Will Beback's passive-aggressive approach, and Cberlet, just plain aggressive Options

[tarantino]

The LaRouche articles form an axis of several areas, including the whole Overstock thing, where individuals with blatant conflicts of interest parked up and began OWNING the information they wanted the world to read.

That's an interesting observation. In the past 24 hours there is a sudden spate of edits on LaRouche-related topics by User:John Nevard, who seems to be thick with both the Gary Weiss sock drawer and the MONGO brigade.

John Nevard closely follows what goes on here, and likes to do things to get WR's attention, right John?

For example, during Mantanmoreland's arbcom proceedings, much was made about MM and SH's edit summaries using the phrase 'as per' and the space hyphen hyphen space separator. Having never used either before, he began to do so and continues doing so.

Also, he's the only other person to use SV's useful links box.

[jorge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=166151446

John Nevard (Talk | contribs)
(←Created page with 'I have another account- however, I'm not going to edit under my real name with a bunch of terrorists running around.')

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I've pointed all this out before, but IMO it bears repeating: Larouche has so many targets of derision, and so few figures of admiration

Finkelstein makes no criticisms of the British establishment, British colonialism, the Royal family and so on. Which make up the main targets of LaRouche from what I can gather.

Allow me to point out, as one who has read plenty of LaRouche, that he has often sung the praises of various figures in English history, including Henry VII (whom he credits with being the founder of the second modern nation state on this planet, after Louis XI's France,) and Sir Thomas More. LaRouche has written volumes on Shakespeare, and also praised my namesake, Sir William Herschel, who was a distinguished astronomer as well as a fine composer.

[guy]

In my experience, Norman Finkelstein criticises most people, and certainly anyone who dares say anything not 100% laudatory of someone he likes.

That's not true. For example, Finkelstein makes no criticisms of the British establishment, British colonialism, the Royal family and so on. Which make up the main targets of LaRouche from what I can gather.

I'm not sure what point Kato is making. Finkelstein, whatever he is, is not a LaRouche supporter so why should he attack the same people? or is he saying that the British Establishment attack Finkelstein's friends yet he does not respond?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I think that Kato was merely suggesting that your criticism of Finkelstein was over-broad.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

He'll try to get this User:Niels_Gade fella to post something that can be vaguely misinterpreted as "incivility" so that he can give him at least a 48-hour block, followed by full protection of the article "until further notice."

Actually, it seems that Will and his rambunctious sidekick have suffered a significant setback on this one, due to vastly increased input from the "community," including a few known Straight Shooters and othe BADSITErs. The disputed lines were deleted altogether.

[Somey]

The disputed lines were deleted altogether.

For now, at least... it should also be noted that Mr. Gade disengaged from the discussion on April 1, probably avoiding the Railroad Treatment™. Afterwards, the Chipster went on something of a rampage.

I got the impression that he was a bit more desperate this time, like he knows people are watching now, and he can't keep getting away with this stuff forever. Then again, it was only one paragraph...

I especially liked this one, though:

So it's the Jewish elites who track back to a cabal in Babylon who control the Queen today, according to LaRouche. This is a classic right-wing antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Well, of course! We've all heard these right-wingers go on and on about Jewish elites who track back to a cabal in Babylon and control the Queen, until we're all pretty much sick of hearing it, day in, day out...

Then again, if the Queen can't control herself, what are you gonna do...?

[guy]

I think I know as much as most people about classic right-wing antisemitic conspiracy theories. They occasionally refer to Jewish cabals that go back many centuries, usually claiming that Freemasonry is a Jewish concept and Jewish-dominated organisation. However, it's pretty unusual to drag in the Queen beyond pointing out that her ex-brother-in-law Lord Snowdon had a Jewish grandfather. That's very much a LaRouche specialty.

[Moulton]

Actually, the critics miss the identifying demographic. It's not so much Jewishness that's being spotlighted as red-headedness.

Socrates, Galileo, and Darwin were redheads. So was King David, Vincent van Gogh, Mark Twain and Thomas Jefferson. Queen Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill were redheads. The legendary King Arthur was said to be a redhead. JK Rowling is a redhead. So is Jane Goodall.

George Washington was a Mason. And he was also a redhead.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I think I know as much as most people about classic right-wing antisemitic conspiracy theories. They occasionally refer to Jewish cabals that go back many centuries, usually claiming that Freemasonry is a Jewish concept and Jewish-dominated organisation. However, it's pretty unusual to drag in the Queen beyond pointing out that her ex-brother-in-law Lord Snowdon had a Jewish grandfather. That's very much a LaRouche specialty.

It is? Please provide a Reliable Source for that. I've read as much LaRouche as the next fellow, and I've never seen any mention of that.

Also note Berlet's rationale for the assertion about the "classic antisemitic conspiracy" yadda yadda yadda yadda. It is based entirely on this quote from LaRouche:

The Federal Reserve System, which was introduced to the U.S.A. from London, by Cassell's New York agent Jacob Schiff, has been intended to function, increasingly, as a disguise for that European style in central banking which was introduced to the Netherlands and England as an Anglo-Dutch clone of the Venice model of a financier-controlled imperial maritime power.

I have to marvel at Chip's acute perceptive power here. It's as if some of Virginia Slim's Finely Honed Linguistic Analytic Skills™ had rubbed off on him.

[guy]

However, it's pretty unusual to drag in the Queen ... That's very much a LaRouche specialty.

It is? Please provide a Reliable Source for that. I've read as much LaRouche as the next fellow, and I've never seen any mention of that.

A quick Google found this.

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/enemy.htm

If that's not good enough, I have a newspaper reference somewhere that I think I cited once on WR.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

However, it's pretty unusual to drag in the Queen ... That's very much a LaRouche specialty.

It is? Please provide a Reliable Source for that. I've read as much LaRouche as the next fellow, and I've never seen any mention of that.

A quick Google found this.

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/enemy.htm

That's not what I was asking about, Guy. You appear to have selectively edited your own comment. LaRouche attacks QEII all the time. In fact, he has compared her state of mind to that of Richard III. I was asking for a source regarding your full quote, which implies that LaRouche somehow ties her in to some sort of Jewish conspiracy. Allow me to refresh your memory:

I think I know as much as most people about classic right-wing antisemitic conspiracy theories. They occasionally refer to Jewish cabals that go back many centuries, usually claiming that Freemasonry is a Jewish concept and Jewish-dominated organisation. However, it's pretty unusual to drag in the Queen beyond pointing out that her ex-brother-in-law Lord Snowdon had a Jewish grandfather. That's very much a LaRouche specialty.

[guy]

That's not what I was asking about, Guy.

Sorry, there's been a misunderstanding. I was saying that it's rare for right-wing conspiracy theorists to attack the Queen (in fact, in Britain they are all staunch monarchists) whereas LaRouche does so frequently.