I was a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp, an invitation to investigatory inquiry.... Options

[nobs]

So I think we have successfully established that

( a ) Chip Berlet functions within the Wikimedia Foundation as a gatekeeper and regulator of content;
( b ) Berlet has special protections and privileges within the organization not afforded other mere editors, and others with the same functions have yet to be identified;
( c ) none of these privileges are identifiable within stated policies;
( d ) Berlet's immunity to stated polices goes beyond passive consent among higher ups; and
( e ) higher ups own views, visions, statements, and implementation of projects echoes Berlet's own ideological fever.

Many of the disputes which are raging, or have raged within Wikipedia, are identifiable in outline in Berlet's script published circa 1992, Right Screws Left. Perhaps it's time for researchers who til now have been lucky enough to build careers without wading into these ideological swamps to give a fair and impartial examination of the methodology and conclusions exhibited in this piece. Volunteers welcome.

This post has been edited by nobs: Sun 18th February 2007, 10:32pm

[Daniel Brandt]

You've got the idea, but there's a funny Freudian slip in your version of Berlet's title. Here's the NameBase blurb:

Berlet, Chip. Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo- Fascist Overtures to Progressives, and Why They Must Be Rejected. December 16, 1991. 62 pages. Available for $6.50 from Political Research Associates, 1310 Broadway, Suite 201, Somerville MA 02144, Tel: 617-666-5300.

Since the 1970s, Chip Berlet has researched Lyndon LaRouche and the U.S. Right. Now he's suspicious of an emerging conservative populism, and criticizes progressives who have been co-opted by insidious alliances with fascists, anti-Semites, and racists. According to Berlet, this is most evident among D.C. information junkies and on West Coast public radio. His crusade is an effort to hold progressives accountable for their unwitting naivete at best, or their political incorrectness at worst. Berlet and friends wear white hats, others wear black hats, and there are no gray hats.

NameBase indexed this diatribe because Berlet's work is unique. It is simple common sense for all of us to be aware of who associates with whom; for this reason Berlet's research is also valuable. But I have a problem with his presumption that a moral issue is involved, and I object to his tactics. Don't ever trade information, participate on a panel discussion, or share membership on an advisory board with one of Berlet's designated bad guys. If you do, he may try to undermine your work and isolate you. In my book, that's suggestive of the very "neo-fascism" he's trying so hard to eliminate. -- D.Brandt

[anon1234]

Since the 1970s, Chip Berlet has researched Lyndon LaRouche and the U.S. Right. Now he's suspicious of an emerging conservative populism, and criticizes progressives who have been co-opted by insidious alliances with fascists, anti-Semites, and racists. According to Berlet, this is most evident among D.C. information junkies and on West Coast public radio. His crusade is an effort to hold progressives accountable for their unwitting naivete at best, or their political incorrectness at worst. Berlet and friends wear white hats, others wear black hats, and there are no gray hats.

Luckily Chip Berlet is past his best before date. He is an annoyance, but really how influential or important can really be in the world these days if the best use of his time is to spent it getting into little feuds on Wikipedia. (Just did a Google news search for "Chip Berlet" and it turned up no hits - not a good sign of someone with impact/influence.)

This post has been edited by anon1234: Sat 27th January 2007, 12:11am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I think that Berlet has become hyperactive on Wikipedia to make it look like he is doing something to earn all that grant money he gets from the Ford Foundation. He is now being imitated by his clone, Dennis King AKA User:Dking, who even went so far as to imitate the way Berlet formulates his Cberlet username.

But there is another dimension to these fellows which I think should be considered. I think that they are both moving decisively to the Right, in that a lot of their activity is devoted to an unapologetic defense of the Neo-cons. Their tactics are familiar; criticism of the Neo-cons is equated with anti-Semitism, on the grounds that a handful of prominent Neo-Cons are ostensibly Jewish. But Right they are, so to speak. Maybe this is Left Woos Right, or maybe they are all ambidextrous.

[nobs]

Berlet and friends wear white hats, others wear black hats, and there are no gray hats.

Actually I think Berlet is to be commended for not joining the anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist one-worlders who were instrumental in turning US public opinion against support for Iraqi democracy. I agree with much Berlet says in Zog Ate My Brains. The fundemental conclusionary premise Berlet offers is, however, that anti-Semitism is "Right-wing". I disagree with this. Historically anti-Semitism shows no "left-right" genesis. The phenomenon has always been endemic to both camps. Berlet was just trained in the old school Commie/Fascist idioms of the twentieth century that was intollerant of any independent thinking or analysis. The tragedies of that century were built on an axiom of "if you're not with us, you're against us", and millions suffered, died, or were murdered because of this narrow mindedness.

This post has been edited by nobs: Sat 27th January 2007, 1:18am

[guy]

a handful of prominent Neo-Cons are ostensibly Jewish.

That's certainly true, but then again so are a lot of communists and middle of the roaders. Jews are just more likely to be politically active.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

a handful of prominent Neo-Cons are ostensibly Jewish.

That's certainly true, but then again so are a lot of communists and middle of the roaders. Jews are just more likely to be politically active.

My point, however, was that the issue of anti-Semitism here is a red herring. Berlet and King are simply defending Neo-Cons, which is probably a career move for the both of them. After the US elections on November 7, Neo-Conservatism is not exactly at the zenith of its popularity, and there have traditionally been some deep-pockets Neo-Con backers like the Smith-Richardson Foundation, and the whole family of Scaife Foundations, that are probably hiring right now.

[nobs]

We've forged a link. And this is what I've always suspected. Berlet's focus is basically sociological, with an eye to the politics of the moment. The man has a wide intellect, but an indepth foreign policy discussion, I believe, is beyond his grasp.

In Right Woos Left Berlet cites Frank J. Donner, The Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America’s Political Intelligence System, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, (1980), which he describes as,

the definitive study of the theories underlying the fear of the "Red Menace".

On his Arbitration Template where he stashes material for future action, we find, User:Cberlet/Workspace#Nobs/Contrary view and cites this source. He was alone in wanting to insert this as a reference, without citing or adding any material from it, in the Venona dispute. Donner's work was deemed by a concensus of editors as irrelevent to Venona.

Berlet really has very little interest in Venona--or understanding. He brought in Griffin Fariello, author of Red Scare: Memories of the American Inquisition, early on to review my work, largely cause he knew he was in over his head. Fariello read literally everything I wrote and offered valuable criticism. I would have loved to collaborate with Fariello, particularly on Carl Marzani, whom Fariello did an oral interview with. In the end Fariello didn't stick around. As one historian to another, he saw what I was doing, trying to write a clean history without ideological spin, and summed it up with, Alright nobs, you got me.

I told Fred Bauder, I could have argued Cberlet's case better than him, but it wasn't worth bringing to his attention the sources and citations he should have been using because of the bad faith he exhibited. I always regarded his stalking and harassment of me with Brandt and Wilcox's criticism in mind,

[he will] generally inbreed with [his imagined enemies] and mutate into a peculiar political animal,

a sort of Vulcan mind meld to learn from me what he could about Venona. Someday I fully expect to see a published tract, for sale of course on the PRA site, with a title like, "The New Fascism and the Venona Conspiracy".

This post has been edited by nobs: Sat 27th January 2007, 10:12pm

[nobs]

Example II. Covert relationships

Berlet writes in Part 041, Progressive Researchers & Fascist Sources

Bellant and others say they are not troubled by intellectual curiosity
and open-mindedness that bridge ideological lines, but they do have
concerns when left and right groups and individuals forge covert
relationships.

While abusing mediation processes, Berlet persistently claimed the jargon phrase, "covert relationships" was undefined. It was discussed here,

Who was called a spy, and why? What is a "Covert Relationship"

responded to by nobs here What is a covert relationship?

raised again by Cberlet here Text A3

and here Text A3e

and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/A3#A3e

again with A3 Again and again and again

And finally responded to with,

Chip Berlet & Matthew N. Lyons, Liberal & Neoconservative Cooperation with State Repression, The Public Eye, (no date) [51]
[Ed. note: "This overly close and often covert relationship with law enforcement limits criticism"]

Google Results 1,890,000 for covert+relationship [52]

This spurious arguement may even be a little disengenous. nobs 05:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Applicable precedent: Wikipedia:Harassment prohibits actions which disrupt the editing activity of another user.

Ommitted evidence excerpted, nobs stated,

You need to rewrite your "Summary of Dispute" in the workshop. You have one (singular) "scholar", and that scholar does not address Venona. Further, you have misrepresented her one singular reference to Venona in the introduction to her book, which is easily documentable (in otherwords, you have used that singular reference to argue against itself, and that information is available in the Wikipedia histories—a fact which will document more of your "circular reasoning" and "argueing in circles").

[Ed. note: WP:ATTFAQ Unreliable sources: "obsolete ... or deprecated by its author(s)" now officially supports nobs contention on proper methodology.]

Berlet responds,

What I am bothered by is the arbitray dismissal of Navasky and the Schneirs as scholars. They are scholars. What I am asking for is that people who do serious work on both sides of the issue be credited as "scholars." We are not using the word academics here. Navasky and the Schneirs are not merely journalists, they are "scholars." They write books. They are cited by academics.

OK, let's employ (for my first time ever) the Berlet method of impugning sources: John Ehrman, CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, Studies in Intelligence, cites the New York Times Review of Books,

the Schneirs' case lacked balance and failed to consider any evidence...

https://cia.gov/csi/studies/vol46no4/article09.html#rfn7

How about another "marginal website", pbs.org

They [the Schneirs] come to terms with their wrong-headedness...

http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/kgb/deep/kgb_deep_biblio.htm

See also Schniers for methodology I used to evaluate the source.

This post has been edited by nobs: Fri 2nd February 2007, 2:13am

[nobs]

So I think we have successfully established that

( a ) Chip Berlet functions within the Wikimedia Foundation as a gatekeeper and regulator of content;
( b ) Berlet has special protections and privileges within the organization not afforded other mere editors, and others with the same functions have yet to be identified;
( c ) none of these privileges are identifiable within stated policies;
( d ) Berlet's immunity to stated polices goes beyond passive consent among higher ups; and
( e ) higher ups own views, visions, statements, and implementation of projects echoes Berlet's own ideological fever.

Many of the disputes which are raging, or have raged within Wikipedia, are identifiable in outline in Berlet's script published circa 1992, Right Screws Left. Perhaps it's time for researchers who til now have been lucky enough to build careers without wading into these ideological swamps to give a fair and impartial examination of the methodology and conclusions exhibited in this piece. Volunteers welcome.

This post has been edited by nobs: Sun 18th February 2007, 10:28pm

[Somey]

Nobs, you (or we, if you prefer) may have established a, b, and c, but I'm afraid d and e are still both speculation on your part - if not wishful thinking. There's just no real, definitive evidence to suggest that Berlet's "influence" is based on anything more than his willingness to berate and belittle the people who disagree with him, and the willingness of a handful of admins to allow it.

[nobs]

Nobs, you (or we, if you prefer) may have established a, b, and c, ...
There's just no real, definitive evidence to suggest that Berlet's "influence" is based on anything more than his willingness to berate and belittle the people who disagree with him, and the willingness of a handful of admins to allow it.

( c ) states, "none of these privileges are identifiable within stated policies". Now the vast array of evidence of exemption from both all content guidelines and policies, and most strikingly the civility and conduct clauses is overwhelming, if not to the point of monotonous.

[nobs]

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.

In the summer of 1980 three candidates vied for the DNC nomination, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, and Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche aired a thirty minute paid political commercial on TV. Single networks on broadcast television still routinely commanded audiences in the 30 to 40 million viewer range. Broadcast deregulation which made infomercials the mainstay of cable TV had not happened yet. LaRouche’s message in distilled form was basically “one-world conspiricism”.

By 1983 the “LaRouche movement” was a cause for concern. The problems were threefold: ( 1 ) the message; ( 2 ) his ability to raise money to pay for expensive airtime on the world’s preeminent mass communication medium; ( 3 ) splitting the Democratic Party. A meeting was held in John Train’s Salon. Representatives of the ADL voiced their concerns. Chip Berlet, then about 34 years old, was also in attendance.

The conspiracist mind, ever hungry for fresh meat, used this meeting to elevate LaRouche. By 1985 or 86 Berlet had proven his worth and was placed on retainer where’s he’s remained ever since as an expert on the subject. Lexus-Nexus results from this period all refer to Berlet as a “computer consultant”, while technological improvements from the mid 80s raised new concerns about mass dissemination of conspiracy and anti-Semitic materials. Collaboration between the FBI and the ADL on hate crime reporting has been ongoing since about 1985.

In History of the Public Eye Electronic Forums, Berlet writes,

In 1985 it was difficult to explain to people why they should be concerned about online hate when only a tiny fraction of the population owned a computer with a modem. My solution was to purchase a used briefcase-sized portable thermal printer/terminal with a built-in rubber cuff modem into which one stuffed a telephone handset…. I would lug the terminal to speeches and go online. While I was talking about the growth of far right recruitment of youth... the printer would be spewing out a continuous role of thermal paper filled with antisemitic and racist text …

Berlet likewise cites the 1985 study Computerized Networks of Hate referenced in the Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence policy proposal, which states,

...there are 1,600 (of which 600 are given here) U.S.A.-based Nazi Websites demanding daily that … all the Jews, immigrants, blacks and liberals should be murdered now, and which Websites have been stating thusly since 1985, it is a fair indicator of how amazingly confined in ivory towers present intelligence service policy makers are.

Let’s keep in mind an important factor in “conspiracy thinking”. “Conspiracy” by definition, implies law breaking or illegal activity. Labelling John Train’s Salon a conspiracy is an exaggeration. In LaRouche’s mind, is there really a good ‘ol boy network that runs the planet? Yes, indeed there is, as is necessary if people are to live together in harmony without chaos. Can an outsider, like Hitler, imagine himself to become a head of state and flaunt the stability of international agreements because he views himself the appointee or representative of parochial interests with a mass movement behind him at a given time and place against other entrenched interests? Not so. Not no more. Not ever again. Like Toynbee said,

...if a future follower in Hitler's footsteps was unlikely to make Hitler's mistakes, he could … win the prize ...for himself, Hitler had left the prize dangling ……In an age of atomic warfare … in a world whose unification was already an accomplished fact … there were three peoples that had also incurred a special measure of moral responsibility for seeing to it that an urgently needed world order should be established without another catastrophe …these same victors over Hitler would bring down upon their own heads Posterity's curses if they were to allow a third world war to rankle out of their victory…the peoples of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain had taken upon themselves a binding moral obligation to provide Mankind with a better world order… Should the ex-victors now fail to accomplish this self-imposed task, they must expect to share … an intolerably tormented Mankind so long as any memory survived of Mankind's history in the twentieth century of the Christian Era.

This post has been edited by nobs: Tue 20th February 2007, 10:06pm

[nobs]

(Yehudi @ Mon 19th February 2007, 3:33pm)
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.)

Let me associate myself with these comments. After carefully reviewing Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence two things emerge that are profoundly disturbing:

1) The concerns of NATO allies and others outside America, of America's tolerance for US based Nazi websites, which in America are regarded as a whacked out fringe, but treated by confused youth as a taboo hidden fruit with a deleterious effect on those societies.

2) The issues of commodified labor under employment contracting.

These are serious problems that do need immediate attention. But for the issues that have been raised about innocent people unfairly profiled and caught in the crossfire, my reservations have been stated.

[Somey]

Welcome back, Nobs! Sorry about the new arrangements...

After carefully reviewing Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence two things emerge that are profoundly disturbing:

1) The concerns of NATO allies and others outside America, of America's tolerance for US based Nazi websites, which in America are regarded as a whacked out fringe, but treated by confused youth as a taboo hidden fruit with a deleterious effect on those societies.

This isn't clear - which thing is disturbing? The concerns of the NATO allies, or the tolerance combined with the deleterious effects?

2) The issues of commodified labor under employment contracting.

Well, I can certainly agree with that. But you've been rather reticent on the whole issue of Big Evil Corporations in the past... Don't most people say that the commoditization of labor is mostly a result of corporations having too much political and media power, and not enough regulation?

[nobs]

After carefully reviewing Nazism, the Internet and Culture of Violence two things emerge that are profoundly disturbing:

1) The concerns of NATO allies and others outside America, of America's tolerance for US based Nazi websites, which in America are regarded as a whacked out fringe, but treated by confused youth as a taboo hidden fruit with a deleterious effect on those societies.

This isn't clear - which thing is disturbing? The concerns of the NATO allies, or the tolerance combined with the deleterious effects?

Both. But let's qualify 'tolerance'; as the report says,

national borders have little meaning in cyberspace, Internet users who export material [ed. note: intellectual porperty under copyright license] that is illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution...under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity...

2) The issues of commodified labor under employment contracting.

Well, I can certainly agree with that. But you've been rather reticent on the whole issue of Big Evil Corporations in the past... Don't most people say that the commoditization of labor is mostly a result of corporations having too much political and media power, and not enough regulation?

Much largher than that. This report shows how "employer clients" of temporary services deduct the cost of temp workers plus the markup of the temp agancy. In otherword it is taxpayer subsidized and the policy of governments in both the UK & US. "Commodification of labor" is defined by the UN Charter as a crime against humanity. Nazi war criminals were hanged exactly for this practice. And the report demonstrates how this is a daily practice of between 10 -30% of the US workforce. This policy proposal contends that resentment among disempowered temp workers is a breeding ground for rage which makes them susceptible to ZOG ate my brain type conspiracy theories.

This issues well deserves further investigation which I regard myself uniquely qualified to do.

This post has been edited by nobs: Sat 24th February 2007, 1:44am

[Somey]

This issues well deserves further investigation which I regard myself uniquely qualified to do.

I'd say there's been plenty of investigation already, by various economists, sociologists and the like... Arguably, they might not be as uniquely qualified as you, but they probably do know that the word is, in fact, "commoditization."

What's your point here, Nobs? I can see how unfair exploitation of temp workers could lead to social problems, but are you really saying that non-US governments are wrong to be concerned about exposure of their younger citizens to US-based neo-fascist propaganda?

[nobs]

I'd say there's been plenty of investigation already, by various economists, sociologists and the like...

I'm not so certain of that...I'm well aquainted with issues in this field, and this report is the first time (outside of ideological fever swamps) I've heard the arguement framed so succinctly. I mean, citing the UN Charter, and the specific references to Krupp Works and the German Ministry of Labor, the hanging of Fritz Sauckel, et al who engaged in such practices. And the direction of temporary employment in the US is a vast growing field. While I may differ over the causes of homebased business, and other tax dodges now to avoid the exponetial and increasing costs of hiring a fulltime stable workforce, I did not realize some of these practices are defined as a crime against humanity. And as the report also contends, many of these Labor issues were the cause of World War II.

What's your point here, Nobs? I can see how unfair exploitation of temp workers could lead to social problems,

This is a huge issue. It involves rehashing why businesses find it too expensive to hire a fulltime workforce with benefits, etc. And the report has a distinctly Malthusian, zero-sum, anti-supplyside trickle down anti-reaganomic thatcherized outlook. The solution implied or unstated, is that the lack of government social spending or intervention in the job market is the cause of despair for temp workers, while at the same time the report also shows these vary interventions in both directions have caused these crisis in the 1930s, and now. But that's all a separate matter.

but are you really saying that non-US governments are wrong to be concerned about exposure of their younger citizens to US-based neo-fascist propaganda?

I'm viewing a typical systemic bias, were American junior high school students are moreless educated and encouraged to go online from the classroom, upload all sorts of unaccountable defamatory crap, and are taught this is their civic right, if not a duty to express themselves. Our NATO allies are pissed off, and know it's impossible to get the US to change its laws that guard free speech, so a cyberwar is moreless underway within the alliance. The very laws that protect "US Nazi based websites" are used to profile people, some innocents then get caught in the crossfire, are slandered and defamed without recourse to the Courts under Sec 230. It's a brilliant counter-campaign, staffed with volunteers, and much cheaper than some other practices in the past.

This post has been edited by nobs: Sat 24th February 2007, 3:34am

[nobs]

Let's review the profiles identified thus far.

neo-confederate -- Rangerdude case
anti-communist -- Nobs01
LaRouchie -- Herschelkrustofsky
Holocaust denier -- Prouty
Christer or Dominionist -- Pravknight case
political cult -- also known as totalitarian cult -- Baby Dweezil

Some reording for organizational purposes may be in order.

politcal cult
LaRouchism
National Alliance
Branch Davidians
Jim Jones & Johnstown
(Scientology may fit in here which David Gerard would be tasked to handle)

Compiling History of Soviet espionage in the United States is what dragged this writer into the ideological fever swamps that define acceptable political content in Wikipedia. The following extract from What's Become of the White Left?, Dan Friedman, National Alliance, May 5, 1994, covers the time from the collapse of the USSR to the radical leftist sectarian disputes which have now resurfaced in Wikipedia. Writing in 1994, Friedman says,

Not only does the old left have no power in American politics, but whatever influence it wielded vis-à-vis its connection to various communist and revolutionary movements abroad is now all but gone. ...

Key to the transformation of the white left into a full-fledged ally of the powers-that-be is its counterintelligence network and activity. The left counterintelligence movement was founded in the early 1970s by an unusual alliance between former CIA and military intelligence agents disgusted by the U.S. role in Vietnam and concerned with government violation of citizens' rights, and leftist/liberal journalists and researchers. Organized initially as the "Fifth Estate," which published a magazine called Counter Spy, they set themselves the goal of becoming a "democratic secret police" that would unmask covert CIA and FBI operations and protect the left and the American people from "techno-fascist" intrusion by the state.

Among those involved early on were Winslow Peck, a former Air Force intelligence officer; ex-FBIer William Tucker; Philip Agee, a former CIA agent; and Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, a former Pentagon liaison to the CIA. Among the leftist journalists and "researchers" were attorney William Schapp, Chicago sociologist Daniel Stem, and Chip Berlet, a former student activist turned CIA-watcher.

By the late seventies, a struggle had developed which pit the leftists, most of them allied with or friends of the Communist Party, against some disgruntled veterans of the U.S. intelligence community over the direction the counter-intelligence movement was to take. The non-leftist former intelligence agents wanted to stick to their original mission of exposing the FBI and CIA. The leftists, who eventually started up their own publications, among them Public Eye, wanted also to "expose" the political right wing. But rapidly the counter-intelligence leftists' investigations of the right turned into applying labels of "political incorrectness" to other progressive forces with whom they disagreed. One of the first and most consistent targets of their sectarian attacks was the unorthodox political movement growing steadily under Fulani's leadership.

These Communist Party-influenced (white) leftists effectively won control of the counterintelligence movement and proceeded to set up shop as the official arbiters of political correctness. It proved a hollow victory for the CP., however. By the late eighties international communism had collapsed, and with it the American Communist Party. The CPUSA was racked by splits and reduced to a series of lawsuits, debts and political recriminations. With the American left (not only the CP.) in a shambles, the counterintelligence leftists became the American left. The traditional left, with no mass base, no viable tactics, no organizational independence, became Political Correctness itself. The left counterintelligence movement was more than calling the shots. The tail was wagging the dog.

This post has been edited by nobs: Thu 15th March 2007, 5:40pm

[blissyu2]

My head is hurting so I will stay out of this one, its beyond me, or beyond the kinds of things I am good at.

Chip Berlet does seem to get preferential treatment though. It is interesting that with regards to real life people editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia tends to take one of two paths - either they restrict them, bully them, then ban them or else they revere them with great respect like some kind of god. It seems that Chip Berlet is one of the top real life editors there. Maybe even the number 1.