Anyone notice yesterday’s Wikipedia daily featured article?

I do not know what lead to this — I suspect the first step in that morning came through when the mouse of whoever has the final say in these matters had an accumulation of half a dozen dust mytes which subtley shifted the cursor of the computer in randomly selecting a letter in the middle of the the alphabet from ‘K’ or “M’ to ‘L’ — but yesterday’s featured front page article was the Larouche Criminal Trials.

The other possibility, in tandem with my “accumulation of a half dozen dust mytes” theory, is that the dust, which settled on that mouse, was blown into his house by a Mossad Agent — believing that the brief curiosiety-seeking exposure of a small slice of people breezing their way past wikipedia’s daily features on to, I don’t know — digg? Is that what the kids are into these days, digg? — will cause a negative impression of the lower 90 percent’s opinion of the man — slander, it is called.

Did the Dutch-Anglo Conspiracy against, oh for a quasi-random example, the ravaging of the people of Darfur and a power grab of their raw materials, work?  Anecdotally, I haven’t much.  Well, there’s this blog post.  But what is the connection between the Larouche Criminal Trials of the 1980s and the story of Jeremiah Duggan?  Damned the Oligarchy and its malicious ways!

A workably decent wikipedia article cemented on “Larouche Criminal Trials” is probably more feasible than on Larouche himself — an entry which is permanently a mess–, since the trials played themselves out in public, and were covered by news media that can be cited with comparative ease.

“Weirdly named Schiller Institute”, you say?  As good a name of a German Intellect as any, I suppose, and that’s about the only thing that matters.  But… but… but the Schiller Institute is set up to expound on the works of Friedrich Schiller.  (The since banned but likely reappearing under different aliases argures on the matter of Schiller, with references to Edgar Allen Poe, in wikipedia’s discussion here.  And wikipedia decides to throw out a link to the “Schiller Institute” wikipedia entry at entry Schiller here, due to it being rather unrelated.)

Factnet is still perpetually $500 off from having the “working capital” to operate, but maybe this hyper-flationary return to Weimer Germany economics will get that one back off and running.  I’ve ended up sticking links in the comments section of this blog when I would generally pass it off over there.  Saturday was an interesting case, wherein I posted some item of concern here in the morning, and in the afternoon saw that two items of interest had surfaced onto the Internet.  Such as, for example, this, which sets upon a weird pattern I’ve been seeing — perhaps only because I have a broader net of what Internet ramblings come at me — of someone swearing by the analysis by Larouche, but stating that for some reason he doesn’t make that final connection…:

I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education, so I feel I am beginning my education anew.

Well.  An education anew.  Like the LYMers, I suppose… From the roster of historians comes…

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes, “England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of …the City of London…

Hm.  Historian Jeffrey Steinberg?  What school of History does he belong to?

Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago.
Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews.

But… but… this is puzzling.  As Alan Osler pointed out, Steinberg is Jewish!  Doesn’t this “Henry Makow, phD” know that?  It’s a grand point pointed out by Alan Osler, which seeing as I’ve already linked to his post a few times and see that the comments section now drivels over to some oddly amusing stuntery, I’ll link to his comments page, and suggest to jump all the way down to Ashley Mcgee.  Another pointer-outer of the vast number of Jews who surround Larouche is the esteemable “revenire”.  Well, anyways, forward to the product of a Larouchian education, and some source materials…

According to L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke’s Peerage , Jews “have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also.” (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.) […]

According to Barry Chamish, “there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine…Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews.”

But this is all far more anti-semitic drivel than I’m terribly interested in posting, so I’ll go ahead and stop.  To get back to the Criminal Trials, there’s some general agreement that Larouche poked his head out and amassed the fed’s attention starting with his suit against NBC — in the Larouchian view it all becomes a persecution from the Power Elites, as discussed and dissiminated by that grand layman historian and blogger “Henry McKow, phD”– hitting some kind of wall especially with a particularly stunning speech Christmas 1988? 1987? — heavy dose of Christian imagery on the trials and tribulations of Jesus Christ, and … we’re off.  Whether they  ponder the case of Roy Frankhouser or not.

Anyway, I see a posting emitting from LPAC “The Triumphant Return of the Weekly Report” — which at one time was the Jeff Steinberg Report, but I think they siphoned someone else next to him as a means of dampening his post-Lyndon succession hopes.  This is Triumphant in a sense that I doubt anyone noticed it was missing — I know I wasn’t paying enough attention to notice its disappearance.

6 Responses to “Anyone notice yesterday’s Wikipedia daily featured article?”

  1. Rachel Holmes Says:

    “Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews”??? This is absurd. The LaRouche “historians” say incessantly that many members of this oligarchy are Jews.

    Is this derived from the narcissistic Henry Makow, so impressed by himself for having gotten a Ph.D.? I don’t what institution his Ph.D. comes from, but if this quote is from him, one can say that it is not an exceptionally rigorous institution.

    As to Jeff’s Jewishness, his father was Jewish, but I’m not sure about his mother. He certainly has an extremely meager knowledge of things Jewish, customs, traditions, the religion, etc….. Oh, and Jewish humor. Very deficient in that.

    Speaking of the LaRouche Criminal Trials lead article from Wikipedia as of Dec. 16–did you notice that several of the photos accompanying the article seem to be attributed to Molly Kronberg (well, they actually say Marielle Kronberg)?

    Now that’s interesting.

  2. Justin Says:

    Interesting Corruption case in Boston. City council member Chuck Turner. From an editorial in the Boston Herald “Chuck, color of money is all that matters here”, Joe Fitzgerald:

    Indeed, it’s often in the valley, not on the mountaintop, where we discover the stuff of which we’re made, which we’re now seeing illustrated as Chuck Turner continues shooting from the hip while being led through a valley of indictments.
    It comes as no surprise he casts himself as a victim of The Man, implying the FBI and media wouldn’t be nipping at his heels if he were not a black man.

    What is surprising is the number of supporters who follow him from press conference to press conference as if they were marching behind him from Selma to Montgomery.

    Please. It’s ludicrous.

    Five felony counts were not lodged against a black city councilor three days ago in U.S. District Court; they were lodged against a city councilor who’s black – a large distinction that seems to elude Turner’s misguided admirers.

    It’s fine to be loyal, but it shouldn’t require having to check your brain at the door.

    In casting the FBI as his oppressor, Turner invoked the specter of its founder, J. Edgar Hoover, noting, “Yes, he’s dead, but his spirit lives on,” whatever that’s supposed to mean in terms of allegedly pocketing a $1,000 bribe.

    From another news article on this case.:

    Turner also called on Gov. Deval Patrick to establish a task force to probe what he called “collusion between the government and media trying people in the court of public opinion.”

    A Patrick spokeswoman declined comment.

    Yesterday marked the latest volleys in Turner’s high-profile public assault against federal investigators and the media. On Wednesday, Turner suggested FBI photos purporting to show him clutching a wad of cash could have been doctored.

    Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University communications professor, called the aggressive posturing in keeping with Turner’s eccentric public persona.

    “For Chuck Turner, this is the perfect Chuck Turner strategy – play to your base, blame the media,” Berkovitz said. “This is his stock in trade.”

    And finally why it matters in this topic:

    Last night, about 150 people packed a pro-Turner rally at Roxbury Community College during which the five-term city councilor called America “a jail without bars” and turned his wrath on the local media.

    “Their objective is to destroy my reputation,” Turner said. “If you want to take me down, you are going to take me down in my style, not your style.”

    Organizers distributed fliers purporting to be a letter of support for Turner from perennial presidential also-ran Lyndon LaRouche, which on its flipside warned of an alleged British plot to assassinate President-elect Barack Obama.

    Wilkerson, 53, of Roxbury pleaded not guilty Monday in federal court to eight counts of attempted extortion. In one instance, she was photographed allegedly stuffing a cash payoff into her bra.

    How does one siphon the “British plot to assassinate President Obama” cause into a cause to save a local crooked Boston politician’s bacon? What is the connection?

  3. rachel holmes Says:

    LaRouche and his sidekicks, especially Debra Hanania Freeman, made a huge big deal a number of years ago over what they claimed was the FBI’s “Operation Fruehmenschen” directed at black elected officials. LaRouche claimed that the FBI was gunning for black elected officials, and every time such an official was arrested, indicted, etc., LaRouche was (figuratively) at his side, ranting and raving that it was all racism.

    This would seem to be another case of that.

    Generally, people who are up against it–like Turner, in this case–will talk to anyone who supports them, and that’s how Lyn has been able to get actual elected officials to talk to him–by supporting them when they are in extremis.

    During Abscam, way back in the ’70s and ’80s, the LaRouche org got very cozy with NJ Senator Harrison Williams when he was stung in that FBI sting. It’s also how LaRouche managed to get an entree, of sorts, into various powerful NYC unions–because of the corollary FBI sting, Brilab (for Bribe Labor).

    RIght now, LaRouche needs to get back with whatever black constituency he had, which one might think wouldn’t be easy, after LaRouche’s disgraceful performance during Obama’s Presidential campaign.

    So to launder himself back in, he reinvents “Fruehmenschen.”

    http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/11/30/operation-fruhmenschen-resurfaces-boston.html

  4. Justin Says:

    I rarely have the patience to wade down into messages when I see a Larouchie post to an “upper tier” blog which includes many a comment, even when I see that they have — the reward is nil. But here I see one posted early on page one:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/16/obama-on-economic-recover_n_151431.html?show_comment_id=18874600#comment_18874600 To “IvyMauren”, who says:

    There is a plan B to fixing the financial crisis. [… fill in the blanks… ascendant dark age… end of monetary system, and…] This is the plan B being put forth by the good Doctor who first diagnosed the financial collapse many, many years ago and ran his 2000 and 2004 bid for the Democratic nomination for president, Lyndon LaRouche.

    To which we have a response from CAPlatt, and:

    You must be out of your mind. What is needed is [… quite frankly CAPlatt pulls out his own brand of bs, but that’s beside the point] If LaRouche had his way, we would be living in the Dark Ages so he could be the Dark Lord. [ and the line that the next Larouchie will sieze on:] This is one world, baby, and the only way we are going to grow and prosper is to stop the rampant propagation of the species and both conserve and share what we have. That requires an international effort under international laws and administration, not the

    Response from “MartyrMary74″, and the drum roll comes in with the final sentence.:

    Are you proposing some sort of eugenic cleansing such as in China, Nazi Germany, etc….you’re making some pretty dangerous assertions. Starting to wonder who sent you.

    “Starting to wonder who sent you”? Is this PROJECTION, maybe?

    spartanmom concludes this part of the discussion with:

    Quite a leap of logic there, no?
    My take is that he was suggesting a little self restraint and maybe free condoms for all

    I don’t know. I almost think CAPlatt was sent by the Larouche Organization, for need of a foil.

  5. rachel holmes Says:

    Maybe CAPlatt is LaRouche org member Daniel Platt from CAlifornia, a chap who posts all over creation, usually under assumed names…. Of which I have a long list, but not necessary to review it here.

  6. Justin Says:

    Looking at “CAPlatt”’s history of postings on huffingtonpost, my best guess is, basically, no, I.

    A google search for “Daniel Platt” shows him letting the world know what cable access stations you can watch Larouche on in February of 2004, to which the world asks why it would care.
    http://www.opennntp.com/Politics-Economics/larouche-on-tv-next-weekend-63392762.html

    Actually, no this is Ralph Gibbons who starts this post, and Platt somewhat randomly is cited by Harrington. But a quick search of Gibbons shows him as being cited as the banned wikipedia figure of Herschel Kurstofsky… and seems proud of an action where one of his compatriots “confronted” John Ashcroft about (yawn) 9/11 inside job and bleh: http://www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20030821/309965_LaRouche-supporter-c.html … who posted that story… again… and again… and again… (but that’s just one item in his online activist career.)

    Since I’m googling names of various Larouchies, I figure I’d throw out “Ted Andromidas”, who shows up in this essay on how elections are won by those with the most money, and somehow this activist comes up with an example which negates his point.:
    http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Jbc_wMJJR18J:jneedlel.home.mindspring.com/WEALTH.HTM+%22Ted+Andromidas%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

    As in most Senate races, the candidates who did not have access to the millions had little chance of making it to the general election. In her primary, Feinstein spent $2.33 million to defeat her opponent, Ted Andromidas, who spent $14,000.

    I’m not terribly interested in getting Andromidas to cash-on-hand parity with Dianne Feinstein in a Senate race, are you?

    And, looking around and going back to an old Mother Jones blog post about the Washington Monthly article, this strikes me as an interesting bit of rebuttal:

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/10/5980_the_rise_and_fa.html#comments

    The LYM did not invent the Home Owner Bank Protecton Act, except in the sense that members told people that their donation for some magic-bullet economic plan LaRouche had up his sleeve that was going to save the world. He didn’t. Countless people lives have been lost and the ones that were spared will be haunted for the rest of their days. Stop defending him.
    Posted by: Erin Belcher on 10/27/08 at 10:00 PM

    “Youth Movement” (Interesting statement from what I guess was a world historic changing essay: Many college-age youth do not even wear
    watches.
    .)

Leave a Reply