The Post-Nation-State
Lyndon LaRouche, Jr. is either loved or hated. Standing in the tradition of FDR's goals through the Bretton-Woods System (a monetary system governing such relations between nation-states), anything set over against it is usually labeled as "fascist." However, LaRouche has an uncanny sense of prediction, and for a while now he has insisted that the financial oligarchy of London, Dutch, and Wall Street interests are setting the stage for a hostile takeover of the U.S. for the sole purpose of ending the "nation-state."
How will they accomplish this? Primarily by moving their presidential selection into the White House. Who is that person they've chosen to be president? None other than billionaire mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg.
"But, wait a minute. Didn't Bloomberg say he wasn't running?" He sure did:
Compounding the evidence against LaRouche's prediction is the fact that two candidates from both parties are essentially selected: Obama and McCain. However, LaRouche predicts that after Hillary is fully discredited, an "Obama-gate" will begin which will remove him from the running. It's at this point that the fascist candidate, Bloomberg, will reverse his decision and enter the race.
Understanding the reasons behind this -- and understanding LaRouche's insight -- requires rethinking the concept of "privatization," and contemplating the stated of goals of oligarchical fascist players like George Schultz and Felix Rohatyn, and the interests they represent. Rather than try to rehash that myself, I've included a video from LaRouche, as well as a link to an article that visits this subject in greater depth.
It should be relatively simple to establish the veracity of LaRouche's forecast. If an "Obama-gate" takes place (meaning Obama will be "outed" and discredited), and Bloomberg enters the race, then LaRouche was right. If he is correct, then what follows a Bloomberg presidency is something every American should be concerned about. However, if he's wrong, then his critic's assessment of his integrity stands.
LaRouche supports the policy traditions of Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and Abraham Lincoln. Hamilton was no doubt beholden to the vision for a great central bank in America, and it seems contradictory for LaRouche himself to be so contrary to banking interests. However, in this case, he seems radically opposed to a particular faction of the financial oligarchy--those seeking to create the new "city-state." I'll let LaRouche and Co. explain:
How will they accomplish this? Primarily by moving their presidential selection into the White House. Who is that person they've chosen to be president? None other than billionaire mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg.
"But, wait a minute. Didn't Bloomberg say he wasn't running?" He sure did:
Compounding the evidence against LaRouche's prediction is the fact that two candidates from both parties are essentially selected: Obama and McCain. However, LaRouche predicts that after Hillary is fully discredited, an "Obama-gate" will begin which will remove him from the running. It's at this point that the fascist candidate, Bloomberg, will reverse his decision and enter the race.
Understanding the reasons behind this -- and understanding LaRouche's insight -- requires rethinking the concept of "privatization," and contemplating the stated of goals of oligarchical fascist players like George Schultz and Felix Rohatyn, and the interests they represent. Rather than try to rehash that myself, I've included a video from LaRouche, as well as a link to an article that visits this subject in greater depth.
It should be relatively simple to establish the veracity of LaRouche's forecast. If an "Obama-gate" takes place (meaning Obama will be "outed" and discredited), and Bloomberg enters the race, then LaRouche was right. If he is correct, then what follows a Bloomberg presidency is something every American should be concerned about. However, if he's wrong, then his critic's assessment of his integrity stands.
LaRouche supports the policy traditions of Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and Abraham Lincoln. Hamilton was no doubt beholden to the vision for a great central bank in America, and it seems contradictory for LaRouche himself to be so contrary to banking interests. However, in this case, he seems radically opposed to a particular faction of the financial oligarchy--those seeking to create the new "city-state." I'll let LaRouche and Co. explain:
