I repeat the idea that Larouche is worth reading-- recipient compares broken record.

I'm likely going to be looking at the idea expressed by a recipient of an email of mine-- that my referring to Larouche is like playing a broken record. This particular recipient is using that dismissal as a way to avoid the issues, apparently. I do indeed refer to Larouche repeatedly, but there are new updates on the Larouche site every day regarding current history-- that is extremely insightful. The recipient of my email apparently simply refuses to look at it. The idea that my repeated mentioning of the Larouche site as a source of comprehension of a viable world view that leads to solving some of the worlds' worst problems is an obvious tactic of some sort. Vanman's dismissal of my reference is akin to a kid placing his hands on his ears and saying "I can't hear you". I'll devise a tactical end run around this plainly idiotic tactic soon. Not sure how yet-- but as with kids cupping their ears claiming they can't hear you, there are ways to gently nudge the person from an unexpected direction.

Here's a serious issue that Larouche or one of his writers deals with, with respect to Canada

QUOTE
The legacy of Canada lies between two poles: the American and the British. Today these two antagonistic systems are best characterized by, on the one hand, Lyndon LaRouche and the Franklin Roosevelt tradition; and on the other, by the gross avarice and parasitism of the London-spawned hedge funds, predominantly centered in the British Cayman Islands. It is the hedge fund, the cancer of the financial system, which is at the center of the now trembling global derivatives bubble, the greatest speculative bubble in recorded history, measured not in hundreds of billions, but hundreds of trillions.
UNQUOTE
Source-- [+]

The LEGACY of Canada... hmmm... TWO antagonistic systems... the Larouche/FDR tradtion and the London hedge fund... Lyndon vs. London... hmmm.... the spec bubble... hundreds of trillions.. yeah, I've heard of that... Canadians are generally deaf to this-- and yet the future of Canada revolves aroudn this very same issue-- just as the future of all nation states-- so what factor would keep Vanman from commenting on that reality-- as best described by Larouche? One hypothesis would be that he IS interested in death/decay/destruction of all civilization and that his pot smoking has driven him to hate the machine as the 68'ers. His avoidance of the reality of this-- and the WTO starvation plan-- yet occasional public attempt at pointing out problems-- maybe as a co-opting/deflection/gatekeeping function... a willing participant in self-hatred-- as a human being-- a desire to destroy every last human on the planet as an evil imposition--