Keith Olbermann, 9-8-09:  First, on this date in 1922 was born one of the greatest American comedic geniuses, Sid Caesar, born the same day, Lyndon LaRouche, now behind some of the Nazi imagery at the health care town halls. The difference between the two men, Sid Caesar realized he was funny.
[Note: corrected transcript, which had the year “1992”.]

My first impulse is to assume that this is false, an item of mild imagination from bystander:
“At the Trader Joe’s in Irvine, the LaRouche Activists wore swastikas, which brought some customers to tears,” according to the complaint.”
But a second thought is that it just might be, along the lines of “Chartor”‘s thought process here.

Leatherstocking Unleashed at Wikipedia!  Searching about for ways to maintain the insertion of the world inside the cult as opposed to the world outside the cult, for instance the confrontation with Lerner.  Which gets him such attention as:

I started watching only after Leatherstocking brought this to the attention of a noticeboard frequent but, since then, I haven’t seen anything egregious from SlimVirgin.Simonm223 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Both Will Beback and SlimVirgin are quite capable WP:FA writers – I am sure they will do fine with the clean-up. Cirt (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 A bit too easy on him is “Atama“, in describing his possible relationships with sock-puppets.   And yet, Comedy still ensues.  For instance:

“Antony Lerman is in fact an obscure individual, who had no bio at Wikipedia until SlimVirgin authored it[26], shortly after adding multiple references to him at Lyndon LaRouche.  Lerman consequently does not have the wild-eyed public image that Dennis King has.”

The only place King has a “wild-eyed public image” is within the world of Larouche — maybe too the world of Fred Newman, but I don’t much concern myself over there.  In the world at large… well, he’s a fairly obscure individual.

AND
I apologize; I have only limited time each day to participate at Wikipedia, so it is often difficult for me to keep up.
I don’t believe him.  This is a stalling action to impede wikipedia editing.  See also:
“A teqhnique of Larouche’s opponents is to produce a sort of parody of Larouche’s views and then attack the parody as a strawman and if we exclude primary sources, the reader is likely to get a misleading picture of LaRouche’s views.”
Leatherstocking’s comments are pure Comedy Gold!

Leatherstocking delays:
I would like to make one very specific proposal here. It would be helpful to the mediation process if Will would agree to cease making major deletions or other highly controversial edits until the matter is resolved. My limited time is largely taken up trying to keep track of dozens of controversial edits he is making every day. I would prefer to concentrate on the mediation process.

Second, and this applies particularly to the “Views” article, I am concerned that LaRouche’s core views, which as far as I can tell are about economics and science, may be obscured by undue weight given to secondary issues raised by hostile secondary sources. I raise these points simply because I have for two years observed POV warfare at the LaRouche articles, and I believe that misrepresentation of LaRouche’s views is typically the tactic of anti-LaRouche editors. Many of LaRouche’s views are quite peculiar, but they should be given a fair and neutral hearing. And, his track record on economics is good (as the Chinese and Russians seem to delight in pointing out.) —

I suppose the best way to handle that crisis would be to list out the whole list of the annual predicted slides into Economic Dark Ages.  I actually don’t think anything else matters much in this regard.  This, I guess, would be seen by Leatherstocking as “cariacture of his views”, but it would solve his burning issue of this piece of comedy gold:
In this edit, SlimVirgin changes the date of “LaRouche on financial crisis” to 2008, despite the fact that the cited sources indicate that his forecast was made in 2007. Presumably this was done to minimize the significance of the forecast. Incidentally, in looking at Russian press coverage of LaRouche, there is a lot more material available on this topic.

AND , Atama continues:  We shouldn’t “stack the deck” with the views of his enemies, but at the same time we should try to portray the prevailing opinion of Larouche and his ideas. If 9 out of 10 secondary sources are critical then the article should reflect this. Being neutral doesn’t mean that the article should strive to say as much positive about him as negative. Not to be dramatic, or try to equate the two personalities, but look at Adolf Hitler#Legacy.  

Weback:  Regarding the general view of LaRouche, I came across this recent reference to LaRouche by Congressman Ed Royce. While it wouldn’t add it as a source, it’s illustrative of the general view:
The one thing Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Peace and Freedom all agree with is that Lyndon LaRouche is a nut case. [2]
Again, I wouldn’t necessarily add it to an article, but it is an indication of how folks regard LaRouche.  

And then there’s Leatherstocking again:  I will also say, knowing that this is controversial, that the process has been hindered by the banning of knowledgeable pro-Larouche editors who were contributing useful research. I do not have extensive knowledge of LaRouche’s writings or where to look for secondary sources, but I can use Google as well as the next person and perhaps I can contribute something in that regard.
Again, I don’t believe him.
I will confess that I am a bit reluctant, because I am concerned about being labeled “pro-LaRouche” if I add material that appears favorable to LaRouche. From what I have seen, being labeled “pro-LaRouche” leads to bans.
Something about editing against a Kitchen Table applies.

AND  Generally, that would make his views on important issues notable. What constitutes an “important issue” should be a matter of mature editorial judgement. In LaRouche’s particular case, he claims that the media have a policy of suppressing his views selectively (and some of the media appear to cheerfully agree — see Views of Lyndon LaRouche#LaRouche vs. the media. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with the idea of making the media the arbiter of which views get covered in Wikipedia.

Good gravy!  It goes on to allow Leatherstocking the out of “no mathmatical foruma” in placing secondary and primary sources.  Which would be okay, if not for the nature of the editing — Leatherstocking will, and does indeed, take this “general rules of principle but no hard Law” as a license to continue as per usual.  Here is the Funniest item, the Gold Standard in Leatherstocking’s little Comedy Routine:

 

Unlike much material here which has little to do with LaRouche personally, the webcasts seem to be an important, professional activity for him and appropriate to a biographical article.
(This was immediately slapped down by two wiki users… While it may be personally important to him, is it important as part of his biography?Seeasea )
To finish theis excursion into wikipedia up:

WB  Regarding the new account, he’s obviously experienced at Wikipedia, and obviously knowledgeable about LaRouche. Doesn’t that make you wonder if it isn’t a returning baned editor, HK, whose used several socks on this article in just the last couple of months?

I can answer that question for him: No.

Let me ask you this: do you accept that the NPOV policy, particularly UNDUE, means we can’t treat LaRouche sources as being on a par with mainstream sources, and that this article must reflect what mainstream sources say, not what LaRouche says? Do you accept that?

I can answer that question for Leatherstocking: No.

The world in which Leatherstocking inhabits can be gleaned from various web droppings of “Wait. Who are these people?” types:

“Are You Brainwashed”?  No.  But you are.  According to Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon LaRouche, whose assessment is shared by many competent specialists on terrorism and irregular warfare in this country and around the world, what took place was not a terrorist attack, but a strategic, covert special operation,

A must read exchange between Alfred and Archie.  Two highlights:

Alfred:  I have listened to some og LaRouche´s webcasts and I like these ideas a lot.  He is a visionary but realist, a patriot and has a good economic grasp. Why is Larouche not more popular in the US?
He then goes on to partially answer his question.

You are absolutely right, Archie. Transition is always difficult. I think LaRouche has good ideas. Hitler and Schacht got Germany up on her legs with fiat government money which funded autobahns and a lot of other infrastructure without gold, as Germany had no gold.  The real gold in any society is the brains and natural resources. After WW2 Germany had even less gold but rebuilt its shattered, totally bombed economy in express time, with paper money.  Nowadays, with almost all gold in the hands of bankers and Jews, it would have been a gross mistake to restore gold standard. Anybody can see the logic of it, except the Austrians and Paul.

Turns out it was a political group, linked to Lyndon LaRouche, called BüSo.  We chatted with a young partisan of that party and she described their link with the “large US political group which was responsible for the successful mass demonstrations against the death panels.”  We learned that LaRouche is married to a German politician.  We’ll let you know their German polling percentages when we know.

Hint: somewhere in the low hundredth of a percentiles.

This guy thought he was so clever, he rolled this joke out twice.

This entry was posted on Friday, September 11th, 2009 at 12:20 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.