Again, we are asked to take Gancarski’s seemingly arbitrary assertions as canonical

Again, we are asked to take Gancarski’s seemingly arbitrary assertions as canonical. But what, exactly, is the

connection that the author discerns between Dean and LaRouche? Where is the evidence that Dean’s views resemble

LaRouche’s? Gancarski doesn’t deign to regale the reader with the reasoning behind his effusion – and one

gets the feeling that perhaps he feels they don’t deserve any reasons. He rails against "reductionism,"

"character assassination," and "self-indulgence" – but these are the very sins that he, as a writer, is guilty

of!

I had no compunctions about rejecting this farrago of false analogies and smarmy smears. LaRouche, as is well-

known, is a raving anti-Semite. Did Gancarski mean to imply that Dean – and Moore – were of the same ilk? In

an email to me, he denied it – and I believe him. The big problem with Gancarski’s writing has always been his

jarring malapropisms.