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?

[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"!

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.

[Kato]

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

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...

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!

[Derktar]

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

[jorge]

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!

[guy]

It's a witchhunt I tell you! The anti-semites have won the day and are polishing their jack boots as we speak!

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!

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!

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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: Mon 15th October 2007, 1:02am