libertarian. The ethical parameters on these questions for
journalists and researchers need further debate.

It is important to recognize that the moral issues for persons
building coalitions in the movement for peace and social justice
are different than those for lawyers, academics, and reporters.
For organizers the principles of unity seldom (if ever) are such
that working with fascist, racist and anti-Jewish groups is
appropriate.

Most people agree that uncritical reliance on either right-wing or
left-wing material can lead to the recirculation of misinformation
or disinformation. When working with the political right, there is
the additional possibility that the left could unintentionally end
up letting the right set its agenda. Some progressive researchers
also argue that it is unethical for progressive groups to take
information covertly from the political right and repackage and
recirculate it without disclosing the source.  That issue, however,
remains unsettled, and needs to be debated openly.

A good illustration of the problem came up in an October 15, 1991
<Village Voice> article on the mysterious death of writer Danny
Casolaro by authors James Ridgeway and Doug Vaughan. Casolaro at
the time of his death was researching the legal case filed by the
Inslaw corporation alleging theft and illegal sale of its software
program, Promis. Promis is a program used to track complex litigation,
but it can also be used to track dissidents and criminal conspiracies.
Persons involved in several federal agencies are alleged to have
participated in the illegal use and distribution of Promis. Casolaro
had nicknamed the government and private conspiracies he perceived
to be surrounding the Inslaw case "The Octopus," and had circulated
a book proposal.

Ridgeway and Vaughan do report that Casolaro, in the course of his
research, would "head into Washington for a congressional hearing
or a meeting with, for example, Danny Sheehan of the Christic
Institute--whose `Secret Team' could just as easily have been called
the Octopus." They also mention that Casolaro was working with the
LaRouchians in gathering information.

Not mentioned in the article is that the LaRouchians funneled
information to the Christic Institute, Barbara Honneger, and the
<Spotlight>/Liberty Lobby crowd; or that another named source,
investigator Bill McCoy, also worked with Christic and supplied
information from the LaRouchians; or that co-author Vaughan works
at the Christic Institute.

Ridgeway and Vaughan do mention LaRouche's criminal conviction and
the LaRouchian obsession with conspiracy theories and report, "The
LaRouchies had ties to the Reagan White House and have long run a
surprisingly elaborate intelligence-gathering operation of their
own." They do not, however, characterize the LaRouchians as fascists
or anti-Semites.

In the course of the article a LaRouchian intelligence operative
is cited along with other sources. Should LaRouchian sources be
treated differently than any other journalistic source? Again,
there is no agreement even among alternative journalists. "I have
great respect for Jim Ridgeway, but to put any credence in anything
a LaRouchite has to say is a leap into faith that I can't make,"
says <Voice> columnist Nat Hentoff. Another <Voice> writer, Robert
I. Friedman says, "The LaRouchians are an anti-Semitic conspiracy
organization. It's a mistake for a journalist to use LaRouchians
as a source without describing the kind of organization it is."
Ridgeway responds that he has characterized the LaRouchians as
conspiracists, fascists, and neo-Nazis in other settings, and he
thinks most people who read his column already know who the
LaRouchians are.


 LaRouche as Victim of Government Repression

Lyndon LaRouche has picked up support for his campaign to get
released from prison from a number of right-wing extremists,
including retired Air Force Colonel and intelligence specialist
Fletcher Prouty, a leading light among ultra-right researchers,
who also works with the quasi-Nazi Liberty Lobby. Prouty has issued
a statement declaring that "instrumentalities of the government
have hounded" LaRouche and "created wrongs where none existed
before." The LaRouchians, however, have picked up support for their
theory of a government conspiracy against LaRouche from a broader
spectrum than the political right.

Both James Ridgeway and David MacMichael have reported the allegations
of the LaRouchians that they are not guilty of financial crimes,
but the victims of a massive government conspiracy aimed at crushing
them politically.

Ridgeway, in the preface to his book on the U.S.  white supremacist
movement, <Blood in the Face>, omits LaRouche from a discussion of
the "racist far right." Instead, Ridgeway refers to LaRouche in
the context of discussing how the collapsed rural economy in the
1980's distorted the politics of the farm belt and "the whacko
candidates of Lyndon LaRouche's party were serious contenders."
This passing reference to LaRouche (there is one other bland
paragraph in the book) places LaRouche in a discussion mentioning
serious politicians such as Jesse Jackson, George McGovern, and
James Hightower.  This seems to characterize LaRouche as merely a
strange and comical player in the electoral arena. Ridgeway says
that this was not meant to imply LaRouche was not a force in farm
belt fascism, but that his publisher felt that adding the LaRouchians
into the book would have confused the issues.

Critics of Ridgeway's view of the LaRouchians, including this
author, argue that LaRouche is in fact a neo-Nazi ideologue who
should be discussed along with the Ku Klux Klan and the other white
racist groups with whom the LaRouchians have associated for years.
No one is suggesting that Ridgeway, who has a prodigious track
record of sound investigative reporting, shares any of the LaRouchian
viewpoints. But it is legitimate to ask whether or not Ridgeway's
analysis and treatment of the LaRouchians has perhaps unconsciously
been influenced by their value to him as a journalistic source of
information on government misconduct and other issues. Ridegway,
like other reporters who cover government repression, received
packets of information from the LaRouchians for many years and
sometimes relied on the material to develop a story. [f-9] This in
itself is hardly unique and not necessarily questionable--other
reporters do likewise.

In one case, however, Ridgeway appears to have relied on LaRouche
material without independently verifying the accuracy of the
material.

On May 17, 1988 James Ridgeway penned a lengthy article in the
<Village Voice> titled "Dueling Spymasters: How the Government
Bungled the Case Against Lyndon LaRouche."

Even a careful reading of the Ridgeway article leaves the impression
that when a federal judge declared a mistrial in the Boston fraud
case against LaRouche and several colleagues, it was caused by
government misconduct. This is what the LaRouchians contend--but
not what the judge said.  Lyndon LaRouche and his associates were
on trial in Boston for an alleged credit card scam. The mistrial
declared by U.S. Federal District Court Judge Robert E. Keeton came
after complaints of hardship were voiced by more than one third of
the jurors who had been told the trial would end in early summer,
and then learned it could stretch through the end of the year. The
judge declared the mistrial because he feared a continuation of
the trial would be a waste of time and money due to the real
possibility that the number of jurors would fall below the legal
limit before the trial ended.

While there was substantial evidence that the Justice Department
may have improperly withheld documents relating to LaRouche in
pre-trial discovery, a lengthy hearing resulted in a ruling that
the documents had no bearing on the criminal charges. According to
Ridgeway, "the proceedings had revealed...FBI agents planting
obstruction of justice evidence on LaRouche." This is what the
LaRouche attorneys sought to prove--and given the history of the
FBI, Justice Department and other government bureaucracies, such
an allegation was not far-fetched--but no hard evidence to prove
that claim had been introduced in court at the time of the mistrial.
In fact, the prosecution was still presenting its case. Further,
the delay of the trial which caused the juror hardship was caused
not only by lengthy side hearings into the document and informant
questions, but by numerous challenges and extended cross examinations
by the phalanx of defense attorneys representing LaRouche, his
associates and their organizations.

Legal actions by both federal and local agencies against LaRouche
for questionable fundraising and financial practices commenced
years before the flap over Iran-Contragate and the well-publicized
airport assault involving LaRouche partisans and Henry Kissinger,
who was traveling with his wife.  Furthermore, there is a virtual
army of persons who claim to have been swindled and victimized by
LaRouche-related organizations. Ridgeway offers no evidence the
Boston criminal case was a result of the government being out to
get LaRouche any more than it is out to get any person accused of
being a common crook.

The "seeds of the government's investigation" were not planted by
a petulant Henry Kissinger, as Ridgeway asserts, but by hundreds
of persons who claimed to have found unauthorized credit card
charges on their monthly statements at a time in 1984 when LaRouche
was buying half-hour presidential campaign spots on network
television. The grand jury which indicted LaRouche heard evidence
from angry credit card holders, not Henry Kissinger.

Yet Ridgeway is correct is asserting that there was government
misconduct against the LaRouchians which surfaced as part of the
case. That the government shut down the LaRouchian publications as
part of its probe into loan fraud and tax evasion was a civil
liberties outrage, and the action was later rightfully declared
unconstitutional. This abuse of government power, however, had no
bearing on the evidence which convicted LaRouche and his followers
of the charges in the Virginia indictments.

There is no debate that LaRouche was a little fish in the cloudy
waters trolled by U.S.  intelligence agencies. But when LaRouche
hired informants and self-styled intelligence operatives such as
Ryan Quade Emerson, Mitchell WerBell, and Roy Frankhouser, he was
aware he was opening a Pandora's box filled with smoke and mirrors,
double-dealing, and betrayal. WerBell, for instance, was a former
OSS officer and international arms merchant. Frankhouser was a
well-known government informant and Ku Klux Klan organizer. While
LaRouche may have been belatedly frozen out of an active role in
Reagan Administration intelligence functions, to conclude that his
former allies turned up as government witnesses through a conspiracy
to isolate LaRouche the "Spymaster" was a fanciful but unsubstantiated
charge. A more likely explanation is that they turned up as witnesses
against LaRouche in an attempt to keep themselves out of jail.

Ridgeway also describes LaRouche without mentioning LaRouche's
notorious anti-Jewish sentiments. LaRouche, for instance, has
claimed there is no such thing as Jewish culture, and that "only"
a million and a half Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis, and
then primarily due to illness and overwork.

A letter criticizing Ridgeway for publishing LaRouchian assertions
as fact was published in the May 31, 1988 issue of the <Voice> over
the signatures of this author and journalists Russ Bellant, Joel
Bellman, Bryan Chitwood, Dennis King, Ed Kayatt, and Kalev Pehme.

David MacMichael is the editor of <Unclassified>, the newsletter
of the Association of National Security Alumni (ANSA). In the
Feb.-March, 1991 edition of <Unclassified>, MacMichael casually
cites unnamed LaRouche sources in an article about a dismissed case
involving Iran-Contragate figures Oliver North and Joseph Fernandez,
"LaRouche sources point out that Prosecutor William Burch was not
particularly diligent in arguing his case. They note that Burch
has been active in the LaRouche prosecutions."

In the October-November 1990 issue of <Unclassified>, MacMichael
presents the same story of intrigue previously reported by Ridgeway.
MacMichael also mentions the LaRouchian competition with the
"North-Secord enterprise for donations from wealthy individuals,"
implying it was connected to the LaRouche criminal prosecutions.

It is true that the Oliver North network targeted the LaRouchians
for investigation, when LaRouche fundraising, especially to rich
older conservatives, was found to be hampering private fundraising
efforts for the Contras. There is, however, no conclusive evidence
that the North/Secord political investigation of LaRouche influenced
the Boston or Virginia criminal investigations or indictments.

Numerous criminal and civil actions against illegal LaRouche
financial activities were launched as early as the late 1970's.
One such probe was initiated by the Illinois State Attorney General
on the basis of an article by this author charging irregularities
in LaRouchian financial activities. The article was based on several
boxes of original office and bank records. [f-10] In 1979 and 1980,
Dennis King published documented charges of widespread LaRouchian
financial misconduct in a series of articles in New York's <Our
Town>, a neighborhood newspaper. Several articles were based on
secret internal LaRouche memos and financial records obtained by
King from sources close to the LaRouche operation.

On December 16, 1981, Dennis King, Russ Bellant, and this author
held a press conference in Washington, D.C. charging the LaRouchians
with "a wide variety of potentially illegal activities," including:
carrying out intelligence tasks for several foreign governments,
including Iraq and South Africa; conducting a pattern of "illegal,
deceitful and fraudulent activities by non-profit corporations,
foundations and fundraising front groups controlled by Lyndon
LaRouche."

The Boston grand jury was already investigating illegal LaRouchian
fundraising practices well before conservatives and neo-conservatives
forced the Reagan Administration to stop access by LaRouchians to
the staff at the National Security Council and CIA. It is not likely
that LaRouche was the victim of a conspiracy to indict him falsely
for crimes. What is more likely is that after LaRouche was forced
out as a marginal player in Reagan intelligence circles, his immense
criminal fundraising schemes could no longer be ignored, and some
of the numerous probes into his many frauds finally were allowed
to proceed to court.Certainly both MacMichael and Ridgeway have a
right to report what they wish, and draw any conclusions they feel
are warranted by the facts. But to report the LaRouche side of the
story of the government's criminal indictments without historical
context is to give an imprimatur to the unsubstantiated--and widely
disputed--LaRouchian allegations claiming that LaRouche's conviction
was the result of a government conspiracy to deny him his political
rights. This in turn is used by the LaRouchians to gain sympathy
and worm their way into left political circles, especially among
students, where the LaRouchians' long history of fascist attacks
on left groups is unknown.


 Some Criteria for Discussion

Circulating information from (and in essence for) the right without
an accompanying principled criticism and analysis of intent
accomplishes several things. It:


resourceful information gatherer;


than the right by laundering original sources;




or the government since information is perceived as coming from
left;


group to criticize the right group for fear of having information
flow cut off.

It is important both journalistically and politically to know the
source of information in order to consider the ulterior motives
and possible implications of the information being circulated.

We certainly shouldn't let the right set our research agenda through
leaks but contact with the right seems inevitable and often proper
and useful. Since persons on the left have contacts with the right
for varied and complex reasons, one blanket criticism is neither
sufficient, nor helpful. We do need to think through policies.
What then are the principled conditions for contact with the right?
Keep in mind that we all need to work in coalitions while maintaining
independent political analysis and ability to criticize freely.

Some suggested points of principle might include:


with the right. Only trade information on government abuses and on
other right groups;




an honest thumbnail political sketch;


that part of the analysis or story;




of the nature of the source, and allowing them to make a principled
moral decision whether or not to seek the information through that
group.


Flaws of Logic, Fallacies of Debate

With so much political confusion, it becomes vital to keep in mind
that there are some useful ways to evaluate the validity of political
arguments regardless of their political viewpoint.

Useful standards by which to judge the rational merits of any
statement or theory are easily found in textbooks on debate,
rhetoric, argument, and logic. These books discuss which techniques
of argumentation are not valid because they fail to follow the
rules of logic. Among the more common fallacious techniques or
inadequate proofs:


emotionalism of an argument does not improve its validity. This is
called argument by exhortation.


board of directors of a bank on May 1, and Raul gets a loan on July
26, further evidence is needed to prove a direct or causal connection.


used to illustrate a thesis, not to prove it.


association has a pejorative meaning. Association proves association;
it suggests further questions are appropriate, and demonstrates
the parameters of networks, coalitions, and personal moral
distinctions, nothing more.


not imply control.


in all elements. Gloria Steinem and Jeane Kirkpatrick are both
intelligent, assertive women accomplished in political rhetoric.
To assume they therefore also agree politically would be ludicrous.
If milk is white and powdered chalk is white, would you drink a
glass of powdered chalk?


activity does not imply congruent motivation.

When a person serves in an official advisory role or acts in a
position of responsibility within a group, however, the burden of
proof shifts to favor a presumption that such a person is not a
mere member or associate, but probably embraces a considerable
portion of the sentiments expressed by the group. Still, even
members of boards of directors will distance themselves from a
particular stance adopted by a group they oversee, and therefore
it is not legitimate to assume automatically that they personally
hold a view expressed by the group or other board members. It is
legitimate to assert that they need to distance themselves publicly
from a particular organizational position if they wish to disassociate
themselves from it.


 Techniques of the Propagandist

In 1923 Edward L. Bernays wrote the book <Crystalizing Public
Opinion> and later, in 1928, the text <Propaganda>, considered
seminal works in the field. "There is propaganda and what I call
impropaganda," says the 98-year-old Bernays impishly. Propaganda
originally meant promoting any idea or item, but took on its current
pejorative sense following the extensive use of sinister propaganda
for malicious goals during World War I and World War II. While all
persuasion uses the techniques of traditional propaganda, what
Bernays calls "impropaganda" is "using propaganda techniques not
in accordance with good sense, good faith, or good morals...methods
not consistent with the American pattern of behavior based on
Judeo-Christian ethics." Bernays, who is called the "father of
public relations," is worried about the increased use of "impropaganda"
in political campaigns and has spoken out against it. "Politicians
who use techniques like these lose the faith of the people," says
Bernays.

In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-
lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate
Americans to recognize propaganda techniques.  Alfred McClung Lee,
Institute director from 1940-42, and his wife Elizabeth Briant Lee,
co-authors of <The Fine Art of Propaganda, Social Problems in
America>, recently wrote an article in the periodical <Propaganda
Review> in which they suggested educating the public about propaganda
techniques was an urgent priority. The Lees also discussed the
Institute's symbols for the seven hallmark tricks of the manipulative
propagandist:

Name Calling: hanging a bad label on an idea, symbolized by a hand
turning thumbs down;

Card Stacking: selective use of facts or outright falsehoods,
symbolized by an ace of spades, a card signifying treachery;

Band Wagon: a claim that everyone like <us> thinks this way,
symbolized by a marching bandleader's hat and baton;

Testimonial: the association of a respected or hated person with
an idea, symbolized by a seal and ribbon stamp of approval;

Plain Folks: a technique whereby the idea and its proponents are
linked to "people just like you and me," symbolized by an old shoe;

Transfer: an assertion of a connection between something valued or
hated and the idea or commodity being discussed, symbolized by a
smiling Greek theatre mask; and

Glittering Generality: an association of something with a "virtue
word" to gain approval without examining the evidence; symbolized
by a sparkling gem.

The Institute's last newsletter reflected that "in modern society
an element of propaganda is present in a large portion of human
affairs...people need to be able to recognize this element even
when it is serving `good' ends."


 Some Examples

Here are two examples of how the fallacies of debate and errors of
logic are employed regarding General John Singlaub, a man whose
roles in Iran-Contragate and world fascist movements are already
well documented, and need no discussion here.

General John Singlaub was involved in promoting the yellow ribbon
campaign during the Gulf War.  He was one of dozens of influential
people who formed the Coalition for America at Risk. That Coalition
was one of at least ten other major national groups promoting the
yellow ribbon campaign, including veterans groups with tens of
thousands of members nationwide. Families of service personnel have
been tying yellow ribbons on trees in anticipation of the safe
return of their active duty relatives ever since this military
tradition which dates to the Civil War was revived during the
Vietnam War, in part due to a popular song. To suggest, as some
do, that Singlaub created the yellow ribbon campaign as a continuation
of his nefarious role in Contra fundraising is to stretch credulity
beyond the breaking point.

Another case involving Singlaub shows how a series of individual
facts from underlying footnotes can be strung together so that the
conclusions are not accurate because they fail the tests of deductive
logic. <The Iran Contra Connection: Secret Teams and Covert Operations
in the Reagan Era>, combines into one book chapters written by
Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott and Jane Hunter. On page 67 in
a chapter written by Peter Dale Scott it is asserted that the
LaRouche organization "previously posed as left-wing but in fact
harassed anti-nuclear and other left-wing demonstrations with the
help of the right-wing domestic intelligence group known since 1979
as Western Goals." It is documented that the LaRouchians spied on
and harassed the left, and it is documented that Western Goals
spied on and harassed the left, but it does not automatically follow
that they worked together to spy on and harass the left.

The evidence linking the two groups is this:  General Singlaub, at
the time on the board of Western Goals, once lectured to a group
that included some LaRouchians at a training center run by Mitch
WerBell. Singlaub met LaRouchians from time to time when he visited
WerBell, who served as an intelligence adviser to LaRouche.  The
LaRouchians in 1977 gave the New Hampshire State Police background
material on anti-nuclear activists including several pages from a
private Rees newsletter. At the time, Rees was not connected to
Western Goals. In fact, Western Goals had not as yet been founded.

That both the LaRouchians and Rees have spied on the left is both
documented and a matter of some bragging by both parties. That the
LaRouchians spied on and harassed the left with help from Western
Goals is unsubstantiated, and faces conflicting evidence. In fact,
Rees and the LaRouchians have despised each other for years, and
denounce each other regularly in print, gleefully sending nasty
information about each other to reporters, including this author.

It is common for Singlaub and other figures criticized by the left
to point to the inaccurate and unsubstantiated charges leveled
against them by their critics as a means to deflect the charges
that are well documented. The use of fallacious arguments and the
circulation of unsubstantiated conclusionary charges in an area of
research such as government repression or intelligence abuse
undermines the credibility of the whole area of research. It makes
the job all the harder for cautious progressive researchers, whose
work becomes suspect in the eyes of mainstream reporters and broad
audiences.


 Harry Martin and Propaganda Techniques

Harry V. Martin is the editor of the <Napa Sentinel>. His articles
on government corruption have gained popularity on the left. An
analysis of the content and style of the Martin articles raises
questions about his credibility as a reporter. Martin uses classic
leaps of logic and propaganda techniques in his reporting. This
section will look at several articles which Martin has written
concerning the pending Inslaw court case.

Inslaw, a small computer company, developed a very sensitive computer
program, Promis, which Inslaw alleges was appropriated without
authorization by the U.S. Justice Department and other government
agencies. Promis software was an early contender in case management
software, but by no means unique. Several vendors at the time Promis
was being offered also offered similar case tracking software. It
can be argued that at the time Promis was indeed ahead of its
competitors in many key features, but today Lotus Agenda with its
case tracking overlay is just as powerful. [f-11]

Martin's Inslaw stories use the classical propaganda technique of
stringing together chronological events and implying that one causes
the other. One story, for example, which looks at the role governmental
retribution may have played in the failure to re-appoint to the
bench one judge, George Bason, whose rulings has supported Inslaw's
position. Martin's article assumes allegations it needs to establish.
He says:

"As a result of the Inslaw cases, many heads in the Justice Department
were lopped off. When Judge George Bason, a bankruptcy court judge,
refused to liquidate Inslaw, ruling instead that the Department of
Justice used deceit, trickery and fraud, he was only one of four
who were not re-appointed to their jobs. A total of 132 were
re-appointed. But to show the collusion of the Justice Department,
when it removed Judge Bason from the bench after his ruling against
them and for Inslaw, they had S. Martin Teel appointed to the bench
to replace Bason. Who was Teel? He was a Department of Justice
attorney who unsuccessfully argued the Inslaw case before Judge
Bason. "

Certainly the failure of Judge Bason to be re-appointed after ruling
in favor of Inslaw is curious. A good reporter would seek evidence
to show that there was a connection between the Inslaw case and
the failure to re-appoint Judge Bason. That one event followed the
other is not this proof. The same situation applies to Teel.  The
sequence is curious but the cause and effect relationship remains
unproven.

Martin also makes extensive use of arguments by exhortation, which
are arguments based more on emotion that on reason. For example,
he claims:

"An official of the Israeli government claims [a person] sold the
Promis program to Iraqi military intelligence at a meeting in
Santiago, Chile. The software could have been used in the recent
Persian Gulf War to track U.S. and allied troop movements. Ari
Ben-Menashe, a 12 year veteran of Israeli intelligence, made the
statement in a sworn affidavit to the court. "

When Martin claims the software could have been used against the
U.S. during the Gulf War, he is using jingoistic appeals to emotion
rather than reason to garner support for his position. He is
deliberately painting a picture of the possible deaths of U.S.
soldiers as a direct result of the purported theft of the Promis
software program by U.S. government agencies. That software also
could have been used to track hamburger shipments by McDonalds, or
alternatively, troop movements could have been tracked by Lotus
AGENDA rather than Promis. It is hype, and misleading, to single
out the one possibility that suits his political ends.

There are other misleading statement in the paragraph quoted above.
For example, Ari Ben-Menashe was hardly "an official of the Israeli
government." He was at best an Israeli intelligence staffer who
became a player in the international arms trade, and even that has
been contested. Martin's inflation of Ben-Menashe's status serves
to condemn the entire Israeli government in a way that a discussion
based on Ben-Menashe's actual status would not have done.  Another
example is Martin's emphasis on the fact that Ari Ben-Menashe "made
the statement in a sworn affidavit to the court." As anyone who
has worked on legal cases can attest, sworn statements carry no
guarantee that they are truthful or factual. Absent documentation
or corroborating testimony, they stand as allegations, not facts.

In the same article, Martin goes on to claim that Promis is now
being used by the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. Department of Justice. In fact,
these are unproven allegations that are being presented as though
they were facts. They may indeed be proven at some point, but have
not yet been proven. The technique of first presenting allegations,
then later referring to them as facts, is a classic propaganda
technique. A closer examination of Martin's presentation reveals
that the claimed use of the software by these U.S. government
agencies is actually an allegation from Ben-Menashe's affidavit,
in which Ben-Menashe claims he was told by a third party that this
was true. Legally, this is hearsay, which is typically inadmissible
in court as evidence. Nevertheless, Martin converts this hearsay
allegation into a statement of fact. But Martin is not through with
his daisy chain of proof.

Still utilizing unproven assertions, Martin goes on to expand the
cast of villains from a few corrupt officials of the Justice
Department to the entire U.S. government. He writes:

"[The] Judiciary Committee is conducting its own investigation in
what has been described as the U.S. Department of Justice's "trickery,
deceit and theft" of the software. The U.S. Government has been
connected with the illegal sale of the sensitive software to South
Korea, Libya, Iraq, Israel and Canada, as well as being pirated by
a number of U.S. agencies, including the CIA, National Security
Agency and other military units. The software is also in use by
the FBI.  Only the U.S. Justice Department was licensed to use the
software... "

>From a proposition of criminal or unethical conduct by individuals
within the Justice Department, a proposition itself unproven, Martin
moves on to argue the existence of an international conspiracy,
led by the U.S.  government to steal and distribute Promis software.
While such a claim could later be proven, Martin here merely presents
the allegation as though it were true, a technique known as a
"conclusionary" or "Kierkegaardian" leap.

One final example of Martin's tendency to confuse unproven allegations
with established matters of fact can be found in Martin's treatment
of Riconoscuito, a computer software technician who has submitted
a sworn affidavit in the Inslaw case. Riconoscuito has claimed that
he was threatened by a former staff member of the Justice Department
with criminal prosecution on an unrelated charge and with an
unfavorable result in a pending child custody dispute if he testified
on the Inslaw case. Riconoscuito has also claimed that he made a
tape recording of the telephoned threat, two copies of which were
confiscated when he was arrested. Although he has not produced it,
he claims a third copy exists, which is being held in a safe
location. When Martin discusses Riconoscuito, he begins with what
appears to be a statement of uncontested fact, "In February,
Riconoscuito was called by a former Justice Department official
and warned against cooperating with an investigation into the case
by the House Judiciary Committee." In fact, while some of what
Riconoscuito has alleged can be verified, much cannot. Despite the
plethora of details Martin presents, the entire content of Martin's
story on Riconoscuito is composed of Riconoscuito's own unverified
assertions or other unproven allegations made in the early stages
of a lawsuit.

Riconoscuito has also been championed as a source by the LaRouchians
who say they introduced Riconoscuito to Danny Casolaro, according
to the <Village Voice> article by Ridgeway and Vaughan.  Anyone
reading that article carefully will get the idea that authors
Ridgeway and Vaughan think that some of the Riconoscuito/Casolaro
allegations are unsubstantiated and reflect undocumented conspiracy
theories.

These few examples buttress the assertion that Martin is not a
reliable source of information. A careful reading of all the Martin
Inslaw articles reveals many other instances of fallacious argument
and propaganda technique. Questions regarding Harry Martin's
judgement and political orientation are also raised by the fact
that he has allowed his articles to appear regularly in the
<Spotlight>[f-12]


 Conclusions

"When we destroy international Fascism we must at the same time
destroy national Fascism, we must replace the reactionary forces
at home with truly democratic forces which will represent all of
us. "

(George Seldes )

(<Facts and Fascism>, 1943 )

We suffer in the U.S. from an unfortunate reluctance to recognize
and name the resurgence of fascist ideology around the world. In
part this is because we are not taught in our schools what fascism
was or is. We hold ourselves up as a model of democracy while half
the eligible citizens rarely feel motivated to vote, and we are
bombarded with advertising that tells us that freedom is the ability
to purchase four different varieties of Coca-Cola at 7-11.

Some have argued that the main potential threat of fascism comes
from a bipartisan government increasingly willing to employ repressive
and authoritarian solutions to societal problems during a time of
economic decline. Political analyst William Pfaff is one of the
few mainstream analysts who warns that an unconscious strain of
American fascism is influencing national affairs. Writing in the
<Chicago Tribune> with a Paris dateline of March, 1987, Pfaff
concluded that the actions of the Reagan Administration during the
Iran-Contra scandal revealed "a pattern of conduct and a state of
mind among important people in this administration which must be
described as an American style of fascism. I would prefer to avoid
that term, but it is the only one in the modern political vocabulary
that adequately describes" the situation.

Given the upsurge of nationalism, jingoistic patriotism, militarism,
scapegoating, and race-baiting practiced by both the Reagan and
Bush Administrations, a discussion of the proto-fascist elements
in U.S. domestic and foreign policy is not unwarranted. At the same
time, it is hyperbole to describe the current political climate in
the U.S. as fascist. Yet it clearly is an error to assume that
anyone who opposes repressive aspects of U.S. policy is an
anti-fascist, or upholds democratic principles.


 A Painful Task

The dilemma for left activists is to sort out the various strains
of fascist ideology circulating in the world and in the United
States. To ignore the threat posed by critics of our government
who represent overt fascism is a dangerous folly.

While revealing our government's policies as corrupt, we must not
concede the debate over foreign policy and domestic social justice
to the demagogues on either the left or the right. If these people
monopolize the debate, then political discourse in the U.S. will
soon echo the themes of the fascist era in Europe where hysteria
and holocaust, blood and bounty, blind patriotism and deaf obedience
became synonymous with the national spirit.

Author George Seldes reached his 100th birthday in 1990 as the
early editions of this report were first being researched and
written. More than half a century earlier, in 1938, Seldes wrote
<You Can't Do That>, a book with a prophetic warning about how
fascism comes to power as the result of a pincer movement between
authoritarian state repression supported by corporate elites and
mass movements sparked by ultra-rightist demagogues. Seldes wrote:

"We must guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism,
especially that patriotism which is the last refuge of scoundrels
and which is so prevalent, so professional and so well paid nowadays.
Eternal vigilance must become more than the slogan for small
associations desperately fighting almost overwhelming cases of
infringements on individual liberties. "

"We must realize that those who use red-baiting to attack every
liberal and democratic movement today, are the armed cutthroats of
reactionary Fascism tomorrow. "

"Two facts emerge from any study of European turmoil and the new
class alignment in our own land. The enemy is always the Right.
Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite. "

While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions
remains desirable, activists and their coalitions should be very
careful to examine the backgrounds and ideologies of those groups
with which we seek to build coalitions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------