Time Magazine’s Larouchie of the Year: SIDNEY HILL

Eventually — well into 2010 — “Michael Retour” gets labelled a  “troll”.

The riff was on “Niagara Falls” (“Slowly I turned…”) where the annoying trigger provokes an extreme reaction. I think trolls like Michael Retour / Bill Cox (among others) could just save us all a lot of time from reading their nonsense if they would just type “N-i-a-g-a-r-a F-a-l-l-s” and leave it at that.

Mostly it’s just an understandable weariness of political discussions on an apolitical message board.  But Well, he sits on the Nobel Prize Committee.

Russia has so much power and so many options here.  This has changed the world.  I think Putin may have prevented a world war and I am nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize. 

He also likes this cover for called “West Coast Avengers“.   Myself, I’m more into the Central Mid – South-East Avengers.
What is a “troll” to an Internet message board forum?  I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder and whatever the forum decides to define as a “troll”.  And how do you define “sock puppet“?:

And, back to this.  Michael, I’m half-convinced you’re a sock puppet, but I’ve gotten some use out of arguing with you rather than hammering someone else on an emotional, worry-laden issue.  So, I’ll play this round through.  After that, I’m just gonna mess with you…

Maybe what qualifies as “troll” is when you in the year 2008 run over a host of Larouchian spiel, deny your affinity with Larouche but claim that now that the name has been thrown to you and you’ve had a chance to look it up, you’re impressed!, and then a year and a half later you give another clue into your Larouchianism, and then when asked about it you deny him again!

Michael Retour is on the John Byrne fan message board to Lyndon Larouche what Peter is in the New Testament to Jesus Christ!

Gee, why not simply ask all the other kooks in the Schiller Institute to investigate?  Maybe, I’m one of those evil Jewish Children of Satan they’ve gone on about in their diatribes.  […]
But, tell me, hasn’t LaRouche predicted the imminent downfall of the world and prevailing democratic governments every year or so, since about 1980?  Has he *ever* been correct about this *imminient* collapse?  What…you guys just play the odds every other year in the hopes that this one will come up the winner for your nihilistic dreams of global collapse?
What was last year’s webcast? […]
ute.  Hey, Michael, how about this one, from LaRouche’s “The Campaigner: Strategy for Socialism”, Sept. 1971, vol. 1: […]
Yep, no matter the year, it is ALWAYS one minute to midnight, with you guys.  And, we can fill in just about all the years in between with similar prognostications of ever “imminent” collapse.
You know, for a guy so opposed to the current economic system, he and his vanity press operation sure have made a lot of money off talking about an ever-present financial collapse just around the corner, haven’t they?
Etc. etc. 

Then we get Michael Retour’s responses:
Mike your patience might have been wearing thin but I am not associated with LaRouche and if I was I’d say so. […]
Some want to go back to a FDR model.  I am one of them.  Clinton is too.  Bill had this to say about that: “go back to the Home Owner’s Loan Corporation that was a product of the depression.  That actually made a profit for the American people by stabilizing what was otherwise a disastrous run on the market for financing homes.”
Now are Bill and Hillary Clinton associated with LaRouche because they’re proposing FDR-like models for this crisis? 
Sorry Mike, pick another guy to pin the tail on the donkey with. 

Mike I did a little searching today and you know what?  LaRouche makes a lot of sense.  Thanks for the heads-ups on him.  A lot of controversy I see too. 
I don’t care about the controversy surrounding a politician like LaRouche.  That’s natural in politics. 
I don’t buy them either.  Looking at the websites (thanks Mike) the guy comes off as a FDR-style Democrat
Oh yes.  He never heard of this “Larouche” fellow until this stranger introduced him to him on this message board after seeing his swarm with Larouchian buzz-words, and now that he has — Wow! 
Thanks for pointing out LaRouche for me.  I like the way the guy thinks!!

… Just like Retour, apparently.
A year and a half later, and we see:
am running three congressional campaigns now: one in Texas, one is Massachusetts and one in California. My Texas candidate won the primary.
Asked if he’s with Larouche, he answers “no”.  This post shows that the forum has a good degree of turn-over with the John Byrne fan message board, with “Michael McCallum” responding in 2010 and clearly not having paid attention in 2008:
(I hate giving up on my LaRouche theory, because the pieces all fit, dang it!)

Old news, I gather.  And now into my related dejavu field of Wikipedia Review — no not that one, THIS ONE.
Starting with the clever “Cla68”, who, unlike every other larouchian bented wikipedia editor, has a broad and vast wikipedia contribution list.  Indeed, he may just be the Larocuhies’ permanent “Go to Editor” for “little help”.  But watch him slide out of wikipedia editing culture — in bold:

Here for example. Xinhua appears to have been the only news organization, that I could find, to record that LaRouche predicted, in 1999, the global economic crisis which occurred a few years later. This is important information for an article on LaRouche. Do you remember that in the past a couple of editors who regularly edit the LaRouche articles were calling the Eurasian Land Bridge a figment of LaRouche’s imagination and a disruptive meme propagated by “HK socks?” It took me all of 10 minutes searching in Infotrac to find that there really was a land bridge and that it was a notable topic. The resulting article now averages almost 4,000 hits a month. That example shows how unfortunate the result can be when we don’t aggressively look for more sources to help us out with additional information. So, why don’t we focus on the sources, no matter what language they are in, and the information they may or may not provide us in continuing to make this article as complete and NPOV as possible? Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What global economic crisis occured a few years after 1999? I must have missed it. The problem with the Eurasian Labdnbridge was that HK and his socks kept adding material to the effect that it was LaRouche’s idea. — Will Beback 

Some of the ideas of how to develop the Eurasian Land Bridge did apparently originate with LaRouche, and that’s apparently why he received some coverage in the Chinese and Russian press, as opposed to the US press which often, based on what I’ve seen living in a foreign country, ignores issues outside the US, whether a US pundit is involved or not. That is why we can’t overlook foreign sources. How can you “overuse” an article from an RS if it provides useful information? Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite your unproven assertion that there is more coverage of LaRouche and his movement in foreign sources there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles in US news sources. Relying extensively on one foreign source is likely to give undue weight to the viewpoint in that article.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite your unproven assertion that there is more coverage of LaRouche and his movement in foreign sources there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of articles in US news sources. Relying extensively on one foreign source is likely to give undue weight to the viewpoint in that article.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We leave that up to the reader to decide, don’t we? That’s why we list the sources at the bottom of the article. Cla68 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

 Oh, it BURNS!

Have I gone to this one already?  Delia Peabody gallops about:

I wouldn’t say I’m familiar. I spent a few hours searching the web. As far as LaRouche’s views are concerned, they are usually dismissed as fringe with little elaboration. Delia Peabody (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep!  Just started looking him up just a few hours ago.  Indeed, how about this Russian Guy?

I went back and looked at the old version of the article, and I don’t think an explanation was ever offered for the deletion of quite a bit of material sourced to GG Pirogov, conference presentation to the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FIAN) on the academy’s website. Delia Peabody (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Pirov a member of the movement?   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont see the relevance of this question. He is an academic who commented on LaRouche. Doesn’t get any better. (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A Russian academic? Before we add more exotic sources from faraway lands, we should add more sources from the subject’s home country. I just got a copy of International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: a documented analysis of the movement by noted scholar Robert J. Alexander. It contains a long section on LaRouche. But there isn’t room for everything.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 has a point of order:
Will, what exactly is your objection to using Pirogov as a source, that he isn’t an American? Cla68 (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that HK socks keep trying to add an exceptional claim using Pirogov as the only source. As far as I can tell he’s a minor academic who delivered an address about LaRouche. Conference addresses are not, to the best of my knowledge, edited the same way as a normal publication, so they are essentially self-published. This particular address only exists in Russian on a website. It’s a weak source, too weak for a remarkable claim. BLP and other policies call on us to use the best available sources. Too bad you don’t get it. 😉   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Why don’t you link to the source and I’ll check it out myself. Cla68 (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Good to see that Will Beback retains a Sense of Humor, if in a somewhat impotent position for Wikipedia Quality Control.
I’m sure one of the accounts will post a link for you.   Will Beback  talk  11:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Angel’s Flight!

I’m getting the impression here that there are some editors who are only concerned with adding negative sources and excluding positive or neutral ones, regardless of scholarship, notability, reliability or national origin. Angel’s flight (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Will someone please post a link to the source so I can look at it? Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I located it.
Imagine that.
The presentation appears to be a valuable, secondary exposition on LaRouche’s views which would be helpful for this article.

And the ultimate Larouchian Wikipedia Team Rhaspberry, from a “Pachuco cadaver”:
So many new accounts.
Ban them all — you know you want to.

Time Magazine has named its “Larouchian of the Year”.  Perhaps this will surprise everyone, but they skipped right past the various losing Congressional Candidates (who will apparently have another crack at Time Magazine’s “Larouchian of the Year” title with their 2012 run) and gave the cover to… SINDNEY HILL!
Who, unlike Rachel Brown, Kesha Rogers, and Person Not on the Ballot — is still making the rounds on Internet searches.  Besides the larouchepac website, where we see:

This week, the LaRouche Democratic candidates who inspired the nation during the 2010 election season—Rachel Brown of Massachsuetts, Summer Shields of California, and Kesha Rogers of Texas—announced their intentions to appear on the ballot in each of their respective states as candidates for Congress in 2012.

And a ton of words ascribed to each of them.

  See here for Sidney Hill:

He screams “free speech” like a child screams for ice cream.
“Anybody wanna help me?!”
You’re the LaRouche fan, what do YOU think?

I’m all for arresting people who are too crazy to tone it down a notch when talking to cops. He’s throwing a temper tantrum.

Time’s runner-up was Harley Schlanger.  And why not?  He appeared on Press TV and got play on Drudge, off of inside tips from “Ulstermann”.  (See too his interviews with Jeff Rense… seeing his voice right here.)
The third mention for Larouchian of the Year was Lyndon Larouche, for breaking the “Knights of the Golden Circle” conspiracy wide open.

This guy is american patriot.  You wouldn’t call him a communist.  But he’d make sure the people of america were all employed and putting heroine junkies in proper rehab and getting them to work on major human projects like maglev rail accross america and the world and water projects in to green the arizona, nirvada desert etc.
He’d sure be working with other countries peacefully.  No war.  But he’s a strict mo-fo.  He doesn’t like rock n roll.
Not like he  would ban rock n roll – but he’s your classical kind of guy, who wants to colonize mars, give nuclear energy to the world so every person in the world is out of poverty and has proper living standards. […]
He believes the main purpose of being human is creativity…   not war, violence, destruction.. and you now america is in a position to stop violence and war throughout the world with nuclear power – even if there are green nazis against its amazing potential.

Hey!  This stuff should be put into wikipedia!   Someone get into the page that he’s “pro-steak”.

I’m not Lyndon LaRouche – so i can’t say if Nuclear Energy is in-fact the answer to the world’s problems.    […]   Yes LaRouche is anti-GMO – but pro-steak – but who cares – he’s omni-lateral and omni-vorous.

 What kind of people dig Larouche?

Lyndon LaRouche – would appeal to the do-gooder, average-joe patriot – who realises Ron Paul is a limp wrist – and wants some real potential visionary-actions to happen.  There’s some serious science with this guy – so he would appeal to sci-fi scientists who want to colonize mars, maglev trains, etc.   Would not appeal to Zeitgeist target audience even if some of the claimed conspiracies are similar – it’s just bi-polar brands.  American patriot wrapped in red, blue and white v Zeitgeit, Venus Project new-age psychedelic-surrealist, technology – even though both are very pro maglev train.

Coming in fourth in Time Magazine’s poll… this guy.

Men refuse to answer questions, stare ahead.
I think this is a “end of the year” bias.  I’m referring to the man staring ahead, and not the one who has his back to the camera. 

Time Magazine stopped the list at five.  Rachel Brown beat out Kesha Rogers off of the basis of getting coverage later in the election cycle due to a later primary, and everyone getting a bit bored with an uninteresting general election.

The War on Christmas continues: 



 I walk out the door and make an elaborate show of bopping my head to the music, but I have to walk past the LaRouche people.  (Should be humming Bach instead of rock music.  Then maybe they’ll respect you.)  I just have to:  there’s no way around them.  There is one girl and one boy.  She is white and he is black.  They are “boy” and “girl” not because they are actually young, but because they have the political disposition of thirteen year-old emo kids.  They are “white” and “black” because of genetic happenstance. […]

“You know who’s going to be hanging from the Christmas tree this year?” she says, a bit too triumphantly.
And I sort of stand there for a second, puzzled, and then say to the white girl, “I thought ornaments hung from Christmas trees, not people.”
And she seems stunned for a second–like she had genuinely never thought about the stupidity of her pitch–but regains her composure and soldiers on.  Because that’s what LaRouche people do, you know.  They soldier the fuck on.
“No, man.  It’s the system who’s going to be hanging from the tree.  The whole system’s coming crashing down.”

I’ve been fighting the system since before you were even born, MAN!  I just don’t know which one.

Christmas coming, and I wonder if in addition to some Christians carrying literature to “remind you of the reason for the season”, Australia will get these door to door knockers.

With almost 1,000,000 members (made up of 15 to 89-year-olds) in its email database, the CEC has no intentions of falling silent. Mrs Robinson says she intends to door knock every house in her rural electorate of O’Connor by the next federal election. It’s a big task, the division stretches more than 900,000 sq km from the Great Southern to the Goldfields. Mrs Lawler says the party never stops campaigning. […]
“We never stop campaigning, votes don’t change history, people change history, so unless the people change, they’re not going to get the government they deserve.”

 I’ve changed my mind.  She beats out “looking Straight Ahead” guy for that slot in the Larouchian of the Year list.

The protestors had no intention of identifying themselves, and when asked to identify a local connection to their cause they were quick to claim community support, but unable to produce anyone local who was willing to stand in protest with them. Those with the signs and information had come in from Houston and likely knew very little about Taylor. […]
The more disturbing issue, though, was the inflammatory signs were complimented by a credit card machine on standby, eagerly awaiting your donation to the cause.

And why not?  Look what’s coming down the pike?

The key thing is what we’ve been getting from Europe for some time now, a number of weeks: The best estimate is, and I can qualify that, with certain facts, that the entire, present world financial-monetary system is going down, by about Christmastime….

There you have it.  The War on Christmas.

“So, the decision to act in joining me in this fight, is yours. There can be no compromise with pessimism in the population. If we are to survive, we must destroy the pessimism and demoralization which has gripped our population, with the power of profound ideas. March on, and we shall gain the victory. March on, and we shall gain the day. INDEPENDENCE FOREVER!!!”  — 2012 Congressional Candidate for the Texas 22nd District (give or take — numbers might shift in redistricting) Kesha Rogers.

2 Responses to “Time Magazine’s Larouchie of the Year: SIDNEY HILL”

  1. Im_back Says:

    Is Willbeback still someone that anyone with an ounce of sense might listen to? He was shown to be a (s)tool and not a very pleasant one. Whose (s)tool he is, and his obsession with movements, are things to wonder about. It is known, however, that this guy is not honest and has a long history of anti-larouche zealotry. To our favourite (s)tool of the year, I can say that I have read Mr LaRouche’s writings, am proud to have paid for them, and am a proud anti-imperialist.
    Willbeback, you stink to high heaven. Go wash away the crap and see what remains of your personality. Might one ask about your campaign against Mr LaRouche? What drives you to be so clearly objective in your quest for fame? Do you consider your commentaries and diatribes at all biased, maybe even subject to your own warped agenda? It’s ok. It’s easier to attack someone else than to stand up for the common good. I forgive you.

  2. "Mr. Skull / Bones" Says:

    Hi Mr. Osler.

    I guess this is a delayed response, but so was your comment — I already had another “Larouche Challenge” post up when you posted this, and frankly the entry before and after this one are more interesting anyways. I have my next post written — I thought I’d post it later this week, but now I think I’ll post it next week. Responding to you gives me a good opportunity to dump some things out of that post of the “cult reaction” thread.

    I can’t quite tell if you’re jumping from will beback to me or if you’re sticking to will beback throughout your post. I suspect a bit of both — otherwise why contact me with all of this? — so I’ll treat it as such.

    It’s ok. It’s easier to attack someone else than to stand up for the common good. I forgive you.

    “I forgive you” is a random sentence, unless you have some kind of permanable loyalty bond with the movement. A bit less random, if directed at me, is:

    What drives you to be so clearly objective in your quest for fame?

    Considering that will beback’s found in the rather secluded domain of wikipedia editing, I assume this is directed more at me. It’s a little less random, as I think the org is riffing off of a couple statements I made here in 2007 — and pretty quickly repudiated. As the case is, discussing this org is not a road to fame.

    Whose (s)tool he is, and his obsession with movements, are things to wonder about.
    It is telling that the org’s most biting insult to a guy is that he’s paying attention to them (note the reference in the “people who post things at factnet” item). It is an admission of the minuteness of the org within politics and culture. The debate on whether anyone should give two rips about the org continues apace. As for Will Beback at wikipedia — for this he receives his scorn from various movementarians. As a rule, somebody in the “Wikipedia Core” has to care, lest wikipedia’s movementarian articles get dictated and directed by the movementarians. Will Beback is, apparently not “obsessed” enough — the Larouche Wikipedia Team has had three of their pet items up on wikipedia for a week now, and I see with a check-in today that yesterday they have an unchecked deletion of some unflattering information.

    I can say that I have read Mr LaRouche’s writings, am proud to have paid for them, and am a proud anti-imperialist.

    All right. A good time for “Point / Counterpoint.” Counterpoint found here.

    Some history of my coverage of the cult, and my evolution in thinking. I started out by using the org as a crutch to get past periodic “blogger’s block” — it was a running joke. I no longer have all that much interest in a sort of “cult dynamics” — there’s only so far that goes before one understands the “gist”. At this point, I doubt I would find a “daily briefing” all that interesting. The story of Kronberg is pretty well written in stone, and while I appreciate that the org continues its re-invention I recognize that it (by definition) is leading its followerers on that road (within their limited purview). My question for the Howie Gs and J. Pyen.s of the world, who habitually repost such L-PAC items, thus concerns the broader political climate with which the org manufactures their personal issues with ex-members and associates: If this is a round-about attack on a New Global Glass Steagall and the Mighty Wurlitzer has been extinguished, where’s the massive global signing ceremony?
    One other thing someone reading back through these posts will find — from August of 2007 (at a very specific prompting) on through 2008, I had that notion that the org was on a sort of rapid decline — “last dying days of dead-enders”, or something like that. Still, I puzzled over what exactly that meant as there are few real measuring sticks to mark it — not shuffling money out of mass hysteria as quickly in the past? The apex of this notion came in March — April of 2008, when the org disappeared completely from view. I half imagine everyone was out working on the 1932 and figuring out the PUMA-sphere and how to attack Russia — Georgia, and that took everyone’s “retooling” time.
    Today, my thought process is that the org will continue at the level it is at, such as it is. Larouche’s death will unglue the org at its core, but it will settle into vast peripheal concerns that match neatly into the roaming conspiracy / political paranoia/ Economic Doomsday sphere. I see, for instance, Steinberg and Schlanger on Iranian Press tv (waiting for their round-table discussion with Igor Panarin and Tarpley!) never mentioning Lyndon Larouche even when directing something inner-org related (the “Obama won’t make it to the next election” line) — as well in matters not particularly inner-org related (a justifiable concern about Military Contractors, which I see Steinberg flogged in his most recent appearance). In this sphere, the need for Larouche disappears. The good news for you, Mr. Osler, is that you will still be able to purchase this material. The good news for humanity would be that this suggests a fading away of the “cult apparatus” as greasing it looks more of a hinderance than anything else. The bad news is that this continues the production of conspiratorial paranoid and disinformational matter into political discourse, but it’s something of a dime a dozen industry anyway.

    A caveat comes in the form of an article I saw while leafing through the Spartacist League’s (which the Larouche Org can be viewed as a split out of, or a split of a split) “Worker’s Vanguard”. “Anarchists team up with Big Government Against Red”, or something like that. It concerned a group of so-called “Anarchists” who petitioned their university officials to kick out the Spartacist group’s table. There’s something about the self-concerned and parochial interest. Anyway, I gather the best bet is to upon Larouche’s death, look away for ten years and then look back — and see what form this org has taken.

    So. Do you have any additional thoughts about these matters?

Leave a Reply