The Larouche Org faces another Electoral Drubbing.

Here’s the “Stephen Colbert With a Hitler” sign at the Stewart / Colbert Entertainment Show at the Mall.  It’s actually a play off of the non-Larouchian “Obama Hitler” sign you’ll find if you google image Obama and Hitler — which has tended to be marked angrily as Larouches’ by Conservative bloggers and commenters.
… But, for the most part, Larouchies have grabbed it, and if you hear about the Obama Hitler, it’s a better bet than not that it’s their.

My Cab Driver was a Larouchie.”
And I’ll be damned if we didn’t arrive at my final destination a little too soon, I was having fun talking with the guy. We both did what we could to commemorate the occasion: I gave him a big tip, he gave me a LaRouche pamphlet, and we parted ways.

The LYM versus Boomer dichotemy hits again  (See too.).  Some Boomers in Sycamose.

Organizer Judy Clark, who spent a few hours set up outside the post office with her husband Don, said the non-partisan [Wait.  I thought they were “FDR Democrats!!”]  group wants to see Obama removed from office. The Clarks live in Chicago and said they have traveled across the state and to Wisconsin, Minnesota and Missouri to spread the group’s message.
[…]  And all kinds of opinions!
Tamera Durst of Sycamore took fliers from Don as she left the post office.
She said the propaganda might bother those simply looking to get in and out of the post office.
“I thought I would be nice and stop and take their literature,” she said.
Doug Bolton of DeKalb took a photo of one of the group’s posters with the mustache and said he thought it was “hilarious.”
“I’m not a big fan of any politician,” he said. “… I think the dictator mustache is pretty clever.”

Anyway, you can see their picture there, and basic attitude toward their organization.  Compare that with  the LYM in Boston:


The Larouche supporters indicated that under no circumstance would they respond to questions from the press.
“I think the press are cowards,” one 20-something male said.
Another haggard- and somewhat nervous-looking supporter accused a Gazette reporter of “harassing us” and pulled out his cell phone as if to call police. Within a few seconds he closed his phone without having made the call.

Wel then.

The group alternately sang a harmonized ditty with the repetitive refrain “cut Obama’s mustache; it must be real, it must be real,” as well as “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”


“We mourn the loss of six million Jews and countless others,” she claimed, but warned that if Obama’s policies are allowed to flourish “the whole world will go down and with it a lot more than six million people.”
That rationale mattered little to Doug White of Dighton. White had taken his 8-year-old son James along with him Tuesday and parked on the Green in support of Sean Bielat, Charlie Baker and other Republican candidates.

Looking at the picture, I take it they’re in a battling mood against wikipedia.

Your characterization of LaRouche’s views and policies is all defamatory Wikipedia fantasy-cruft. Readers who want to know what LaRouche says and does can go to blah de blah.

Skip to the expected “Kesha Rogers election result kooky” page and we get it again.

Most people who actually talked to Rogers probably believe that she opposes fascism and supports space travel, since that’s what LaRouche propaganda claims. If they voted for Rogers on either of those bases, they were misled – while LaRouche calls everyone he hates ‘fascist’, his platform actually calls for the reorganization of both the US and Canada as fascist states in everything but name, and his space science is a complete joke – anyone with a reasonable grounding in science can tell you that we don’t need to wait until we’ve invented fusion power, built giant dams, and rewritten the periodic table before we go to Mars.

Presumably Deekoo considers America during the Franklin Roosevelt administration to have been a “fascist state in everything but name.” Believe it or not, there are some demented Libertarians that do make that claim. For any reader who wants to learn about LaRouche’s ideas first hand, rather than from some doofus spinning Wikipedia-style fairy tales, I recommend the blah de blah.

So, we go to the wikipedia and see the odd claims of the Larouche Wikipedia Editing Team:

Don’t let your paranoia get the best of you, Bill Masen. Do not think that i know what was going on in this article. I simply noted that noone – that’s: “N-O-O-N-E” would give a s**t about the reliability of an article with such sources. Got my point? (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, i do not need to find a “book that supports Larouche”. Neither do i need books which do not support him.I prefer unbiased sources.Thank you, Sir. That will do. (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Loopy.  Or how about, this “always lurking about, posted anonymously before” guy:

The first sentence of the article is “Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr. … is an American self-styled economist, political activist, and the founder of several political organizations known collectively as the LaRouche movement.”
I think the term “self-styled” doesn’t sound very neutral. 
(It is a defining characteristic, I’d say.)
I think “self-taught” would be better, and better yet would be to drop “economist” from the first sentence, because the organizations he founded and his political activities are much more central to the article which follows.

After all this fighting to get him defined as an “Economist”. 

After the wikipedia mention, Howard Gibson chimes in with this:
This article is pretty much lying junk. Kesha got 30-percent in a 3-way race in Republican land, which is kind of high.
No it isn’t.  It’s pretty well your plus / minus off of the “Straight Democratic Ticket”, and the third party candidate received single digits.
Observe, for instance, the difference between the Mississippi Senate results between the seriously backed candidacy in 2008 of one candidate, who received 45.04 percent of the vote, and another candidate in the same cycle who the Democratic Party put no resources behind, who received 38.56 percent of the vote — a mere 6 and a half less.  A partisan floor, a partisan ceiling.  (The latter candidate is relevant here, as you can read in the wikipedia page — well, he must have lost because the people abondoned him when he rejected Larouche, right?)

See too, about Kesha Rogers:
I voted for her. I would rather elect a crazy person who supports my interests half the time than a sane person who is actively working against me.

So, what is the Larouche Org up to after the Republican Victories?
Apparently, as with the buil-up to the elections, playing some foreign press again:

LaRouche’s call for the 25th Amendment was the focus of a half-hour live interview with Liliana Gorini, chairwoman of Movisol, LaRouche’s movement in Italy, on Radio Padania, the official radio of the Lega Nord, today. Host Roberto Ortelli quoted LaRouche as a “soloist Democrat” at the beginning of his report, and then asked Gorini to comment on the election results, and explain why LaRouche’s movement would play such an important role after the elections. Gorini invited listeners to listen to LaRouche’s webcast on Saturday, which will give the necessary marching order to those Democrats who want to free America from the grip of a mentally insane President. She quoted LaRouche’s call to invoke the 25th Amendment, have Biden replace Obama, go for Glass-Steagall, all of this before the new Congress takes over in January, emphasizing that it would be fatal for the U.S. and the whole world to wait for the Presidential elections in 2012.

Initially, the interview was supposed to last only 10 minutes, but there were so many calls from listeners that it was extended to a half-hour. Questions ranged from “how can a mentally unstable President be in charge of the military in such a difficult wartime?” to “it sounds like he giggles instead of leading: can this be due to his young age and inexperience?” (commenting on the NSC meeting cited by the Ulsterman report), to “Is there a concrete danger of a social revolt and armed revolution in the next two months?” to an (unavoidable) question comparing Obama and Berlusconi (under investigation this time for an affair with a minor; Gorini said you cannot compare the two, but her advice as a woman and political leader to Berlusconi, is to stop being obsessed with young women and hookers, because it makes him vulnerable to political attacks).

ULSTERMAN!  The Deep Throat of the whole kookisphere.   (Sure to relay lots of stuff at the upcoming Historic Webcast.)
This “Citizen K” must have some real insider information, otherwise he wouldn’t be commenting.

Would the LaRouche-ites be playing the part of a useful idiot or the role played by a certain Franz Ferdinand, hater of a certain Arch Duke?

I would be interested to see where this goes. Theoretically, theorizing about putting the President out of office is, at least, a camel’s nose of treason under the hem of a tent, isn’t it?

This smells like something’s burning…

What would the metaphor be for a coup that was meant to fail so that the coup-ee can appear strong and decisive in the face of being coup’ed…

  Then there’s

While Larry Brown approached the table with interest in their message, he ended up telling them, “I think you guys are a little over the edge.”

Nicole explained to another resident, “We’re building a military now to get Obama out of office.”

VFW Post 9791 Commander Dave Gilman responded, “We only have one military at a time,” before he walked away. Gilman also told them that he didn’t like their placement of a Hitler-like mustache on President Obama’s photograph.

 Building a Military?  Here’s the Military in action, shifting for supporters through

One day, an older woman was talking to the faithful LaRouche supporter who stood in the blowing wind and sprinkling rain.
She said, “It took us eight years to get done everything we got done, and took him only twenty-two months to destroy everything.”
I felt my hair stand up. Literally.
Okay, this isn’t an Obama love-fest here, but I HATE seeing short/narrow mindedness in action.
What is the deal with Obama-is-Hitler image anyway? The only rationale I come up for that is somehow LaRouche has decided the social and economic circumstances in this country that led to Obama’s victory were in some way similar to those of post-WWI Germany. The economic devastation of proposed WWI reparations crippled Germany and left the populace ripe for a popular uprising by a charismatic leader.
IF this were a valid comparison, then the LaRouche supporter’s sympathizer wouldn’t be seeing eye to eye with him because then she’d have to accept that her guy did damage equivalent to post-WWI in order to usher in the charismatic new leader.
Yes, faulty reasoning and logic abound here (even my guess, I’m sure). But is it right to simply say: Obama is a socialist so he’s Hitler?
I saw many GW Bush is Hitler posters during his tenure, but it wasn’t because people thought he was a socialist.
I’d like to see some more creative political analogies, but I suppose if they tried to be more creative fewer people would understand what they were saying.
LaRouche is similar in that it attracts people who are disenchanted with the political and economic status quo, which these days is a lot of people. They will appeal to notions of patriotism and fairness, but when you get into their

The battle for the Mind continues.  This is getting weirder, but I guess it’s the Great Military Clashings.

There is a Tacoma business owner who thinks LaRouche is discounted. This business owner is obviously insane herself. I don’t shop there anymore. She stole my cell phone and used twenty minutes of my air time to check all my messages to confirm I am not some part of a vast conspiracy. She too is insane. I reported her to the local prosecutor’s office as she was planning an attack against our prosecutor’s campaign signs.

And so…

Forget the ObamaNuts lambashing the Tea Party Movement being crazies…the LaRouche nuts are threatening a possible coup?  With elections coming around next week…are some of the acts of possible violence being instigated by LaRouchites like these brainwashed souls?


Other election results of note:
Summer Shields received no votes.
It’s probably not worth mentioning — does a disservice to Bielet, but if Sean Bielet had won the Larouchies would take it as their victory.  He lost quite easily, and if you consider that the Massachusetts Democratic Party had a pretty clean sweep of things — it was a bad night for Scott Brown.
Delia Lopez was in the lower 20 range.  She’s insane, and I guess will continue producing videos for her next campaign — whether the Larouchies decide to adopt her again we’ll have to wait and see.
Robert Lauten?  1.4 percent decided to take a stand against the Queen of England and for Glass Steagal in the California Treasurer election.  Or confused “AIP” for an investment firm.

As it has gone every election cycle for the past 40 years, in good Democratic years and good Republican years and everything in between, the Larouche Organization took a real drubbing at the polls — the American People have Spoken.

3 Responses to “The Larouche Org faces another Electoral Drubbing.”

  1. Justin Says:

    At the moment we have this rather bizarre hullabalo over the supposed price of Obama’s (as responsible Presidents do) Trade trip to Asia, off of an obscure source from overseas. Mostly we’re in the realm of a mindset where the president you dislike can do no right by definition. But we see in it a cousin of the game the Larouche org plays.

    This is a surreal lot of images and clips.
    We transition from a Michael Savage clip to a LPAC release.
    Wait. We’ve seen something like that before, haven’t we?

    Hitler pops up again in the guise of a new politician.
    Appearing on ABC This Week, Hitler-like Senator-elect Rand Paul, did exactly what Lyndon LaRouche stressed in his Saturday webcast that he would do—propose cuts which will destroy the nation if implemented.
    On military spending he proposed gradually reducing the army, bringing some troops home or “have Europe pay more for their defense and Japan pay more and Korea pay more for their defense or bring those troops home and have savings there.”
    Note that Her Majesty’s agent Ayn Rand Paul, whose excuses for demolishing the US are based on some feudalist Mt. Pelerin Society fantasy[…]

    We’ve seen this frame-work employed at the start of this comment:
    11.5.2010I am not an adherent of Lyndon Larouche, but I have an open mind and I am suspicious of any one so vehemently denigrated in the press and popular culture. Having read his writings, Larouche is a conspiracy theorist in the sense that he believes in an Anglo-American elite running the show (not far off from Quigley). I see no evidence of anti-Semitism or fascism in his writings. As far as his criminal record, I would suppose any high profile person could be tripped up in “tax” or “mail fraud” if they were a sufficient threat to the powers that be. (I notice no one has been criminally prosecuted for the blatant lies that were the foundation of the Iraq War- lies that killed thousands, but then again that doesn’t rise to the level of “mail fraud”). When I discussed this issue with a former citizen of the USSR, she immediately remarked – “I know exactly what this Mr. Larouche is, he is a political dissident.”

    3 Card Monte, fools nobody.

  2. Dennis King Says:

    “Calripson” says he’s not an adherent of LaRouche and then proceeds to defend him staunchly. Pardon me, but I’ve seen people do this scores of times on Wikipedia, and then Wiki admins trace their edits back to Daniel Platt and Patrick Ruckert’s LaRouche email warfare shop in Los Angeles, from which dozens of different user names have emanated. (That’s the same Ruckert, by the way, who was busted for beating up an elderly Jew in Seattle some years back after the victim complained about an anti-Semitic sign Ruckert was displaying–the org whisked Patrick off to LA until things cooled down.)

    They’ve been sufficiently successful with this trick that I’d guess it’s also being done out of the Leesburg offices or the LYM facility in LaRouche’s barn, or wherever. But even if Calripson is not one of them, the fact that he says there’s “no evidence” of anti-Semitism in LaRouche’s writings makes me wonder about his motives.

    Trolls are hairy creatures who live under bridges and make slurping noises when human beings pass above them.

  3. Justin Says:

    The current wikipedia name is “Delia Peabody:, who since his/her first post in July, has stocked up on comments about Norman Finkelstein and Transcendental Meditation

    And who gets this treatment from the editors:

    Delia, please don’t quote sock puppet accounts. That user is banned and his views don’t count. Will Beback talk 09:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    I quoted Cla68 and Lar. If one of them has been banned, I was unaware of it. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    My mistake. They were quoting the sock, and then you quoted them. Will Beback talk 04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

    The current crux on her “Larouche Wikipedia Team” project is to remove as a source, which trips back into Jeremiah Duggan.

    Bill, you are using an incorrect definition of OR. OR is when an editor adds facts or analysis to an article that do not appear in a published source. What we are discussing is quite different. Every editor makes judgments about which sources to include or exclude, and how much emphasis to put on the facts or analysis taken from each of those sources, based on multiple criteria. Making such judgments is not OR — it is simply editing. You have made many such judgments with respect to this article, and several editors have expressed concern about some of the ways the article has been changed. That’s why there is a neutrality dispute. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

    We do not have absolute power to judge what to include. I can’t include the whole of Feldman’s article because that would be a copyright violation. I quoted those parts because they do not repeat what other critics of LR have said, and because they relate directly to LaRouche’s views. I don’t think I misrepresented what Feldman said.
    If there is reliably sourced, relevant content, then we cannot remove it. I do not see how the report that LaRouche said there is an evil Jewish elite (Duggan’s notes) can possibly be irrelavent.
    You want to judge whether this statement is true or likely to be true. That’s not for you to decide. BillMasen (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

    Bill, I went to the cited source for Feldman’s remarks( and it appears to be a self-published website/blog. I attempted to add a link here and it triggered Wikipedia’s Spam Filter Notice, which informed me that is on a Wikipedia blacklist. Can you provide any other information that might make this website acceptable under Wikipedia’s sourcing policies? Delia Peabody (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

    That project appears to have been created by “Carmelo Lisciotto and Chris Webb”, not by Feldman. Will Beback talk 04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed, it is not self-published. As I noted before, Feldman is an academic of 20th century history, so his opinion is relevant. Unless you can demonstrate that Feldman didn’t write the piece, it is notable for inclusion. BillMasen (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

    There is a page on the University of Northampton website[9] which lists the writings of Feldman, indicating which have been published and which only appear on that website. The article Bill quoted is in the latter category. WP:SPS saus that “Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer,” so I will remove it following the instructions at WP:BLP. This could be further pursued on a noticeboard but from what I have seen here, if it is necessary to have more criticism in the article there should be no difficulty in finding other criticism of Mr. LaRouche that has been published in a reliable newspaper or book. Delia Peabody (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

    But it isn’t self-published. The site isn’t published by Feldman. If you’re going to remove it, please raise the issue on the WP:RS/N rather than just taking it away. BillMasen (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

    I’ve requested that the Feldman article be whitelisted. There is a massive backlog there, so it might be a while before it’s BillMasen (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

    Bill, the instructions at BLP are that “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” I’m not sure how you are defining “self-published” — I understand it to mean without editorial oversight. The pages you are using carry disclaimers saying that the opinions “do not necessarily represent any collective opinion of the Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team, or the University of Northampton.” The fact that there are at least two other individuals involved in running the site does not make it a reliable source — if that were the case, then the LaRouche websites would also be reliable sources. Delia Peabody (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

    I understand it to mean a source which is written by the party that publishes it. Your characterisation of the situation is incorrect. Feldman is not one of the “other individuals” running the site; it quite clearly says “guest publication”. BillMasen (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Leave a Reply