The Chipster goes on strike, -- cabal in disarray? Options

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Cberlet has, with great fanfare, announced that he is leaving for a month, to protest the failure of Wikipedia to "deal with" supporters of LaRouche who have opposed him in content disputes. The announcement appears on his user page and at least two article talk pages. This appears to be an attempt to copy one of the more successful maneuvers from SlimVirgin's playbook, where she plays the part of the damsel in distress, in hopes of drawing legions of admirers to take her side in a quarrel.

Heretofore, Cberlet has been successful in posting distress signals from time to time on talk pages, which would generally summon SlimVirgin, Will Beback, or Tom Harrison to his aid. Lately his cries of distress have largely fallen on deaf ears -- Will Beback responds, but he is somewhat circumspect about indulging in blatant abuse of his sysop powers. Historically, Will has preferred to let SV do the dirty work, and then he would write elaborate justifications for whatever thuggery she decided upon.

Now, with Jayjg gone, SV on the sidelines, and cberlet on strike, is the whole edifice beginning to crumble?

[GlassBeadGame]

Cberlet has, with great fanfare, announced that he is leaving for a month, to protest the failure of Wikipedia to "deal with" supporters of LaRouche who have opposed him in content disputes. The announcement appears on his user page and at least two article talk pages. This appears to be an attempt to copy one of the more successful maneuvers from SlimVirgin's playbook, where she plays the part of the damsel in distress, in hopes of drawing legions of admirers to take her side in a quarrel.

Heretofore, Cberlet has been successful in posting distress signals from time to time on talk pages, which would generally summon SlimVirgin, Will Beback, or Tom Harrison to his aid. Lately his cries of distress have largely fallen on deaf ears -- Will Beback responds, but he is somewhat circumspect about indulging in blatant abuse of his sysop powers. Historically, Will has preferred to let SV do the dirty work, and then he would write elaborate justifications for whatever thuggery she decided upon.

Now, with Jayjg gone, SV on the sidelines, and cberlet on strike, is the whole edifice beginning to crumble?

2.) racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic bigots.
-- CB "list of WP turn offs" on his user page.

Please show me even once instance where Berlet has stood up against Islamophobia. One academic whose aid he came to for an Islamophobic attack. One political figure, right or left, he has criticized as anti-Muslim. I do not mean general, useless hand ringing, but specific figures in public debate. I don't know. I don't follow the guy that close, so maybe he does defend Muslims. I would like to know.

[nobs]

Cberlet has, with great fanfare, announced that he is leaving for a month, to protest the failure of Wikipedia to "deal with" supporters of LaRouche who have opposed him in content disputes. The announcement appears on his user page and at least two article talk pages. This appears to be an attempt to copy one of the more successful maneuvers from SlimVirgin's playbook, where she plays the part of the damsel in distress, in hopes of drawing legions of admirers to take her side in a quarrel.

Heretofore, Cberlet has been successful in posting distress signals from time to time on talk pages, which would generally summon SlimVirgin, Will Beback, or Tom Harrison to his aid. Lately his cries of distress have largely fallen on deaf ears -- Will Beback responds, but he is somewhat circumspect about indulging in blatant abuse of his sysop powers. Historically, Will has preferred to let SV do the dirty work, and then he would write elaborate justifications for whatever thuggery she decided upon.

Now, with Jayjg gone, SV on the sidelines, and cberlet on strike, is the whole edifice beginning to crumble?

This is the phenomenea Toynbee refers to as "Withdrawal and Return;" Moses going up the mountain, Jesus in the Wilderness, Mohammad in the cave, Lenin on the night train from Zurich, Hitler in Landsberg prison, Nixon after his defeats in 1960 & 62, Mandella released from prison, Arafat from exile in Tripoli, etc. etc. The charismatic leader withdraws for intimate introspection and communion with himself, God or demonic forces, only to return in triumph and lead the followers to Nirvana or the Promised Land.

[Kato]

Isn't Chip's message an outrageous breach of protocol?

I am leaving for one month to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is on November 9th; after which I will reconsider my options, especially regarding the failure of Wikipedia to deal with the protracted and multi-year manipulation of Wikpedia by supporters of the notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe Lyndon LaRouche, especially on the entry, Views of Lyndon LaRouche.

Is LaRouche "a notorious antisemite, sexist, homophobe"? I don't know a lot about the guy and he's only shown up on my international radar via the wiki-wars, but I'm pretty sure he isn't notorious for any of those things. Not outside of Berlet's weird circle of anti-LaRouche campaigners who have been trying to smear the guy for decades, at any rate.

To be fair to the Chipster, the bigots certainly drag a good faith editor down. Unfortunately, Chip isn't a good faith editor.

[nobs]

Please show me even once instance where Berlet has stood up against Islamophobia. One academic whose aid he came to for an Islamophobic attack. One political figure, right or left, he has criticized as anti-Muslim. I do not mean general, useless hand ringing, but specific figures in public debate. I don't know. I don't follow the guy that close, so maybe he does defend Muslims. I would like to know.

For the record, here's portions of an email sent to Stephen Schwartz when Wikipedia attemped to defame him in that famous case (most of the original content was available at WikiTruth last I saw).

from Rob Smith [redacted]
to Stephen Schwartz [redacted]
date Jan 17, 2006 4:15 PM


If you click on "What links here" on your biographical page in Wikipedia, you can discover the smears against you are a longtime in the making. Particularly related to other articles. In the "Neofascism and religion" article for example, we read, "The use of 'Islamofascism' to describe perceived strains of authoritarianism and totalitarianism in contemporary Islamic movements has nevertheless gained wide currency in the United States, particularly among neo-conservatives. It has been attributed to Christopher Hitchens, Khalid Duran, Stephen Schwartz,.."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofascism_an...ascism.22_label


How did this get here? Let's look at the history.

Chip Berlet created the article on 28 May 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=14076836

Here Berlet adds, "Allegations that any religion is involved with neofascism are hotly contested, and can bring out the worst in rhetoric and bigoted claims by advocates or opponents. Assertions that religious fundamentalists and militants are "fascists," can often be understood as a [[hyperbole|hyperbolic]] political attack that uses [[Fascist (epithet)|the term fascism as a politic epithet or slur]]). This article will examine this phenomenon in context, but will also review scholarly claims that have more substance ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=21574296

Here you see " To combine it with the word 'fascist' in one phrase is a desecration and a form of hate speech."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=29495096

And here Chip Berlet links the Islamofascism page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=29495553

Reviewing this and other articles, you will see you are a "neo-conservative pundit", a proponent of 'bigoted rhetoric" and "hate speech", and lacking in "scholarly review." Berlet laid the framework out in that particular article, and other anonymous sockpuppet trolls finally attached your name to it. This is just one example.

Rob Smith,
aka "nobs" in Wikipedia

[Castle Rock]

Cberlet has, with great fanfare, announced that he is leaving for a month, to protest the failure of Wikipedia to "deal with" supporters of LaRouche who have opposed him in content disputes. The announcement appears on his user page and at least two article talk pages. This appears to be an attempt to copy one of the more successful maneuvers from SlimVirgin's playbook, where she plays the part of the damsel in distress, in hopes of drawing legions of admirers to take her side in a quarrel.

Heretofore, Cberlet has been successful in posting distress signals from time to time on talk pages, which would generally summon SlimVirgin, Will Beback, or Tom Harrison to his aid. Lately his cries of distress have largely fallen on deaf ears -- Will Beback responds, but he is somewhat circumspect about indulging in blatant abuse of his sysop powers. Historically, Will has preferred to let SV do the dirty work, and then he would write elaborate justifications for whatever thuggery she decided upon.

Now, with Jayjg gone, SV on the sidelines, and cberlet on strike, is the whole edifice beginning to crumble?

Ding dong the witch is dead. Good riddance, I hope he goes the way of Adam Carr.

For somebody who ranted so often about fanatical POV pushers, I found his edits to be rather ironic in that light.

[nobs]

Isn't Chip's message an outrageous breach of protocol?

I am leaving for one month to commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht, which is on November 9th; after which I will reconsider my options, especially regarding the failure of Wikipedia to deal with the protracted and multi-year manipulation of Wikpedia by supporters of the notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe Lyndon LaRouche, especially on the entry, Views of Lyndon LaRouche.

Is LaRouche "a notorious antisemite, sexist, homophobe"? I don't know a lot about the guy and he's only shown up on my international radar via the wiki-wars, but I'm pretty sure he isn't notorious for any of those things. Not outside of Berlet's weird circle of anti-LaRouche campaigners who have been trying to smear the guy for decades, at any rate.

To be fair to the Chipster, the bigots certainly drag a good faith editor down. Unfortunately, Chip isn't a good faith editor.

It's a world of incivility and duplicity he worked to shape; now he rages about the monster he himself helped create.

[guy]

Is LaRouche "a notorious antisemite, sexist, homophobe"?

So far as I can see, LaRouche isn't a notorious anything, at least in Britain. Wikipedia has inflated his status beyond all reason, possibly as a counterweight to their inflation of Ayn Rand.

[No one of consequence]

So far as I can see, LaRouche isn't a notorious anything, at least in Britain. Wikipedia has inflated his status beyond all reason, possibly as a counterweight to their inflation of Ayn Rand.

LaRouche is inflated for the same reason that Pokemon monsters and minor characters from Harry Potter get inflated; a few dedicated editors who are passionate about the subject. In LaRouche's case, this is amplified by the determination of editors on both sides to get the "truth" out.

The same phenomenon is evidenced by [[Jack Hyles]], a minor evangelist about whom a small number of editors feel very passionate about exposing "the truth." Since you can't outright call a preacher a pervert (or LaRouche a notorious fascist homophobe), you add 5000 words of other people saying it and call it [[WP:RS]].

[Kato]

The matter here isn't really about LaRouche as we know, it is about someone who is prepared to write that a subject is a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe" on their user page, who spent years attacking the subject in print in the real world, and then goes on to wikipedia to make 1000s of edits about this person on various pages.

That is the prime example of what they call a "POV pusher" with a "Conflict Of Interest"! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

But when anyone complained about it, RFCs were deleted, individuals were bundled away, and Chip was protected by a core of familiar names. Of course the irony was that these familiar names were banning people for lesser crimes than Chip all the time. Eventually, LaRouche became a unique figure on WP, and normal BLP practice was suspended by Arbcom in order for Chip to indulge his life long passion of smearing this guy.

Just a completely fucking ridiculous state of affairs, and anyone who couldn't see it was either corrupt or an ignoramus. Wondering around aimlessly and then stumbling upon that festering ants nest - and finding out that it was being endorsed from the top - ranked as one of the key moments of realisation that WP had gone badly awry.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

The matter here isn't really about LaRouche as we know, it is about someone who is prepared to write that a subject is a "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe" on their user page, who spent years attacking the subject in print in the real world, and then goes on to wikipedia to make 1000s of edits about this person on various pages.

Interestingly, Thatcher131 has now redacted "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe" on BLP grounds from the talk page versions of Chip's little manifesto.

[dtobias]

I've known about Larouche since the '80s, and my (not so NPOV) opinion is that he's a raving nutcase.

[nobs]

Berlet quits in a huff. Accuses the Admin community of "disgusting" behavior,

Is there no sense of moral obligation left among administrators? It is time to stand up and take action.

This is the same activist who writes,

Train others to step forward if leaders are arrested, and arrange beforehand for legal support for all those who are detained. Be aware that some people, especially those with family caretaking responsibility or medical issues, need to avoid arrest,

but does not mention a word about the wisdom of taking children and the elderly to violent protests. One wonders how many times agitators like this have "sang in jail" or "washed tear gas" out of his own eyes.

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Kato]

Interestingly, Thatcher131 has now redacted "notorious antisemite, sexist, and homophobe" on BLP grounds from the talk page versions of Chip's little manifesto.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Despite being on strike, Chip's been edit warring on his user page to maintain his diatribe that LaRouche is the devil, furiously stating:

Denial of racism, sexism, homophobia is wrong, Well-established facts should not be deleted

He did this repeatedly until... yeap...

(IMG:http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/chip.jpg)

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/blocked.jpg)

Then, Chip lets rip with one of the most preposterous political diatribes I've seen on wikipedia, apparently comparing his block to Kristallnacht. Showing his true colours, Berlet reveals that his political / historical mindset is largely that of a hyperbolic, slow witted demagogue. Wikipedia is better off without him. Let someone who understands neutrality deal with these LaRouchies.

Please do not try to engage me in a conversation during my period of rethinking my particiapation on Wikipedia. It is far too late for that. When the Foundation members, Arbcom, and Jimbo decide to get a backbone and deal with this issue, please send me an e-mail. Otherwise, the issue of Kristallnacht is far more important than any bullshit anyone tries to post on this page. History judges us. What do you see when you look in the mirror? All posts on this page will be deleted until the commemoration of Kristallnacht on November 9th. What would you have done? Where do you stand? History judges us!

Never Again!

¡No Pasarán!

Deal with it.--Cberlet 01:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Oh, and how dare he invoke ¡No Pasarán! in this context. How dare he compare that to his relentless assault on some marginal eccentric American political figure. Bah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

[Jonny Cache]

Oh, and how dare he invoke ¡No Pasarán! in this context. How dare he compare that to his relentless assault on some marginal eccentric American political figure. Bah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Così fan tutte …

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Berlet quits in a huff. Accuses the Admin community of "disgusting" behavior,

Is there no sense of moral obligation left among administrators? It is time to stand up and take action.

This is the same activist who writes,

Train others to step forward if leaders are arrested, and arrange beforehand for legal support for all those who are detained. Be aware that some people, especially those with family caretaking responsibility or medical issues, need to avoid arrest,

but does not mention a word about the wisdom of taking children and the elderly to violent protests. One wonders how many times agitators like this have "sang in jail" or "washed tear gas" out of his own eyes.

It depends on the context and nature of the demonstration. When my son was of portable age he attended many demonstrations while in my care. He always was fond of the police horses, and would bring apples and carrots to feed them.

[nobs]

He did this repeatedly until... yeap...

Wow. Berlet has a wiki criminal record finally. Another milestone in WP history is crossed.

Please do not try to engage me in a conversation during my period of rethinking my particiapation on Wikipedia. It is far too late for that. When the Foundation members, Arbcom, and Jimbo decide to get a backbone ...

PS. Oh, and how dare he invoke ¡No Pasarán! in this context. How dare he compare that to his relentless assault on some marginal eccentric American political figure. Bah! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Thanks to SlimVirgin, ArbCom & the cabal may have finally looked at the evidence -- the fact that SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Will Beback, El-C, and Goodoldpolonius all, unanimously, rejected Chip Berlet as a reputable source for inclusion in a WP mainspace article in 2005 -- and then covered it up. Here is the gist of the evidence that was presented in the Attack sites case

SlimVirgin told ArbCom,
"'An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group,' a passage I (SlimVirgin) was the author of back in March. [466] What I meant by "extreme" was political groups like Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party"

The complainant in that case stated,
"Slim - Nothing you've quoted from NOR contradicts what I've quoted from WP:RS. In fact the section you cite giving the Socialist Worker's Party as an example of an extreme source actually seems to solidify my case against Mr. Berlet, as his biography openly boasts that he has done work with that group! If the Socialist Workers Party is not a reputable source as the section you quote states, would not the same be true of political activists who openly and proudly align with the Socialist Workers Party and dozens of other equally extremist organizations?

The "attack site" Berlet and SV complain about, is cut and pasted from WP's "Roots of Anti-Semitism" talk page What counts as reputable?

"Roots of Anti-Semitism," Mr. Berlet's alleged "specialty," was deleted and redirected because Berlet was the only source for it, and Goodoldpolonius told SV and everyone else, Berlet's material was bunk.

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Derktar]

(IMG:http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/chip.jpg)

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/blocked.jpg)

Bwahaha, that's hilarious. Where's your honor guard now Berlet?

[jorge]

(IMG:http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/chip.jpg)

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/blocked.jpg)

Bwahaha, that's hilarious. Where's your honor guard now Berlet?

It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[nobs]

(IMG:http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/chip.jpg)

(IMG:http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb311/Kato90125/blocked.jpg)

Bwahaha, that's hilarious. Where's your honor guard now Berlet?

It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I've marked the milestone in WP's history on Conservapedia. Like Larry Sanger, Wikipedia may whitewash its official history again. Might have to wait till over the weekend to expand it. Sourcing and citations welcome.

[guy]

It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?

[nobs]

It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?

Berlet's identity spoiler implies that he's not; but then again, all we have is the credibility of the author to on.

[Kato]

It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?

Berlet's identity spoiler implies that he's not; but then again, all we have is the credibility of the author to on.

It is telling that an administrator at conservapedia is complaining about Berlet, whereas I find it offensive that Berlet invokes the slogans of international socialism to conduct his petty attacks. Years of solidarity movements, union battles and working class resistance in the face of private power, reduced by Berlet to some campaign against a marginal and powerless American independent. Liberals like Berlet have nothing to do with the socialist movement.

Some may view this as a sign that Berlet is holding a middle ground. It isn't. It is a sign that his POV is so damaged that he pisses everybody off. It is perfectly possible to hold a flexible POV on a difficult subject, working alongside other editors with different views, creating great articles for their own sake, not to push some view, dare I say it: collaborating. It isn't easy, but there are people who have done it a lot better than Berlet did. And in the end, the main threats to these good editors have come from powerful bullies like Berlet, SV, Jayjg etc.

[jorge]

It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?

It was sarcasm Guy (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) .

[Herschelkrustofsky]

It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

What? Berlet isn't Jewish, is he?

He's as WASPy as they come. His given name is John Foster Berlet, because his parents were great admirers of John Foster Dulles. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

[jorge]

He's as WASPy as they come. His given name is John Foster Berlet, because his parents were great admirers of John Foster Dulles. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

"According to Stephen Kinzer's 2006 book Overthrow, the firm benefited from doing business with the Nazi regime, and throughout 1934, Dulles was a very public supporter of Hitler. "

EDIT: I'm surprised Chip didn't remove that!

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Hey, Chip is not so slick. He immediated created User:Hardindr as a sock to evade his block, and then his sock got blocked, too.

[Derktar]

Hey, Chip is not so slick. He immediated created User:Hardindr as a sock to evade his block, and then his sock got blocked, too.

Hmm very intriguing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hardindr
Hardindr's Contribs

He shows up yesterday and begins editing Berlet's page and Lyndon Larouche, clearly he is familiar with wikipolicies as well:

Appeal of Indefinite Block to Arbitration Committee

I am appealing this indefinite block to the Arbitration Committee. I am emailing clerk User:Newyorkbrad to make a formal request. --Hardindr 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So it's either Berlet or someone trying to make Berlet look foolish.

[Daniel Brandt]

How can anyone make Berlet look more stupid than Berlet is able to make himself look stupid?

In Lobster, #24, 1992 (yes, that's 1992!), I wrote this:

Berlet hand-delivered a letter to Oliver Stone dated January 16, 1992, in which he called on him to "distance yourself publicly from attempts by racist, anti-Jewish and pro-fascist groups to use your film JFK as a vehicle to promote bigoted theories claiming Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy and the CIA..."

Oliver Stone? Come on, now. Mr. Stone may take a snort occasionally, but he's not in serious danger of being used by that vast right-wing conspiracy. Berlet is a maniac, and the sooner Wikipedia blocks him permanently, the better off Wikipedia will be.

He's been pulling this shit for a long, long time.

[Somey]

Berlet hand-delivered a letter to Oliver Stone dated January 16, 1992, in which he called on him to "distance yourself publicly from attempts by racist, anti-Jewish and pro-fascist groups to use your film JFK as a vehicle to promote bigoted theories claiming Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy and the CIA..."

Was he even watching the right movie?

Because y'know, 1992... that was back in the days of VCR's, before everyone had DVD players. It was pretty easy to record over your copy of JFK with a completely different movie, such as Der Ewige Jude, or maybe a Leni Riefenstahl picture such as Triumph of the Will.

It would actually explain a lot of things...

[Herschelkrustofsky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hardindr
Hardindr's Contribs

He shows up yesterday and begins editing Berlet's page ...

...a few hours after Cberlet was blocked by Thatcher131.

[Poetlister]

He's as WASPy as they come. His given name is John Foster Berlet

Berlet is a WASP name?

[JohnA]

It is telling that an administrator at conservapedia is complaining about Berlet, whereas I find it offensive that Berlet invokes the slogans of international socialism to conduct his petty attacks. Years of solidarity movements, union battles and working class resistance in the face of private power, reduced by Berlet to some campaign against a marginal and powerless American independent. Liberals like Berlet have nothing to do with the socialist movement.

Wrong. Berlet is a Trotskyite. He is no liberal as his writings clearly show.

[Cedric]

Hee hee! I can never read one of these self-pitying "goodbye, cruel wiki!" messages from one of the cabalistas without thinking of the refrain to this old song:

I don't want to play in your yard,
I don't like you anymore,
You'll be sorry when you see me,
Sliding down our cellar door,
You can't holler down our rainbarrel,
You can't climb our apple tree,
I don't want to play in your yard,
If you won't be good to me.

And with alternate lyrics, probably more appropriate to Wikipedia:

Say say old enemy
Come out and fight with me
And bring your bb gun
And we'll have lots of fun
I'll scratch your eyes out
And make you bleed to death
And we'll be jolly enemies
Forever evermore.

[Somey]

Berlet is a WASP name?

I don't see why not...? I have a pet hornet named "Montreaux"...

I tried to think of a relevant acronym for his name, but the best one I could come up with was "RFC: John, Hitler's top bee." But that would just invoke Godwin's Law, I suppose.

[nobs]

It is telling that an administrator at conservapedia is complaining about Berlet, whereas I find it offensive that Berlet invokes the slogans of international socialism to conduct his petty attacks. Years of solidarity movements, union battles and working class resistance in the face of private power, reduced by Berlet to some campaign against a marginal and powerless American independent. Liberals like Berlet have nothing to do with the socialist movement.

Wrong. Berlet is a Trotskyite. He is no liberal as his writings clearly show.

Berlet's a Charter Member of the Enver Hoxha Society, and Enver Hoxha is no Trotskyite.

I do believe Berlet has a sock, but the name escapes me. It started with a W, if I recall, and was two names.

[Kato]

Berlet's a Charter Member of the Enver Hoxha Society, and Enver Hoxha is no Trotskyite.

I do believe Berlet has a sock, but the name escapes me. It started with a W, if I recall, and was two names.

That nonsense is just as wrong headed as Berlet's own missives, Nobs.

Possessing a genuine affection for Stalinism, in 1983 Berlet was a founding member of the "Chicago Area Friends of Albania," an organization whose mission.... BLAH BLAH BLAH

Berlet has all the attributes of the ex-Trotskyite scribe, the denunciations and the hyperbole. But that's about it. The guy who wrote your link is another screaming ex-Trotskyite scribe, Nobs. Why can't the pair of them just f-f-f-f-fade away.

[dtobias]

Socialist, Communist, Trotskyite, Stalinist... who cares? Just like horseshit, bullshit, chickenshit, and goatshit are all somewhat different from one another in composition, but they all stink, the same is true of all the different varieties of socialism.

[GlassBeadGame]

Socialist, Communist, Trotskyite, Stalinist... who cares? Just like horseshit, bullshit, chickenshit, and goatshit are all somewhat different from one another in composition, but they all stink, the same is true of all the different varieties of socialism.

So there is no meaningful difference between Pol Pot and Canada's New Democratic Party?

[nobs]

Berlet's a Charter Member of the Enver Hoxha Society, and Enver Hoxha is no Trotskyite.

I do believe Berlet has a sock, but the name escapes me. It started with a W, if I recall, and was two names.

That nonsense is just as wrong headed as Berlet's own missives, Nobs.

Possessing a genuine affection for Stalinism, in 1983 Berlet was a founding member of the "Chicago Area Friends of Albania," an organization whose mission.... BLAH BLAH BLAH

Berlet has all the attributes of the ex-Trotskyite scribe, the denunciations and the hyperbole. But that's about it. The guy who wrote your link is another screaming ex-Trotskyite scribe, Nobs. Why can't the pair of them just f-f-f-f-fade away.

Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where Berlet's financial angel, Richard Dennis comes back in the picture.

Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.

[GlassBeadGame]

Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where Berlet's financial angel, Richard Dennis comes back in the picture.

Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.

The problem with Berlet is not his leftism. There are good and bad people on the left like everywhere else. I don't have any problem with Berlet's resume or affiliations (although the Hoxha thing is pretty iconoclastic or splinter Maoist.) In fact we have traveled some of the same roads. Berlet's greatest evil as far as I can tell has been directed at other leftists, especially those who he has unfairly smeared as anti-Semites, often for nothing more than seeking justice for Muslims. I would be interested in hearing more concerning the options traders possible funding of his activities. I think it might be a full blown case of an outright sale out after have his ideological rug pulled out from under him. This would make him a very unpleasant person indeed.

[guy]

they all stink, the same is true of all the different varieties of socialism.

What about Christian socialism?

[JohnA]

Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where Berlet's financial angel, Richard Dennis comes back in the picture.

Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.

The problem with Berlet is not his leftism. There are good and bad people on the left like everywhere else. I don't have any problem with Berlet's resume or affiliations (although the Hoxha thing is pretty iconoclastic or splinter Maoist.) In fact we have traveled some of the same roads. Berlet's greatest evil as far as I can tell has been directed at other leftists, especially those who he has unfairly smeared as anti-Semites, often for nothing more than seeking justice for Muslims. I would be interested in hearing more concerning the options traders possible funding of his activities. I think it might be a full blown case of an outright sale out after have his ideological rug pulled out from under him. This would make him a very unpleasant person indeed.

My point is that Chip is no liberal.

[GlassBeadGame]

Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where Berlet's financial angel, Richard Dennis comes back in the picture.

Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.

The problem with Berlet is not his leftism. There are good and bad people on the left like everywhere else. I don't have any problem with Berlet's resume or affiliations (although the Hoxha thing is pretty iconoclastic or splinter Maoist.) In fact we have traveled some of the same roads. Berlet's greatest evil as far as I can tell has been directed at other leftists, especially those who he has unfairly smeared as anti-Semites, often for nothing more than seeking justice for Muslims. I would be interested in hearing more concerning the options traders possible funding of his activities. I think it might be a full blown case of an outright sale out after have his ideological rug pulled out from under him. This would make him a very unpleasant person indeed.

My point is that Chip is no liberal.

I think back when he had honest politics he was left of liberal. I doubt he has any principled beliefs at this time.

[WhispersOfWisdom]

Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where Berlet's financial angel, Richard Dennis comes back in the picture.

Forgive me for my habit of taking exception to financial news that is not quite "fit to print," but,
gold peaked in and around 1980 at approximately $800 per the troy oz. It then declined for the next 20 years. (Very quickly (actually) in the early 1980's to around $300 per ounce.) It became free to trade in the late 1970's and moved in sinc with inflation and oil and the commodity bull market of the 1970's, as well as, the last major decline in the U.S. dollar.

Political turmoil can be cited as a partial cause for gold as a "hedge," however, it has never worked as any such thing. For nearly 20 years people have lost money owning gold. Like owning many "blue chip" tech. stocks such as Microsoft in the NASDAQ bubble of 1999-2000, people
that bought gold or Microsoft at peak valuations are "bagholders." By the way, Microsoft is still less than 1/2 of what it was in the year 2000.

Gold is making a mighty comeback for many of the same reasons it ran up in 1978 to 1980.
It may reach the zenith it reached in 1980; after nearly 30 years the gold bugs will be even.

Since I cannot eat it and it does not pay any dividends, it is not an appealing anything to me.

* edited by Nathan: fixed quote

This post has been edited by Nathan:

[GlassBeadGame]

Since I cannot eat it and it does not pay any dividends, it is not an appealing anything to me.

Nacho cheezy debentures. Yum.

[alienus]

I doubt he has any principled beliefs at this time.

I'd say that's exactly right. And speaking of right, Conservapedia's incredibly far in that direction. I have trouble reading it without laughing and/or spitting.

Al

[nobs]

Examining all the evidence, Berlet's association with the Chicago Area Stalinist Association probably should not be interpreted in that type of ideological context. After the Russian Wheat Deal of 1973, Soviet commodity traders, that is to say the KGB, became very active in Chicago Commodity markets. Here we need to reexamine the activities of other friends of Berlet who got filthy stinking rich on Chicago Commodity markets in the 1980s (remember, for example, how the Soviets manuipualted the price of gold in 1980 when it shot up to $875 per oz from about a $320 base after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Coincidentlally, the Soviets were the worlds second largest gold producer and seller as price floated inadvertantly high for much of the 1980s). This is where Berlet's financial angel, Richard Dennis comes back in the picture.

Then we have Berlet's longtime association with the commie rag, Guardian whom Wilfred Burchett wrote for in the 1950s in between coercing confessions from American POWs during the Korean War. Oddly, Berlet stopped writing for Guardian about three months before it, and the Soviet Union, both went out of existence when Gorbachev pulled the plug in 1992.

The problem with Berlet is not his leftism. There are good and bad people on the left like everywhere else. I don't have any problem with Berlet's resume or affiliations (although the Hoxha thing is pretty iconoclastic or splinter Maoist.) In fact we have traveled some of the same roads. Berlet's greatest evil as far as I can tell has been directed at other leftists, especially those who he has unfairly smeared as anti-Semites, often for nothing more than seeking justice for Muslims. I would be interested in hearing more concerning the options traders possible funding of his activities. I think it might be a full blown case of an outright sale out after have his ideological rug pulled out from under him. This would make him a very unpleasant person indeed.

My point is that Chip is no liberal.

I think back when he had honest politics he was left of liberal. I doubt he has any principled beliefs at this time.

Laird Wilcox, according to the peer reviewed Military Law Review is one of the "foremost experts on extremism," writes this of PRA & its Senior Researcher:

Guidestar, the internet search service of Philanthropic Research, Inc., lists Political Research Associates as follows:

"PRA is a research center that analyzes information on anti-democratic movements and trends and publishes materials that explain their ideologies, strategies, agendas, financing and links to each other."

What this description leaves out is the heavy radical left agenda of PRA itself, including the fact that those "anti-democratic" movements fail to include Marxist-Leninist and extreme leftist movements unless they are in sectarian dispute with PRA.

Source: Laird Wilcox, The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups, Second Edition, Part 2, Chapter Four: Political Research Associates, A Study in "Links and ties," Editorial Research Service, 1999, pgs. 20 - 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.

"Sectarian dispute" is the best way to describe it. Right Woos Left is Berlet's call for ideological clarity, and the controversy Berlet started on Brandt's board was an open manifestation of that dispute.

gold peaked in and around 1980 at approximately $800 per the troy oz. It then declined for the next 20 years. (Very quickly (actually) in the early 1980's to around $300 per ounce.) It became free to trade in the late 1970's and moved in sinc with inflation and oil and the commodity bull market of the 1970's, as well as, the last major decline in the U.S. dollar.

Political turmoil can be cited as a partial cause for gold as a "hedge," however, it has never worked as any such thing. For nearly 20 years people have lost money owning gold.

Gold floated in the $500-600 range for at least three years after 1980, largely because Soviet/KGB buyers and sellers worldwide manipulated the price, playing both sides of the market, bidding the price back up when it sunk to about $450, and unloading again around $600. True, most people lost money; the only people who made money was Brezhnez/Chernyenko/Andropov, et al, trying to keep the USSR aloat, and people like Berlet's buddy Richard Dennis. Jimbo Wales it appears, is a protege of Richard Dennis's book.

The political turmoil you cite was manufactured in the Kremlin.

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Kato]

Nobs, all I'm getting from your links on this thread are mirror images of the Chipster. Efforts to smear people using dubious findings, political hacks dredging up 2 and 2 and making 5. Dubious and shady propaganda pieces to attack ideological enemies.

We don't need to do this to discredit the Chipster. He already did it himself.

The political turmoil you cite was manufactured in the Kremlin.

Utter codswallop! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Nobs, all I'm getting from your links on this thread are mirror images of the Chipster. Efforts to smear people using dubious findings, political hacks dredging up 2 and 2 and making 5. Dubious and shady propaganda pieces to attack ideological enemies.

We don't need to do this to discredit the Chipster. He already did it himself.

The political turmoil you cite was manufactured in the Kremlin.

Utter codswallop! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Yeah, Cod's udder wallop.

[nobs]

Nobs, all I'm getting from your links on this thread are mirror images of the Chipster. Efforts to smear people using dubious findings, political hacks dredging up 2 and 2 and making 5. Dubious and shady propaganda pieces to attack ideological enemies.

We don't need to do this to discredit the Chipster. He already did it himself.

The political turmoil you cite was manufactured in the Kremlin.

Utter codswallop! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

The Gold spike has never been in dispute. And my source has impecible credentials.
*John George & Laird Wilcox, American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists and Others, Prometheus Books, 1996 (ISBN 1-57392-058-4).
*Racial Extremism in the Army, MAJ Walter M. Hudson, The Military Law Review, Vol 159 (Mar 99), Department of the Army, Washington, DC. Army Pamphlet No 27-100-159, p. 7.

(IMG:http://www.bullnotbull.com/images/graphics/gold-1980-2.gif)

"One reader who saw the chart I posted yesterday pointed out:
"One thing I've continually seen overlooked in the explanation for the rise of gold during 1979-80, especially the final parabolic spike, was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."
Quite true. It may seem like ancient history now, but only because we know how the story ends. At the time, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which began around Christmas 1979, was a terrible global shock. The Soviets had just signed a "bilateral treaty of cooperation" with Afghanistan in 1978, but by the next year relations had deteriorated.....

[Herschelkrustofsky]

May I respectfully suggest that we either find our way back to the Chipster (in his Wikipedia incarnation, please,) or else split some of this material off into the new off-topic political discussion subforum?

[Kato]

May I respectfully suggest that we either find our way back to the Chipster (in his Wikipedia incarnation, please,) or else split some of this material off into the new off-topic political discussion subforum?

Please do. What was a critique of Chip's wikipedia exploits has deteriorated into something entirely different. All we need left is someone to link him with the Illuminati and our efforts will be completely wasted.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And behold! The matter is now before the arbcom. The Chipster's defensive linebacker, Will Beback, calls me the "most famous and enduring" of the "LaRouche followers"! I'd be flattered, but then he goes on to say that all the other LaRouche followers are me, too.

It looks like a few other senior Wikipedians are tired of the Chipster and his clone. Except for Morven. What's the story on him? He seems like a bit of a dolt.

[GlassBeadGame]

And behold! The matter is now before the arbcom. The Chipster's defensive linebacker, Will Beback, calls me the "most famous and enduring" of the "LaRouche followers"! I'd be flattered, but then he goes on to say that all the other LaRouche followers are me, too.

It looks like a few other senior Wikipedians are tired of the Chipster and his clone. Except for Morven. What's the story on him? He seems like a bit of a dolt.

Marvin Diode makes a pretty good statement, linked above.

[Mndrew]

I believe HK was referring to this statement by Matthew Brown aka Morven:

Reject. I see no need to re-examine things here; the people and issues involved here have been up before the committee before and I see little change. That the LaRouche supporters are back under different names changes little. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the history behind the whole Chip Berlet thing, but from the looks of it, it seems that all the LaRouche opponents want this to be slipped under the rug as quietly as possible - which is why Cberlet has taken his month-long "wikibreak".

This post has been edited by Mndrew:

[nobs]

And behold! The matter is now before the arbcom. The Chipster's defensive linebacker, Will Beback, calls me the "most famous and enduring" of the "LaRouche followers"! I'd be flattered, but then he goes on to say that all the other LaRouche followers are me, too.

Will Beback says,

Cberlet's error wasn't in using those terms for LaRouche, which are fully sourceable. It was in not maintaining proper neutrality by saying that LaRouche has been called an "antisemite" instead of saying he is an antisemite. That's a subtle distinction and should not result in major penalties.

I'd call it a major breach of BLP. Will Beback himself basically endorses Arbitration,

The mediation request ...did not seek to resolve content issues....[Complainant] claimed that [Respondant] has engaged in the "unwarranted promotion of fringe theories" and wanted the ArbCom to "examine" his behavior.

[nobs]

Hey, Chip is not so slick. He immediated created User:Hardindr as a sock to evade his block, and then his sock got blocked, too.

HK, I think this might be a Berlet sock, Wysdom. He was editing both Fred Newman and List of Americans in the Venona papers. Can't think of another editor with such diverse interests.

This post has been edited by nobs:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And behold! The matter is now before the arbcom.

A significant number of editors has come forward to criticize the Chipster. He must be serious about his Wikibreak, to refrain from holding forth on such an occasion. Of course, his clone Dking is quite capable of doing exactly what Chip would do.

[blissyu2]

It is currently at 2/3/1 against it being accepted by ArbCom. It was at 3/0/0 earlier, but Charles Matthews changed from Accept to Undecided, and the last 3 all rejected it.

Looks like it might be swept under the carpet.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Fred Bauder is acting in a surprisingly NPOV fashion. Of course, the great thing about Fred is that he can turn on a dime.

[The Joy]

"Hardindr?"

Hmmm....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Chamber

Maybe not relevant. Maybe an attempt at WP:POINT by the Chipster?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

And, the latest: JzG claims that the Wikipedia Review is behind all of this. Another loyal reader!

[dtobias]

Fred Bauder is acting in a surprisingly NPOV fashion. Of course, the great thing about Fred is that he can turn on a dime.

I've long suspected he flips a coin every time he makes a comment, vote, proposal, or mailing list post, to decide whether to be completely fair and reasonable, or totally nutty. It's similar to how the Batman villain Twoface flips a coin to decide whether to be good or evil.

[nobs]

JzG says

Will has been tireless in monitoring this issue. Will is regarded with great respect by those who are not fighting one or the other corner of this fight, and I do indeed urge ArbCom to look into his actions, to support them, and to congratulate him on a difficult job, done well and against very considerable opposition.

In relation to the Motion brought by Fred on my behalf,

1. I voted for Will for Admin, 21 June 2005.

2. I encouraged another user in the Nobs, et al case to settle his differences with Will

3. I declared on this Forum, 16th January 2007, " I would have voted for Will Beback for Arb if I had been allowed to back in December."

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Fred Bauder is acting in a surprisingly NPOV fashion. Of course, the great thing about Fred is that he can turn on a dime.

I've long suspected he flips a coin every time he makes a comment, vote, proposal, or mailing list post, to decide whether to be completely fair and reasonable, or totally nutty. It's similar to how the Batman villain Twoface flips a coin to decide whether to be good or evil.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Another interesting wrinkle in all this is the relatively sane role played by Thatcher131. What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.

[Somey]

What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.

We know he doesn't like WR much, for one thing... though he clearly does read much of what's discussed here.

You're presumably referring to this ArbCom Clerk's statement, correct? My assumption would be that Mr. Thatcher, being a right-winger himself, resents Berlet's and King's characterization of Larouche as a right-wing extremist ideologue/demagogue, or whatever right-wing (insert epithet here) thing they happen to be calling him this week. Other than that, he's just stating the obvious - Berlet and King are obviously as far from "neutral" as it's possible to get on the subject.

[Daniel Brandt]

Another interesting wrinkle in all this is the relatively sane role played by Thatcher131. What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.

Sorry, but I'll have to vote against that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107602592

I don't know who he is, but I know where he is. He's in Rochester, New York.

http://auralmoon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=329

From hostmask search:
Thatcher-131 (n=Thatcher@cpe-72-226-224-86.rochester.res.rr.com) 72.226.224.86 | ROAD RUNNER * UNITED STATES
Thatcher (n=Thatcher@urmc-nat18.urmc.rochester.edu) 128.151.71.18 | UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER * UNITED STATES

[GlassBeadGame]

Another interesting wrinkle in all this is the relatively sane role played by Thatcher131. What do we know about him/her? I am inclined to nominate Thatch for the next Honest Admins awards dinner.

Sorry, but I'll have to vote against that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=107602592

"Bloody brilliant."

[guy]

I don't know who he is, but I know where he is. He's in Rochester, New York.

There are quite a few WP people round there. Why has nobody accused them of being all socks?

[jorge]

You're presumably referring to this ArbCom Clerk's statement, correct? My assumption would be that Mr. Thatcher, being a right-winger himself, resents Berlet's and King's characterization of Larouche as a right-wing extremist ideologue/demagogue, or whatever right-wing (insert epithet here) thing they happen to be calling him this week. Other than that, he's just stating the obvious - Berlet and King are obviously as far from "neutral" as it's possible to get on the subject.

Somey I don't think you could call LaRouche right wing, he's more on the lines of extreme marxist left.

[Yehudi]

Somey I don't think you could call LaRouche right wing, he's more on the lines of extreme marxist left.

I don't think that his views are inteelectually coherent enough to be placed on the right-left scale.

And to think that if it weren't for Wikipedia, I'd never have heard of him. Isn't Wikipedia great! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[jorge]

Somey I don't think you could call LaRouche right wing, he's more on the lines of extreme marxist left.

I don't think that his views are inteelectually coherent enough to be placed on the right-left scale.

And to think that if it weren't for Wikipedia, I'd never have heard of him. Isn't Wikipedia great! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I'm not so sure, the extreme marxist left in the UK is known for being anti-environmentalist like LaRouche and being homophobic- a quote from Larouche:

"They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay", they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw!"

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I don't think that his views are inteelectually coherent enough to be placed on the right-left scale.

And to think that if it weren't for Wikipedia, I'd never have heard of him. Isn't Wikipedia great! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Well, it's no secret that I consider Wikipedia to be an Unreliable Source on the subject of LaRouche. My personal take is that LaRouche's views are not simplistic enought to be placed on the right-left scale. I am generally unimpressed by both Rightists and Leftists.

[Somey]

Well, it's no secret that I consider Wikipedia to be an Unreliable Source on the subject of LaRouche. My personal take is that LaRouche's views are not simplistic enought to be placed on the right-left scale.

Exactimundo! Depending on who you talk to, Larouche is either "impossible to poitically categorize," or "ideologically incoherent," or simply "all over the frickin' place." I tend to hold the latter view of him, myself...

Anyhoo, the way I see it, Berlet & Co. are accusing Larouche of being a fascist mostly because Larouche has been accusing them of being fascists. Larouche has probably accused almost everybody of being fascists at some point or other, but some people take it all personal-like, I guess...

More to the point, this "Case of Walter Lippmann" book is chock-full of claims and theories that seem designed specifically to really, really piss off all sorts of people. There's the Rockefellers, "Atlanticists," "Fabians" (presumably a code-word for British socialist intellectuals and their ilk), "monetarists," "aristotelians" (always lower-cased!), "proto-Tories," "Neo-Fabians" (whose ranks supposedly include Noam Chomsky), "heteronomists" (evidently this was his word for cultural-diversity advocates), environmentalists, drug addicts, the Carter Administration, the UN, the Tudors, the Hapsburgs, Albrecht von Wallenstein, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Andrew Jackson, Milton Friedman, Interpol (not the band, though he probably wouldn't have liked them either), "non-Euclidians" (I wonder if he read any H.P. Lovecraft?)... the guy attacks both ends of the political spectrum and the middle too, all at the same time! And to top it all off, here's what Lyndon Larouche says about Martin Luther:

Although the protestant leaders who defended and led the German peasants of the early sixteenth century were honest protestants, at that point Martin Luther himself was not primarily a religious leader, but a religious figure who had become also a conscious pawn and political agent of the Fugger and related interests. Hence, Luther could earlier oppose the papacy for looting Germany, and yet, consistently, support the destruction of entire sections of the German economy by the Fuggers. In that respect, Martin Luther of the period following the Diet of Worms was consciously a "political intelligence" agent, of a monetarist-feudal faction, whose crimes in that respect rank in principle with those of Joseph Goebbels.

For context, note that "Fugger" refers to an Augsburg-based Christian banking family, and also that at this point in the book, the editor/proofreader has obviously given up and allows Larouche to use the phrase "in that respect" redundantly in the same sentence.

Either way, this anti-Luther connect-the-dots rhetoric is straight out of the Jayjg/SlimVirgin playbook. Slimmy and Mantanweissland could have practically written it themselves.

Nevertheless, I'd be lying if I stated that there isn't any material in there that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic if cherry-picked, because there is. But only if cherry-picked. The problem for people like Dennis King and Chip Berlet is that if they want to bash Larouche, they have to make the case that he's anti-semitic, racist, and homophobic - because those are their constituencies, and not enough people are going to be offended by his tirades against "neo-Fabians" and "monetarists."

[Jonny Cache]

Ha Ha, we made you say "Fuggers" —

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

[Kato]

I've moved an offtopic discussion about Conservapedia and the Democrats to the Politics forum

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13390

[Somey]

Ha Ha, we made you say "Fuggers"...

Imagine what it must have been like for the wives. As soon as one of 'em has a kid, suddenly she's "Mother Fugger."

[Jonny Cache]

Ha Ha, we made you say "Fuggers" …

Imagine what it must have been like for the wives. As soon as one of 'em has a kid, suddenly she's "Mother Fugger".

And when her kinder have kinder she becomes a Großmutter Fugger.

Jonny (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)