What this new flare-up in the Middle East is all about. We're being thrown a curve people.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by doug r

 

You have to realise though it's not just the 'banksters', it is the capitalist system itself that has lead to this and has allowed this to happen. The Banks are just a part of the whole corrupt system.

Without the private ownership of the means of production, the capitalist class (which includes the banksters) would not be able to accumulate the mass wealth that allows them to wage war, and manipulate the worlds economy to their own advantage.

This is why equality is so important! It is the unequal distribution of wealth that allows a minority class to economically dominate the majority.

So how'd that work out for the USSR....that totally peaceful, no hand in any conflict, utopia we all came to know and love?

Or how about all those incredibly equal in their destitution North Korean citizens?

reply to post by doug r


ANOK ~ doug

Maybe I'm wrong but it would appear that we all pretty much agree that money and who controls it is at the root of the problem. Control by the few and the mighty is the system we have now and is what we've been laboring under for thousands of years so its all we know and its hard to think beyond that. So that's one extreme. The other extreme is the total absense of any form of trading voucher or property ownership. Hopefully there's some middle ground and hopefully we can find it.

reply to post by doug r


People act as if the USSR was pure communism. It was far from it. If you want the truth its very simple 99% of the time they demonize something to that degree it is truly good. All those forms of government were set up to fail including the one we have now. At the root of all these systems is millenniums old fuedalism dressed up to look new.

Try communism where the public owns the means of production would work well all profits would be shared equally and there would be no hoarding of wealth thus no one with the ability to fake crash the system.

reply to post by frazzle


Actually it has only been going on since around the mid 1700's when society was forced into factories due to the inclosure land laws. This is what changed feudalism into capitalism.

mp to: navigation, search

The Inclosure or Enclosure Acts were a series of United Kingdom Acts of Parliament which enclosed open fields and common land in the country. They removed previously existing rights of local people to carry out activities in these areas, such as cultivation, cutting hay, grazing animals or using other resources such as small timber, fish, and turf. "Inclosure" is an old or formal spelling of the word now more usually spelled "enclosure": both spellings are pronounced play /ɨŋˈkloʊʒər/.

Inclosure Acts

Denied use of the land, the land owners took advantage and started exploiting the 'commoners' in their factories and mills increasing their wealth. This lead to the industrial revolution, exploitation of the masses, class divisions, and the need for a movement that apposed it, that movement was socialism.

reply to post by ANOK


Maybe in THIS country, but the money changers go way way back.

But even so, as far back as the 1600s this country was ruled by men of the old and wealthy aristocracy who had received large land grants and appointments to govern the colonies from their respective kings. And, for the most part, it was their sons who wrote the rule of law. They had 21 overdue loans with the European bankers by the time they wrote it. That's why taxation was the very first item in article 1, section 8. After all, somebody's gotta pay the bills.


Well ... it pays to read the whole post before going off half cocked. Just as a side note, did you know the root word of sabotage is sabot? That's what commoners threw into the machinery to protest the abuse by breaking the machines.

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by ANOK

 

Maybe in THIS country, but the money changers go way way back.

Money changers yes, the system of capitalism no. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Before the inclosure laws, and the industrial revolution, generally private property was not used to exploit labour. People were mostly autonomous, and lived off the land. They were mostly exploited by the Church and the state, taxes etc.

What is THIS country? This happened in Britain and Europe first.

But even so, as far back as the 1600s this country was ruled by men of the old and wealthy aristocracy who had received large land grants and appointments to govern the colonies from their respective kings. And, for the most part, it was their sons who wrote the rule of law. They had 21 overdue loans with the European bankers by the time they wrote it. That's why taxation was the very first item in article 1, section 8. After all, somebody's gotta pay the bills.

Yes, but that is not capitalism. Again capitalism is when private property owners use their property to hire wage labour, in order to exploit that labour for their own financial gain. A financial gain they can invest and make more money from.

reply to post by ANOK


Back tomorrow. I'm too bushed right now to think straight.

The main piece of governmentalese that put the "fiscal cliff" in place was The Budget Control Act of August 2011...introduced and sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin. There were NO cosponsors.
So who pulls Harkins strings for the BIS?

The top contributor to Harkin are TPG Capital.
The 4th largest are (unsurprisingly) Golodman Sachs.

Nothing need be reviewed here about Goldman Sachs. We all know they are joined at the hip to the world's central banks and thus in tight with the Bank of International Settlements.

TPG Capital is relatively low profile compared to goldman but they are huge.

It's "one of the largest private equity investment firms globally, focused on leveraged buyout, growth capital and leveraged recapitalization investments in distressed companies and turnaround situations. TPG also manages investment funds specializing in growth capital, venture capital, public equity, and debt investments."
en.wikipedia.org...

They are obviously going to greatly profit when austerity causes smaller companies to go bust by buying them out cheap and beefing up their portfolio trading in debt investments by positioning themselves in front of the austerity wave.

TPG is run by :

David Bonderman - While at or shortly after his time at Harvard, he traveled to Cairo, Egypt, to study Islamic Legal Jurisprudence and Law, and became proficient in various Islamic legal cliques developing a near-native fluency in Modern Standard Arabic.
Bonderman is listed on the 2011 Forbes 400 list as the 209th wealthiest American with a net worth of approximately $2 billion.
In 2002, for his 60th birthday, Bonderman had The Rolling Stones and John Mellencamp play at his birthday party at The Joint at Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. John Mellencamp played for an hour, The Rolling Stones played for an hour and a half and comedian Robin Williams entertained guests between acts. The party cost $7 million, making it one of the most expensive private concerts ever held.
en.wikipedia.org...

James Coulter - Prior to co-founding TPG in 1992, Coulter and the other co-founders worked for Robert M. Bass. Coulter joined the Robert M. Bass Group from Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb.
Coulter has been involved in some of the largest leveraged buyout transactions on record including TPG's marquee transaction, the takeover of Continental Airlines in 1993.
en.wikipedia.org...(financier)

William S. Price III - Prior to co-founding Texas Pacific Group in 1993, Bill Price was Vice President of Strategic Planning and Business Development for GE Capital. Prior to this, Price was a partner and co-head of the Financial Services Practice of Bain & Company.

The companies that these guys have been and continue to be involved with are all high up in the globalist/banking elite pecking order.

Between Goldman and ATP, it would have been childs play to use Harkin as the conduit for putting the "fiscal cliff" scam in play.

Military-Industrial Complex.

/conspiracy

reply to post by ANOK


You sound like the NWO poster boy . The UN instrument Agenda 21 or as we know it Sustainable Develoment will bring you Fudalism not Socialism . Then we have to address the POPULATION REDUCTION part of their plan .David Rockefeller wants an 80 % population reduction and said so on a video . The bill Gates is talking population reduction along with Kissinger and many more Bilderber Group people . Will you make the cut ? How about your family ?The Banksters don't like you breathing their air and they are the Elite .
I would read Agenda 21 , thats their creation . Get past the Preamble this time .

reply to post by SimonPeter

The amount of Money although being a large amount...spent on the U.S. Military is minuscule in comparison to the GNP of the United States. It is not enough to cause the economy to either dive or go up.

The real money is generated by Small Businesses and their employees which consist of 80% of all JOBS in the United States. This amount of Money is enormous and as Small Business goes...so does the entire World Economy.

It is important to note that neither party has created anything in the way of programs to stimulate Small Business creation and growth. The reality here is that the American Economy is not slave to either what is spent on the Military or what is wasted in creating more Governmental Jobs.

Since Small Business is very tied to their OVERHEAD...this being Energy Costs such as OIL or GAS for fuel for Heating and Electricity for Air Conditioning and Lighting...as well as property taxes and Viability based upon sales which have been placed in a static state due to a TOTAL AND COMPLETE FAILURE by Government on both the State and Federal Level to help the counties largest employer...Small Business will do what it has always done...DO IT THEMSELVES.

The Economy is all about Public Perception and when the People of the U.S. decide that enough is enough...the Economy will follow the Peoples Lead...not the Governments. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I am pretty sure that the Banksters wan a world wide economic collapse . Especially if the Austerity measures keep having trouble . The results would be a large population reduction and a very thankful bunch of starving people that would accept any plan offered to them to restore the economy .

reply to post by doug r

They are laughing all the way to the bank

Soon they will be screaming all the way to hell.

Originally posted by SimonPeter

You sound like the NWO poster boy .

There's nothing wrong with pointing that capitalism is wrong and that socialism is a fairer economic system for the majority. Theoretically, I believe this is true.
Our rigged capitalism could never ever bring world peace and happiness. does everyone finish happy after a game of monopoly? Hell no, usually everyone is pissed except the winner.
Capitalism does have it's merits but it's too far now, for the last 30-40 years about, we have reached the end of the positive aspects of capitalism to bring happiness, intelligence, knowledge and peace to our civilization.

The wrong thing about the "NWO's socialism plan" is that the elite plan to stay in power while they are the number one reason for all this global mess...global socialism attained trough peace, understanding and sharing is evolution imo..

Edit : Sorry fold the bold fonts, no idea how to change it.

Originally posted by Shirak
Someone should carve this in stone and hide it in a cave somewhere lest our generations to come forget what happened or lose the ability to find out.

I don't think that would help, Shirak. Look at very recent history stuff that happened just 50 or so years ago are being repeated yet again! It seems when it comes to rational thinking that is one thing humans don't have!!
We have history books that show dumb stuff that happened yet for some reason people seem to think 'this time the outcome will be different!'

reply to post by doug r


Replying to ensure I keep this thread. Sucscribe has let me down to many times.

Reading later.

Originally posted by madenusa
...The war with Iran has to do with gold, its use as currency and its exposure of the central banking cartel’s lack of gold which defines a fiat currency’s worth...

You're mistaken. A fiat currency has absoultely nothing to do with gold or any other commodity for that matter. It is basically the opposite of an 'asset-backed' currency. Instead, a fiat currency get's its 'value' based upon the government's regultion of the currency. Essentially a government says, 'this is what our curency is worth'.

Sorry.

Originally posted by theMediator

Originally posted by SimonPeter

You sound like the NWO poster boy .

There's nothing wrong with pointing that capitalism is wrong and that socialism is a fairer economic system for the majority. Theoretically, I believe this is true.
Our rigged capitalism could never ever bring world peace and happiness. does everyone finish happy after a game of monopoly? Hell no, usually everyone is pissed except the winner.
Capitalism does have it's merits but it's too far now, for the last 30-40 years about, we have reached the end of the positive aspects of capitalism to bring happiness, intelligence, knowledge and peace to our civilization.

The wrong thing about the "NWO's socialism plan" is that the elite plan to stay in power while they are the number one reason for all this global mess...global socialism attained trough peace, understanding and sharing is evolution imo..

All kinds of political/economic systems can be made to look good on paper. But as soon as CORRUPT INDIVIDUALS work there way into pivotal positions in ANY system, failure of that system becomes a possibility.
So far, throughout history, nearly every society has run into that problem.and failed because of it.
This is mainly because those who first institute a system fail to completely safeguard against it.
Proper safeguarding may be possible, in which case many different systems are likely equally viable.
So there needn't be a single, global system.

Within any system there can never be complete, 100% equality between all of the necessary divisions of implementation. To maintain orderly function there necessarily has to be positions that come with power to wield authority over criminal, disruptively antisocial, truly subversive or "insane" behavior. And then there needs to be a mechanism to wield authority over those positions and so on.

The problem always come down to accountability and transparency.
When a system has holes in accountability and transparency there will be opportunities for corruption and failure.

So, the first order of business in the implementation of a system has to be ensuring that every action taken...every day...every hour...every minute if deemed necessary of ANYONE who is in a position of authority must be accounted for and made completely available to EVERYBODY.
It should be understood that any person willing to fill positions of authority must also be willing to do so in the complete open. And compensation for their service should be commensurate with this sacrifice of privacy.
Call it a Transparentocracy.
Instead of the government turning surveillance on the populace, the populace must have complete surveillance on the government.
And in the case of a system that incorporates profit motive in its economic framework (which leads to a ladder of greater and greater financial authority to those who perform best) the level of transparency should increase with each step up the ladder. You want to be rich? You have to lead a more transparent life. The question "if you have nothing to hide then you should have no problem being surveilled...right?" is often asked of the populace by the authorities today. It should be asked OF the authorities BY the populace.
When I use the words "position of authority" I am not applying it in punitive sense. I mean it as any position in which one is responsible to AUTHORIZE an action taken by the system or is beyond a certain threshold of economic activity that affects more than a person's private life. The threshold could be any position with the authority to hire or fire more than 10 people, or the authority to decide on pay scales within a company...etc.
A "Transparentocracy" therefore would not be controlling the decisions (whereas socialism and communism DOES) but it would ensure that these decisions are made completely openly by people who have demonstrated (by their level of willingness to lead ever increasingly transparent lives) their honesty and sincerity.
THESE people would very naturally become role models and be upheld as good citizens instead of what we see today where the corrupt rich control the media and use it to falsely portray themselves as "the cream of the crop" to be almost worshipped. (This actually started during the Great Depression when nearly every movie made revolved around characters who lived obscenely opulently and were always shown to be "pillars of society" when nothing could have been further from the truth)

Schooling would also play an important part by adopting teaching approaches that foster openness and participation.

It shouldn't take a revolution to start a "Transparentocracy". Right now it could start within our own system in the US using legal mechanisms already in place.
What IS needed would be to make this idea part of public discourse.
Now that we have the interwebs...it shouldn't really be that difficult to spread.

We are still governed, and" farmed" by the descendants of the feudal nobility.
The Rothschilds took over the british economy at the end of the Napoleonic wars.....
The economy of Britain has een owned ever since by a square mile of the City of London, that . like the Vatican, is neither owned by britain or the city, but is an entity of its own.....
This is the corporation which calls itself the "Crown" but is not royal.

Originally posted by stirling
We are still governed, and" farmed" by the descendants of the feudal nobility.
The Rothschilds took over the british economy at the end of the Napoleonic wars.....
The economy of Britain has een owned ever since by a square mile of the City of London, that . like the Vatican, is neither owned by britain or the city, but is an entity of its own.....
This is the corporation which calls itself the "Crown" but is not royal.

This can be corrected.