X-Message-Number: 1518
From:
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Steve Harris and Saul Kent
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 01:07:00 PST
In reply to my msg 1509, Steve Harris writes:
> And now we hit the core of the problem. We see that I have
>been set up (we all have been set up) for a really classic moral
>dilemma.
Steve, you have put your finger exactly on the problem.
*I* don't have the answers either.
And, I am in full agreement with your reaction that:
>all these pragmatic arguments make me a little sick at the stomach.
It is, you might be interested to note, *not* in keeping with my
character to take the pragmatic approach. It is part of the public
record that I collected over 2000 signatures for NORML in the (failed)
attempt to get marijuana legalization on the ballot in Arizona.
Another example: In August of 1984 I wrote a humorous attack on
Lyndon LaRouche in the L5 News after LaRouche had spent some $800k on
a TV show attacking L5 and a pro SDI organization called High
Frontier.
Larouche is in jail for massive credit card fraud nowadays, though he
still has a band of fanatic followers with a reputation for very rough
dealings with anyone they declare their enemy. My article included
this quote from *Information Digest* published by John Rees:
"Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, 62 is the self-appointed and
unchallenged leader of the National Democratic Policy Committee
(NDPC) . . . .
"Now, in 1984, the LaRouche organization's NDPC is part of a web
of related groups and publication, internationally active and
circulated that exist to propagate the shrill, extremist and often
anti-Semitic views of their leader.
"Since 1972, obedience to the NCLC leader has included carrying
out not only violent verbal and propaganda attacks on individuals
and members of the groups LaRouche decided were his enemies, but
physical violence as well. The pattern established is as follows:
First a series of vitriolic and obscene attacks were unleashed in
the LaRouche publications. There followed personal harassment in
the form of midnight phone calls, personal and photographic
surveillance of the target on the streets and at their places of
work and homes, telephone call to friends and family members, picket
lines at home and at work, vexatious lawsuits and vandalism, which
often culminate in violence to the victim. These actions, LaRouche
said recently in an interview, were not harassment, but merely
"confrontation in the American tradition."
LaRouche publications had already attacked me. The L5 founders had
been characterized in *Fusion* magazine as "LSD enthusiasts . . .
(with) their dream of VOAG--Violent Overthrow of All Governments." I
definitely knew what chance I was taking, and I absolved the editor by
taking personal responsibility for the article in a note at the end.
(She still went into hiding for a few weeks.)
LaRouche intends to be another Hitler. It is not for a lack of trying
that he has failed so far. I came to the conclusion that I had to
respond (and my article caused a *great* deal of ruckus and problems
for the LaRouche organization) because if LaRouche managed to succeed
and I had not done what I could, I would not be able to live with
myself.
In doing this, I put myself, my wife, and our two year old daughter at
risk. (Though my estimation was that it was not a high risk.) My
wife agreed with me that it had to be done, and between us we took the
responsibility for risking our only daughter.
But my relation to the patients *does not allow me* to condone taking
avoidable risks with their continued suspension because, as Steve
pointed out:
>Some of the patients may feel differently.
I don't *know* all the people in suspension. Some of them, I am
confident, would not mind us taking risks with their survival in
pursuit of improving the world in directions they would approve of.
But, even if I were confident that all of the patients would approve,
*I can't ask them.* Since I can't, I intend to take the conservative,
lowest risk approach, I can, but I would be very interested in how
others feel about this topic. Part of my problem with Saul Kent and
Bill Faloon is my opinion that they have a more liberal standard of
"acceptable risk" than I do.
In another posting, Saul Kent writes:
>Keith Henson (msg 1509) suggests that my troubles with the FDA may have
>"led up to" the second raid of Alcor by the Riverside Coroner during
>the Dora Kent crisis, without providing any substantiating evidence.
What I said was:
I don't claim the kind of conspiracy
construction you see in Kunzman's testimony (which led up to the
second and much more damaging raid) is fair, because it is not. I
do think it is about typical of what we can expect from police
investigators.
And it is a cinch that *Kunzman's testimony* "led up to" the second
search. It was, after all, the affidavit in support of the warrant
the coroners needed for that search.
But I think it was fairly clear that Kunzman had some (garbled?)
report of Saul's problems with the FDA, though he mixed up the Rudell
bust with the LEF bust. The Rudell bust went down in '86, and the FDA
bust on LEF went down Feb. 26, 1987. What else could Kunzman have
been talking about here?
Q. How are you aware of that, and tell us about that, please.
A. All right. Information on the death of Dora Kent and some of the
paperwork we have, there was an address listed in Hollywood Florida.
That address was investigated, and I contacted the Hollywood,
Florida, Police Department. They informed me in February of 1987, a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
drug raid had gone down a that location at the Life Extension
Foundation, and Steve Rudell was arrested at that time in possession
of a pound of cocaine.
>Keith also suggests that I may have violated "a long list" of laws,
>"such as the tax and currency regulations", without providing a shred
>of evidence that I have ever done so.
The paragraph which Saul objects to is:
In spite of my differences with Saul, I *strongly* support him in his
fight with the FDA. But I am acuity aware that people who are doing
things (which I consider moral) in defiance of silly governmental
regulations are forced by circumstances into violating a long list of
other laws, such as the tax and currency regulations. It becomes all
to easy for them to make light of actions that agents of the state
take very seriously. Mixing these with as culturally marginal an
activity as cryonics is a formula which has already blown up in our
faces.
>Such speculation is both inappropriate and unwarranted.
Saul, if you can manage to defy "silly governmental regulations"
without violating other laws, "your a better man than I am, Gunga
Din." But I did not mean to imply that Saul has broken *any* laws,
and, to the extent anyone may have considered that I suggested this, I
apologize.
>I agree with Keith that my battles with the FDA pose some degree of risk
>to Alcor. But I'm neither a member of the Alcor Board, nor am I a
>candidate for the Board. I play no role in the governing of Alcor, nor
>do I plan to.
>
>Saul Kent
Saul, I played a role in governing Alcor--as a confidant to Carlos--
for years before I was on the board. Do you have less influence than I
did?
You may say you have no role. I might say it. It might even be true.
But does anyone here think a Kunzman type is going to believe it?
When he can't keep (or doesn't want to keep) the Rudell cocaine bust
separate in his mind from the FDA bust on LEF and when he has a copy
of your book in one hand, and the announcement of the change of
Alcor's leadership in the other? Take a look at page 16, because they
will.
The only defense I can think of is for Alcor to operate very
cautiously, completely in the open so we never become suspected of
*anything*, and to avoid actions such as moving the PCTF overseas,
which would serve to draw suspicion down on Alcor. We are going to
have to be hyper-cautious in business dealing such as using Alcor to
promote stock sales in cryonics research companies. Otherwise, I
expect we are going to "live in interesting times."
Keith Henson
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1518