I will move this link from the February sidebar archives over here, because I have had … NOTHING… on Lyndon LaRouche… as of late.

Economics = Science of the Mind
Doubling the Square = Purification Rundown
LaRouche = LRH
Baby Boomers = engrams and Black Thetan Goals
Republicans = Suppressive persons
Cheney = Xenu
British Monarchy = Marcab Confederacy
Schiller Institute = Office of Special Affairs
USA = MEST
Benjamin Franklin = Jack Parsons
Plato = Freud
acapella singing on college campuses = SeaOrg
Socratic method = electropsychometer auditing
mind control = mind control
Executive Information Review = Freedom Magazine
Colonize Mars and build Eurasian Landbridge = transcend time and space as OT
Directed Energy Beam to destroy AIDS sufferers = “curing” homosexuality via Dianetics
Helga-Zepp LaRouche = a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl

Linking current material from the blogosphere, This guy more or less had me until he cited John Kerry as a “far left candidate”. His history is skewed on the matter at hand. I don’t think you can call his followers a member of anything, excepting that they skim what they can from the edges of any “Movement” he aligns himself with.

The fight for the wikipedia continues apace: It seems to me that you are making too much out of the American System inclusion because you are on a crusade to silence anything you THINK is related to Lyndon LaRouche. Just because LaRouche supports the American System or a style of it; does not mean he is its inventor; that he is the only one supporting similar policies (protective tariffs, productive investments by the FED)…in fact numerous persons are supporting this system of economics also called ‘national’ and ‘protective’…including Batra, Dobbs, Buchanan, many members of the US Democratic Party in various ways…Mr. LaRouche was opposed to Judge Alito, and by your reasoning, any inclusion of opposition to Alito would be a LaRouche idea, since he supports that idea..It is a fallacy to attribute the support of the American System only to him; but this is a debate already gone over numerous times with you and you continue to bring it up again and again, in a fanatic attempt to silence views you don’t understand by calling them names or linking them to other persons you oppose politically. I have stated that my edits are sourced and I have provided those sources in numerous instances when you have asked for them. I have tried to work with you civilly – tried to work out disputes between yourself and others and sided with you when you were right – yet you continue to badger me to no end; always in violation of assuming good faith. My inclusions are never without merit; although I am an imperfect human and therefore am bound to make mistakes (like at the US Constitution article); and when I do I move on and admit it. I have answered you on every point of contention here at this article – tried to do a sandbox which you rejected at first only accepting it after I spent the time re-working the article to be more accurate; these types of behaviors are wrong.

STOP. Work with me and not against me. If you wish to challenge my edits, then do so with good faith by asking me here in talk before simple reversion. We have enough history, that you should know that I am more than willing to collaborate with other editors and to change my edits when they need to be changed or where I have made mistakes. I simply do not like being labeled, followed, and put before a ‘court of inquisition’ on every edit I make. I don’t mind your questions, I mind your methods.

But LaRouche invented the Wikipedia anyway, so who are these non-LaRouchites to dictate terms? (One of the more bizarre claims he has made is that… he founded wikipedia. I do not understand that.)

This entry was posted on Friday, April 14th, 2006 at 7:43 am and is filed under The LaRouche Challenge. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.