The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Searching for LaRouche under the bed
Herschelkrustofsky
post Tue 13th February 2007, 10:05pm
Post #21


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Jonathan @ Mon 12th February 2007, 2:12am) *

HK, could you give me some background as to who this LaRouche character is, and why Wikipedia appears to despise him and anyone who shares his viewpoints so much?


I should also have mentioned that my response to your invitation was likely to cause this thread to go off-topic faster than you can say John Train Salon.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Wed 14th February 2007, 2:02am
Post #22


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 12th February 2007, 11:45pm) *
blink.gif
HK, let's get Dan Brandt involved in this discussion. Mr. Brant says,
QUOTE
Carroll Quigley was a conspiracy historian, but he was unusual in that he avoided criticism. Most of his conspiracy research concerned the role of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups in Britain from 1891 through World War II. His major work, Tragedy and Hope (1966), contains scattered references to his twenty years of research in this area, but his detailed history of the Round Table was written in 1949.... Quigley was also an insider, so his criticisms of the groups he studied are subdued. .... In 1962 the Center for Strategic and International Studies was established on the Georgetown campus, where it maintained close ties with the School of Foreign Service. CSIS included a number of people on its staff who had high-level CIA connections. Quigley moved in these circles...
It is my understanding Quigley was a Trustee of the Rhodes Scholarship, i.e. selecting candidates to attend Oxford, whom Bill Clinton was one. I would politely disagree with the "conspiracy historian" part, and Brandt later even says Quigley "was also an insider".

But it's Milner & House's relationship, and what devolved from it, that really should be the focus.
____

There's much here to discuss from this 1993 piece, for example Brandt says,
QUOTE
The CIA has a long history of infiltrating international organizations, from labor to students to religion. I submit that if an anti-war activist was involved in this type of international jet-setting, the burden is on them to show that they were not compromised. Clinton comes close to assuming this burden.
This was established early on, through Strobe Talbot. Krushchev Remembers, published by Frederick Preager (Frederick Preager = CIA front and has been well known for years) was translated and on book shelves by 1970. Anyone reading the intro knows the translator got the original Russian documents from the CIA. The story told here (finally, in 2000) goes into some detail about how and when the documents were dropped off at Talbot's and Clinton's pad they shared together. This was all known in 1992-93.

This post has been edited by nobs: Wed 14th February 2007, 3:08am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 14th February 2007, 7:15am
Post #23


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Nobs, whenever the issue of off-topic posting is raised, you should probably assume that you are a prime suspect.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Sun 18th February 2007, 7:09pm
Post #24


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 14th February 2007, 12:15am) *

Nobs, whenever the issue of off-topic posting is raised, you should probably assume that you are a prime suspect.
Alright, back to the subject.

Thus far we have identified four invidious pejoratives used in Wikipedia's internal program of ideological profiling, a program similiar to the concept to racial profiling, in theory "keeping an eye" on all editors with potentially dangerous or incorrect ideological views which may infect the planet via electronic transmission. They are:
    neo-confederate
    anti-communist
    LaRouchie
    Holocaust denier
Herschelkrustofsky presented evidence of ideological profiling which he mislabelled as "wikistalking" in the case accepted by ArbCom against SlimVirgin and Will Beback. HK details his complaint of profiling and harassment but nevertheless can't change his skin color....
QUOTE
Willmcw prepared a list of every article ever edited by myself and two other editors, all of whom were accused of being "LaRouche editors." ...In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary.
RD added a comment,
QUOTE
evidently willing to put dozens of hours into scouring the entire editing history of his subjects and assembling lists of everything they've ever done going back for months upon months.


This post has been edited by nobs: Sun 18th February 2007, 7:14pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sun 18th February 2007, 8:01pm
Post #25


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 1:09pm) *
They are:
    neo-confederate
    anti-communist
    LaRouchie
    Holocaust denier

Surely you mean "neo-fascist" or "neo-Nazi," not "anti-communist"...? Where on WP has anyone been castigated for being an "anti-communist"? Do you have diffs or something?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Sun 18th February 2007, 8:36pm
Post #26


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 18th February 2007, 1:01pm) *
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 1:09pm) *

anti-communist
Surely you mean "neo-fascist" or "neo-Nazi," not "anti-communist"...? Where on WP has anyone been castigated for being an "anti-communist"? Do you have diffs or something?

QUOTE
So you admit...you are a militant anticommunist... Is that your position, at long last?
Response here, "Pointed reference".

654 Google hits for "anti-communist" defined as pejoritived by Wikipedia's foremost gatekeeper assigned to judge poltical content.

Chip Berlet: Prepared Lectures for 1989 (Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1989), republished 1992,
"From Concentration Camps to Contragate: Nazis, Anti-Communism, and the National Security State" the author states,
QUOTE
How obsessive Cold War anti-communism led to an alliance with former Nazi collaborators and the development of the National Security State with its emphasis on militarism and covert action abroad, and secrecy and repression at home.
Most notably the Wilcox report from a longtime observer which says,
QUOTE
Concern over anti-Communism represents a thread that runs through almost everything [Wikipedia's premier gatekeeper of controversial and political content] does.
See also
Anti-communism#Fascist_anti-communism
McCarthyism#Popular support for McCarthyism (redirect from Second Red Scare#Popular support for McCarthyism)
QUOTE
There was also a strong and often overt strain of anti-semitism and racism underlying McCarthyism.
and finally to bring this into the 21st Century we have
Free Congress Foundation#Activist training
Free Congress Foundation#Alleged links to "Dominionism"

See also Scot Nakagawa, When Democracy Works, for updated list of invidious pejoritives, targets, project coordinators and sponsors; Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family appears on the list with the Ku Klux Klan for example.

Warning: anyone who challenges the NPOV assertions in any of the above links will be targeted, harassed, and potentially denounced publicly with an invidious pejorative without recourse.

This post has been edited by nobs: Wed 21st February 2007, 4:52am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Mon 19th February 2007, 4:13am
Post #27


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 11:09am) *

Alright, back to the subject.


I'd say that you made a momentary feint toward the subject, and then veered back again toward your epic struggle slash landmark legal case with the Chipster.

The reason that I originally thought that this topic might be of some interest (it has probably outlived its usefulness by now) is that one particular admin, Will Beback, is now pushing the envelope, arrogating to himself the authority to declare certain classes of ideas to be taboo, irrespective of whether they orginated with LaRouche. He is using the LaRouche I ArbCom case as a jumping off point, but he has jumped sufficiently far with it that it no longer has any connection to the case. The ArbCom seems to be telling him, in effect, Run With It! This is sure to set a precedent which others will eagerly follow.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Mon 19th February 2007, 4:47am
Post #28


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Well, HK, you & I have never had this discussion. Willmcw/sandbox[1] was RD, and Willmcw/sandbox2 was yourself; both were profiled, stalked, harassed, and eventually gangbanged out of the project. Both your "profiles" fit all the pejoritives in the PRA, SPLC etc. literature. You said,
QUOTE
...In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary.
Can you clarify what you mean buy this. I'm not asking to expound on your understanding of LaRouche's ideas. My impression is, you have read some of his "dangerous" writings, and probabaly used some in citations. But as I understand it, you deny any affilliation with the "cultic mentality" of "LaRouchism" that Berlet and others have written extensively on. Nonetheless, it appears even until now, you can't shake the branding of a "LaRouche editor".
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sun 18th February 2007, 9:13pm) *

Will Beback, is now pushing the envelope, arrogating to himself the authority to declare certain classes of ideas to be taboo, irrespective of whether they orginated with LaRouche. He is using the LaRouche I ArbCom case as a jumping off point, but he has jumped sufficiently far with it that it no longer has any connection to the case. The ArbCom seems to be telling him, in effect, Run With It! This is sure to set a precedent which others will eagerly follow.
QUOTE
"arrogating to himself"
this is an assumption. You know yourself Will Beback & SV and all of them do not act willy nilly on their own. My God, Electric Ray was just here asking why we don't organize to work together, like they do over there, etc.
QUOTE
classes of ideas
not surprising, and really not new. I could guess what most are (all available at PRA & other websites).

I'm not familiar with the LaRouche1 case, and I really have no reason to examine it. My advice would be to abandon this fruitless effort. Read Hume,
QUOTE
The human mind is of a very imitative nature; nor is it possible for any set of men to converse often together without acquiring a similitude of manners and communication to each other their vices as well as their virtues. The propensity to company and society is strong in all rational creatures; and the same disposition which gives us this propensity makes us enter deeply into each other's sentiments and causes like passions and inclinations to run, as it were, by contagion through the whole club or knot of companions.'
Ask yourself this question, if LaRouche is so intelligent (which he is) why doesn't he tell his "followers" that all his problems come from the ADL?

This post has been edited by nobs: Mon 19th February 2007, 4:54am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 19th February 2007, 5:40am
Post #29


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 2:36pm) *
QUOTE
So you admit...you are a militant anticommunist... Is that your position, at long last?

Without specifically accusing you of quoting out of context again, let's just take a look at the whole thing:

QUOTE(User:Cberlet @ 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC))
So you admit that your highly biased and opinionated POV original research actually has no reputable published source to cite to? That because you are a militant anticommunist you feel it is OK to put in print here that anyone who was a commie symp is the same thing as a active witting KGB agent? Is that your position, at long last?

And your response didn't actually answer the question, did it? Sure, Berlet was out of line, and presumably you felt you did have a reputable source, and (also presumably) you don't believe all communist sympathizers are KGB agents. After all, the latter especially is a ridiculous assertion. So why not just tell him?

The fact is, neither of you wanted to give the other any more ammunition, did you? That argument could have gone on forever if the admins hadn't stepped in at Berlet's behest, and we all know what happened after that - Berlet was part of the SlimVirgin crowd, and got preferential treatment. He got it because he fulfills one of SlimVirgin's primary needs - namely, for a leftist who bashes other leftists. He provides left-wing sources that she can quote to show that the left wing is anti-Semitic and soft on terrorists, doesn't he? Slimmy, meanwhile, doesn't need extra right-wingers on the team - there are tons of those, they're all over the place, they're expendable. No problem to ban one or two of them - it shows she's an Equal Opportunity Banner, doesn't it? Berlet, though - he was, and will presumably remain, much more valuable.

Hardly the way to produce a proper encyclopedia, though... is it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Mon 19th February 2007, 6:06am
Post #30


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 18th February 2007, 10:40pm) *

QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 2:36pm) *
QUOTE
So you admit...you are a militant anticommunist... Is that your position, at long last?

Without specifically accusing you of quoting out of context again, let's just take a look at the whole thing:

QUOTE(User:Cberlet @ 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC))
So you admit that your highly biased and opinionated POV original research actually has no reputable published source to cite to? That because you are a militant anticommunist you feel it is OK to put in print here that anyone who was a commie symp is the same thing as a active witting KGB agent? Is that your position, at long last? 22:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And your response didn't actually answer the question, did it? Sure, Berlet was out of line, and presumably you felt you did have a reputable source, and (also presumably) you don't believe all communist sympathizers are KGB agents. After all, the latter especially is a ridiculous assertion. So why not just tell him?

The fact is, neither of you wanted to give the other any more ammunition, did you? That argument could have gone on forever if the admins hadn't stepped in at Berlet's behest, and we all know what happened after that - Berlet was part of the SlimVirgin crowd, and got preferential treatment. He got it because he fulfills one of SlimVirgin's primary needs - namely, for a leftist who bashes other leftists. He provides left-wing sources that she can quote to show that the left wing is anti-Semitic and soft on terrorists, doesn't he? Slimmy, meanwhile, doesn't need extra right-wingers on the team - there are tons of those, they're all over the place, they're expendable. No problem to ban one or two of them - it shows she's an Equal Opportunity Banner, doesn't it? Berlet, though - he was, and will presumably remain, much more valuable.

Hardly the way to produce a proper encyclopedia, though... is it?
(I added time stamp above) At the risk of boring you to tears, I'll make it brief: from that discussion we have the famous, now twice adjudicated Arbitration Ruling,

good faith = harassment

and the simple fact is, my input into the IF Stone discussion & mainspace was never what Berlet and others said it was. That was primarily a dispute between TDC & others. I just brought in the hard evidence and a little discussion. I didn't know I'd be profiled, stalked, harassed, and ultimately slandered through Wikipedia's bait and switch advertising to get unpaid volunteers.

This post has been edited by nobs: Mon 19th February 2007, 6:11am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Mon 19th February 2007, 3:35pm
Post #31


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 8:47pm) *

QUOTE
...In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary.
Can you clarify what you mean buy this. I'm not asking to expound on your understanding of LaRouche's ideas. My impression is, you have read some of his "dangerous" writings, and probabaly used some in citations. But as I understand it, you deny any affilliation with the "cultic mentality" of "LaRouchism" that Berlet and others have written extensively on. Nonetheless, it appears even until now, you can't shake the branding of a "LaRouche editor".


What I meant by that was straightforward. Will Beback was claiming that my edits to articles such as "European Classical Music," "Hall Johnson," or "Isoperimetry" were loaded with insidious LaRouchist ideas. That is baloney. But as far is "LaRouchism" is concerned, I am "pro-LaRouche."

QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 8:47pm) *

Ask yourself this question, if LaRouche is so intelligent (which he is) why doesn't he tell his "followers" that all his problems come from the ADL?


Because they don't. The ADL, like Berlet or Dennis King, is not the source of the attacks on LaRouche. They are just a bunch of goons on the payroll. See John Train Salon.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
guy
post Mon 19th February 2007, 4:20pm
Post #32


Postmaster General
*********

Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 8:52pm
From: London
Member No.: 23



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 3:35pm) *

The ADL, like Berlet or Dennis King, is not the source of the attacks on LaRouche. They are just a bunch of goons on the payroll.

Careful, HK - given that the ADL is a Jewish organisation, you're bordering on anti-Semitism here. wacko.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Mon 19th February 2007, 4:43pm
Post #33


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 8:47pm) *
QUOTE
...In the vast majority of cases, any connection between my edits and LaRouche would be purely imaginary.
Can you clarify what you mean buy this. I'm not asking to expound on your understanding of LaRouche's ideas. My impression is, you have read some of his "dangerous" writings, and probabaly used some in citations. But as I understand it, you deny any affilliation with the "cultic mentality" of "LaRouchism" that Berlet and others have written extensively on. Nonetheless, it appears even until now, you can't shake the branding of a "LaRouche editor".

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 8:35am) *

What I meant by that was straightforward. Will Beback was claiming that my edits to articles such as "European Classical Music," "Hall Johnson," or "Isoperimetry" were loaded with insidious LaRouchist ideas. That is baloney. But as far is "LaRouchism" is concerned, I am "pro-LaRouche."

OK. This is becoming an interesting long overdue discussion. I had not been aware of any connection between "LaRouchism" and "European Classical Music" until I came into Wikipedia in early 2005. I found a very rare English language translation of a very rare prose work of Wilhelm Furtwängler had been deleted from Furtwangler's bio. Furtwangler is about as apolitical a person can get, sufferred de-nazification interrogations, and his deceased reputation has moreless amazingly been portrayed with accuracy in the English language wiki, despite crusades for half a century to tar any shoeshine boy (an exaggeration on my part) who ever shined the shoes of a high level nazi, as a Nazi collaborator.

It took special permission on my part from Will Beback, with SlimVirgin conferring also, and one or the other investigated my claim, that this was an innappropriate deletion. They were very concerned that some anti-Semitic propaganda may be transmitted in that document, and it was carefully reviewed. In the end, by a concensus of Will Beback, me & SlimVirgin, they agreed with my arguement, and I may have gained some standing as a researcher in their eyes to properly qualify sources. But I became aware early on to the sensitivity of this subject, and it is only reasonable. And they even agreed with me that innocent persons, like Furtwangler, should not be tarred with invidious pejoritives.

After the investigation, I asked Slim what was the concern, and she related Furtwangler was on the shit list because of a sanctioned LaRouche editor. That's the first time I ever saw your user handle. But I never understood if it was just a personal interest of yours in so-called "classical music", or if it was part of "Larouche conspiracy" to infect the planet with anti-Semitism via bios of Robert Shumann, or is just LaRouche himself who enjoy's Shumann and transmits his ideosyncratic and fascist musings through codewords and links to European websites about Shumann. None of it makes sense to me.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 8:35am) *
QUOTE(nobs @ Sun 18th February 2007, 8:47pm) *
Ask yourself this question, if LaRouche is so intelligent (which he is) why doesn't he tell his "followers" that all his problems come from the ADL?
Because they don't. The ADL, like Berlet or Dennis King, is not the source of the attacks on LaRouche. They are just a bunch of goons on the payroll. See John Train Salon.
Read it then, read it again, and read it now. The third time I read Ace Hayes, some of the spirit of the language began to become coherent. About a month ago, I finally realized Ace Hayes using "Empirical State" or some such phrase, means he must be a LaRouchie (Brandt has this on his website; no wonder he's a target). And yes, this all does warrant further discussion. The Ace Hayes/John Train Salon material properly belongs to the genre of "conspiracy theory".

Bonus Question (3 points): Which Psalm is Schiller's Ode to Joy a paraphrase of?

P.S. let me reveal something very personal; reading Furtwangler's current wiki bio (written by someone else but shaped by some of the discussion I had on the talk page), I am literally moved to tears. And this is evidence why I beleive Wikipedia processes can work.

This post has been edited by nobs: Mon 19th February 2007, 5:32pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Mon 19th February 2007, 5:10pm
Post #34


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



John Train, according to his Who's Who in America (1984-85) entry, was "Founder, mng. editor Paris Review, 1952-54."

Paris Review, according to The New York Times, December 26, 1977, p. 37, was founded and funded by the CIA. Other founders of Paris Review were Peter Matthiessen and George Plimpton, both witting CIA agents. By 1987 John Train was president of the Afghanistan Relief Committee, which received money in 1985 and 1986 from the National Endowment for Democracy. NED was created by Congress to funnel money to foreign groups so that the CIA wouldn't have to create so many fronts and that kept getting exposed.

For Chip Berlet to even attend the John Train meetings about LaRouche, and rub shoulders with all those high-level spooks, indicates to me that he is in bed with them.

Yet good ol' SlimVirgin wrote on January 6, 2005:
QUOTE
There's no evidence that Roy Godson is an intelligence operative and the weasel catch-all phrase "representatives from intelligence-linked funding sources" is typical Brandt and typical LaRouche.

Holy crap. Even a publication by Political Research Associates, Chip Berlet's propaganda factory, concedes that Godson is spook-connected:
QUOTE
The Consortium is directed by NSIC Washington director Roy Godson, a consultant since 1982 to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which oversees covert operations. He has also been a consultant to the National Security Council. The Consortium engages many current and retired intelligence agency employees.... (The Coors Connection by Russ Bellant, 1990, page 48, preface by Chip Berlet)

One might expect Chip Berlet to correct SlimVirgin's obvious error, but no, it serves his purpose in this case so he lets it go. It's all propaganda for Berlet and SlimVirgin, which means that it's all in the service of a higher purpose. Facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of the mission.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Mon 19th February 2007, 5:31pm
Post #35


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



QUOTE
Ace Hayes using "Empirical State" or some such phrase, means he must be a LaRouchie (Brandt has this on his website; no wonder he's a target). And yes, this all does warrant further discussion. The Ace Hayes/John Train Salon material properly belongs to the genre of "conspiracy theory".

I think Ace Hayes probably used the term "Imperial State." I knew Ace (who died in 1998), and that sounds like him. He was very anti-Berlet, but more tolerant of LaRouche, although not a LaRouchie by any stretch of the imagination. I think he respected LaRouche mostly because Berlet hated LaRouche, which for Ace meant that LaRouche couldn't be all bad. Ace was an old-style, IWW-type leftist, but he didn't really fit in any box at all.

I don't see the term "Imperial State" or "Empirical State" on my website. In any case, I think Ace may have picked it up from Lenin, not from LaRouche. His writing style was colorful, and driven by anger and frustration, but he was well-informed, independent, and had a lot of integrity. He would have hated Wikipedia.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Poetlister
post Mon 19th February 2007, 5:42pm
Post #36


Poetlister from Venus
******

Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,018
Joined: Fri 3rd Mar 2006, 12:17pm
Member No.: 50

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 19th February 2007, 3:35pm) *

The ADL, like Berlet or Dennis King, is not the source of the attacks on LaRouche.

Is that the Anti-Defamation League? As I've said, I really know nothing about LaRouche. But I get worried if he can only be defended by framing a left-wing politician as a right-wing creep and what I believe to be a respectable charity as a bunch of goons.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Mon 19th February 2007, 5:50pm
Post #37


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 10:31am) *

QUOTE
Ace Hayes using "Empirical State" or some such phrase, means he must be a LaRouchie (Brandt has this on his website; no wonder he's a target). And yes, this all does warrant further discussion. The Ace Hayes/John Train Salon material properly belongs to the genre of "conspiracy theory".

I think Ace Hayes probably used the term "Imperial State." I knew Ace (who died in 1998), and that sounds like him. He was very anti-Berlet, but more tolerant of LaRouche, although not a LaRouchie by any stretch of the imagination. I think he respected LaRouche mostly because Berlet hated LaRouche, which for Ace meant that LaRouche couldn't be all bad. Ace was an old-style, IWW-type leftist, but he didn't really fit in any box at all.

I don't see the term "Imperial State" or "Empirical State" on my website. In any case, I think Ace may have picked it up from Lenin, not from LaRouche. His writing style was colorful, and driven by anger and frustration, but he was well-informed, independent, and had a lot of integrity. He would have hated Wikipedia.
Thank you very much for that clarification. I get lost in these fever swamps. This entry: Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet is clearly disinformation,
QUOTE
Berlet has been criticized by The New American for having accused the Anti-Defamation League, in a 1993 op-ed piece for the New York Times, of down-playing the right-wing threat
is using the nested criticism by Bircher's to set Berlet at odds with the ADL. In fact, PRAs publication, History of the Public Eye Electronic Forums (1986) with some material from the Wilcox report (and other sources) shows Berlet has been a subcontractor for the ADL since circa 1985 or 86. I'm not here to float conspiracy theories. I will present sourced evidence with an arguement to the best explanation.

The ADL and Berlet have legitimate and admirable goals; some of their methods and tactics they have used in the internet era, however, do warrant sunlight. "Sunlight cleanses all infections."

This post has been edited by nobs: Mon 19th February 2007, 5:50pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anon1234
post Mon 19th February 2007, 6:01pm
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat 8th Apr 2006, 2:40am
Member No.: 111



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 5:10pm) *

Yet good ol' SlimVirgin wrote on January 6, 2005:
QUOTE
There's no evidence that Roy Godson is an intelligence operative and the weasel catch-all phrase "representatives from intelligence-linked funding sources" is typical Brandt and typical LaRouche.

Holy crap. Even a publication by Political Research Associates, Chip Berlet's propaganda factory, concedes that Godson is spook-connected:
QUOTE
The Consortium is directed by NSIC Washington director Roy Godson, a consultant since 1982 to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which oversees covert operations. He has also been a consultant to the National Security Council. The Consortium engages many current and retired intelligence agency employees.... (The Coors Connection by Russ Bellant, 1990, page 48, preface by Chip Berlet)

One might expect Chip Berlet to correct SlimVirgin's obvious error, but no, it serves his purpose in this case so he lets it go. It's all propaganda for Berlet and SlimVirgin, which means that it's all in the service of a higher purpose. Facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of the mission.


SlimVirgin single handedly decided that we apparently can't handle the truth? Thus noble lies are in order to purify the Colbertian consensus reality that is Wikipedia? I love it.

This post has been edited by anon1234: Mon 19th February 2007, 6:02pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Daniel Brandt
post Mon 19th February 2007, 6:06pm
Post #39


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,473
Joined: Fri 24th Mar 2006, 12:23am
Member No.: 77



ADL had goons on its payroll when Irwin Suall ran its intelligence service. They cooperated with South African intelligence under the apartheid regime, and also ran an intel operation in the U.S. that spied on dozens of political groups, left and right. There was a criminal case in California in 1993-94, which led to a stack of intelligence files getting confiscated, and these were available to the press. At the time I got a set of these files and read them. Berlet traded information with the ADL, and one ADL official said that Berlet and Political Research Associates had been very helpful in monitoring right-wing groups. Berlet would even pose as a right-winger and infiltrate right-wing meetings. For more information on the spying case in California, search for Tom Gerard and/or Roy Bullock on Yahoo or Google.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
nobs
post Mon 19th February 2007, 6:20pm
Post #40


#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon 27th Feb 2006, 6:08pm
From: North America
Member No.: 16

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 19th February 2007, 11:06am) *

ADL had goons on its payroll when Irwin Suall ran its intelligence service. They cooperated with South African intelligence under the apartheid regime
We've recently broached the wide breadth of this subject on WR here, the disinformation excerpted,
QUOTE
"developed itself" is a little misleading, don't you think ... in light of... United Nations General Assembly Resolution 43/80. (December 7, 1988), which reads,
QUOTE
...Israel's development and acquisition of nuclear weapons and Israel's collaboration with South Africa to develop nuclear weapons...
which I can't find any reference to anywhere in Wikipedia.


This post has been edited by nobs: Mon 19th February 2007, 6:24pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th 8 14, 7:10pm