Maybe you disagree with my choices of stories?  Ah well.  Maybe next time, I’ll have your pet story up.  (I don’t know what else shifts in the blogo and news sphere.)  Also, this is something of a “count up” — 1 to 5 instead of 5 to 1.

STORY NUMBER ONE
WIKIPEDIA DELETES ANOTHER OF THOSE AMERICAN SYSTEM NON-PROFIT VOLUNTEERS:  The biggest news story of the past couple of weeks — or week and a half depending on when I get around to post this — is, of course… world exclusive here, unless HK and Cla69 were ranting about it at wikipedia review — THE SOCK PUPPET Angel Flight account has been deleted.

By pushing this as the BIGGEST LAROUCHE NEWS STORY OF THE MOMENT, I am getting a head start on my theory of post Larouche death organizational shiftings — which is that a substantial portion will become unhinged off of the need to be tethered down by the weight of “Larouche” and float into the sphere of the Conspiracy Advocacy ala Tarpley, and that which remains fighting for the 1000 Year Legacy of the name Larouche will be devoting about 75 percent of its resources to editing wikipedia articles.  (There’s still room in the remaining 25 percent to the post office tour, and etc.)

Cla68 is amazingly obtuse on the matter of “Angel’s Flight”, and seems strikingly interested in getting information back to the Larouche organization:  Will, you and SV have said that this company where the edits supposedly originated (and no evidence of it has yet been presented) is “small”. Could you tell me how many people work there? If you don’t know, then how can you be so sure that HK was the person running the account? I can’t be sure based on “behavioral” evidence, because you have refused to share your evidence with me. What was the reason for that? Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your Larouche team clings mightily to their stray “validator” sources of succor:
@Cla, you have been concerned there was no POV pushing from Angel’s flight (Af). I saw some. Here is the LaRouche position something from Executive Intelligence Review (a LaRouche publication): “Obama’s so-called health-care reform, modelled as it is on both the Nazi T4 and the British NICE model, is riddled with procedures which will permit the cutting of care, from the comparative effectiveness studies to the Accountable Care Organizations. But the chief measure, as Office of Management and Budget chief Peter Orszag is at pains to stress, is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), previously known as the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), and popularly known as “death panels.”[4] Af came to death panel and would support text that overstated things (to LaRouche’s benefit). Here’s me calling Af’s POV out. Af was trying to link the IPAB (and NICE) to the word death panel by overstating-sources & giving undue weight, in my opinion. They took a mini-break then returned by adding back some OK content, but also some content (off-topic and Gratzer) that had already been decided against, fyi. Jesanj (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesanj, please don’t call something a “LaRouche position” which is discussed more widely by many more http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001528 participants than just LaRouche. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That’s interesting, Angel’s flight pointed out that source too. Jesanj (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2011

Anyway… From this lofty building in Los Angeles  — which, as described by Angel’s Flight is a non-profit from which he volunteers, the future of the Larouche faction of the Larouche organization marches into the future.

For what it is worth:
Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $500,000 to $1 million and employs a staff of approximately 1 to 4. Companies like American System Publications usually offer: Sweethaven Publishing Services, Web Publishing Services, American Publishers Service, Von Holtzbrinck Publishing Services and Educators Publishing Services.

But that’s less interesting than these anecdotes about how annoying their phone calls can be.

I do like Slim Virgin’s almost suggestion to, more or less, cut the sources down to Washington Post and the New York Times — currently the Larouchies at wikipedia are edging in meetings with World Leaders  — as they shift through sources on who they met in Latin America, it lead to this comment:

Come on, Will, push! Push that POV! How close together are the contractions? Pachuco cadaver (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Which leaves us to Delia Peabody wanting to expand the “international coverage” of Larouche’s “2007-2008 forecast” and the Kesha Rogers victory.  (Why not the role of the Vault to overthrow Rachel Brown’s victory?)  The funniest line from the crypto-Larouchies, picked up by the vanished straight-up Larouchies, is the request to “down-play 70s era critics”.  I suppose we can skip that King’s book was published in the next decade, but this is by way of nipping away the NY Times articles that spring from the org’s first foray into any mainstream attention — oh, Chris White Affair.
I guess things all depend on where you place that “Overton Window”.  (heh heh on library offerings.)   This person’s request is interesting.  While he focuses on  a lot of “former” LaRouchies or many of the Democratic Party bigshots who were student radicals, the article focus suggests an element of where the one dimensional paradigm falls apart for your two peas in a pod.  Is that an allusion to this Tarpley… who, um — more press than his former cult?  Peddler of conspiracies or conspiracy theories?  (For the latter: Remember this?)

I’ll preface this piece by saying I support, and am wildly entertained by, all forms of political participation. Except terrorism, which I hate. There is a place in America for Lyndon Larouche, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist whose Larouche Movement is driven by pots-and-pans-banging college students on the backs of flatbed trucks.
I’m sure there a few Fabianists out there who are patiently waiting for scientists to create a serum that will hasten the arrival of a socialist utopia.
I’m pretty sure they hate being aligned onto this segment of the spectrum, which goes against the grain of some conspiracies they’ve found over the years:

The Corporation”, attempted coup by wealthy Free Market Laissez-Faire industrialists’ “American Liberty League”, beginnings of what’d later be called “Libertarian Party” and Libertarianism, (ie Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Lyndon Larouche) …

This one might be better, though.

I can see why though. It reads like Lyndon Larouche who once bought half an hour of TV time to run for president and rambled incoherently about Classical politicians and philosophers. Posted February 17, 2011 at 12:48:58 PM …
… even th0ugh it hints at the Larouchies’ problems in “skewing” wikipedia articles to the “latest”.

… Y’know, about this next article:  I don’t trust a pop culture study that cites “Dope Inc” and Texe Marr. Also, this strikes me as the type of person that should be identified next to Larouche — the right genre.  If not these people.

In other wikipedia news… this.

… Come to think of it, the reference to “former Larouchies” might be referencing this guy.

STORY NUMBER TWO: LOS ANGELES CROSSWORD PUZZLE MASTER SNUBS THOUSAND YEAR GENIUS IN FAVOR OF HOCKEY GREAT
The second biggest story to ROCK the Larouche Movement over the past week and a half or two weeks, depending on when I post this — Lyndon Larouche was snubbed by the LA Times crossword puzzle-master Peter Wentz.

58A: ’70s-’80s NHLer known as “Lucky Pierre” (LAROUCHE). I’m not a hockey fan, but this one was easy enough to get from the crossing entries. I can understand why Peter & Rich wanted to avoid a reference to Lyndon Larouche and his Band of Merry Men.

I kept plugging away and finished most of it, but had no idea who Larouche was – so I Googled Lucky Pierre – that was a big mistake! Cheers to all – and enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Reports are coming in that some are saying that the Larouche organization reacted with fury upon seeing that their 1,000 Year Genius was snubed for a mere Hockey Great.  The movement came close to protesting in front of the LA Times headquarters with images of the crossword puzzle masters with Hitler mustaches, or so say some from unspecified reports, and slogans about Nazi Crossword Puzzles coming from out of the British Empire.  These plans were discarded upon viewing a highlight reel of Pierre Larouche’s career, and observing that he was a damned great Hockey player.

Meantime, is Hollywood snubbing Larouche at Oscar Time?

“The King’s Speech” – Something tells me that the royal family is secretly funding all of these sympathetic portrayals of the current royal line to cover up their collusion in controlling the world drug trade. Maybe that something is a Lyndon Larouche pamphlet.

And is The Mentalist written by covert Larouchian agents?

STORY NUMBER THREE:  DISSENSION ROCKS ORG

Dissension in the ranks of the Lyndon Larouche Movement, as reported by Harley Schlanger.

LaRouche has insisted, repeatedly, over the objections of many Democrats – and even members of his own organization – that the Hitler mustache on Obama is a truthful representation, and that nothing short of Obama’s removal from office is necessary, if our nation is to survive.

All right, I recognize this as a routine set up — to get the movementarians to doubt their own doubt.  But let’s take it as a straight forward statement anyways.  It’s always good to see the org broadcast the idea that their people are autonomous, and there is an element of “debating society” within the movement where tendencies do acrue but are respected.  But how does this manifest itself?  Are there any examples from the front lines in the Post Office Campaign — can I see a news filler item or blog post with someone behind an Obama Hitler shrugging, “Yeah.  It’s maybe a bit of an exaggeration.  Not literally meant.  He’s more like Calvin Coolidge or Grover Cleveland in terms of policies, but those don’t quite have the explosive power of Hitler.”  (This does smack in line with a comment once seen which did get a donation — to a remark about agreeing with such and such an issue but finding Larouche a despicable character, a Card-table operator responded with “Don’t worry.  He’s going to be dead in a few years anyways.”)  Are there op-ed dissents published anywhere in Larouche publications giving the minority opinion?  Was there an airing of opinion and heated exchange in the corridors of power before the Line was firmly dropped in stone, and if so wouldn’t the trump card go “We’ve called everyone else Hitler!”?

STORY NUMBER FOUR  “ALL YOUR PROTESTS ARE BELONG TO US”

Upon learning that they were in, in effect, fronting for the Larouche organization, the protesters in Libya en masse threw up their hands and went home muttering, “I guess we can live with Qaddafi for a while longer.”

Oh yeah – and the LaRouche shitheads were there too.
The good news is that the Hitler signs this time are yours.  And the “other side” will find every last one of them and publish them on their blogs.  The  Tea Party, which I guess in the Larouche purview of things is a different wing of the domestic slice of the Mass Strike — the one protesting Democratic Adminstrations instead of Republican Administrations — is in a bit of a flutter, charging hypocrisy and this item of familiarity

The same media that went into desk-pounding rage about LaRouche-wacko signs putting a Hitler moustache on Obama calmly refused to discuss signs where Gov. Walker was compared to Mubarak and Adolf Hitler.

Also see.  The Larouchies weren’t able to corner this market — they recognize the new bi-partisan zietgiest and moved in with Rand Paul, but really in terms of executive power we’re in whack-a-mole territory with the governors — it could easily have been Chris Christie as opposed to Walker.
Having the Obama Hitler still around, they are apparently still tracking about the Tea Party contingent of the protests. I guess they can ditch it if they want and flee to the other side, or find the true Leftists of “two party duopoly” belief.   Incidentally:

They know who LaRouche is and believe he is a leftist, and any LaRouchies showing up at Tea Party rallies are just trying to make them look bad. I wish I was kidding about this.
Incorrect.  They’re leading a Mass Strike!

One thing you can give the “Left”, however you wish to define it, is there will be a slice of it giving the protests an international purview.  It’s a bit of chutzpah to claim the Middle East protests as the same, or even part of the same, as the Mid West protests — but Vive La Solidarity.  America’s protesters are more likely to link the two than Egypt’s, though we’ll end up seeing all the signs from the Mid-east by way of commondreams.com or similar website.

So… the Larouche’s “Mass Strike” paradigm.  Let’s see, there’s Iceland.  Egypt.  Wisconsin.  Ohio.  Libya.

They were, of course, sparked by the protests that have been happening in front of various suburban post offices.  See the Mass Strike Vanguard here.
… Rejected here.  (“Paper thin?”)

This sounds appropriate:  Plus of course the oddballs: I saw some benighted soul toting around what appeared to be Larouche propaganda, and another in full Seattle Supersonics basketball regalia, complete with giant flag.

STORY NUMBER FIVE:  ILLUMINATING DISCUSSION ABOUT JEREMIAH DUGGAN BREAKS OUT OF THE MUCK OF FACTNET

I’m pretty laissez faire in my attitude toward factnet postings.  If it veers into an item of easily passed over juvenilia, I’m fine — it’ll right itself in time and some items of interest concerning the cult — frivulous or serious — will exert themselves.  The result is that I’m mostly puzzled by the Charles Schulz Peanuts reference — my questioning veering toward when, say, Dennis Speed joined decades ago, did he think his organization was going to spend time in its published output explaining Peanuts routines?

Somehow, emerging out of rubble of a particular arena of pointless, what might be the most substantial discussion regarding Jeremiah Duggan emerged.  Try entries number, oh 6306 and go on to maybe 6365.  Surely things flinter in and out before those numbers, though.

Also seen on factnet, some new fragmentary pieces on the founding of the LYM — which I can’t easily find, but describe the effects of the separation of the LYM from the Baby Boomers and end up (whether they realize it or not) suggesting the attractions of the heaped praise the LYMers received in Cadre School for a time against manning the Post Office tour.  Also of interest is this — it might be the first Larouchian response I’ve seen to Conyers’s disavowal of his standing in front of a Larouche podium.   Myattempt to put their lobbying where it was in the full context of the 2004 Election protestations is here.

Here’s a quick study of Shakespeare.  Why Star Trek is not a cult.  Also, moderately interesting about some other organization — 75 percent of its resources dedicated to editing wikipedia articles?

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 27th, 2011 at 8:38 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.