Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ General Discussion _ Searching for LaRouche under the bed
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Remedies established that "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles," and that "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense."
Ah, but what constitutes "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement"? This phrase has acquired a remarkably elastic definition. Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deregulation&diff=10568210&oldid=9873857 removed by Will Beback as "LaRouche-sourced material," although there is no source cited. Presumably most pronouncements by the Pope get published by the Vatican, although we don't know in this case.
Increasingly, "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement" has been taken to mean "opinions with which LaRouche might conceivably agree." Aside from Will Beback/Willmcw/User2004, the other hyper-vigilant defender against creeping LaRouchism is User:172, who waged a mammoth battle at the article "Privatization" to prevent inclusion of material on a conference on the privatization of national security functions ( see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Privatization#Please_explain_accusation) !72 argued that the material ought to be deleted because it sounded like something LaRouche might consider to be important. My edit, which triggered a revert war by 172, was sourced to the Princeton University transcript of the conference proceedings.
Recently, User:Tsunami Butler made a fruitless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Request_for_appeal_of_precedent_from_LaRouche_case which included an entertaining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tsunami_Butler/sandbox#Examples_of_problems_created_by_the_present_interpretation of recent complaints on Will Beback's talk page. Predictably, this was ignored by the ArbCom.
In the course of the discussion, however, Will Beback announces his latest exploit, which I tracked down tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive195#I_believe_I_am_being_harassed Will reverts two edits: one edit, in article "Laissez-faire," mentions George Schultz and Milton Friedman as laissez-fair advocates that went so far as to call for drug legalization. This edit was sourced to the Wikipedia articles on George Schultz and Milton Friedman, and sure enough, they did that. However, Will Beback http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laissez-faire&diff=104396401&oldid=104234820calling it a "LaRouchism." Similarly, in the article "Free Trade," Will Beback comes to the rescue against an edit which references Henry Carey and Friedrich List, and includes a quote from William McKinley -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_trade&diff=104391902&oldid=104346848 he writes. He also threatened to ban HonourableSchoolboy for that one.
So now, if you are an admin and you want to ban someone, you can accuse them of holding an opinion similar to one of LaRouche.
Posted by: nobs
Personally, I know little of LaRouche and have never read anything of his, or anything written by "his followers" (to my knowledge). I've heard bad things. I did watch his half hour politcal infomercial in 1980 -- a novelty and probably the first of its kind; not because I was interested in anything he had to say, but for these two reasons: ( a ) he proclaimed to be a Democrat running against a Democratic incumbant, and ( b ) it was the first half hour paid political infomercial on TV I ever recall.
I was living in Minnesota at the time La Rouche & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Bakker were both doing time together in the Federal pen in Rochester. Having been involved in prison ministries for several decades, I must confess I always thought it would have been fascinating to discuss the news of the day with them two over coffee for breakfast in the prison mess hall. But my interest in LaRouche has never extended beyond that fantasy.
Posted by: JohnA
Incredibly there are people who are still convinced that Wikipedia does not have a political agenda.
Posted by: Jonathan
HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?
Posted by: taiwopanfob
QUOTE(Jonathan @ Mon 12th February 2007, 10:12am) 
HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?
A long, long, time ago, I went to MIT to attend one of the early EFF conferences as an observer. On a lunch break, I went on a short walk around campus. I was soon accosted by someone who was urging me to support some kind of scheme to send nuclear reactors to Africa.
There is much more to LaRouche's background, but that's the sort of thing that most people are going to remember. At least we can credit him with entertaining ideas that initially sound insane ... though continue to sound insane even after the analysis is in.
As to why WP hates him and his accolytes, it looks more like many WP editors and admins have lost too many fights with them. And like they say, its actually worse to win a fight with a cop than lose one.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Jonathan @ Mon 12th February 2007, 2:12am)
HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?
[disclaimer]Any answer that I give will be an oversimplification, and doubtless will be disputed by someone.[/disclaimer]
Basically, in U.S. politics since the time of the American Revolution, there has been an ongoing battle between those forces who supported the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution, and those who opposed them. The latter group thought that it was impractical and undignified to politically enfranchise the common folk, and preferred some sort of aristocratic system like the one that remained in place in Europe -- either a formal, titled nobility, or in more recent times, an aristocracy of financial and business leaders, typified by Wall Street.
This conflict has gone back and forth throughout US history. A decisive battle was the election of Franklin Roosevelt, who used the power of the White House, plus the enormous popular support which he enjoyed, to place significant controls on the power of Wall Street, or what he called the "Economic Royalists." However, with the death of FDR, the "Economic Royalists" made a big comeback, and they are intent on preventing the re-emergence of anything like the movement which FDR led. Early on, they identified LaRouche and his movement as just the sort of thing which they could not tolerate, and went to considerable effort and expense to eliminate it, without success.
My view of Wikipedia is that it is fundamentally a creature of Jimbo Wales and his trusted acolytes, and in various ways, subtle and not so subtle, it reflects his personal ideology, which lines up squarely with the Wall Street crowd (see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1653&st=30&p=12598&#entry12598)
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Mon 12th February 2007, 5:39am)
As to why WP hates him and his accolytes, it looks more like many WP editors and admins have lost too many fights with them. And like they say, its actually worse to win a fight with a cop than lose one.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, as I was involved in most of the fights until I was temp-blocked last May. I lost every one of them as far as the ArbCom was concerned. However, if you mean perhaps that I won arguments in moral terms only to get slapped with sanctions, that may be true.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 9:03am)
QUOTE(Jonathan @ Mon 12th February 2007, 2:12am)
HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?
[disclaimer]Any answer that I give will be an oversimplification, and doubtless will be disputed by someone.[/disclaimer]
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 9:03am)
the election of Franklin Roosevelt, who used the power of the White House, plus the enormous popular support which he enjoyed
Again, a similiar problem. It appears both LaRouche, and Ronald Reagan http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18329-2004Jun5.html, idolized Franklin Roosevelt. So what would be NPOV language to describe FDR's inspiration on future Presidential candidates, one considered to represent greedy Wall Street bastards and big business, the other an outspoken activist and opponent of "Economic Royalists" ?LaRouche's wiki bio says,
QUOTE
he shared a cell with televangelist Jim Bakker at the Federal Medical Center located in Rochester, Minnesota. ...According to Bakker, LaRouche received a daily briefing each morning by phone, often in German...
Is LaRouche Alsacian?, i.e. hailing form Elsass-Lothringen (Alsace-Lorraine), the source of fratricidal warfare between the sons of Karl der Grosse/Charlemagne/Charles the Great, and now the seat of the European Union and symbol of European co-operation. A German minority, living in France, speaking German but having French names (in the 19th century they were called half-breeds, but with Strassburg being the seat of the European Parliament, and hope for the future of a fully integrated Europe, this kind of insensitivity is not prevelant today).
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 12th February 2007, 9:42am)
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cberlet/Archive_2005-06_2005-08#Red-baiting_Lie_Article.21, for example, we have a discussion between two notable Wikipedian's, Stephan Kinsella, a theoritician of the Austrain School of Economics, and Chip Berlet, a devoted Marixist idealist. Kinsella refers to LaRouche as a "nutjob", while Berlet calls him a "lunatic". Now, for NPOV purposes, what would be neutral compromise language between proponents of private property and their opposite collectivization advocates to reconcile POV discrepencies of "nutjob" and "lunatic"?
LaRouche enjoys the distinction of being hated by both Right-wingers and Left-wingers. However, as I have noted elsewhere, I don't think of Berlet as a genuine Leftist, but rather, a "Faux-Leftist."
QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 12th February 2007, 9:42am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 9:03am)
the election of Franklin Roosevelt, who used the power of the White House, plus the enormous popular support which he enjoyed
Again, a similiar problem. It appears both LaRouche, and Ronald Reagan http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18329-2004Jun5.html, idolized Franklin Roosevelt. So what would be NPOV language to describe FDR's inspiration on future Presidential candidates, one considered to represent greedy Wall Street bastards and big business, the other an outspoken activist and opponent of "Economic Royalists" ?Oddly enough, LaRouche and Reagan were on friendly terms. Reagan adopted LaRouche's recommended verson of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and at on least one occasion that I can recall, made a public statement saying that LaRouche's ideas were important and should be heeded (Reagan caught Hell for this in the press.) However, LaRouche considers "Reaganomics" to be an abject failure.
QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 12th February 2007, 9:42am)
LaRouche's wiki bio says,
QUOTE
he shared a cell with televangelist Jim Bakker at the Federal Medical Center located in Rochester, Minnesota. ...According to Bakker, LaRouche received a daily briefing each morning by phone, often in German...
Is LaRouche Alsacian?No, LaRouche is the grandson of an immigrant from Quebec. I think that Bakker is simply mistaken here. LaRouche would not receive briefings in German. However, he would receive phone calls from his wife, who is German. It would not be surprising that he would speak to her in her native language.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 2:58pm)
Reagan adopted LaRouche's recommended verson of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and at on least one occasion that I can recall, made a public statement saying that LaRouche's ideas were important and should be heeded (Reagan caught Hell for this in the press.)
You got a cite for this? Don't see his name http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/nsdd119.htm (unless you can specifically state what "recommended verson" refers to or supply a date).Posted by: Poetlister
Apart from this forum, I have only come across LaRouche in the Jeremiah Duggan case, which was very big news in my part of the world. Obviously, I know better than to assume that the Wikipedia article is unbiased, given some of the editors involved. Nevertheless, there are still some questions unresolved about Mr. Duggan's death.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(nobs @ Mon 12th February 2007, 2:40pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 2:58pm)
Reagan adopted LaRouche's recommended verson of the Strategic Defense Initiative, and at on least one occasion that I can recall, made a public statement saying that LaRouche's ideas were important and should be heeded (Reagan caught Hell for this in the press.)
You got a cite for this? Don't see his name http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/nsdd119.htm (unless you can specifically state what "recommended verson" refers to or supply a date).The Presidential directive you cite doesn't mention LaRouche's name, or anyone else. This is a contentious issue. The Wikipedia bio is semi-balanced on this point -- it has a quote from former head of German Military Intelligence, General Paul-Albert Scherer, saying that Reagan adopted LaRouche's policy, and it has a quote from General Daniel Graham, former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, who says that Reagan adopted Daniel Graham's policy (otherwise known as "High Frontier.")
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Mon 12th February 2007, 3:25pm)
Apart from this forum, I have only come across LaRouche in the Jeremiah Duggan case, which was very big news in my part of the world. Obviously, I know better than to assume that the Wikipedia article is unbiased, given some of the editors involved. Nevertheless, there are still some questions unresolved about Mr. Duggan's death.
The Duggan story, as it appeared in the British press, is on the face of it a fairly outlandish conspiracy theory. It alleges that, for unknown reasons, LaRouche activists practiced Mind Control on Duggan as he attended a conference in Germany, causing him to commit suicide. It leaves unanswered the questions of how the LaRouchians were able to control his mind, and more importantly, why would they want to? He had no prior contact with the organization. He was a casual attendee at a conference held to oppose the Bush administration's Iraq war policy. People that I know in the organization have told me that the organization's relations with his mother were initially quite friendly, and then some British government officials intervened, including Baroness Symons, a spooky right-wing figure. Next thing you know, Chip Berlet is involved, and Berlet crafts the mother's campaign to blame LaRouche.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 6:14pm)
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Mon 12th February 2007, 3:25pm)
Apart from this forum, I have only come across LaRouche in the Jeremiah Duggan case, which was very big news in my part of the world. Obviously, I know better than to assume that the Wikipedia article is unbiased, given some of the editors involved. Nevertheless, there are still some questions unresolved about Mr. Duggan's death.
Next thing you know, Chip Berlet is involved, and Berlet crafts the mother's campaign to blame LaRouche.As to the ADL efforts in discrediting the "LaRouche movement", they are worthy and I am sympathetic to thier concerns.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 6:14pm)
Wikipedia bio is semi-balanced on this point -- it has a quote from former head of German Military Intelligence, General Paul-Albert Scherer, saying that Reagan adopted LaRouche's policy, and it has a quote from General Daniel Graham, former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, who says that Reagan adopted Daniel Graham's policy (otherwise known as "High Frontier.")
OK, so a "recommended version" has been transformed into "LaRouche's policy". I will accept this response as qualified and specifically answers my question. Someday I may even check this out. My impression is, LaRouche is essentially among the most vocal and high profile critics of the groups discussed in Carroll Quigley's http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/2001/03/anglo-american-establishment.html, as is Pat Buchanan. Only Buchanan doesn't operate a politcal machine which, according to Berlet, goes out and beats the crap out of its opponents. Likewise Buchanan doesn't discuss in the same manner as LaRouche does things like why God put the outhouse so close to the kitchen (see Berlet, Chip. Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo- Fascist Overtures to Progressives, and Why They Must Be Rejected, Part 008, The LaRouchians, Political Research Associates, Somerville MA, 1991).
A further note: I'm sitting here with an original edition of What really happened at Paris : the story of the Peace Conference, 1918-1919 / by American delegates ; ed. by Edward Mandell House and Charles Seymour; did you know that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_House and Lord Milner served together on the Conference's Committee on Mandates? Given the American publics interest (at long last) in the Iraqi Mandate and Palestine Mandate I would love to use this source and write on these subjects in Wikipedia. And between Quigley's view of the Anglo-American Establishment, and LaRouches, I clearly feel Cecil Rhodes ambitions were an entirely worthy project, and endorse the successor agencies that were born of it, and continue the basic objectives, and expansion of a global community working toward furthing international cooperation, trade, human rights, democracy, and all the other good stuff that goes with it.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 13th February 2007, 1:14am)
The Duggan story, as it appeared in the British press, is on the face of it a fairly outlandish conspiracy theory. It alleges that, for unknown reasons, LaRouche activists practiced Mind Control on Duggan as he attended a conference in Germany, causing him to commit suicide.
Which British press published that? The versions I've read (and I've checked an online database of news stories) say that he was fleeing from someone or something, and possibly the balance of his mind was disturbed, but I can't find a word about Mind Control.
QUOTE
Baroness Symons, a spooky right-wing figure.
Are we on the same planet? I know Elizabeth Symons. She was a career trade union official until she was given a peerage in 1995. In 1997, she became a minister in the new Labour government. In 2005, she was dropped for being too left-wing and insufficiently New Labour.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 13th February 2007, 1:56am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 13th February 2007, 1:14am)
The Duggan story, as it appeared in the British press, is on the face of it a fairly outlandish conspiracy theory. It alleges that, for unknown reasons, LaRouche activists practiced Mind Control on Duggan as he attended a conference in Germany, causing him to commit suicide.
Which British press published that? The versions I've read (and I've checked an online database of news stories) say that he was fleeing from someone or something, and possibly the balance of his mind was disturbed, but I can't find a word about Mind Control.
Quite possibly SlimVirgin faked me out. Her Wikipedia article emphasizes the Mind Control angle, which is a dominant theme on the Duggan mother's website. The website, in turn, seems largely authored by Chip Berlet. SV's article makes it appear as if this stuff was all in the British press.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 13th February 2007, 1:56am)
QUOTE
Baroness Symons, a spooky right-wing figure.
Are we on the same planet? I know Elizabeth Symons. She was a career trade union official until she was given a peerage in 1995. In 1997, she became a minister in the new Labour government. In 2005, she was dropped for being too left-wing and insufficiently New Labour.
She's linked to the Cheneys, procurred a big British government http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2002w40/msg00025.htm and has been active in the right-wing British-American Project. She has also been dogged by scandal with regard to http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1386345,00.html
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 13th February 2007, 8:53am)
She's linked to the Cheneys
Beware of employing guilt by association Berletism's like this, your own credibility is at stake. I did it once to demonstate the flawed methodolgy and got a one year ban.Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 13th February 2007, 3:53pm)
She's linked to the Cheneys, procurred a big British government http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2002w40/msg00025.htm and has been active in the right-wing British-American Project. She has also been dogged by scandal with regard to http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1386345,00.html
She was Minister for Defence Procurement so it was her job to award contracts like that. However, she would have done so on the advice of civil servants. I see no reason to suppose that she's a personal friend of Dick Cheney. The British-American Project is not particularly right-wing. This is all smear.
The "arms dealer" scandal was nothing to do with being right-wing; on the contrary. She helped the husband of her good friend Tessa Jowell to go against American policy.
Posted by: Somey
I remember back in 1988, during one of his Presidential campaigns, LaRouche paid for an entire half-hour of network TV time - prime-time, too, I think this was about 8 PM US Eastern - to propose that the US send a manned mission to Mars. I've always been into "Hard SF," and it was probably pre-empting my favorite show anyway, so I actually watched the whole thing. He laid it all out in considerable detail - even down to some of the technical stuff like how many crew members they'd have on the journey, what they were going to eat, and so on. (I vaguely recall him mentioning urine-recycling at one point... But that may be my imagination.) Anyway, the overall idea was supposedly about economics - he figured this would "jump-start" the US technology sector with large amounts of research money, sort of the way the moon landings did in the 1965-1975 period. Also, he thought this would somehow help stave off what he claimed was an inevitable banking system collapse.
Of course, 16 years later, George W. Bush proposed the very same thing during the 2004 election, though his reasons were, IMO, mostly to distract people from that whole pesky "Iraq situation." Haven't heard much about it since then - along with that proposed nationwide campaign against gay marraige they were all so excited about at the time. (I myself thought about trying to marry an inanimate object, such as a table lamp or a decorative cookie jar, just to "push the envelope" a little bit... Also, I really do love table lamps and decorative cookie jars! Jeez, I'm such an attention whore...)
Anyway, they mention the LaRouche Mars Mission broadcast in the Wikipedia article - it gets a two-sentence paragraph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche#Other_events_in_the_1980s.
And, of course, they fail to capitalize the word "Mars"... 
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 13th February 2007, 10:32am)
She was Minister for Defence Procurement so it was her job to award contracts like that. However, she would have done so on the advice of civil servants. I see no reason to suppose that she's a personal friend of Dick Cheney. The British-American Project is not particularly right-wing. This is all smear.
She's probably on the Transatlantic Alliance -- a civilian version of NATO moreless. Stu Eizenstadt and Laura D'Andrea Tyson are the DNC reps. This is where the stories of Bill Richardson working for Henry Kissinger for 25 years are probably coming from.QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 13th February 2007, 11:11am)
I remember back in 1988, during one of his Presidential campaigns, LaRouche paid for an entire half-hour of network TV time - prime-time, too, ... I actually watched the whole thing.
Yep. I remember the 1980 infomercial -- he thought http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/billy.htm was the DNCs hope of saving the planet from disaster. QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 13th February 2007, 11:11am)
(I vaguely recall him mentioning urine-recycling at one point... But that may be my imagination.)
I hope I don't reveal to much, but this may be declassified open source: it's called ion exchange available in any Culligan watersoftener. So it appears astronauts have been drinking recycled urine for several decades....QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 13th February 2007, 11:11am)
he figured this would "jump-start" the US technology sector with large amounts of research money
hmmm...is this like JFK "pump-primary" or Reagan "tax cuts for big business"? in either case, doesn't sound much like his hero FDR and rape the rich economics.QUOTE(guy @ Tue 13th February 2007, 10:32am)
16 years later, George W. Bush proposed the very same thing during the 2004 election
That's called "throwing the dog a bone"; Trekkies are, after all, an important and educated part of the electorate, too.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Jonathan @ Mon 12th February 2007, 2:12am)
HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?
I should also have mentioned that my response to your invitation was likely to cause this thread to go off-topic faster than you can say http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add1_train.html
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 11:45pm)
QUOTE
Carroll Quigley was a conspiracy historian, but he was unusual in that he avoided criticism. Most of his conspiracy research concerned the role of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups in Britain from 1891 through World War II. His major work, http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119975.pdf (1966), contains scattered references to his twenty years of research in this area, but his detailed history of the Round Table was written in 1949.... Quigley was also an insider, so his criticisms of the groups he studied are subdued. .... In 1962 the Center for Strategic and International Studies was established on the Georgetown campus, where it maintained close ties with the School of Foreign Service. CSIS included a number of people on its staff who had high-level CIA connections. Quigley moved in these circles...
It is my understanding Quigley was a Trustee of the Rhodes Scholarship, i.e. selecting candidates to attend Oxford, whom Bill Clinton was one. I would politely disagree with the "conspiracy historian" part, and Brandt later even says Quigley "was also an insider".But it's Milner & House's relationship, and what devolved from it, that really should be the focus.
____
There's much here to discuss from this 1993 piece, for example Brandt says,
QUOTE
The CIA has a long history of infiltrating international organizations, from labor to students to religion. I submit that if an anti-war activist was involved in this type of international jet-setting, the burden is on them to show that they were not compromised. Clinton comes close to assuming this burden.
This was established early on, through Strobe Talbot. Krushchev Remembers, published by Frederick Preager (Frederick Preager = CIA front and has been well known for years) was translated and on book shelves by 1970. Anyone reading the intro knows the translator got the original Russian documents from the CIA. The story told http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17657 (finally, in 2000) goes into some detail about how and when the documents were dropped off at Talbot's and Clinton's pad they shared together. This was all known in 1992-93.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Nobs, whenever the issue of off-topic posting is raised, you should probably assume that you are a prime suspect.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 14th February 2007, 12:15am)
Nobs, whenever the issue of off-topic posting is raised, you should probably assume that you are a prime suspect.
Thus far we have identified four invidious pejoratives used in Wikipedia's internal program of ideological profiling, a program similiar to the concept to racial profiling, in theory "keeping an eye" on all editors with potentially dangerous or incorrect ideological views which may infect the planet via electronic transmission. They are:
- neo-confederate
anti-communist
LaRouchie
Holocaust denier
QUOTE
Willmcw prepared a http://gogog.com/project/wikipedia/index.php?title=User:Willmcw/sandbox2&diff=prev&oldid=9953846 of every article ever edited by myself and two other editors, all of whom were accused of being "LaRouche editors." ...In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary.
RD added a comment,QUOTE
evidently willing to put dozens of hours into scouring the entire editing history of his subjects and assembling lists of everything they've ever done going back for months upon months.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 1:09pm)
They are:
- neo-confederate
anti-communist
LaRouchie
Holocaust denier
Surely you mean "neo-fascist" or "neo-Nazi," not "anti-communist"...? Where on WP has anyone been castigated for being an "anti-communist"? Do you have diffs or something?
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 18th February 2007, 1:01pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 1:09pm)
anti-communist
QUOTE
So you admit...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I._F._Stone&diff=19743593&oldid=19743352... Is that your position, at long last?
Response here, "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I._F._Stone&diff=20274802&oldid=20271598".654 Google hits for "anti-communist" defined as pejoritived by Wikipedia's http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=berlet%2Banti-communist&btnG=Search.
Chip Berlet: Prepared Lectures for 1989 (Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1989), republished 1992,
"http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gritz.bo/gritz.dat" the author states,
QUOTE
How obsessive Cold War anti-communism led to an alliance with former Nazi collaborators and the development of the National Security State with its emphasis on militarism and covert action abroad, and secrecy and repression at home.
Most notably the Wilcox report from a longtime observer which says,QUOTE
Concern over anti-Communism represents a thread that runs through almost everything [Wikipedia's premier gatekeeper of controversial and political content] does.
See alsoAnti-communism#Fascist_anti-communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Red_Scare#Popular_support_for_McCarthyism (redirect from Second Red Scare#Popular support for McCarthyism)
QUOTE
There was also a strong and often overt strain of anti-semitism and racism underlying McCarthyism.
and finally to bring this into the 21st Century we havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Congress_Foundation#Activist_training
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Congress_Foundation#Alleged_links_to_.22Dominionism.22
See also Scot Nakagawa, http://www.frameline.org/distribution/studyguides/WDW%20Resource%20Pkt.doc, for updated list of invidious pejoritives, targets, project coordinators and sponsors; Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family appears on the list with the Ku Klux Klan for example.
Warning: anyone who challenges the NPOV assertions in any of the above links will be targeted, harassed, and potentially denounced publicly with an invidious pejorative without recourse.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 11:09am)
Alright, back to the subject.
I'd say that you made a momentary feint toward the subject, and then veered back again toward your epic struggle slash landmark legal case with the Chipster.
The reason that I originally thought that this topic might be of some interest (it has probably outlived its usefulness by now) is that one particular admin, Will Beback, is now pushing the envelope, arrogating to himself the authority to declare certain classes of ideas to be taboo, irrespective of whether they orginated with LaRouche. He is using the LaRouche I ArbCom case as a jumping off point, but he has jumped sufficiently far with it that it no longer has any connection to the case. The ArbCom seems to be telling him, in effect, Run With It! This is sure to set a precedent which others will eagerly follow.
Posted by: nobs
Well, HK, you & I have never had this discussion. Willmcw/sandbox[1] was RD, and Willmcw/sandbox2 was yourself; both were profiled, stalked, harassed, and eventually gangbanged out of the project. Both your "profiles" fit all the pejoritives in the PRA, SPLC etc. literature. You said,
QUOTE
...In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary.
Can you clarify what you mean buy this. I'm not asking to expound on your understanding of LaRouche's ideas. My impression is, you have read some of his "dangerous" writings, and probabaly used some in citations. But as I understand it, you deny any affilliation with the "cultic mentality" of "LaRouchism" that Berlet and others have written extensively on. Nonetheless, it appears even until now, you can't shake the branding of a "LaRouche editor".QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 18th February 2007, 9:13pm)
Will Beback, is now pushing the envelope, arrogating to himself the authority to declare certain classes of ideas to be taboo, irrespective of whether they orginated with LaRouche. He is using the LaRouche I ArbCom case as a jumping off point, but he has jumped sufficiently far with it that it no longer has any connection to the case. The ArbCom seems to be telling him, in effect, Run With It! This is sure to set a precedent which others will eagerly follow.
QUOTE
"arrogating to himself"
this is an assumption. You know yourself Will Beback & SV and all of them do not act willy nilly on their own. My God, Electric Ray was just here asking why we don't organize to work together, like they do over there, etc.QUOTE
classes of ideas
not surprising, and really not new. I could guess what most are (all available at PRA & other websites).I'm not familiar with the LaRouche1 case, and I really have no reason to examine it. My advice would be to abandon this fruitless effort. http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL21.html,
QUOTE
The human mind is of a very imitative nature; nor is it possible for any set of men to converse often together without acquiring a similitude of manners and communication to each other their vices as well as their virtues. The propensity to company and society is strong in all rational creatures; and the same disposition which gives us this propensity makes us enter deeply into each other's sentiments and causes like passions and inclinations to run, as it were, by contagion through the whole club or knot of companions.'
Ask yourself this question, if LaRouche is so intelligent (which he is) why doesn't he tell his "followers" that all his problems come from the ADL?
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 2:36pm)
QUOTE
So you admit...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I._F._Stone&diff=19743593&oldid=19743352... Is that your position, at long last?
Without specifically accusing you of quoting out of context again, let's just take a look at the whole thing:
QUOTE(User:Cberlet @ 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC))
So you admit that your highly biased and opinionated POV original research actually has no reputable published source to cite to? That because you are a militant anticommunist you feel it is OK to put in print here that anyone who was a commie symp is the same thing as a active witting KGB agent? Is that your position, at long last?
And your response didn't actually answer the question, did it? Sure, Berlet was out of line, and presumably you felt you did have a reputable source, and (also presumably) you don't believe all communist sympathizers are KGB agents. After all, the latter especially is a ridiculous assertion. So why not just tell him?
The fact is, neither of you wanted to give the other any more ammunition, did you? That argument could have gone on forever if the admins hadn't stepped in at Berlet's behest, and we all know what happened after that - Berlet was part of the SlimVirgin crowd, and got preferential treatment. He got it because he fulfills one of SlimVirgin's primary needs - namely, for a leftist who bashes other leftists. He provides left-wing sources that she can quote to show that the left wing is anti-Semitic and soft on terrorists, doesn't he? Slimmy, meanwhile, doesn't need extra right-wingers on the team - there are tons of those, they're all over the place, they're expendable. No problem to ban one or two of them - it shows she's an Equal Opportunity Banner, doesn't it? Berlet, though - he was, and will presumably remain, much more valuable.
Hardly the way to produce a proper encyclopedia, though... is it?
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 18th February 2007, 10:40pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 2:36pm)
QUOTE
So you admit...http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I._F._Stone&diff=19743593&oldid=19743352... Is that your position, at long last?
Without specifically accusing you of quoting out of context again, let's just take a look at the whole thing:
QUOTE(User:Cberlet @ 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC))
So you admit that your highly biased and opinionated POV original research actually has no reputable published source to cite to? That because you are a militant anticommunist you feel it is OK to put in print here that anyone who was a commie symp is the same thing as a active witting KGB agent? Is that your position, at long last? 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
And your response didn't actually answer the question, did it? Sure, Berlet was out of line, and presumably you felt you did have a reputable source, and (also presumably) you don't believe all communist sympathizers are KGB agents. After all, the latter especially is a ridiculous assertion. So why not just tell him?
The fact is, neither of you wanted to give the other any more ammunition, did you? That argument could have gone on forever if the admins hadn't stepped in at Berlet's behest, and we all know what happened after that - Berlet was part of the SlimVirgin crowd, and got preferential treatment. He got it because he fulfills one of SlimVirgin's primary needs - namely, for a leftist who bashes other leftists. He provides left-wing sources that she can quote to show that the left wing is anti-Semitic and soft on terrorists, doesn't he? Slimmy, meanwhile, doesn't need extra right-wingers on the team - there are tons of those, they're all over the place, they're expendable. No problem to ban one or two of them - it shows she's an Equal Opportunity Banner, doesn't it? Berlet, though - he was, and will presumably remain, much more valuable.
Hardly the way to produce a proper encyclopedia, though... is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance/Requests/November_2006/Nobs02#Policy_ruling:_good_faith_.3D_harassment
and the simple fact is, my input into the IF Stone discussion & mainspace was never what Berlet and others said it was. That was primarily a dispute between TDC & others. I just brought in the hard evidence and a little discussion. I didn't know I'd be profiled, stalked, harassed, and ultimately slandered through Wikipedia's bait and switch advertising to get unpaid volunteers.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 8:47pm)
QUOTE
...In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary.
Can you clarify what you mean buy this. I'm not asking to expound on your understanding of LaRouche's ideas. My impression is, you have read some of his "dangerous" writings, and probabaly used some in citations. But as I understand it, you deny any affilliation with the "cultic mentality" of "LaRouchism" that Berlet and others have written extensively on. Nonetheless, it appears even until now, you can't shake the branding of a "LaRouche editor".What I meant by that was straightforward. Will Beback was claiming that my edits to articles such as "European Classical Music," "Hall Johnson," or "Isoperimetry" were loaded with insidious LaRouchist ideas. That is baloney. But as far is "LaRouchism" is concerned, I am "pro-LaRouche."
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 8:47pm)
Ask yourself this question, if LaRouche is so intelligent (which he is) why doesn't he tell his "followers" that all his problems come from the ADL?
Because they don't. The ADL, like Berlet or Dennis King, is not the source of the attacks on LaRouche. They are just a bunch of goons on the payroll. See http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add1_train.html
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 3:35pm)
The ADL, like Berlet or Dennis King, is not the source of the attacks on LaRouche. They are just a bunch of goons on the payroll.
Careful, HK - given that the ADL is a Jewish organisation, you're bordering on anti-Semitism here.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 8:47pm)
QUOTE
...In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary.
Can you clarify what you mean buy this. I'm not asking to expound on your understanding of LaRouche's ideas. My impression is, you have read some of his "dangerous" writings, and probabaly used some in citations. But as I understand it, you deny any affilliation with the "cultic mentality" of "LaRouchism" that Berlet and others have written extensively on. Nonetheless, it appears even until now, you can't shake the branding of a "LaRouche editor".QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 8:35am)
What I meant by that was straightforward. Will Beback was claiming that my edits to articles such as "European Classical Music," "Hall Johnson," or "Isoperimetry" were loaded with insidious LaRouchist ideas. That is baloney. But as far is "LaRouchism" is concerned, I am "pro-LaRouche."
OK. This is becoming an interesting long overdue discussion. I had not been aware of any connection between "LaRouchism" and "European Classical Music" until I came into Wikipedia in early 2005. I found a very rare English language translation of a very rare prose work of Wilhelm Furtwängler had been deleted from Furtwangler's bio. Furtwangler is about as apolitical a person can get, sufferred de-nazification interrogations, and his deceased reputation has moreless amazingly been portrayed with accuracy in the English language wiki, despite crusades for half a century to tar any shoeshine boy (an exaggeration on my part) who ever shined the shoes of a high level nazi, as a Nazi collaborator.
It took special permission on my part from Will Beback, with SlimVirgin conferring also, and one or the other investigated my claim, that this was an innappropriate deletion. They were very concerned that some anti-Semitic propaganda may be transmitted in that document, and it was carefully reviewed. In the end, by a concensus of Will Beback, me & SlimVirgin, they agreed with my arguement, and I may have gained some standing as a researcher in their eyes to properly qualify sources. But I became aware early on to the sensitivity of this subject, and it is only reasonable. And they even agreed with me that innocent persons, like Furtwangler, should not be tarred with invidious pejoritives.
After the investigation, I asked Slim what was the concern, and she related Furtwangler was on the shit list because of a sanctioned LaRouche editor. That's the first time I ever saw your user handle. But I never understood if it was just a personal interest of yours in so-called "classical music", or if it was part of "Larouche conspiracy" to infect the planet with anti-Semitism via bios of Robert Shumann, or is just LaRouche himself who enjoy's Shumann and transmits his ideosyncratic and fascist musings through codewords and links to European websites about Shumann. None of it makes sense to me.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 8:35am)
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 8:47pm)
Ask yourself this question, if LaRouche is so intelligent (which he is) why doesn't he tell his "followers" that all his problems come from the ADL?
Because they don't. The ADL, like Berlet or Dennis King, is not the source of the attacks on LaRouche. They are just a bunch of goons on the payroll. See http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon_add1_train.htmlBonus Question (3 points): Which Psalm is Schiller's Ode to Joy a paraphrase of?
P.S. let me reveal something very personal; reading Furtwangler's current wiki bio (written by someone else but shaped by some of the discussion I had on the talk page), I am literally moved to tears. And this is evidence why I beleive Wikipedia processes can work.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
John Train, according to his Who's Who in America (1984-85) entry, was "Founder, mng. editor Paris Review, 1952-54."
Paris Review, according to The New York Times, December 26, 1977, p. 37, was founded and funded by the CIA. Other founders of Paris Review were Peter Matthiessen and George Plimpton, both witting CIA agents. By 1987 John Train was president of the Afghanistan Relief Committee, which received money in 1985 and 1986 from the National Endowment for Democracy. NED was created by Congress to funnel money to foreign groups so that the CIA wouldn't have to create so many fronts and that kept getting exposed.
For Chip Berlet to even attend the John Train meetings about LaRouche, and rub shoulders with all those high-level spooks, indicates to me that he is in bed with them.
Yet good ol' SlimVirgin wrote on January 6, 2005:
QUOTE
There's no evidence that Roy Godson is an intelligence operative and the weasel catch-all phrase "representatives from intelligence-linked funding sources" is typical Brandt and typical LaRouche.
Holy crap. Even a publication by Political Research Associates, Chip Berlet's propaganda factory, concedes that Godson is spook-connected:
QUOTE
The Consortium is directed by NSIC Washington director Roy Godson, a consultant since 1982 to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which oversees covert operations. He has also been a consultant to the National Security Council. The Consortium engages many current and retired intelligence agency employees.... (The Coors Connection by Russ Bellant, 1990, page 48, preface by Chip Berlet)
One might expect Chip Berlet to correct SlimVirgin's obvious error, but no, it serves his purpose in this case so he lets it go. It's all propaganda for Berlet and SlimVirgin, which means that it's all in the service of a higher purpose. Facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of the mission.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
QUOTE
Ace Hayes using "Empirical State" or some such phrase, means he must be a LaRouchie (Brandt has this on his website; no wonder he's a target). And yes, this all does warrant further discussion. The Ace Hayes/John Train Salon material properly belongs to the genre of "conspiracy theory".
I think Ace Hayes probably used the term "Imperial State." I knew Ace (who died in 1998), and that sounds like him. He was very anti-Berlet, but more tolerant of LaRouche, although not a LaRouchie by any stretch of the imagination. I think he respected LaRouche mostly because Berlet hated LaRouche, which for Ace meant that LaRouche couldn't be all bad. Ace was an old-style, IWW-type leftist, but he didn't really fit in any box at all.
I don't see the term "Imperial State" or "Empirical State" on my website. In any case, I think Ace may have picked it up from Lenin, not from LaRouche. His writing style was colorful, and driven by anger and frustration, but he was well-informed, independent, and had a lot of integrity. He would have hated Wikipedia.
Posted by: Poetlister
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 3:35pm)
The ADL, like Berlet or Dennis King, is not the source of the attacks on LaRouche.
Is that the Anti-Defamation League? As I've said, I really know nothing about LaRouche. But I get worried if he can only be defended by framing a left-wing politician as a right-wing creep and what I believe to be a respectable charity as a bunch of goons.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 10:31am)
QUOTE
Ace Hayes using "Empirical State" or some such phrase, means he must be a LaRouchie (Brandt has this on his website; no wonder he's a target). And yes, this all does warrant further discussion. The Ace Hayes/John Train Salon material properly belongs to the genre of "conspiracy theory".
I think Ace Hayes probably used the term "Imperial State." I knew Ace (who died in 1998), and that sounds like him. He was very anti-Berlet, but more tolerant of LaRouche, although not a LaRouchie by any stretch of the imagination. I think he respected LaRouche mostly because Berlet hated LaRouche, which for Ace meant that LaRouche couldn't be all bad. Ace was an old-style, IWW-type leftist, but he didn't really fit in any box at all.
I don't see the term "Imperial State" or "Empirical State" on my website. In any case, I think Ace may have picked it up from Lenin, not from LaRouche. His writing style was colorful, and driven by anger and frustration, but he was well-informed, independent, and had a lot of integrity. He would have hated Wikipedia.
QUOTE
Berlet has been criticized by The New American for having accused the Anti-Defamation League, in a 1993 op-ed piece for the New York Times, of down-playing the right-wing threat
is using the nested criticism by Bircher's to set Berlet at odds with the ADL. In fact, PRAs publication, History of the Public Eye Electronic Forums (1986) with some material from the Wilcox report (and other sources) shows Berlet has been a subcontractor for the ADL since circa 1985 or 86. I'm not here to float conspiracy theories. I will present sourced evidence with an arguement to the best explanation.The ADL and Berlet have legitimate and admirable goals; some of their methods and tactics they have used in the internet era, however, do warrant sunlight. "Sunlight cleanses all infections."
Posted by: anon1234
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 5:10pm)
Yet good ol' SlimVirgin wrote on January 6, 2005:
QUOTE
There's no evidence that Roy Godson is an intelligence operative and the weasel catch-all phrase "representatives from intelligence-linked funding sources" is typical Brandt and typical LaRouche.
Holy crap. Even a publication by Political Research Associates, Chip Berlet's propaganda factory, concedes that Godson is spook-connected:
QUOTE
The Consortium is directed by NSIC Washington director Roy Godson, a consultant since 1982 to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which oversees covert operations. He has also been a consultant to the National Security Council. The Consortium engages many current and retired intelligence agency employees.... (The Coors Connection by Russ Bellant, 1990, page 48, preface by Chip Berlet)
One might expect Chip Berlet to correct SlimVirgin's obvious error, but no, it serves his purpose in this case so he lets it go. It's all propaganda for Berlet and SlimVirgin, which means that it's all in the service of a higher purpose. Facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of the mission.
SlimVirgin single handedly decided that we apparently can't handle the truth? Thus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Noble_lies_and_deadly_truths are in order to purify the Colbertian consensus reality that is Wikipedia? I love it.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
ADL had goons on its payroll when Irwin Suall ran its intelligence service. They cooperated with South African intelligence under the apartheid regime, and also ran an intel operation in the U.S. that spied on dozens of political groups, left and right. There was a criminal case in California in 1993-94, which led to a stack of intelligence files getting confiscated, and these were available to the press. At the time I got a set of these files and read them. Berlet traded information with the ADL, and one ADL official said that Berlet and Political Research Associates had been very helpful in monitoring right-wing groups. Berlet would even pose as a right-winger and infiltrate right-wing meetings. For more information on the spying case in California, search for Tom Gerard and/or Roy Bullock on Yahoo or Google.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 11:06am)
ADL had goons on its payroll when Irwin Suall ran its intelligence service. They cooperated with South African intelligence under the apartheid regime
QUOTE
"developed itself" is a little misleading, don't you think ... in light of... http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/530/59/IMG/NR053059.pdf?OpenElement, which reads,
QUOTE
...Israel's development and acquisition of nuclear weapons and Israel's collaboration with South Africa to develop nuclear weapons...
which I can't find any reference to anywhere in Wikipedia.Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(guy @ Mon 19th February 2007, 8:20am)
Careful, HK - given that the ADL is a Jewish organisation, you're bordering on anti-Semitism here.
The ADL is a very complicated organization that engages in all sorts of activity, much of it covert. The "Jewish charity" side of it is strictly a cover story, and an appallingly cynical one at that, because by claiming to fight anti-Semitism, and thereby branding its critics, by implication, as anti-Semites, they trivialize real anti-Semitism (see this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_G._Finkelstein#Finkelstein.2C_the_Anti-Defamation_League.2C_and_the_allegation_of_Holocaust_denial)
Even the Wikipedia article on the ADL, which has been sanitized and then sanitized again by Jayjg and co., contains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#The_ADL_files_controversy which Daniel alluded to earlier. This particular controversy should help indicate that the ADL is involved in a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism.
To put the matter in a nutshell, when the US Congress put an end to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO the policy of harassment of political organizations by the FBI and CIA, those latter organizations simply privatized it, farming it out to the ADL in particular. There is more that could be said about this matter, but I think that this is sufficient. I'd like to keep this thread from going too far off topic.
Posted by: Yehudi
All sorts of people collaborated with South Africa - left, right and neither. If it weren't for the ADL, America would be a nastier place. They've done far more to uproot nasty Internet practices than they've ever done themselves. (I know, two wrongs don't make a right, but one does have to be pragmatic at times.)
And unlike Guy, I'm no friend of Lady Symons, but she can't be described as right-wing.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Mon 19th February 2007, 3:33pm)
If it weren't for the ADL, America would be a nastier place. They've done far more to uproot nasty Internet practices than they've ever done themselves. (I know, two wrongs don't make a right, but one does have to be pragmatic at times.)
I agree very much with this. Let's not run ahead of the discussion too much -- more groundwork needs to be laid.
http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf, which is very Malthusian in character, says
QUOTE
...a positive and proactive propaganda distribution programme, and amelioration through direct action...
It's hard to find better language for "the sum total of human knowledge"; but there are limits to how many victims will be unwittingly labelled with invidious smears through this direct action. The problems are too manifold and manifest without some serious reconsideration of what has already been done here, and the direction this is proceeding which masticates even people of good will. And this work of profiling can't be hidden, not in the United States, not without blowback.
Posted by: Somey
"Masticates"? 
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 19th February 2007, 4:04pm)
"Masticates"?
Yah, chews up, devours, etc.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Yehudi @ Mon 19th February 2007, 2:33pm)
I'm no friend of Lady Symons, but she can't be described as right-wing.
Suppose we just settle on "spooky," then?
I am hard pressed to think of contemporary politicians that I would think of as being genuinely "left." I would expect some inclination to Marxism, or at least a pronounced interest in the plight of the poor. The plight of the poor is becoming more excruciating by the day, and I don't find environmentalism or "identity politics" to be of much comfort under the circumstances.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 6:22pm)
I am hard pressed to think of contemporary politicians that I would think of as being genuinely "left." I would expect some inclination to Marxism, or at least a pronounced interest in the plight of the poor. The plight of the poor is becoming more excruciating by the day, and I don't find environmentalism or "identity politics" to be of much comfort under the circumstances.
So HK, would you say your outlook is similiar to these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_Catastrophe statements from the pre-Patriot Act, pre-Wikipedia, policy proposal to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Government, Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence?
QUOTE
...a similar lack of social investment to aid the workforce in NATO countries in adjusting to world market changes affecting their economies is yielding ...similar fascist uprisings by a disgruntled, fragmented and equally violent sections of the populace, principally amongst the self perceived "disenfranchised" of the middle classes...
...fascist uprisings do not follow the blueprint of working class revolutions, as fascist uprising and subversive activity originates in the ranks of the middle and thus managerial classes of society... Only normative InterNet usage by the international fascist movement as the C4I tool of choice makes effectual centreless leadership, rendering it extremely difficult (though possible) for security services to lawfully predict future actions ...
The aim of ... policy formulation on a fact based bottom up level derived from the data at hand rather than strategic theoretical down style deployment of intelligence gathering forces toward determining empirically the actionable extent of what appears at first sight to be a passing youth fashion espoused by atavistic eccentrics and Hitler buffs ....
...the USA view on a near-unanimous basis by both the government and the populace is that the First Amendment (governing freedom of speech) to the US Constitution grants those who are of the Nazi persuasion the inalienable right to advocate this form of mass murder on the InterNet, in the press, and through public presentation and lecture. Thus it should come as no surprise that the embracing of Nazism worldwide as a fourth option (after capitalist republicanism, communism, and parliamentary democracy) for solving the problems of contemporary political and economic existence is first and foremost a distinctly American funded and U.S. Constitution-underwritten enterprise. Nazism is as popular an American export as Disney lunchboxes, rap music, $200.00 sneakers, pornography, mindlessly violent videos, televangelism, and crack cocaine....says more ... than outright condemns those searching for solutions from whatever quarter they might arise to the horrible economic disequilibria & unfair absurdities on display in plain view of the production line labourer, temporary service worker and the common foot soldier.
...fascist uprisings do not follow the blueprint of working class revolutions, as fascist uprising and subversive activity originates in the ranks of the middle and thus managerial classes of society... Only normative InterNet usage by the international fascist movement as the C4I tool of choice makes effectual centreless leadership, rendering it extremely difficult (though possible) for security services to lawfully predict future actions ...
The aim of ... policy formulation on a fact based bottom up level derived from the data at hand rather than strategic theoretical down style deployment of intelligence gathering forces toward determining empirically the actionable extent of what appears at first sight to be a passing youth fashion espoused by atavistic eccentrics and Hitler buffs ....
...the USA view on a near-unanimous basis by both the government and the populace is that the First Amendment (governing freedom of speech) to the US Constitution grants those who are of the Nazi persuasion the inalienable right to advocate this form of mass murder on the InterNet, in the press, and through public presentation and lecture. Thus it should come as no surprise that the embracing of Nazism worldwide as a fourth option (after capitalist republicanism, communism, and parliamentary democracy) for solving the problems of contemporary political and economic existence is first and foremost a distinctly American funded and U.S. Constitution-underwritten enterprise. Nazism is as popular an American export as Disney lunchboxes, rap music, $200.00 sneakers, pornography, mindlessly violent videos, televangelism, and crack cocaine....says more ... than outright condemns those searching for solutions from whatever quarter they might arise to the horrible economic disequilibria & unfair absurdities on display in plain view of the production line labourer, temporary service worker and the common foot soldier.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 20th February 2007, 1:22am)
Suppose we just settle on "spooky," then?
I can only say that I have never found her so. And since this isn't Wikipedia, we're allowed to quote personal knowledge!
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 20th February 2007, 1:22am)
I am hard pressed to think of contemporary politicians that I would think of as being genuinely "left."
Doesn't that depend on where you're standing?
Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 20th February 2007, 3:46am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 20th February 2007, 1:22am)
I am hard pressed to think of contemporary politicians that I would think of as being genuinely "left."
Doesn't that depend on where you're standing?
Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.
I am unfamiliar with Mr. Galloway. Why would some argue that? I will also say, cautiously, that Ken Livingstone appears to me to be a fairly legitimately "left" sort of guy. I have not followed his career carefully, but he seems to annoy Tony Blair quite a lot, which earns him points with me.
Incidentally, LaRouche is not what is normally considered "left," although he once was. He has spent the past thirty years reviving what was once called the "American System," which does not advocate public ownership (outside of major infrastructure,) but does advocate extensive government regulation of anything that affects the national interest, including transportation, health care, banking and finance, electric utilities, and telecommunications. He refers to Lincoln and FDR as examples of successful policy. The "American System" is regarded by its proponents as a successful alternative to two failed options, Laissez-faire capitalism and Marxism. I believe there are some establishment types who wish to suppress the idea that there is an alternative to these two failed systems.
I think that it is significant that this is the area where the Wikipedia Cabal has the most intense paranoia about LaRouche, and it reinforces my suspicion that Jimbo and his POV are at the root of the whole thing. The articles where there have been fights and accusations of "LaRouchism," without LaRouche ever being mentioned or cited in the article, include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme
The biggest fight was over an article that at one time did briefly mention LaRouche, which was "American System (economics)". I'm not sure what became of that article; I think that Will Beback may have deleted it. It's now a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System. I tried to find the page history of the pre-redirected article, and the earliest version on record is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_System_%28economics%29&oldid=54829709 which Northmeister somehow reconstructed after the much more extensive, older article was apparently deleted. Maybe someone who understands the intricacies of Wikipedia better than I can figure out what actually happened to this article.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 20th February 2007, 8:54am)
I think that it is significant that this is the area where the Wikipedia Cabal has the most intense paranoia about LaRouche, and it reinforces my suspicion that Jimbo and his POV are at the root of the whole thing.
HK: I posted an account of the LaRouche/John Train Salon matter http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6367&view=findpost&p=21888Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(nobs @ Tue 20th February 2007, 2:36pm)
HK: I posted an account of the LaRouche/John Train Salon matter http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=6367&view=findpost&p=21888
That's not "an account," that's your Nobsian commentary on the matter. But at least you put it in the Nobs thread.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 11:06am)
There was a criminal case in California in 1993-94, which led to a stack of intelligence files getting confiscated, and these were available to the press. At the time I got a set of these files and read them. Berlet traded information with the ADL, and one ADL official said that Berlet and Political Research Associates had been very helpful in monitoring right-wing groups. Berlet would even pose as a right-winger and infiltrate right-wing meetings. For more information on the spying case in California, search for Tom Gerard and/or Roy Bullock on Yahoo or Google.
http://mail.google.com/mail/?ik=7efaa0dba4&view=att&th=110e1f7e90388427&attid=0.1
QUOTE
What was striking about the ADL "enemies list" was that most of the individuals and organizations listed were of leftist persuasion.... such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the Black United Front, the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Asian Law Caucus, and the San Francisco Anti-Apartheid Committee ...
Dennis J. Opatrny and Scott Winocur, Police Said 10 Aid Spying On Political Groups, San Francisco Examiner (9 March 1993).
0patrny and Winocur, A New Target In S.F. Spy Probe, San Francisco Examiner (1 April 1993).
Richard C. Paddock, Spy: 40 Years of Undercover Work For ADL, Los Angeles Times (13 April 1993).
QUOTE
More than a few Jewish officials privately say that the ADL has to decide whether it is a human rights group or a secret police agency.
Robert J. Friedman, The Anti-Defamation League is Spying On You, Village Voice (11 May 1993).
Robert J. Friedman, The Anti-Defamation League is Spying On You, Village Voice (11 May 1993).
Posted by: omobomo
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 20th February 2007, 11:46am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 20th February 2007, 1:22am)
I am hard pressed to think of contemporary politicians that I would think of as being genuinely "left."
Doesn't that depend on where you're standing?
Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.
Only if one is a knee-jerk supporter of the state of Israel and its policies.
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(omobomo @ Tue 20th February 2007, 11:14pm)
Only if one is a knee-jerk supporter of the state of Israel and its policies.
Not necessarily. I've heard people also make this argument who were only stated supporters of the knees of Israel and its jerks.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(omobomo @ Wed 21st February 2007, 5:14am)
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 20th February 2007, 11:46am)
Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.
Only if one is a knee-jerk supporter of the state of Israel and its policies.
I don't follow the logic of that.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 21st February 2007, 1:56am)
QUOTE(omobomo @ Wed 21st February 2007, 5:14am)
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 20th February 2007, 11:46am)
Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.
Only if one is a knee-jerk supporter of the state of Israel and its policies.
I don't follow the logic of that.
I ask this hesitantly, out of curiosity, but keeping my fingers crossed and hoping it doesn't lead to a major, contentious off-topic excursion: what, in your view, is George Galloway's problem, and how does it "illustrate beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit"?
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 3:31pm)
...when the US Congress put an end to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO the policy of harassment of political organizations by the FBI and CIA, those latter organizations simply privatized it, farming it out to the ADL in particular
HK: I’m going to question your premise: COINTELPRO targeted many groups and organizations which had sympathy and common overlapping interests with ADL. This is like saying, “When the FBI ended its investigation of the Cali Cartel, it farmed it out to the Cali Cartelâ€. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/FBI/COINTELPRO_Paranoia.html,QUOTE
In 1956 COINTELPRO began against the Communist Party USA [CPUSA] … in 1968 the "New Left" … the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20248346&oldid=20247676 (SWP) ... documents [revealed] ...specially-trained teams of agents burglarized their offices at least 92 times …
FBI/ADL cooperation didn’t begin until the Reagan administration when the FBI issued a memoranda to all SACs (Special Agent in Charge) in cities ADL had field offices:- Federal Bureau of Investigation, AIRTEL dated 4 February 1985, Subject: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL) Information Concerning Civil Rights Violations.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 20th February 2007, 8:54am)
I think that it is significant that this is the area where the Wikipedia Cabal has the most intense paranoia about LaRouche, and it reinforces my suspicion that Jimbo and his POV are at the root of the whole thing.
HK, take off your conspiracy hat and look at the objective evidence you’ve stumbled into. It’s an unwritten policy you won’t find even in the bylaws. But I’ll grant Jimbo deniability, like Reagan falling asleep at cabinet meetings while underlings do the dirty work of ideological profiling and smearing with invidious labels.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 21st February 2007, 3:44pm)
I ask this hesitantly, out of curiosity, but keeping my fingers crossed and hoping it doesn't lead to a major, contentious off-topic excursion: what, in your view, is George Galloway's problem, and how does it "illustrate beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit"?
Galloway is so far left that he was not welcome in the Labour Party, even the Scottish Labour Party, which is far less New Labour than the English one. So he started his own "Respect" party. He supports all sorts of brutal totalitarian regimes, such as Belarus and Turkmenistan, that most left-wingers recoil from in horror. He won his parliamentary seat from a charming black lady called Oona King, in a vicious campaign that used sexism and racism against her in a way that would make the most hard-line Conservative blush. I suppose some would say that she demonstrated her inability at politics by being unable to sink to his level in reply.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
I like http://www.namebase.org/galloway.html.
Posted by: anon1234
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 20th February 2007, 11:46am)
Doesn't that depend on where you're standing?
Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.
George Galloway seemed more reasoned prior to the Iraq war. I wonder if he got poisoned or just lost it as he seems like a nutbar these days.
Of course, there's always George Galloway, though some would argue that he illustrates beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 21st February 2007, 1:13pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 21st February 2007, 3:44pm)
I ask this hesitantly, out of curiosity, but keeping my fingers crossed and hoping it doesn't lead to a major, contentious off-topic excursion: what, in your view, is George Galloway's problem, and how does it "illustrate beautifully how the far left and the far right have more in common than they care to admit"?
Galloway is so far left that he was not welcome in the Labour Party, even the Scottish Labour Party ...He won his parliamentary seat from a charming black lady ... in a vicious campaign that .... would make the most hard-line Conservative blush.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 21st February 2007, 12:26pm)
I like http://www.namebase.org/galloway.html.
Based only on the transcript on Daniel's website, I would have to say that I'm favorably impressed. Upon googling, I discover that the LaRouche newsweekly EIR published a similar transcript. I note, however, that EIR had a brief critical comment about Galloway back in the '90s, calling him a close collaborator of Lord Avebury, who was characterized as a terrorist controller.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 21st February 2007, 3:22pm)
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 21st February 2007, 12:26pm)
I like http://www.namebase.org/galloway.html.
Based only on the transcript on Daniel's website, I would have to say that I'm favorably impressed. Upon googling, I discover that the LaRouche newsweekly EIR published a similar transcript. I note, however, that EIR had a brief critical comment about Galloway back in the '90s, calling him a close collaborator of Lord Avebury, who was characterized as a terrorist controller.
Are you that easily impressed, cause people want you to believe things? Guy, for instances, didn't disclose why Galloway was booted out of the Labour Party, rather instead impugned Conservatives. You have a lifetime of a 52 year old man to look at; I'd suggest an impression or judgement can't be done in a few minutes.
Posted by: Poetlister
QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 21st February 2007, 10:28pm)
Guy, for instances, didn't disclose why Galloway was booted out of the Labour Party
Guy's being his usual polite self. Galloway made vicious personal attacks on Tony Blair and other leading Labour politicians. I'm anti-war myself, but I'm not happy being (figuratively) in bed with Mr. Galloway.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 21st February 2007, 1:13pm)
Galloway ...won his parliamentary seat ...in a vicious campaign that used sexism and racism ...in a way that would make the most hard-line Conservative blush.
QUOTE(Poetlister @ Wed 21st February 2007, 3:43pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 21st February 2007, 10:28pm)
Guy, for instances, didn't disclose why Galloway was booted out of the Labour Party
Guy's being his usual polite self. Galloway made vicious personal attacks on Tony Blair and other leading Labour politicians. I'm anti-war myself, but I'm not happy being (figuratively) in bed with Mr. Galloway.
That depends, if you consider deleting certain facts and using cheapshots to impugn Conservatives, "polite", with the intent to recruit impressionable youth to like-minded methods.
Posted by: guy
QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 21st February 2007, 11:11pm)
That depends, if you consider deleting certain facts and using cheapshots to impugn Conservatives, "polite", with the intent to recruit impressionable youth to like-minded methods.
I'm not clear what facts I've deleted. Obviously, I can't insert every fact in the world - even Wikipedia can't do that!
The point I was making is that while some (a very few) Conservatives have been known to use sexist and racist methods while campaigning, no Conservative would go so far as George Galloway did. How is that impugning Conservatives in general?Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 21st February 2007, 4:44pm)
QUOTE(nobs @ Wed 21st February 2007, 11:11pm)
That depends, if you consider deleting certain facts and using cheapshots to impugn Conservatives, "polite", with the intent to recruit impressionable youth to like-minded methods.
I'm not clear what facts I've deleted.
QUOTE(guy @ Wed 21st February 2007, 4:44pm)
The point I was making is that while some (a very few) Conservatives have been known to use sexist and racist methods while campaigning, no Conservative would go so far as George Galloway did. How is that impugning Conservatives in general?
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 10:10am)
Paris Review, according to The New York Times, December 26, 1977, p. 37, was founded and funded by the CIA. Other founders of Paris Review were Peter Matthiessen and George Plimpton, both witting CIA agents.
Hmmm, this is interesting and follows a line of investigation I've been on for awhile. Did Ben Bradlee ever write for Paris Review? The http://www.parisreview.com/viewissue.php/prmIID/150 (assuming it's the same entity) has this on Bradlee: Postwar Paris: Chronicles of Literary Life. Both Nixon and Bradley served in Naval Intelligence starting around 1944. Most Venona writers maintain Naval Intelligence was the only US Intelligence service that had not been penetrated by the Soviet Union during WWII. Loftus claims Nixon found the poop in Hiss while in Naval Intelligence, and used it to rise from a backbench nobody to get himself elected Vice President and President by stepping on the neck of the first UN Secretary General. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbradleeB.htm says Bradlee became assistant press attaché in the American embassy in Paris in 1951, and joined the staff of the Office of U.S. Information and Educational Exchange (USIE later USIA) in 1952 and later worked for Newsweek. He also worked with E. Howard Hunt and James Jesus Angleton at this time.
Bradlee's vendetta against Nixon for destroying Hiss seems odd against this background, somewhere there was a divergence of views or motives between these two good ol boys who served in the only Intelligence outfit that wasn't compromised. I'm trying to put together an historical narrative to cover the whole affair.
Posted by: Daniel Brandt
As usual, Nobs, you get everything half right, and then run off the edge of the earth with it.
Spartacus has good information. They read books. They respect the 800+ books and other material cited in NameBase, which is the cream of English-language literature about the Cold War. In fact, I http://www.namebase.org/davis.html of Deborah Davis's book about the Washington Post after it got reprinted. (Katharine Graham pulled strings and the first printing got recalled and shredded.)
Everything is fine, more or less, until you start getting specific. The fact of the matter is that the Washington Post was very slow to oppose the war in Vietnam. Another fact is that the CIA has always had a self-image of being liberal, even as they were overthrowing governments around the world, and cranking up the war in Vietnam, in order to stop the commies. It is entirely consistent for the Post to have intelligence connections up the yazoo during the Cold War. Bradlee was one of many with intelligence connections at the Post.
Your statement about "Bradlee's vendetta against Nixon for destroying Hiss" is worth only a minor footnote in this entire story, assuming it's true. And it's so minor that I don't even care if it's true. You are familiar with about two percent of Cold War history, and you extrapolate from that as if this was the key to the entire epoch.
That really bothers me about your posts. I encourage you to continue your education about Cold War history, but please, please don't involve this board in your quest. It's not what this board is about.
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Wed 21st February 2007, 9:02pm)
Spartacus has good information. They read books. They respect the 800+ books and other material cited in NameBase, which is the cream of English-language literature about the Cold War. In fact, I http://www.namebase.org/davis.html of Deborah Davis's book about the Washington Post after it got reprinted. (Katharine Graham pulled strings and the first printing got recalled and shredded.)
Well you gotta love this from Davis on SpartucusQUOTE
He [Bradlee] then worked for six months as a clerk in the New York office of the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that promotes various progressive causes, including conscientious objection to war. This job, so out of character for the young patriot, may or may not have been an intelligence assignment.
like that tells us a whole lot, especially for who. Vietnam I could give a crap about; with Venona, I'm mostly focused on the period of about 1921 to 1948 right now.
Posted by: guy
I've just discovered that no less a person than Mohamed Al-Fayed has confidence in LaRouche. For those who don't know, his son Dodi was having an affair with the Princess of Wales and was killed with her. Since then, he has launched a crusade (if that's an appropriate term) to prove that the Queen and the British Government were responsible for their deaths. Apologies to HK, but I couldn't resist this quote from the Evening Standard (Dec 12, 2006; Francis Wheen; p. 12).
QUOTE
It seems harsh to call Fayed halfmad, but how else can one describe a man who boasts on his website that "one of the world's leading magazines, Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), is supporting my campaign to shed light on the truth surrounding the crash"?
EIR is the magazine of Lyndon LaRouche, a fantasist, fraudster and occasional US presidential candidate who believes the Queen runs a global cocaine-smuggling cartel and that the evil mastermind behind international terrorism is Lord Rees-Mogg.
In the 1996 presidential campaign, EIR carried the magnificent headline: "US Election is Also a Referendum on Britain's Lord Rees-Mogg". The Mr Big giving Rees- Mogg his orders is Prince Philip - presumably because the Queen is too busy cokedealing to take charge herself.
The intention, according to LaRouche, is to destabilise the US through drugs and bombs until it agrees to become a British colony once again. The only person in Britain powerful enough to thwart this dastardly plot was Princess Diana, who "declared war" on the royal family. So she had to be silenced.
EIR is the magazine of Lyndon LaRouche, a fantasist, fraudster and occasional US presidential candidate who believes the Queen runs a global cocaine-smuggling cartel and that the evil mastermind behind international terrorism is Lord Rees-Mogg.
In the 1996 presidential campaign, EIR carried the magnificent headline: "US Election is Also a Referendum on Britain's Lord Rees-Mogg". The Mr Big giving Rees- Mogg his orders is Prince Philip - presumably because the Queen is too busy cokedealing to take charge herself.
The intention, according to LaRouche, is to destabilise the US through drugs and bombs until it agrees to become a British colony once again. The only person in Britain powerful enough to thwart this dastardly plot was Princess Diana, who "declared war" on the royal family. So she had to be silenced.
On re-reading this, I just couldn't believe it so I found another source that confirms much of it (The Independent on Sunday; June 11, 2006; Christopher Silvester; p. 37)
QUOTE
My friend Francis Wheen is writing a book about the wave of paranoia that engulfed the world in the 1970s, from Harold Wilson to Watergate to Mrs Gandhi's emergency clampdown in India - working title, Strange Days Indeed (from a John Lennon song). One of the paranoid conspiracy theorists to emerge then was the American Lyndon LaRouche, who founded the serious-sounding magazine Executive Intelligence Review in 1974 to publish his nonsense. "Larouche once accused me of being in league with Times columnist Wiliam Rees-Mogg and the Queen in running the world cocaine trade and seeking to undermine the independence of the United States," Wheen tells me. According to LaRouche's theory, the Queen planned to flood the US with cocaine and bring it to such depths that it would beg to be a British colony. "Rees-Mogg is apparently her right-hand man, and when I wrote a teasing piece about this in The Guardian, LaRouche decided that I was in league with the Queen and Rees-Mogg." LaRouche's paranoid delusions also include his belief that a critical article about him in Take a Break magazine, in 1999, was "planted by Britain's MI6 ... and/or senior advisers to Queen Elizabeth I at Buckingham Palace".
I should add that Lord Rees-Mogg is not someone whom I personally would ask to run a beer-drinking session in a brewery, much less the world cocaine trade.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Well, there's a broad array of accusations here, so I'll try to address the main ones briefly:
1. Mohamed Al-Fayed has confidence in LaRouche: true. EIR Counterintelligence editor Jeffrey Steinberg travelled to London to meet with him regarding the deaths of Dodi and Diana, because foul play was suspected.
2. LaRouche believes the Queen runs a global cocaine-smuggling cartel: false. This chestnut was concocted by a guy named http://www.marknykanen.com/ back in the 80s when Nykanen was working for NBC. LaRouche does, however, believe that Britain fought the Opium Wars against China back during the 19th Century, and that up through the early 1980s. most drug money laundering was conducted in British colonies, particulary Hong Kong and the Caymans.
3. The evil mastermind behind international terrorism is Lord Rees-Mogg: false. However, LaRouche did call Rees-Mogg "President Clinton's most tenaciously hateful enemy" and said that he was "for years the official "Josef Goebbels" of the British oligarchical mob." In the course of googling http://www.larouchepub.com to find the answer to this one, I discovered that Jeffrey Steinberg wrote http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1998/2525_diana_wars.html to the articles you cite.
Posted by: guy
HK, you should know better than that. EIR is not a reliable source, whereas British national newspapers are.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(guy @ Sun 25th February 2007, 1:49am)
HK, you should know better than that. EIR is not a reliable source, whereas British national newspapers are.
Believe it or not, the basic argument of Chip Berlet/Cberlet and Dennis King/Dking at Wikipedia is that LaRouche's writings and public statements cannot be trusted as a source for what LaRouche's opinions are.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 9:10am)
John Train, according to his Who's Who in America (1984-85) entry, was "Founder, mng. editor Paris Review, 1952-54."
Paris Review, according to The New York Times, December 26, 1977, p. 37, was founded and funded by the CIA. Other founders of Paris Review were Peter Matthiessen and George Plimpton, both witting CIA agents. By 1987 John Train was president of the Afghanistan Relief Committee, which received money in 1985 and 1986 from the National Endowment for Democracy. NED was created by Congress to funnel money to foreign groups so that the CIA wouldn't have to create so many fronts and that kept getting exposed.
For Chip Berlet to even attend the John Train meetings about LaRouche, and rub shoulders with all those high-level spooks, indicates to me that he is in bed with them.
After a period of quiescence with respect to the LaRouche articles, SlimVirgin has erupted into frenzied activity, deleting all references to the John Train Salon (including an out-of-process deletion of the article by that name, which lately has been a redirect) and threatening to ban two editors who objected. But the part that is absolutely precious about all this, is that she is evidently so worked up about Daniel Brandt, that she actually cannot bring herself to type the letters of his name. Behold:
QUOTE
I know that Dking and Cberlet have a particular desire to eliminate the John Train material from this article, but this is an article about LaRouche's political views, and LaRouche is the ultimate verifiable source on what those views are. I don't accept SlimVirgin's argument that, in effect, we may not report LaRouche's views on Living Persons. She certainly isn't applying that across the board, or we would delete most of this article. The material deleted is sourced not only to LaRouche, but also an affidavit submitted in court, so I can't accept the idea that it can be deleted to please certain editors. --NathanDW 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
All contentious claims about living persons that are sourced to LaRouche should be removed from this article. Nathan, if you restore any again, it will be a BLP violation. If there's a court document and if it's independent of LaRouche, by all means use it as a source, but you should also find an independent secondary source. Until you have that, you can't add this material. Please read WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I will try to find some outside source for this, but it seems to me that this is an unusual circumstance. This is in a section on "LaRouche's conspiracy theories," so it is not being presented as proven. I don't think your BLP argument applies in this case.
Also, I note on various talk pages that neither King nor Berlet denies that these meetings took place. They simply claim that it was a normal, innocent gathering of quasi-left-wing activists, deep-pockets right-wing financiers and intelligence operatives. So the facts are not in dispute, as far as I can see-- only the interpretation, which is of course, just another LaRouche conspiracy theory. So, where's the contention? --Tsunami Butler 03:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've worked on this a little, but it seems a bit ridiculous to document a LaRouche conspiracy theory with additional sources. It is not being presented as a widely-shared conspiracy theory, just a LaRouche conspiracy theory, so it doesn't really matter how many people agree with it. As I said, the facts themselves are not in dispute, so SlimVirgin, I would ask you to explain your thinking on this more fully. --Tsunami Butler 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"According to a sworn affidavit..." I guess I could have changed this to 'According to a pdf file of unknown origin on a geocities site...", but I didn't really see the point, so I took it out instead, along with everything that seemed to depend on it. If the point is that the LaRouche orginazition thinks lots of people are conspiring to make them look like loons, I'm not sure how notable that is anyway. Tom Harrison Talk 04:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have replaced that cite with a cite to the affidavit itself, which is provided in the Daniel Brandt article. What is notable about the meetings is the stellar grouping (except for King and Berlet) of persons and organizations that attended. It has COINTELPRO written all over it. --Tsunami Butler 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATT and WP:BLP specifically prohibit the use of self-published third-party sources in support of biographical material about living persons. The use of primary sources alone is also discouraged. Please find a mainstream secondary source for this material, or leave it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you kindly be specific about what you consider to be a "self-published third party source" in this article? --Tsunami Butler 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You used a self-published website as a secondary source, I believe, and an affidavit as a primary source. Others used a LaRouche publication. None of these are reliable sources within the meaning of WP:ATT and WP:BLP. For contentious claims about living persons, you must use the best possible sources, which in this case would mean a mainstream news organization or other publisher. Please decide whether to answer here or on your talk page, but not both, please. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be reluctant to name the source you are objecting to. Is it Daniel Brandt? I have gathered from various Wikipedia controversies that you and he don't get along. His organization is no different than Chip Berlet's (in fact, Chip Berlet was once part of his organization) and in fact, there is an organization, whereas Dennis King's website is entirely self-published.
But you still haven't answered what I think is the main question here: we are not talking about "contentious claims about living persons." We are talking about a conspiracy theory of Lyndon LaRouche. You yourself have taken pains to emphasize that he is a conspiracy theorist, and this is an article specifically about his theories. I don't see how you can object to LaRouche as a source for his own theories. --Tsunami Butler 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, when I ask you to post either here or on my talk page, but not both, why do you continue to post on both?
Please don't edit further without reading our content policies. That's what they are there for, so that individual editors don't have to explain everything from scratch on every talk page about every issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche#John_Train_Salon
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
I'm beginning to wonder whether there isn't some legalistic reason why SV is so reluctant to directly address the subject of Daniel Brandt. Consider this, posted yesterday:
QUOTE
2. You say that claims about living persons may not be sourced to "self-published third party sources." Are you referring here to Public Information Research, the organization associated with Daniel Brandt?
No third-party self-published sources are allowed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 6th March 2007, 9:47am)
I'm beginning to wonder whether there isn't some legalistic reason why SV is so reluctant to directly address the subject of Daniel Brandt.
I guess there are quite a few possibilities... In theory she could be sued for her role in the whole Brandt situation, though I doubt there would be much point in that. Jimbo and the crew might also have told her to exercise extreme caution, including not mentioning Brandt's name under any circumstances... And there's also the photo. If the photo is her, then it would have spooked her pretty badly, I should think.
I almost feel a certain amount of sympathy for her at this point. If you've really, really, really screwed something up, it's a real bummer when events (and other people) make it impossible for you to fix the situation.
She also seems like she might be the sort who doesn't like it when things escape her personal control... that's just a wild guess, though...
Posted by: gomi
QUOTE(guy @ Sat 24th February 2007, 4:31pm)
... Lord Rees-Mogg is not someone whom I personally would ask to run a beer-drinking session in a brewery ...
The vernacular, "couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery", sounds so much better.
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
It looks like for the first time, a move by SlimVirgin to ban a "LaRouche editor" is meeting some resistance from an ArbCom member: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfAR#Tsunami_Butler_.28LaRouche.29
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Tue 3rd April 2007, 9:14am)
It looks like for the first time, a move by SlimVirgin to ban a "LaRouche editor" is meeting some resistance from an ArbCom member: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfAR#Tsunami_Butler_.28LaRouche.29
It looks like something of a dogpile on the Chipster, with the most recent addition being (gasp) Nobs.
And, here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=120368846#Tsunami_Butler_.28LaRouche.29 before Nobs' comments were removed on the grounds that he is a banned user.
And here is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2#Tsunami_Butler_.28LaRouche.29, after SV executed her ban on Tsunami Butler.
Posted by: Somey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/L!
Did she think nobody was going to notice that?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 12th April 2007, 11:17am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/L!
Did she think nobody was going to notice that?
As always, my reason for participating in this Forum is not to examine the merits of any particular case of Real World politics, but merely to critique the form of what Wikipedia does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SlimVirgin/L&oldid=121760888.
It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that SlimVirgin is one of those forces that is warping the declared mission of Wikipedia into advocacy journalism, editorial point of view dissemination, and rank propaganda.
It's enough to rate Wikipedia an official classification as an Attack Site.
Jonny
Posted by: gomi
Don't forget about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/L -- it is her "evidence file" about the LaRouchies.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 12th April 2007, 8:17am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/L!
Did she think nobody was going to notice that?
I know of at least one case on her list, that of Northmeister, where the accused user has no ties whatsoever to the LaRouche movement. I corresponded with Northmeister and got to know him. He was guilty of noticing that SV and Will Beback had a POV vendetta against LaRouche, and said so, in so many words. So, he's on the list and was harassed mercilessly.
Incidentally, my one year block, which was due to expire next month, was just extended for another year by SV, because she detected, using check user and possibly her vaunted, finely honed linguistic skills, that a user she just banned (Tsunami Butler) uses the same ISP that I do (AOL.) I am thinking of some way to protest this, not that I am eager to resume editing at Wikipedia. Any suggestions?
Posted by: Somey
Blame Turkey?
Anyway, that's probably my fault. Slimmy knows she can't ban me (which I'm sure infuriates her to no end), and too many people like PL (and she's too nice anyway), so you're the only one available, right?
Maybe we can convince the WP folks to sue AOL for "harassment." At least a few of those AOL subscribers must have money.
Posted by: Uly
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 12th April 2007, 9:12pm)
I am thinking of some way to protest this, not that I am eager to resume editing at Wikipedia. Any suggestions?
I'd suggest emailing Kirill Lokshin. He's obviously tired of Slim's antics and he's recently read up enough on the issue to comment on the Tsunami Butler case.
Posted by: anon1234
QUOTE(Uly @ Thu 12th April 2007, 10:16pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 12th April 2007, 9:12pm)
I am thinking of some way to protest this, not that I am eager to resume editing at Wikipedia. Any suggestions?
I'd suggest emailing Kirill Lokshin. He's obviously tired of Slim's antics and he's recently read up enough on the issue to comment on the Tsunami Butler case.
It's hard to get individuals by themselves to stand up to Slimvirgin. It's better to arrange in public a situation that puts SlimVirgin against many individuals at once, like this whole Attack page situation. Safety in numbers, also it ensures that you have a decent case, individual grievances are not taken as seriously as grievances that have wider support.
Posted by: Kato
172 is fingering what seems to be another innocent editor as a "New LaRouche editor", someone called Mbhiii. And 172's reverting Mbhiii's entirely non-LaRouche related edits as "LaRouche propaganda", calling in WillBeback and Slim Virgin to help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=126469525&oldid=126390235
Posted by: nobs
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 27th April 2007, 3:51pm)
172 is fingering what seems to be another innocent editor as a "New LaRouche editor", someone called Mbhiii. And 172's reverting Mbhiii's entirely non-LaRouche related edits as "LaRouche propaganda", calling in WillBeback and Slim Virgin to help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=126469525&oldid=126390235
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 27th April 2007, 2:51pm)
172 is fingering what seems to be another innocent editor as a "New LaRouche editor", someone called Mbhiii. And 172's reverting Mbhiii's entirely non-LaRouche related edits as "LaRouche propaganda", calling in WillBeback and Slim Virgin to help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=126469525&oldid=126390235
I've taken a look at Mbhiii's contributions, and he is most certainly not a "LaRouche editor." He is the subject of some controversy, including an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mbhiii and it may be that his opponents are setting him up for the inevitable lynching if they can make the "LaRouche" tag stick.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War&diff=123320504&oldid=122866641 that 172 singles out is interesting, however, because it touches upon a number of important economists that are of interest to LaRouche, and who have been generally ignored by "reliable sources." As I indicated way, way back at the beginning of this thread, in the wacky, wonderful world of Wikipedia, if you can be shown to have an opinion, on any subject, that is similar to one of LaRouche, then you are probably a sockpuppet of Yours Truly.
Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 28th April 2007, 12:41am)
I've taken a look at Mbhiii's contributions, and he is most certainly not a "LaRouche editor."
Not according to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Will_Beback&diff=126470204&oldid=126464868
Posted by: Somey
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 27th April 2007, 7:41pm)
As I indicated way, way back at the beginning of this thread, in the wacky, wonderful world of Wikipedia, if you can be shown to have an opinion, on any subject, that is similar to one of LaRouche, then you are probably a sockpuppet of Yours Truly.
And just in case they run out of ideas, they can always check SlimVirgin's ever-popular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/Krusty for further reference.
Posted by: gomi
As if further evidence was needed, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=SlimVirgin&page=User%3ASlimVirgin%2FL is SlimeVirgin undeleting, adding to, and then deleting the page User:SlimVirgin/L, in otder to keep it from scrutiny. Slimey, indeed.
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Fri 27th April 2007, 5:41pm)
The http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War&diff=123320504&oldid=122866641 that 172 singles out is interesting, however, because it touches upon a number of important economists that are of interest to LaRouche, and who have been generally ignored by "reliable sources."
The fact that the Fearless LaRouche Hunters are particularly obsessed with the topic of Early History of American Economic Theory is of interest. It helps substantiate my hunch that one of the key ideological priorities of Wikipedia is to promote the Randian/NeoCon dogma that there has never been any meaningful opposition to Laissez-Faire, Free Trade and Globalism, outside of Communism (which is, of course, now defunct.) This in turn suggests that the important silent partner in the crusade against LaRouchism is in fact Jimbo.
Posted by: papaya
Nah, there's no need for a conspiracy to explain all the Randroid/libertarian/neo-con econ on Wikipedia. THe internet itself is heavily biased in that area, because computer people and engineers
- All know they can solve any problem, no matter how abstruse
- Are often latent adolescents who resent being told they can't do anything they want
- Don't know beans about real economics
- Don't undertand that people aren't machines whose behavior is hard to predict
- Tend to not have a clue about human behavior period-- that's why they spend so much time on-line.
Objectivism and libertarianism are the perfect political philosophies for these people, because they are totally oblivious to how difficult and messy politics and economics are.
That's also part of the reason Wikipedia has such Lord of the Flies-style politics: these people are tone-deaf to dynamics of personal interaction, so they simply don't get that treating other people as people requires social structures. In a real, first-world organization, people come in with well-known blueprints for such structures (e.g. Robert's Rules of Order) and set them into place. Sure, there's politics, and normal people understand that. But what we have in Wikipedia is a system in which the editors are capriciously subject to the admins, and the admins aren't really subject to anyone, and everyone is denying responsbility for both content and procedures. Real organizations are set up by people who get that this doesn't work.
Posted by: Cedric
QUOTE(papaya @ Fri 4th May 2007, 9:05am)
Objectivism and libertarianism are the perfect political philosophies for these people, because they are totally oblivious to how difficult and messy politics and economics are.
And that explains quite a lot.
QUOTE(papaya @ Fri 4th May 2007, 9:05am)
That's also part of the reason Wikipedia has such Lord of the Flies-style politics: these people are tone-deaf to dynamics of personal interaction, so they simply don't get that treating other people as people requires social structures. . . . But what we have in Wikipedia is a system in which the editors are capriciously subject to the admins, and the admins aren't really subject to anyone, and everyone is denying responsbility for both content and procedures. Real organizations are set up by people who get that this doesn't work.
Yes, but to a certain extent, admins are subject to other admins (or a group of them). There is some amount of infighting that goes on.
Posted by: papaya
There's no real social structure within the admin community, though, and it's large enough that it needs that structure. So yeah, there's infighting, and there's no social paradigm to direct it. Except the conch shell, of course.
Posted by: Castle Rock
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 12th April 2007, 8:17am)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin/L!
Did she think nobody was going to notice that?
In the interest of accountability:
QUOTE(SlimVirgin @ 4th June 2007, 8:17am)
{{LaRouche Talk}}
A list of accounts known or strongly suspected as [[LaRouche movement]] accounts, in order of arrival.
#{{user11|64.30.208.48}}, May 15, 2004, resolves to Linkline, Santa Monica, California.
#:An abuse report exists on [[user:64.30.208.48|64.30.208.48]] for sending out LaRouche press releases as spam during the 2004 election for the governor of California. [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=7abfe569.0306031135.120df01%40posting.google.com&output=gplain]
#{{user11|172.199.126.121}}, May 16, 2004, created [[Chip Berlet]] and [[Dennis King]], May 16, 2004, resolves to Los Angeles, California, and other IP addresses within the same ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255, sometimes signing as Peter_Abelard@ausi.com. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=5989946&oldid=5989902] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche&diff=6403549&oldid=6403501] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schiller_Institute&diff=8884592&oldid=8847838] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_Highway&diff=6334844&oldid=6308398] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Danby&diff=4595951&oldid=4593276]
#:Jul 26, 2004, as [[User:172.197.96.137|172.197.96.137]] at [[Talk:Lyndon LaRouche]] wrote his/her name as Peter_Abelard@ausi.com [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALyndon_LaRouche&diff=4881464&oldid=4857997]
#:Aug 30, 2004, as [[User:172.195.201.53|172.195.201.53]] at [[Talk:Lyndon LaRouche]] again gave his/her name as Peter_Abelard @ausi.com [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALyndon_LaRouche&diff=5536197&oldid=5534473]
#:Sept 27, 2004 as [[User:172.199.24.28|172.199.24.28]] at [[Talk:Asian Highway]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_Highway&diff=0]
#:Sept 27, 2004, the 14:53 edit attribution was changed from [[User:172.199.24.28|172.199.24.28]] to [[User:Weed Harper|Weed Harper]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_Highway&diff=0]
#:Dec 27, 2004 as [[User:172.194.97.169|172.194.97.169]] at [[Schiller Institute]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schiller_Institute&diff=8884592&oldid=8847838]
#:The IP address ranges 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255 and 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255 have been used to post LaRouche press releases and other material on Usenet. A "Ralph Gibbons" has posted several. [http://groups.google.ca/groups?as_q=%20larouche&safe=images&as_uauthors=ralph%20gibbons&lr=&hl=en] LaRouche press releases and other material from the same two AOL IP address ranges that were used on Wikipedia [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=7abfe569.0401152316.71f43441%40posting.google.com&output=gplain] [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=7a2d2c30.0304270620.7fbbb679%40posting.google.com&output=gplain] [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=7a2d2c30.0306120651.4fe83589%40posting.google.com&output=gplain] [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=7abfe569.0401280728.6c54c5cf%40posting.google.com&output=gplain], and material from "Weed Harper." [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=4db933f4.0401251313.25f577c6%40posting.google.com&output=gplain] [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=4db933f4.0407031157.1bb0dc5a%40posting.google.com&output=gplain] [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=4db933f4.0401291706.46219ffe%40posting.google.com&output=gplain] [http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=4db933f4.0402070804.33f4ac92%40posting.google.com&output=gplain]
#{{User11|198.81.26.48}}, May 18, 2004, to create [[Amelia Boynton Robinson]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amelia_Boynton_Robinson&action=history&limit=100&offset=0]
#:May 18, 2004 as [[User:198.81.26.76|198.81.26.76]] to edit [[Chip Berlet]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=3631601&oldid=3631419]
#:May 19, 2004 as [[User:198.81.26.76|198.81.26.76]] at [[American System (economics)]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_System_%28economics%29&diff=prev&oldid=3743104]
#:Dec 4, 2004 as [[User:198.81.26.76|198.81.26.76]] at [[Chip Berlet]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=8181809]
#:Jan 9, 2005 as [[User:198.81.26.73|198.81.26.73]] at [[Chip Berlet]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9235875&oldid=9230802]
#{{user11|Herschelkrustofsky}} May 19, 2004, acknowledged he was from California, check user confirmed he posted from {{user11|64.30.208.48}} (Santa Monica, CA) and the AOL addresses that were the source of LaRouche press releases on Usenet. Blocked May 5, 2006 for one year.
#{{user11|Weed Harper}}, August 6, 2004, who sometimes signed as Peter Abelard, as did some of the AOL addresses, check user confirmed he also posted from {{user11|64.30.208.48}} and the AOL addresses.
#{{user11|C Colden}}, September 1, 2004; indefblocked March 18, 2005.
#{{user11|The Power of Reason}}, June 6, 2005.
#{{user11|The Power of Human Reason}}, June 7, 2005.
#{{user11|Cognition}}, July 12, 2005 — [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_.7BCognition.7D|Cognition's unforgettable statement]]. Indefblocked May 16, 2006.
#{{user11|BirdsOfFire}}, November 2, 2005; indefblocked March 31, 2006.
#{{user11|NathanDW}}, November 12, 2005.
#{{user11|Northmeister}}, February 5, 2006.
#{{user11|IAMthatIAM}}, March 20, 2006; indefblocked March 20, 2006.
#{{user11|IAMwhatsIAM}}, March 23, 2006; indefblocked March 24, 2006.
#{{user11|71.35.98.217}}, May 29, 2006, Qwest, Seattle, Washington.
#{{user11|ISTJester}}, June 3, 2006; indefblocked June 5, 2006.
#{{user11|Nemesis1981}}, July 10, 2006.
#{{user11|ManEatingDonut}}, August 21, 2006; indefblocked Nov 26, 2006.
#{{user11|Tsunami Butler}}, October 7, 2006; indefblocked April 10, 2007.
#{{user11|MaplePorter}}, December 8, 2006–Jan 19, 2007. Then April 29, 2007 onwards.
#{{user11|63.3.66.18}}, January 16, 2007, resolves to UUNET Technologies, Burbank, California.
#{{user11|Dr. Gary Carter}}, January 18, 2007.
#{{user11|HonourableSchoolboy}}, January 20, 2007; indefblocked April 10, 2007.
#{{user11|76.166.224.229}}, February 1, 2007, Roadrunner, location unknown.
#{{user11|89.62.102.62}}, February 24, 2007, resolves to STRATO Medien AG, Germany.
#{{user11|Don't lose that number}}, February 25, 2007.
Posted by: Derktar
Interesting that the page was deleted in June, had been deleted and restored twice before.