Gregor Samsa’s transformation represents the, um, Beastialization of Man on a Larouchian scale.
Mildly amusing joke that I thought was just sitting there.
Beasts of Burden.

I see that Howie G is following the Defeat of the Mighty Wurlitzer, as Lyndon Larouche approaches final victory.  He has some mighty fine and highly original commentary on the global political ramifications.  Seeing that the Inner Alpha Group is now on the verge of being demolished and can no longer stem the tide of a Global Glass Steagal through their usual tools of Dennis King, the only questions become — when can we expect the signing ceremony and press conference full of the World Leaders? — Stephen Harper, Raúl Castro, Angela Merkel, Hu Jintao, Nicolas Sarkozy, Berlesconi, Putin and or Medvedev — I assume that the David Cameron / Nick Clegg and Barack Obama / Rand Paul tandems won’t show up.  Will Larouche be there, or his name be running through the speeches of everyone involved?  Or is Larouche going to declare himself the square root of two again?
It’ll be interesting to see how this all develops.  I, for one, am not all that interested in the prospects of a New Glass Steagal.  I’m looking for an organization that is currently seeking a New Bretton Woods, though, and there don’t appear to be any out there.  But the fight continues.
… At least until Christmas Day, when the world is set to end yet again.

Funny stuff at wikipedia!  The current barely concealed member of the Larouche Wikipedia Team — Delia Peabody, who “wouldn’t say [she’s] familiar.” She just  “spent a few hours searching the web“. – has achieved what edits s/he has sought, and declared VICTORY!

As far as I am concerned, most neutrality issues have been resolved. I would suggest replacing some long quotes by critics with summaries, as Bill has advocated with LaRouche quotes. But if people want to remove the NPOV tag, I have no objection. Delia Peabody (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Great!  Instantly shufflings commenced, further re-litigation shall follow I assume.  And immediately, a question:

Why did you remove this?
LaRouche-affiliated candidates used AIDS as an issue as late as 1994.^[1][2]  
The LaRouche movement targeted schools where children with AIDS were attending. As early as 1985 NDPC members ran for local school boards on a platform of keeping infected students out of school.^[3] In 1986 LaRouche supporters traveled from Seattle, Washington to Lebanon, Oregon to urge the school board there to reverse a policy that would allow children with AIDS to enroll.^[4] In 1987 followers tried to organize a boycott of an elementary school in the Chicago neighborhood of Pilsen, sending a van with loudspeakers through the district.^[5] They disrupted an informational meeting and according to press accounts told parents, “The blood of your own children will be on your hands if you allow this child with AIDS in your school,” or shouted at opponents, “He has AIDS! He has AIDS!”^[6] BillMasen (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And on:
FWIW, I recently was at a library doing research on another topic, but I also searched a database of academic journals to see what they had on this topic. The bulk of hits concerned either the role of thrird-party/minor candidates in presidential campaigns, or the AIDS initiative. It continues to be the issue of the LaRouche movement that is given the most attention in scholarly works. It is covered in a large number of sources. We are probably giving it too little weight rahter than too much.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 10 December 2010
I don’t know the answer, though I do find the 9/11 Truth tags disproportionate, though not offensively so.
There is some suggestion on why remove that here:

The LaRouche movement wikipedia article is a real hoot: heckling, harassment, fraud, conspiracy, global warming denial, anti-semitism, homophobia (“Kissinger: the politics of faggotry”?! Isolate and ‘cure’ AIDS patients with directed energy beams?!), gold nuttery, Obama hitler/swastika posters, it just goes on and on.

I guess now that the wikipedia articles have been tackled, this problem will no longer fester.

My high school library had a subscription to Fusion magazine for some reason. We quickly figured out it was a LaRouche publication and used to make fun of it in study hall. Good times …

1) This never fails. You and a friend walk past the LaRouchie’s literature table. Friend shows (or pretends) interest in whatever crap they are pushing that day. Grab friend firmly by arm and drag them away saying (loudly): “Pay no attention to those people. They all work for David Rockefeller.” The result has to be seen to be believed.
2) This one only worked because they led into it. Chat them up and show some vague knowledge of what they’re up to. Then slowly disclose that you know who Chip Berlet is. (It was easy for me because the LaRouchie said to me, “That sounds like you know Chip Berlet.”) Once you get them to that point, say something like, “Why, yes. He’s a good friend and we had lunch last month.” This all just happened by chance, but Chip is a friend and it was the best rise I’ve ever had from the LaRouchies. Imagine rabid religious nuts convincing themselves that you just had lunch with Satan himself.

Suggestion: instead of evoking Chip Berlet, say that you’ll look into them on wikipedia.

Because of his equally bonkers German wife, LaRouche also keeps a political presence in Germany. However, Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s successive parties have somehow always failed to win any electoral support whatsoever, and their membership is estimated to be in the lower three digits (most of them, one suspects, undercover agents from Germany’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution, which keeps a close eye both on cults and on extremist political movements).
That’s an old joke, used with reference to the kkk.  In the particular case of this org, it’s false.

On the “Big Worldwide, blockaded in US Media” kick:

By the way, km.ru appears to be used quite often as a source in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is used in articles on topics related to Russia.[4] How often is it used in articles on American politicians?   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I like how the first reference with km.ru is to Igor Panarin.

Y’know it’s easy to mock Larouche.
 Not worth many points in the game, is it?
But delve about here , beyond the cult concerns and into the “Political Effect” (the full thrust of which I waver on) —
There is a part of the LaRouche effect that isn’t laughable, though. Some of the messages that the LaRouche groups spreads are passed on by other groups that don’t claim to have any relation to LaRouche.
— Expand on the basic problem of the murkily attached “Splinter” groups — Solon — which we see a page on solon recently updated at laroucheplanet —
In this line, the somewhat laughable recent “AIM” piece about the Larouche — Tarpley — Alex Jones org  is at least “grain of truth” worthy.  With Tarpley, you’re watching around the ways of some other disseminators — Progressive Press.

If that larouche group are against dumbobama, then I am all for them. REGARDLESS of who or what they are.
Sure.  Sure.  But why not just stop at Orly Taitz?  Oh, wait:

I’ll add one thing in hopes that you will not continue to miss my point. As American Dr. Leo Alexander pointed out at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal after the end of the war, the genocide began quietly in the hospitals, and because it was not stopped there, it gathered momentum, until it grew to the dimensions of mass extermination. This time, if you wait until you see mass extermination, it will be too late to stop it. Stop it NOW.Yeah.  The curious thing about this line of reasoning is that any regulatory change in the Health Care Bureacracy, minor or major, can be considered straight from Hitler.

The great thing about this line of reasoning is it’s so adaptable to any minor (or major) shift in any bureacracy.

Still, you try to rationalize the comparison between Obama and Hitler. Clearly you just don’t get it. More to the point, I’m assuming it wouldn’t serve your argument not to. But if you want to search through history to explain Hitler’s raise to power than help yourself. The difference between Hitler and Obama – and history will bear this out – is that Hitler was an insane xenophobe, Obama is not. Comparing Nazi Germany to this nation at this point in time serves nobody. It’s hardly accurate and most important, it’s disrespectful to our President, our country, 6 million Jews and countless homosexuals, Russians, Gypsies and so many more.

No.  Wait.  Hitler was brought in by the British, and… had a Health Care System… and…

I have not been able to read through the head of the Larouche Cryonics Movement and Piano Player’s new favorite — Rolf Witzshe — to see where he differs from Larouche — seems to be saying the same thing:
Rolf Witzshe is challanging the larouche NAWAPA plan with a better plan that is amazing. Witzshe is an amazing writer in the tradition of Classical Humanism…
This is an interesting development for the Larouche Cryonics Movement and Piano Player.  Maybe Rolf Witzshe is advocating for a bigger NAWAPA?

As for the “evils” of Capitalism, I am much in the same frame of mind as was Trotsky, as James will remember from a program RFPI carried some while back…I lost my archives of Tape Recordings, but a man was discussing Lyndon LaRouche. He mentioned that his College Professor was a admirer of LaRouche because Lyndon was a Trotskyite.Capitalism is NOT evil. Socialism, which speaks of “SHARED WEALTH” then places the “GOVERNMENT” as the “OVER-SEER” of said wealth IS evil. History teaches BRUTALLY that there is NO GOOD in the
HEART of MAN, and the KINDEST Soul, being granted TOTAL POWER over his
fellows, becomes a

This entry was posted on Friday, December 10th, 2010 at 5:03 pm and is filed under The LaRouche Challenge, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.