«
»

The Thousand Year Project

Hm.  The man was visibly angry and said that the Internet is not a good place for people to exchange ideas and conversations.  Maybe?

This comment leads itself to an open-ended discussion and dialouge, no?

I tend to think of LaR as a once in 1000 year genius surrounded by some very brilliant people. This is what attracted most of you to LaR. And, the day to day life of someone who is saving humanity can be trying, hence the quitters.
I don’t mind an honest quitter. We all have pressures. It is the liars and agents that bother me.
Calling LaR a cult leader is like calling me a Martian. It is just absurd.
 
I never heard back from Alan Osler after this exchange.  Which is really too bad — I sent him a courtesy email.  Osler, you will remember, reported back on attending the “Larouche Danger” conference — where a few remarks stood out.  There was one about this conference missing the boat with regard to Larouche — that The Simpsons and Futurama did a much better job socking it to the man than these people.  A strange comment, and I guess the old SNL bit had a little too much edge to it to count here.  From there, Osler can jump to having proudly bought stuff from them — an allowance you can afford when your personal Overton Window on the subject ends with the org being a quick obscure cultural reference for a sense of absurdity instead of beginning there.  (To some it begins and ends at the “Danger” level — see the title of the Washington Post article of 2004 on Jeremiah Duggan, “No Joke”.)
The coming job of the Larouche Movement, currently bridging the gap from the current view of Larouche’s death (and, mind you, that could be twenty years down the road for all anyone knows) to the era after his death, will be to commence the swaying of opinion from the currently held “Cult” lever (Quick!  What do the Simpsons writers think?)  to the “Once every thousand year genius” lever.  And I am not sure if its mass opinion or elite opinion — or, I guess, the idea is to defeat the Elites who are holding mass opinion back on Larouche, aiding the Elites who will propel the Thousand Year Genius to the forefront.
Hm.  (I’m not going to pretend everyone will like that — it’s a damned minute before the lyrics come in — so here.)
This presents any number of questions.  Who is in it for this task — the Thousand Year Genius Project — and who is not?  Watch this latest appearance on Russia Today.  (Interestingly enough described as “founder of Executive Intelligence Review” and not as leader of Larouche Pac.)
Actually, let’s watch something else.  This.  A ridiculous scene in a lower-tier wrestling circuit.  Quite silly.  The difference between the two videos is that the wrestlers are quite aware that they are being silly.  The plot-line Larouche expresses on Russia Today is incoherent.  It is puzzling to me, as his previous appearance basically had them removing him ala Gong Show.  hanks for Something worth noting — note how he is introduced in his first appearance.  He’s been down-graded.  Then again, there was a good 2 and a half year lapse between his second and third appearance.
By the way… a little post-humous  commentary by someone else entirely different.

Back to the youtube comments in Russia Today:  LaRouche is a living legend. He would make an outstanding leader. He’s the type of guy the world needs.

Therein lies a dilemma in meeting the Thousand Year Challenge.  The Larouche ideology is that HE IS a “Leader”, right there in the fight.  It’s just that nobody knows it because he is the square root of two.   (What?  You want me to find the exact quote from the old Twentieth Century Science and Technology?)  So goes the contradiction.  The only salvo for the members might be the GLORY that comes with being on the ground floor, before the UPSURGE of Mass Genius Adulation — which will come as the British Empire is at last slained, and with it the pesky Second Law of Thermodymics.  The problem, one I am not sure the org has thought through when formulating its Thousand Year Challenge, is that once this happens the Laws of Calculus will be destroyed as well.

I have a reasonably nutty idea that one of the various Larouche Democratic primary candidates will be tapped for a presidential run in an election cycle sometime after Larouche’s death.  It is a little less nutty than an idea that amused me for a time a few years’ back (amused nobody else, I must say) that Larouche oughta grab for the “Unity ’08” candidacy.  Anyway, how else can we understand the declaration that Rachel Brown is now a “National Political figure”?  Well, the final decision will be handed to Harley Schlanger — who may or may not be interested in continuing the floating of the name “Larouche” — I gather he still will have use for the emotionally invested in that name.  It occurs to me that the Congressional races act as a Primary Contest for these future hypothetical presidential runs.  As such, you — THE PUBLIC — get to play a key role in nudging one or the other of these candidacies forward.  So, what I suggest is to take a look at the events listed in the six candidate’s campaign websites — Kesha Rogers, Rachel Brown (one of many targets by “The Vault“), Summer Shields, Diane Sare, Dave Christie, and Bill Roberts, and attend the one of the Choral sing along or coffeehouse chat or whatever of the candidate you want to become their presidential candidate.

Unfortunately they don’t any of them have a campaign website up yet.  Well, it’s early in the process.  Early in the 2012 candidacy, and early in teh 2020 presidential candidacy.

Then again — sometimes they telegraph some issues suggesting fear of Internal Dark Ages:  a headline in the Larouche webcast:  The LaRouche Show, January 29, 2011. Will You Eat Next Year? Special Report from Australia and Canada.  An interesting question — will they eat next year?  I hope so.
Older?
Same target audience, though different ideology.
Obama is sounding like Larouche!
Reagan was swarming with Larouchies!
The LEFT is souding like Larouchies!
Sarah Palin / Lyndon Larouche 2012!
In the comments of an old youtube video, we see a Larouchie selling to Tea Party supporters.
A description of al Jazeera, which — incidentally — once pushed aside Jeff Steinberg.  In a world where Lyndon LaRouche had deposed the federal government and established autocratic rule, Fox News would be the voice of the resistance.

Bottom line:
Just like I have seen the Larouchies here (at the health care public meeting, with a big photo of Hitler!) and in other cities. They are not prohibited, but again, that’s not part of the real political landscape, it’s just background.
Sort of unnoticable unless I make a point to look.  But they sell anytime a Catholic bishop warns about slipping into Eugenics as a sign for themselves.

An Interview with Aljosa Durnik!!!   No, really.  ALJOSA DURNIK!  Who can resist?

LaRouche has spoken out about Zionism and the ADL and 9/11 being an inside job. LaRouche puts the power of the new world order system at the door of the City of London, Royal Family and British Intelligence.
Detractors call the movement a cult.
Just Webster Tarpley?  What about Anton Chaitkin?

Okay.  Wikipedia Update!  I did not get the new HK “experiment” quite right.  Angel’s Flight is flying in to make the references to the various supposed Validators amongst old Soviet functionaries and Italian parlimentarians.  Fun stuff.   Meantime, unidentified commenters are levelling taunts at Will Beback to “ban everyone”.   That’s the experiment.

And meanwhile, at the Administrator’s Board… Everyone knows where this is going… and it’ll repeat itself with .:

FWIW, user:Angel’s flight has also been involved in Lyndon LaRouche-related articles, in a manner consistent with past sock puppets of a banned user. See WP:LTA/HK. So-called “Death panels” and “Obamacare” are key issues for the LaRouche movement, which has become known for its posters of Barack Obama with a Hitler mustache (because they believe the plan is similar to, and inspired by, Hitler’s T4 euthanasia program). I have not gathered specific evidence on Angel’s flight, and am not explicitly accusing that user of being a sock puppet. While we should make a practice of assuming good faith, there are times when it is not warranted.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, every time an editor on the LaRouche talk page disagrees with Will, Will insinuates that the editor is a sock. It seems to be SOP. Angel’s flight (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If your suspicion is right, it would make sense of my concern, as the POV I see being advocated from Angel’s flight is definitely LaRouchian. Hauskalainen has his own POV pushing problems,[12][13][14] IMO. At worst, he seems to know “the truth” about things and can’t control his urge to opine in article space or remove things he doesn’t like with dubious edit summaries. He also can assume bad faith easily.[15][16] He can be a productive editor at other times. Jesanj (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I’ve also been concerned that Angel’s flight is a sockpuppet of a banned LaRouche editor who edits from the Los Angeles area. Angel’s flight arrived recently at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche to support reverting to parts of an old version favoured by the LaRouche account(s). I don’t know anything about the healthcare edits he has been making, but if they’re consistent with LaRouche’s “Obama is Hitler” position, that would increase the concern. SlimVirgin 16:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the funnier laugh-line lies here:
But I also see a long-standing problem of article ownership. I posted a request at the incident noticeboard but it drew little notice. Is there no other avenue to request some intervention from the management of Wikipedia?
I saw the notice it received.  It received the notice due to it.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 9th, 2011 at 7:07 am 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.

Leave a Reply