6 months into the greatest financial meltdown in history

You asked for this, so here it is!

http://www.schiller-institut.de/hrva...cast170108.pdf

Douglas Allen79 said:You asked for this, so here it is!

http://www.schiller-institut.de/hrva...cast170108.pdf

Not only is this thing just a massive pile of generalizations and insults without a single shred of actual logic, but it’s also an incredibly poorly done translation...

My rating? A solid -2...☕👎

The bar isn't set at one! 🙂 And here I am, attempting to offer you some clarity despite how much my own understanding of these complex ideas might fall short... ☕

Douglas Allen79 said:The bar isn't set at one! 🙂 And here I am, attempting to offer you some clarity despite how much my own understanding of these complex ideas might fall short... ☕

Ideas?
Give me a break. If "ideas" means using a vocabulary that's basically sub-literate, tossing out random historical facts without any logic, and then twisting them maliciously—all coming from someone who couldn't even win a local election and is now just throwing shade—then sure, call it an idea. I know George H.W. Bush wasn't exactly a genius, but this is honestly taking it to a whole new level of ridiculous...
I really regret wasting my time reading those 16 pages of pure garbage... ☕>

Catch you in six months, or maybe five if I feel like it...

You’re the only one here throwing stones at nothing🙂 and you probably strike me as some failed presidential candidate... likely from a low-rent elementary school playground somewhere☕

http://www.schiller-institut.de/en/TriKoraka.pdf

dustymarlin10 The user states:
What exactly are we looking at here—is there an actual concept being proposed, or just a vague suggestion floating in the air?
Look, if we consider a set of ideas to be nothing more than a collection of vocabulary beneath the level of standard communication—a chaotic dumping of historical minutiae without any sense of logic or reason, all maliciously twisted by someone who failed miserably in the presidential elections and is now simply throwing money around to stay relevant—then perhaps we can move forward. I am well aware that George H.W. Bush wasn't exactly a genius, but this particular behavior truly exceeds all reasonable limits.
I feel like I’ve wasted precious hours of my life wading through those sixteen pages of absolute nonsense.☕

We will reconvene in six months—or perhaps more accurately, five.

We really ought to begin this conversation immediately—and I mean right now—because, unfortunately, events are unfolding at an increasingly rapid pace.

You can find the full text of the call from Helga Zepp-LaRouche at this link:
The current global economic landscape is being strangled by a systemic failure that mirrors the most profound crises of the past, where the very mechanisms designed to foster growth have instead become instruments of stagnation. When we examine the history of international trade agreements, specifically the transition from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to the framework established during the Uruguay Round, we see a fundamental shift toward a model that prioritizes speculative financial interests over actual productive capacity. This isn't just a minor policy error; it is a structural catastrophe. Consider the legacy of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Instead of facilitating a genuine American economic resurgence, the WTO has functioned more like a restrictive cage, enforcing rules that prevent nations from investing in their own industrial bases. It’s much like trying to run a marathon while someone is constantly tightening the laces on your shoes; you might be moving, but you aren't progressing, and eventually, you simply collapse. The principles laid down during the GATT era were intended to lower barriers to trade, yet the modern application through the WTO has created a regime where the "right to food" and the sovereignty of national development are frequently sacrificed on the altar of neoliberal dogma. We see this clearly when looking at how institutional bodies like the FAO interact with global markets. There is a persistent tension between the humanitarian necessity of ensuring food security and the market-driven mandates imposed by globalist structures. For instance, the way agricultural policies are managed often ignores the foundational necessity of infrastructure and technological advancement, preferring instead to rely on the whims of volatile commodity markets. This is a direct contradiction to the vision championed by figures like Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose economic philosophy emphasized the mobilization of resources to build a robust, self-sustaining industrial state. Furthermore, the influence exerted by certain voices within international organizations—individuals who echo the critiques of Jean Ziegler or utilize the platforms of the UN to push specific agendas—often serves to distract from the real issue: the lack of a coherent, pro-growth mission. They speak of redistribution and crisis management, but they fail to address the underlying requirement for a massive infusion of capital into scientific research and heavy industry. If we want to avoid the stagnation that characterized various periods of the Middle Ages, we cannot simply manage decline; we must engineer an economic renaissance. To move forward, we must look back to the lessons of the American Revolution economic development. True progress comes from a synergy between high-technology investment and a disciplined credit system, not from the endless cycling of debt through the hands of speculative financiers. We need to reclaim the spirit of Roosevelt’s New Deal, applying that same level of directed, purposeful energy to our current challenges. Only by rebuilding our productive core can we ensure that the global economy becomes a vehicle for human advancement once again, rather than a mechanism for its slow, agonizing decay.
Humanity is standing on the precipice of a truly existential catastrophe!
Instead of pouring our resources into endless wars and enduring cycles of famine, we should be focusing our collective energy on doubling the global production of food.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The flaming letters of unparalleled human tragedy are already etched upon the wall, casting a glow that serves as a grim warning: if we do not act immediately—within these coming days and weeks—to declare globalization a total failure and mobilize every available force to double our agricultural production capacities at lightning speed, the consequences for the entire world will be nothing short of catastrophic.

We are facing an absolute emergency. Since October 2007, we have seen food riots erupting across more than 40 different nations, a clear signal that the global stability is fracturing. According to Rajat Nag, the CEO of the Asian Development Bank, an staggering one billion Asians are staring down the barrel of a massive famine crisis, while an additional billion people across Africa, Ibero-America, and impoverished regions worldwide face that very same grim fate. To make matters worse, Jacques Diouf, the head of the FAO, has revealed that his organization hasn't been able to secure even 10.9 million dollars since December for the critical purpose of purchasing seeds for struggling farmers in developing nations. Speaking at an FAO conference on Latin America held in Brazil this past April, Diouf pointed out a devastating reality: wealthy nations simply lack the will to provide the necessary capital, seed supplies, and infrastructure investments required to support developing countries.

Jean Ziegler, serving as the UN Special Rapporteur for the right to food, has identified a devastating new dimension to our global crisis: the decision to divert food supplies toward biofuel production is nothing short of a "crime against humanity." It is a chilling paradox that in order for us to soothe our environmental consciences by filling our gas tanks with ethanol, people across the developing world are being forced into starvation and death. Reflecting on the violent food riots triggered by these policies, Ziegler noted that these uprisings are born from the absolute desperation of individuals fighting for their very survival—people who are driven into the streets by the sheer, paralyzing terror of death.

This is merely the opening chapter of a much darker story. As long as the current policies dictated by the "wealthy" nations—specifically the free trade doctrines championed by the World Trade Organization, the European Union Commission, and similar institutions—remain in place, we are essentially handing a blank check to food cartels and speculators. These actors are poised to exploit the conditions created by the growing, systemic crisis within the global financial system to maximize their own profits, effectively pouring gasoline onto the fires of inflation while offering absolutely nothing in return to the hardworking farmers who actually feed us. Furthermore, if the world's central banks persist in their practice of utilizing tax revenue to bail out the speculative losses incurred by private banks, we aren't just looking at local instability; we are staring down the barrel of a hyperinflationary catastrophe on a scale reminiscent of Weimar Germany, but this time, expanded to encompass the entire globe.

Under these circumstances, the entire planet will be ravaged by a storm of food riots and civil unrest, spiraling toward a new Dark Age defined by chaos, gang warfare, and skyrocketing mortality rates—unless we act decisively to establish justice and secure a standard of living worthy of every human being on this Earth.

The Malthusian Axioms of the Oligarchy
Looking ahead to the year 2050, the UN projects a population surge of about 33%, jumping from our current 6.7 billion to roughly 9 billion human beings. Consequently, the demand for food will skyrocket; if we factor in an additional 2 billion people who are currently struggling to be fed, then doubling our global food production becomes a reasonable baseline for our strategic planning.

It is difficult to imagine any other issue that more effectively exposes the oligarchic mindset than this one. This perspective—which views future population growth through a US-centric lens as a looming threat characterized by mass migrations of impoverished peoples into developed nations and a desperate scramble for raw materials (most of which are located in those very same impoverished regions)—is deeply ingrained. Such a viewpoint was recently echoed by Michael V. Hayden, the Director of the CIA, during a speech at the University of Kansas. He confirmed that this demographic explosion will occur primarily across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East—regions where such growth cannot be economically sustained—thereby heightening the risks of violence, civil unrest, and extremism. This same oligarchic, axiomatic logic serves as the foundation for an unspoken strategic document drafted by five generals, who identify population growth as the first of six primary challenges facing the global community, alongside the uneven distribution of demographic curves across different continents. According to these generals, this represents the single greatest threat to global prosperity, responsible governance, and energy security. The non-Malthusian, imperial alternative is found in National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), formulated by Henry Kissinger in 1974, which declared that securing raw materials worldwide is a vital US strategic interest.

The reality is that the oligarchic model initiated by Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz on August 15, 1971—which signaled the end of Roosevelt's Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates and systematically steered the economy toward unregulated free trade—has now reached a point of total failure. That paradigm shift in 1971, moving away from actual production and toward pure speculation—specifically the creation of unregulated credit in "offshore" markets like the Cayman Islands, where 80% of all hedge funds are headquartered—gave birth to the "casino economy" we see today.

Since that moment, every subsequent step has moved steadily toward the neoliberal model: the emergence of the Eurodollar market; the fraudulent oil price hikes of 1974; increasingly stringent "IMF conditionality"; the government's crackdown in early 1976 on "mercantilist tendencies" in developing nations; the high-interest-rate policies of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in 1979; the era of "Reaganomics" and "Thatcherism" in the 1980s, including corporate mergers and hostile takeovers as quintessential examples of increasing cartelization; Alan Greenspan's discovery of "miraculous" creative credit instruments following the 1987 crash; and finally, the unbridled globalization following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which saw industrial manufacturing outsourced to "low-cost production" countries—all of these were simply further milestones along the exact same path.

CONTINUED...

The Context Behind Today’s Famine Catastrophe
To truly understand the gravity of our current hunger crisis, we have to examine how we arrived at this breaking point. Historically, following the establishment of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) within the European Union, the primary objective was to ensure that citizens had access to sufficient food supplies at affordable prices, while simultaneously guaranteeing that farmers earned a decent living so they could expand their production. However, once the era of unchecked globalization took hold, an entirely different set of metrics began to dominate the landscape. With the agricultural reforms of 1992, the focus shifted toward forcing down consumer prices—for instance, slashing beef costs by 20%, wheat by 30%, and milk by 15%. Yet, there was absolutely no foresight regarding adequate compensation for the producers themselves; instead, they were offered financial handouts tied strictly to "environmental metrics."

Farmers were essentially coerced into accepting these terms under the guise that they "had to learn to stand on their own two feet in the global market," which is just a polite way of saying they were expected to compete against ultra-cheap subsidized production from abroad. In the cold reality of the marketplace, this meant that many family farms would be forced into total insolvency, while others would find it impossible to work their land full-time, eventually making agriculture such a precarious livelihood that younger generations would abandon it altogether, leading to the systematic loss of countless family estates.

This aggressive pivot toward free trade was fueled by the so-called Uruguay Round, the final major session of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). This round fundamentally broke away from the traditional view of agricultural production based on food security, opting instead to tether everything to the rigid dictates of free trade and the insatiable demand of food cartels seeking maximum profit. Since then, millions of family farms have collapsed, and the process of cartelization has become so entrenched that, in a single five-month span, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was unable to raise even a meager 10 million euros to help impoverished nations plant seeds during a famine—seeds that are now controlled by only three massive corporations!

The transition from the GATT—which still maintained some semblance of multilateral agreements between sovereign states—to the World Trade Organization (WTO), a supranational bureaucracy wielding far-reaching independent authority, signaled a new wave of deregulation, the dismantling of trade barriers, and the forced "harmonization" of national standards. Once again, the primary beneficiaries of these free-trade mandates were the food cartels. From that point forward, anonymous committees of WTO "experts" enjoyed the power to impose penalties on those who violated free-trade rules, all without these self-appointed experts ever having to answer to a single voter for their decisions.

For the European Union, initiatives like Agenda 2000 and the 2005 agricultural reforms only accelerated the drive to reduce surpluses—effectively gutting food reserves and driving exports. Rather than establishing fair production prices that actually covered the cost of farming, the policy pivoted toward providing compensatory payments for leaving land fallow—a policy of "decoupling"—alongside arbitrary environmental protection measures. Consequently, the movement toward liquidating independent family farms gained massive momentum.

Renate Künast, a former German Minister, and Franz Fischler, the Minister of Agriculture, were both correct when they warned of the systemic shifts caused by these reforms. Fischler cynically noted at the time that mandatory price cuts would inevitably lead to a decline in cultivation intensity, simply because farmers wouldn't have the capital left for fertilizers and pesticides.

Shortly thereafter, some farmers saw a temporary financial reprieve due to EU subsidies for biofuel crops, but this came at the cost of the catastrophic consequences mentioned above.

It is also worth noting that the first to pave the way for using food crops for ethanol production was Benito Mussolini. Under the current regime of the WTO and the EU Commission, industrial nations have seen their productive capacities shrink, while developing nations are being pressured to export cheap food just to generate the cash needed to service foreign debt—often at the expense of their own people going hungry. Ultimately, the economic and moral bankruptcy of this system of free trade and Manchester-style capitalism is now laid bare for the whole world to see.

Fortunately, there is a growing movement of resistance against the genocidal free-trade policies enforced by the WTO and the European Union. In recent weeks, high-level leaders have begun mounting a direct campaign against the economic frameworks favored by the EU. For instance, figures like the French Minister of Agriculture and the German Minister for Consumer Protection have launched initiatives aimed at defending the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a set of measures that certain free-trade zealots—such as David Spector from the Paris School of Economics and the writers at the Financial Times—are demanding be abolished entirely, despite the ongoing global hunger crisis. These advocates attack the very idea of the Common Agricultural Policy, arguing that the poorest nations should be forced to export their food to wealthy countries; this is a total detachment from reality, as such policies have systematically decimated natural agriculture and local production in the world's most vulnerable regions. Instead, there is a push for Africa, Latin America, and Asia to implement their own versions of a Common Agricultural Policy—essentially establishing a system of parity-based protectionism.

We find ourselves at a moment where urgent action is non-negotiable.
There is really only one logical response to the lethal collision course of modern free trade: we need a massive, worldwide mobilization to double agricultural production as quickly as humanly possible. Furthermore, the WTO itself must be dismantled immediately.

As a prelude to the FAO conference in Rome scheduled for June 3rd–5th, every available resource—including unconventional ones—must be mobilized to empower the FAO to launch a global program for increasing agricultural output. This initiative must encompass a new "Green Revolution" (noting that the original Green Revolution, driven by developed nations in the 1960s through conventional or industrial farming, is what gave the term its fame), alongside medium-term strategies for infrastructure expansion, the establishment of food processing industries in developing nations, and advanced water management systems.

The necessity of establishing a new and just economic order must be placed at the forefront of the global agenda. Given that this issue is an existential matter for the future of our species, a special session of the UN General Assembly must be convened specifically to address it. A new Bretton Woods system and a New Global Agreement, following the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt—measures called for by many prominent heads of state and economists—must become the immediate focus of an emergency summit of world leaders. This summit must decide upon a new global financial system that allows all nations the breathing room to develop. Additionally, an agreement must be reached to construct an Eurasian land bridge to serve as the cornerstone for rebuilding the global economy.

In the American Declaration of Independence—which the Schiller Institute adopted during its founding conference in 1984 as a charter to be applied to all peoples of the world with only minor adjustments—it is stated:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That declaration regarding human rights must remain valid today—for every single person on this planet. Today, we need men and women who will fight passionately and with love for the ideal of a just global order, one where the community of nations can live together in peace and human dignity. Life, Liberty, and Happiness mean, above all else, that every person has access to sufficient food and that poverty is eradicated—a goal for which we already possess all the necessary technological and technical means. Whether we turn this vision into a reality, or instead accelerate humanity's descent into ruin, will be the ultimate metric by which history judges every one of us.

CONTINUED...

A reflection on the call from Helga Zepp-LaRouche and a brief historical overview regarding its strategic importance:

The mobilization sparked by the call from Helga Zepp-LaRouche isn't merely some fleeting demand for another protest or a temporary outcry in the streets; rather, it represents the absolute essential movement that humanity requires at this specific crossroads in our history.
To truly understand this protest, one must view it not as an isolated outburst, but as a single movement within the relentless, unbroken flow of history; we have to examine every pivotal action and decisive moment that shapes our trajectory. Lyndon LaRouche once articulated this perspective perfectly when he remarked, "From the day Franklin D. Roosevelt passed away, I have lived within a continuous process of history." The death of Roosevelt wasn't just a loss of leadership; it was a fundamental shift in the world order. When the news first broke, LaRouche was approached by a group of soldiers stationed on the front lines of World War II who asked him, with genuine desperation, "What do you think will happen to us now that Roosevelt is gone?" His response was blunt and heavy with foresight: "I am concerned. A great man has been replaced by a small man." That moment served as a massive turning point. History is driven by the interplay of core principles and long-term development. LaRouche understood immediately that the central struggle was the contest between the USA and the British Empire—a conflict in which Roosevelt had secured a victory, only to see that progress jeopardized by the arrival of a much smaller figure, Harry S. Truman. Because of that shift toward a British-aligned presidency, LaRouche realized we had stepped into an entirely different, and far more precarious, world.

The trajectory of global history following 1763 was defined primarily by the relentless struggle between the USA and the British Empire. Driven by the legacy of Columbus and Nikola Kuzanski, the USA emerged as the most formidable adversary the British Empire ever faced. It was Kuzina’s profound conviction that the cultural treasures of the European Renaissance could only survive the suffocating grip of European oligarchy if they were transplanted far beyond the continent. The strategic vision was clear: embark across the oceans to other continents to escape the decadence of Europe entirely. In this light, the era following Columbus—acting in alignment with the foresight of Kuze and his associates—was an intentional effort to harvest the finest elements of European culture and establish a bastion for those values elsewhere. This launched a continuous principle: the creation of a cultural stronghold where oligarchy cannot take root. One must grasp this historical context to truly understand our current position in the world. The British Empire represents a fundamental enemy to humanity. It functions as a modern iteration of the Venetian system, which, under the influence of Sarpi, migrated north from Venice to colonize northern Europe via established trade routes. This Venetian-style empire is built upon a consortium of bankers who wield capital as a tool to manipulate and even manufacture governments. What we face today is a financial oligarchy that evolved out of the aftermath of the Middle Ages. This is not truly an empire belonging to the British people; rather, it is an Anglo-Dutch neo-Venetian system, architected by Sarpi.

People didn't just abandon the Old World to resist that prevailing evil; they didn't simply flee the shores of Europe out of mere desperation or a desire to escape. Rather, they left because they were driven by the profound logic of the Kuzina concept. You can see the undeniable evidence of this shift when you look at the historical trajectory of the American Revolution, where the economic development of New England actually surged ahead of England's own progress. Even more telling was the intellectual landscape of that era, as the literacy rate in England during the Revolution was barely half of what it had become in America.

While LaRouche's understanding of this process evolved steadily over many years, it crystallized into his definitive concept at the moment of Franklin D. Roosevelt's passing. The struggle we find ourselves in today is essentially a war against the British Empire, which serves as the living embodiment of an oligarchic principle with ancient roots tracing back to the Babylonian priesthood. On the other hand, the USA represents the implicit realization of Nicholas Copernicus's vision, the very spark that inspired Christopher Columbus. This is fundamentally a cultural and philosophical battle centered on the very definition of what it means to be human. From the British perspective, the bottom 80% of the population—in terms of income—must be suppressed to the level of mere livestock; in their view, all genuine progress must be stifled, because if humanity develops, they lose their grip on power.

When you look at things from this fundamental standpoint, we have truly reached the endgame. Everything else—all those secondary issues people obsess over—is nothing more than clutter that can be tossed aside. We have arrived at a moment where time itself seems to have frozen; progress has ground to a halt. The United States is effectively surrendering its sovereignty, being reshaped into a subservient engine designed solely to wage war against Eurasia, even if it means facilitating a genocide to serve the interests of the British Empire. Therefore, the central, defining question of our era is this: how do we defeat the British Empire?

Once again, we find ourselves circling back to the profound influence Nikola Kuzanski exerted on Columbus. It is easy for the shortsighted to be lured into fixating on what they perceive as isolated, individual problems, yet such issues only carry true significance if they serve as symptoms of a much larger, systemic struggle. In 1971, acting through the machinations of the Nixon administration, the British dismantled the Bretton Woods system to establish what essentially functions as an "oil spot market," a mechanism that dictates the global value of the dollar to this day. Every fascist movement, from Hitler to Mussolini, has been an integral component of this Anglo-Dutch liberal framework; indeed, nearly every conflict ignited since 1890 has been driven by the gears of that very same system.

When you look at the landscape, what truly matters isn't some endless checklist of trivial grievances; rather, we are witnessing a strategic war plan unfolding between two massive powers. The USA represents a specific intent forged through its struggle against an adversary. Ultimately, winning this contest against the British Empire is the singular objective. Anyone who fails to grasp this reality simply doesn't belong on our agenda. There is absolutely no value in entertaining the perspectives of those who lack this fundamental vision. Honestly, we should just leave them to the professionals who handle the mentally infirm!

One must constantly maintain a sense of the grand historical arc, a scope that spans at least 3,000 years. The current clash between the USA and the British Empire is a decisive phase within that vast continuum of world history. We cannot allow ourselves to be distracted by anything else. How do we intend to steer the world, and how do they intend to rule it? Specifically, how do we manage the globe in direct opposition to the British Empire? This is the new frontier. Very few people possess even a glimmer of understanding regarding this situation. Only those who maintain this razor-sharp focus can serve as true catalysts for this process, and they simply cannot afford to let their attention wander. It makes no sense to get bogged down in petty squabbles with neighbors when you are preparing for total war! This is the mindset required to follow the call from Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The battlefield is food. The goal of the British Empire is to starve large portions of the global population into submission. They want to strip away sustenance; they want to rob nations of their sovereign ability to produce their own food.

The liberal system is nothing more than fascism. In fact, fascism is the quintessential expression of liberalism. These liberal fascists want to shutter food production within the USA and Europe. Their plan is to outsource manufacturing to the most impoverished nations, treating the people there as mere disposable assets—using them as chattel to drive production through slave wages and subhuman working conditions.

This entire process gained full momentum in 1968. The radicals of '68 were responsible for molding Nixon out of the gutter. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, those same elements dismantled Europe. The American military as we knew it no longer exists; it was gutted following instructions from London. The Marine Corps is a shambles. The ultimate scheme is to preserve the Air Force and a small slice of the Navy, deploy superweapons into the airspace, strike selected targets, and establish a new global Roman Empire. The citizenry has been stripped of its agency and power. People no longer have the strength to grow their own food, nor do they hold any control over their healthcare or education.

But the fundamental issue remains food. If we are to stabilize the global population, we must double our commodity production. You can deceive people on many fronts, but when it comes to whether they eat or starve, the matter becomes intensely personal. Consequently, the final line of defense against fascism is the food crisis and the mounting resistance against the British Empire. As LaRouche once noted, according to the World Wildlife Fund, even Hitler appeared to be a charming gentleman.

With the upcoming FAO meeting in just a few weeks, our mission is to organize a global revolutionary uprising against the British Empire. We must purge the influence of Al Gore and his obsession with biofuels. Every government is terrified of these emerging opportunities; they aren't sure if they can withstand the escalating resistance. The same applies to healthcare, but food is the universal issue that hits everyone. The daily necessity of eating commands everyone's attention. We need to shift the weight of the struggle toward this, while remaining anchored in what LaRouche emphasized regarding the underlying processes within European civilization. Once that is understood, everyone will see the connection.

It all boils down to a simple truth: the primary enemy is the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy. We must show them zero mercy. The concrete issue that must serve as our rallying cry is food. True fighters cannot afford to compromise or conform to others. The struggle is against the British Empire, and the key question is food.

We cannot give the British Empire a single moment of respite. We must strike constantly from the shadows, knocking them off balance. We refuse to play by their rules. Instead, we must always hit them from the flank. We must remain in constant motion—movement, movement, movement! Don't be foolish. Don't cling blindly to any single program. One must be able to see the immediate circumstances through the lens of the long-term process. As LaRouche said: enjoy the struggle!

It seems to me that some people here are still lost in their fantasies, spinning threads like "How to get rich quick."🤣

Absolute genius.
The whole world needs to hear this.
Honestly, I’m about to sell everything I own and head out into the desert.
Just waiting for the end of the world at this point. 😂

P.S. Why don't you go hang out on the fringes of science and entertain those crowds? Stop trying to peddle this trivial nonsense and fairy tales to us.

Susan Ward4 said:Absolute genius.
The whole world needs to hear this.
Honestly, I’m about to sell everything I own and head out into the desert.
Just waiting for the end of the world at this point. 😂

P.S. Why don't you go hang out on the fringes of science and entertain those crowds? Stop trying to peddle this trivial nonsense and fairy tales to us.

Why go to the desert? You might find that sitting alone with your own thoughts achieves the exact same result...🤣

Honestly, it would’ve been an insult, but I know you aren't doing this out of malice—you just don't know any better and you mean well.
It’s even worse because you actually believe the stuff you’re writing.

Susan Ward4 said:Honestly, it would’ve been an insult, but I know you aren't doing this out of malice—you just don't know any better and you mean well.
It’s even worse because you actually believe the stuff you’re writing.

Even so, your reaction is quite civil, which comes as a pleasant surprise to me.🙂

Look, I’m not saying you’re a bad person.
Maybe you're just naive.
Trust me, I used to be exactly like that.
Sociologists always say you’re an idiot if you aren't some wide-eyed Marxist in your 20s—you know, a socialist, a revolutionary, whatever—and then they say you're a total moron if you haven't turned into a greedy capitalist by your 30s.
Well, I'm not 30 yet, but I've definitely moved past phase one.

LaRouche has been talking nonsense for forty years and nobody gives a damn... honestly, the guy’s lost his mind. I mean, look, I actually agree with some of his ideas, but let's be real: the man has gone way too far over the edge.

cosmicpuma15 said:LaRouche has been talking nonsense for forty years and nobody gives a damn... honestly, the guy’s lost his mind. I mean, look, I actually agree with some of his ideas, but let's be real: the man has gone way too far over the edge.

If you happen to be someone lacking both refinement and basic civility, it certainly becomes evident through the sheer quality of your prose and the substance of your arguments...🤣

Susan Ward4 said:Look, I’m not saying you’re a bad person.
Maybe you're just naive.
Trust me, I used to be exactly like that.
Sociologists always say you’re an idiot if you aren't some wide-eyed Marxist in your 20s—you know, a socialist, a revolutionary, whatever—and then they say you're a total moron if you haven't turned into a greedy capitalist by your 30s.
Well, I'm not 30 yet, but I've definitely moved past phase one.

It seems sociologists are always attempting to spin their own eccentricities into something worthy of profound respect...that's just how they operate! For all we know, neither the first phase nor the second might actually hold the answer to anything.🙂

Douglas Allen79 said:If you happen to be someone lacking both refinement and basic civility, it certainly becomes evident through the sheer quality of your prose and the substance of your arguments...🤣

Look, I’m a highly sophisticated, college-educated individual with an IQ in the top 1% of the population. You? You’re just a little unrefined on the inside. What can you do?

But if we're being honest, your mother is mostly preoccupied with my massive junk. 😁