I don't like Michael Bloomberg. Apparently neither does Lyndon Larouche. I'm against Malthusianism and I believe that there are far from "too many people" on this earth. The Larouchies say the same things I do on this matter. Prince Philip once (or more than once) said he wants to be reincarnated as a virus so he could obliterate "excess people." I'm sure Bloomberg, at least in his heart of hearts is with the Prince on this.
Some people say that the ruling elites are all related and are in fact reptilians in disguise. The words of the Prince and the deeds of people like Bloomberg certainly are cold blooded and inhuman in fact. Perhaps they may as well be gekkos in disguise.
To me "excess people" are those who say others (Usually dark skinned) are "excess people."
Back in June 2006 I had an encounter with Larouchies. They told me that by September or not later than October 2006 the economy would collapse. I asked one of them if he meant that when people would go to the ATM nothing would come out? Yes, said one of the Larouchies.
Lots of people were able to see back in those days that the credit driven economy was headed for trouble, with unemployed people said to be buying half million dollar houses with no money down but no one was predicting how it would play out, how severe it would be or just when it would be apparent to all that the economy was in decline.
Larouche is a bit like the broken clock. He could be right twice a day. Here in this video the Larouchies froth about Bloomberg's imminent run for and "predetermined" coronation as President, and the coming media trashing of Obama.(This didn't happen, but it's quite possible that within the next eight years Obama could get the full "Lewinsky" or "Watergated." File that under "Things that could possibly happen." Perhaps the Larouchies claim that they, through their literature tables and You Tube video stopped this nefarious Rohatyn orchestrated Anglo-Dutch plot.
Beware glassy eyed cultists.
Cult /
The "Financial Crash"
FEAR: It is 'One minute to midnight...' '''World War III''' ><<>
"...the public record shows that I am probably the world' s best forecaster living during the past 40 years..." (1010. THE COMING DISINTEGRATION OF FINANCIAL MARKETS, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; EIR; June 24, 1994. Since this was written in 1994, that means LaRouche considers himself the best economic forecaster since... 1954!)
"Every forecast I've ever published has been confirmed. I'm the most successful economic forecaster in existence, today, on this planet!" (26) 26. SCHILLER INSTITUTE - Labor Day Conference September 1-2, 2001.
Larouche's many many predictions of imminent crash and or hyperinflation.
Oh yeah, about all those revelations like "Obama is Bush's fourteenth cousin twice removed" (or whomever and the Queen of Holland) that rightist "anti globalists" are fond of telling everyone about:
by Joe Kissel
Let’s start with a few uncontroversial facts. You were directly descended from two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. So as you go back in time, the number of your ancestors increases. Go back far enough and you’ll find millions or perhaps trillions of forebears in your personal lineage. The same, of course, is true for everyone else. But as you go back in time the total population of the world decreases, meaning that the farther back you look, the more likely you are to encounter someone who was a common ancestor of any two random people alive today. So far so good? OK, the question then becomes: How far must you go back in time to find someone who is a common ancestor of everyone alive today? And for bonus points, who might that have been?
Assocciated Press:
NEW YORK — Lee Drew had a chat with some cousins the other day.He was sitting in his home office in Orem, Utah. Four of the cousins were in England. One was in Australia, another in South Africa. A few more joined in from other parts of North America.Drew is one of a new breed of genealogists who are doing things that would have been impossible in the not-so-distant era of dusty archives and whirring microfilm readers.• Click here for Lee Drew's Web site,
10 comments:
I"m a Laoruche "follower"-- and I'd like to point out a few inaccuracies in your understanding of what Larouche is saying.
Larouche is not saying there are too many people. He's saying we currently don't have the physical basis for supporting the population we have, and that therefore we must correct that quickly by increasing physical infrastruture.
Those who work in the larouche org are not always accurate. larouche constantly says we don't know precisely when the collapse will manifest itself completely-- that's why he has been able to point to references like the 1971 desstruction of Bretton Woods as a marker in time-- that over the following 50 years would lead to collapse. It's a time scale thing-- and we're actually collapsing now... but you need to back up to see the time scale. At the same time, major sudden things can happen on the way down.
Bloomburg has postitioned himself in 50 states as a party. That exists now. Prediction is not "forecasting". Larouche's forecase is human will dependent-- certain things will happen IF WE DO NOT do certain other things. So this is completley different way to look at "the future" than is pushed at us generally. It's not "PREDICTION"-- it's CONDITIONAL FORECASTS...
I have not said that Larouche believes there are "too many people." If that was the impression I gave it's not the one I intended to give. I was speaking about The Prince and Bloomberg. Of course this notion of "too many people" is widely adhered to and is to my way of thinking a dangerous notion. As far as I can see Larouche is anti-Malthusian as I like to think I also am (anti, that is.)
I know Bloomberg has Fred Newman's zombies at the ready, petitions and clipboards in hand, from sea to shining sea. Another cult. To my way of thinking this Newman/Fulani association of Bloomberg's makes him more or less a whoremaster.
As for forecasing, I think the video and link settles that. You guys are always making predictions, and though I agree that capitalism is going to hell in a handbasket I don't think FDRism is the cure. It didn't really work in the 30's and eventually Perl Harbor was staged and well, the rest is history.
Ah but the thing is, FDR'sm DID work!!! Once again, I expose the truth.... tsk tsk.
Phil, the depression was ended by the mobilization for and conduct of the Second World War, which, I suppose, could be seen as a fruit of FDRism. A quarter of a century later, after the US was vitually "last man standing" a small and valiant nation taught the world goliath humility. The debt spiral and decline of living standards that hasn't stopped for the majority of people in the US since the helicopters took off from the roof of the Saigon Embassy.
You wrote...
quote
the depression was ended by the mobilization for and conduct of the Second World War, which, I suppose, could be seen as a fruit of FDRism.
unquote
Me--- Well that's fundamental to Larouche's position. The war effort did not CAUSE the FDR-upshift--- the FDR-upshift ENABLED the USA to conduct the war! Your "supposition" about the fruit of FDR-- isn't "just fruit"-- it was the TREE!!!
A quarter century later is a WHOLE different situation... so I'll leave that for the moment. Please zero in on Larouche's argument that FDR's recovery programe ENABLED the US to defeat Hitler.
The war mobilization involved a RETOOLING of machine tool plants FOR the fight-- which PRE-EXISTED the war DUE to FDR.
Because I have scored this point, I think you ought to acknowledge it fully and confess that you're going to have to review the Larouche case as being more valid that you thought-- based on that singular error you've just made... which is a big error. My question is.. how intellectually honest are you going to be here? We'll see.
By the way, AFTER the war, the promise of the PRE EXISTING FDR recovery that TEMPORARILY retooled for defeating Hitler, was to be RETOOLEd again for peacetime but TRUMAN STOPPED IT to an extent... Truman was a British agent who dropped the nuke on Japan UNNECCESSARILY ete etc etc.
One more point on the Pearl Harbor event-- it doesn't look like FDR knew about the specific attack we know as Pearl Harbot... but we know that Japanese and British had Pearl Harbor targetted since the 1920s....
And it was the latest Jap torpedos that sank the carriers, not the airplane bombardment...
Good extra information on the thing at my blog here...
http://www.network54.com/Forum/642077/message/1244391816/Larouche+search
YOu would have to believe that FDR would be willing to sacrifice his entire strenght in the Pacific if you believe he kept the information hidden... In any case... the wider context is that the Japanese were British puppets to begin with at that point... and the PURPOSE of the British/Japanes Pearl Harbor attack was to destroy the US navy which BRITAIN thought was getting too strong... the Japanese only played along becuase they didn't want US interference in THEIR war on China... and of course the British still want to break up china.
It all makes perfect sense... from Larouche's point of view.
Phil you make an interesting point, that it was FDR's program that made the US strong enough to tool up for WWII. And whose program (and what was that program) made Germany ready to shake the planet so soon after the defeat in WWI? And what program allowed Soviet Russia to arise from the ashes of WWI, civil war and intervention to shoulder around 90 percent of the winning fight against Germany?
BTW I tried to register so that I could read your blog but I was denied access.
If by "depression" one is talking about mass unemployment and underemployment it was the war that ended it. Now we hear about "green shoots" and "a returning optimism in the markets" while millions have no jobs, millions more work involuntary part time hours, and only God knows how many are working at way below their capacities. From my point of view, (I like to count myself as sympathetic with these un and under employed and their dependents) these "green shoots" are bullshit. Maybe, just maybe there is a slight benefit from the current ( and who knows how permanent) market uptick in that employee pensions are or seem to be a little bit less devastated than they were a few months ago(for now).
I don't claim expertise in economics nor have I read enough about Pearl Harbor, but it seems odd to me that so much of the US fleet was concentrated in a location about as close to Japan as it could have been when it couldn't be defended. Sort of like allowing an amateur pilot to crash into the Pentagon, which one would have imagined was the most heavily defended location on earth, save perhaps the White House, after amateur pilots had supposedly demolished two skyscrapers with hijacked aircraft when it was supposedly known by then that other hijacked aircraft were aloft.
You make these assertions that Japan was a British pawn and that Truman was a British agent. How do you back those assertions up? I know that Britain being the heart of evil is at the center of Larouch's thought and I do not have any warm feelings for the British Empire but aren't they more an extension of the US than the other way around?
ps- A link about Pearl Harbor.
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm
I would like to comment on your points but that last point blew me out of the water like a Jap torpedo on a Pearl Harbor parked aircraft carrier.... If you think for one split nanosecond that the British Empire is an extension of the USA, then I view as mired far too deep to dig out.
Let me give you one unssailable fact that you might be more comfortable with... a shot in the dark so to speak-- the shooting of Alexander Hamilton by Aaron Burr. Hamilton was the first Treasury Secretary of the US. Burr was a British loyalist and agent.
Here's the google search on American system + Alexander Hamilton-- that is NOT all Larouche hits. I would refer you to that search result and continue our talk once you're totally convinced that the thought that the British empire is an extension of the US is completely flipped out.
Sorry for the flippancy on my part here but holy cats man. I can't take it. Thanks for the blog though. Your writing is good and i"ll continue to check in. Thanks for the heads up on my blog access. I'm still trying to work on these types of things.
When I get the time I probably will look into this Burr = Brit thing though I don't know how it's relevant today that Burr might have been a British agent during the days of Thomas Jefferson.
The US of A is way bigger, stronger, richer than is Great Britain. They have troops, spies, spy satellites, aircraft, aircraft carriers just about everywhere. Most informed people think of them (them? they are after all 50 united states) as the sole superpower on earth. They have economic and financial interests that dwarf all other powers and their interests and tentacles are everywhere. If that blows you away, maybe it's because you can't allow information or facts that contradict the teachings of Larouche to enter your thought process? Not that I want to spend a lot of time debating you or fighting Larouche, I don't. I was though indeed surprised that you intervened in this very obscure blog at all. Now you cut and run. Well.
People who are nostalgic for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New Deal and the War Against Fascism are good people with whom I don't want to fight. I just don't agree with them. For one thing today's politics won't allow a New Deal.
In the real old days (I'm 63) around the time of "operation mop up" (google NCLC + "mop up" + "new left" + "Students for a Democratic Society" one day when you're not too busy) when the NCLC was leaving "the new left" and SDS, liberals and others were accusing it (the then Larouche movement) of being "anti semites" and of using the word "British" as code for "Jewish." Back then that got me riled up but it wouldn't today. Jews are very prominent in politics including a wide variety of dissident and rebel politics, academia, media, banking, medicine, and law and I do believe that there is a unifying principle among Jews (the question "is it good for the Jews?") in spite of fierce arguments and disputes among them. I'm not talking secret meetings or secret handshakes, but "the Jews" (as opposed to some Jewish individuals) are a negative, regressive entity. I understand that Jews are prominent in London financial circles as in New York. I think if you guys mean "Jews" when you say "Brits" you should say it and explain it well.
I've wrestled with having been born a "Jew" and over these years have come to an understanding that I don't have to be one, even if some people would never accept the notion of someone quitting being one. I think assimilation is a good thing. I'm thinking more of furthering my assimilation into the human race. It's not an overnight thing.
Finally, I am curious as to why someoene using your handle posted a link to this article on a blog that's nominally devoted to cyrogenics. Know anything about that?
Post a Comment