Tagged: commodity, commodity currency, economic, economy, fiat, fiat currency, fiat money, gold, gold standard, Government, governments, oil
This topic contains 285 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by 
LEO THE WISE 1 year, 8 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
=I mentioned Judaism, primarily because Hitler associated the Jews with internationalism and banking. Interestingly, I haven’t seen that on these forums — usually these ‘banking conspiracy’ theories involve ‘Jewish Bankers’ & anti-semitism, in my experience.
I’ve also worked with and known radical right-wing Christians — people who would sympathize with Randy Weaver (of Ruby Ridge fame) but who would never acknowledge his ‘Just say no to ZOG’ T-Shirt (Zionist Organized Government/Christian Identity movement), and I’ve known those involved in unorganized militias. As for myself, I am definitely not anti-semitic. Indeed, historically, the reason Jews concentrated in banking is they were prohibited from many professions AND in medieval times, charging interest was forbidden in Christendom as it was deemed usury, which at that time, was interpreted as ‘any interest’ vs ‘exorbitant interest’ as it means in modern language. So that left it to the Jews. Along with a handful of other professions they were permitted to engage in. The U.S. was also culpable in the holocaust for not allowing in immigrants who faced likely death.
As for ideologies starting with an outcome and deriving reasons, I’m not sure I’d agree. Extreme ideologies at both ends of the spectrum are based on first principles — e.g. in communism, it is elimination of the class structure. In libertarianism, it’s extreme personal and economic freedom. And their views on specific issues, are based on those principles in a reasonably consistent fashion. Now, real-world implementations didn’t necessarily follow the ideologies… Deng lived like a King.
In contrast, for mainstream parties, it’s more appeasing interest groups as you say. For instance, Republicans believe in unobtrusive government… unless you want to smoke weed or see a prostitute. To Republicans, Big Government is evil; unless it’s for defense contractors, wars, or agricultural subsidies to Red states, then it’s good. Expanding Medicare and Medicaid drug benefit was good (Republicans did it); but Obamacare is bad… Rather inconsistent, eh?
Democrats talk up equality and ending racism, but want to institute quotas and special treatment for minorities & promote equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity. And so, not very consistent.
The death camps killed gypsies, communists, socialists, homosexuals, poles, etc — but the Jews exerted more influence in the telling of their story, partially because a significant fraction of world jewry was exterminated.
I disagree it was based upon Malthus; rather it was based upon these groups posing a THREAT to Hitler, in that specific case. With a mix of eugenics (kill mentally ill & handicapped). After all, there was no depopulation in the US or Canada.
To me, Statism isn’t a religion, it’s a political philosophy; there is no deity or supernatural beliefs.
=I mentioned Judaism, primarily because Hitler associated the Jews with internationalism and banking. Interestingly, I haven’t seen that on these forums — usually these ‘banking conspiracy’ theories involve ‘Jewish Bankers’ & anti-semitism, in my experience.
I disagree it was based upon Malthus; rather it was based upon these groups posing a THREAT to Hitler, in that specific case. With a mix of eugenics (kill mentally ill & handicapped). After all, there was no depopulation in the US or Canada.
To me, Statism isn’t a religion, it’s a political philosophy; there is no deity or supernatural beliefs.
Of course Hitler associated Jews with the international banking system, but the fact is that in the end it was just an excuse to manipulate people using the basal reaction of hatred to quash any empathy for the victims of the depopulation, and it was FINANCED BY THE BANKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS. The depopulation happened EVERYWHERE, not just in Hitler’s holocaust. There was Mao, Stalin, Mengistu, Holodomor, Kamikaze, etc. You cannot *disagree* that it was based on Malthus, because truth isn’t a matter of opinion. Truth is OBJECTIVE and is oblivious to both your opinion and existence. The evidence is irrefutable. Hitler had an entire section of “Mein Kampf” dedicated to overpopulation and talked about it extensively. It doesn’t matter if TO YOU that statism isn’t a religion, because I’ll say it once again, the truth is objective. Satanism is a religion but they do not worship Satan. Satanists are really just Social Darwinists with psychopath philosophies. Ever read the satanic bible? Government only exists because people *believe* in the legitimacy of it, despite the fact that government regularly breaks the laws and violates the individual rights of people and the constitution on a regular basis, both in public and in private. There is no rule of law, there is only the law of the jungle. The color of law. That which cannot be accomplished by legal means, is accomplished by illegal means behind the veil of secrecy. Police break the law every day, and aren’t even punished when caught on camera. This is an irrefutable fact and the very existence of espionage is proof of it, because the primary functions of espionage are everything that go against the constitution: assassination, torture, arson , sabotage, blackmail, burglary, breaking and entering, etc. There are so many laws, and they are SO convoluted, that likely people are breaking laws every day without realizing it. Since there are so many, it’s even impossible for lawyers to know them all. Therefore, in the end, the public is left to simply *trust* the ruling class that a law actually existed prior to a court case. It’s entirely based on faith, and only the ruling class is allowed to interpret it and they do so based on whatever is in their best interest at the time. There is no real legitimacy to any of it, and never was. Authority *is* slavery.
In this video, Webster Tarpley makes reference to John P. Holdren’s book, which STILL TO THIS DAY perpetuates Malthusian thinking, and proposes extreme positive checks, mass murder, and even forced sterilization for depopulation. He mentions the EXACT f~~~ing page numbers of the book where it’s said. You cannot refute the truth.
I’m familiar with Ecoscience and Holdren. And the Simon-Ehrlich bet. While I’m not a fan of Holdren or Ehrlich, the basic tenets make sense: If population increases indefinitely, without advances in technology to keep up (agricultural productivity per acre, etc), it will not be possible to feed the population and standards of living would decline. We don’t know yet if technology will win out forever, or how long. It seems, however, that as populations become richer, they have fewer offspring. The models of the 1960’s and 1970’s, did not account for this. So it is possible there will be a population stabilization.
I don’t think there should be a ‘science czar’ or any ‘czars’, appointed or otherwise, in a representative democracy.
That said, the reasons women are having fewer children are many — later marriages, better birth control, and changing social attitudes about having children, among others — Americans are childless by choice, not childless because of a government program.
Indeed, government policy is to give income tax deductions for children, free public education for children, and many other incentives. Ponzi scheme such as social security depend upon it.
I’m not denying there are neo-Malthusians. Only a few decades ago, Ehrlich wrote ‘The Population Bomb’, which sold 2 million copies and influenced public policy for decades. He was one of the co-authors of ‘ecoscience’.
As stated previously, the ‘depopulation’ didn’t happen everywhere; in North America nobody was being rounded up and killed. We rounded up the Japanese Americans, but they weren’t killed.
As for Mein Kampf, sure, Hitler wrote that overpopulation was the reason Germany must invade her neighbors. But, even at that time, countries had higher population densities than Germany (e.g. Japan). It was just another excuse for war. Hitler also said many negative things about interest in Mein Kampf, but all those concepts (debt slavery must end), weren’t followed through in his Reich. But they were popular with the people!
Of course Hitler associated Jews with the international banking system, but the fact is that in the end it was just an excuse to manipulate people using the basal reaction of hatred to quash any empathy for the victims of the depopulation, and it was FINANCED BY THE BANKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS. The depopulation happened EVERYWHERE, not just in Hitler’s holocaust. There was Mao, Stalin, Mengistu, Holodomor, Kamikaze, etc. You cannot *disagree* that it was based on Malthus, because truth isn’t a matter of opinion.
Much of it was financed on Mefo bills — massive deficit spending — a bubble economy — though industrialists and the private sector contributed.
As for Stalin’s engineered famines, the objective wasn’t to curb population for a sustainable planet, but to destroy his enemies, collectivize agriculture, and increase his power. I objected to the qualification ‘everywhere’ in the previous post — e.g. North America.
In Hitler’s case, overpopulation was a ruse to convince people to invade Germany’s neighbors. There was never any intention to limit German birth rates — in fact, they were encouraged to marry, have children, and given money to do so, to outnumber all the ‘subhuman’ Slavs. All excuses to invade the neighbors and plunder the wealth.
Certainly governments breaks laws, changes laws, and act capriciously. And there aren’t enough police and army to keep governments afloat at all times — otherwise, revolutions wouldn’t succeed. If people don’t voluntarily adhere to norms of conduct, society collapses.
Survivor writes: And those changing American attitudes change due to deliberate campaigns by population control freaks. Doy. Get a life, Frank. You’re so tedious.
But then there are also campaigns by Christians to be fruitful and multiply, to have a ‘quiver’. However, secular society seems to be prevailing.
Survivor writes: As people become more materialistic, they have less kids, because stuff becomes more important.
BINGO! That, not people reading the 1,000+ pages of ‘ecoscience’, is the reason for reduced total fertility rates in the rich/developed world; people are more interested in doing what they want, then raising children. And there is no longer a social stigma for not having children as there was in the past. As less-developed countries become wealthier, they are exhibiting the same trend.
Hitler didn’t do it, but ending debt slavery is still a good idea. And of course it’s popular with people, because people are not stupid, contrary to your elitist paradigm.
I agree ending debt slavery is good, but it’s a ‘prison’ we each have to will ourselves out of. Blaming banks for issuing us credit cards is akin to blaming tobacco companies when we smoke a pack a day and get lung cancer.
In most cases, we put ourselves into debt slavery by not saving enough. Though I’ve known exceptions, such as people who had medical bankruptcies.
So is the people’s fault when the government spends like a drunken sailor with fiat dollars and puts the debt on the citizens? Is that our fault? Of course cuz democracy. You’re a s~~~ty propagandist, frank. But I bet you think you’re slick.
It’s our fault collectively, in who we choose as our leaders. The only way out is education — change the way people vote and/or how people’s vote is counted (alternative voting schemes that give minorities like us a voice vs ‘first past the post’ or ‘winner takes all’ schemes favoring two party duopoly) — or a revolution.
As for the rest of it, I concur utterly and completely — government spends like a drunken sailor, with fiat dollars, and puts the debt on citizens, though I’d add, future generations.
Which do you think has more influence, frank, Christians, or the mass media in general?
Can you answer one question simply withou paragraphs of unrelated bulls~~~?As I said, society is ever more secular, so obviously, the secular. Fundamentalist Christians that I know, ignore the mass media, and don’t watch TV to any significant extent. So it doesn’t seem to have much influence on them. My point was, we choose how to live; whether to be debt slaves, conformists, non-conformists, etc.
No Frank, we do not choose our leaders. I can’t believe after all that you know, that you actually believe that voting has any legitimacy. It should be abundantly apparent that almost no person becomes president without the approval of the council on foreign relations. It should also become abundantly evident that there are financial constraints to even *running* for president. No one can even afford to run for president without “donations” from the oligarchy. If a working class person decides to run for president, just exactly how far do you think he will make it? Most voters wouldn’t even be aware that the person exists, *especially* if he wasn’t a Republican or Democrat nominee. Are you really serious? You *really* believe that voting matters? If it mattered, they wouldn’t allow us to do it. That’s exactly why they don’t allow us to vote on the *actual* legislation, or abolishment thereof. The people have no say, and if they try to have one they are met with violence.
With great power comes great responsibility. The people have no power, therefore we are not responsible. In no way am I culpable or complicit in the fall of this empire with draconian laws that were passed both without my knowledge, and without my consent before I even existed. The notion that the people have power is a facade…
As stated previously, the ‘depopulation’ didn’t happen everywhere; in North America nobody was being rounded up and killed. We rounded up the Japanese Americans, but they weren’t killed.
It most certainly did too. No Americans died in WWII? Really? If they didn’t return, the country was affected. It started in Pearl Harbor. Guess what else, we lost a lot in Vietnam too. There were more bombs dropped from that than all of WWII combined, as well. The depopulation of a country doesn’t have to happen within it’s borders. You can simply send people off to die.
Veniversum writes:
No Frank, we do not choose our leaders. I can’t believe after all that you know, that you actually believe that voting has any legitimacy.Having known two people who were elected and served on my local city council, I can say without reservation, we [voters] did choose them. In their case, it was a non-partisan election, so these individuals, neither Democrat nor Republican, could be elected.
That feat is certainly more challenging were you to run for Mayor, State legislator, State Senator, or Congressional office. At even the relatively low levels, it is necessary to align oneself with one of the two parties sufficiently to win the nomination. I guess that’s a strong argument for open primaries where the top, say, 5 vote-getters of any party, go on the ballot, but no more than one per party, say.
I’m not sure what you mean by leaders — i.e. if that includes our representatives — or if you just mean executive branch such as mayors, governors, President, etc.
It should be abundantly apparent that almost no person becomes president without the approval of the council on foreign relations.
One could also say no one becomes president without having white skin and being a man (before Obama). The last four presidents attended Ivy League schools. Does that mean a dark conspiracy, or just that powerful people network at these schools? In my mind, the CFR is just another entity like the parties, not a dark conspiracy.
It should also become abundantly evident that there are financial constraints to even *running* for president. No one can even afford to run for president without “donations” from the oligarchy. If a working class person decides to run for president, just exactly how far do you think he will make it?
A campaign for even a congressional seat typically costs $1.6 million. Much of this is raised from special interest groups. Winning elections without being nominated by one of the two parties, at even State-level offices or mayors of large cities, is typically very difficult.
Most voters wouldn’t even be aware that the person exists, *especially* if he wasn’t a Republican or Democrat nominee. Are you really serious? You *really* believe that voting matters? If it mattered, they wouldn’t allow us to do it. That’s exactly why they don’t allow us to vote on the *actual* legislation, or abolishment thereof. The people have no say, and if they try to have one they are met with violence.
Correct. Without petitioning, third party candidates names will not even appear on the ballot. For higher level offices, the number of signatures is significant. I have done petitioning when I was younger.
Yes, voting matters. Especially the issues and the local candidates. Having worked on campaigns to put issues on the ballot, I can say this. I would also argue that voting for 3rd party candidates matters — if enough people did so, ballot access laws would eventually change.
And the 3rd party candidates would have sufficient credibility to be included in the debates — e.g. Ross Perot had high enough vote totals, he was included.We are allowed to vote on issues directly, such as school taxes. I would prefer alternative voting schemes and encourage others to promote them — the ‘winner takes all’ system has not served us well. Historically, we ‘weren’t allowed’ to vote on individual bills, due to impracticality/cost of direct democracy. I agree with you on this point; one should be allowed to vote for whichever candidate they want for a legislative body, and the candidates should then receive a corresponding fraction of the vote, to their vote totals. So if the socialist gets 2%, he votes on every bill and his vote gets multiplied by 0.02; if the Democrat gets 40% his vote gets multiplied by 0.40, and so on. Or other similar schemes. I have no problem in principle with people directly voting on bills electronically, either.
My point was, we choose how to live; whether to be debt slaves, conformists, non-conformists, etc.
Ok I choose to live in a moneyless society where I get my own piece of land with no taxes and must survive on what I produce for myself.
Is that possible?
Precisely. We are not “authorized” to be independent.
Anonymous29They know what they are incentivizing; the creation of more serfs. “We need more serfs, create more poverty, or import impoverished people. Yes yes, more immigrants please.”
Perfectly said and feminism was a god send to them and a perfect tool to fracture the social structure ie: family unit, men against women etc etc.
Survivor writes: Ok I choose to live in a moneyless society where I get my own piece of land with no taxes and must survive on what I produce for myself.
Is that possible?
Who do you ‘get’ your land from? Who decides whether you or someone else gets the most desirable land?
Your freedom has limits in countries like the US. You will pay a modest amount of property taxes in a rural area for such a subsistence lifestyle under the current system. If you really wanted to pursue this, moving to Latina America, to a country like El Salvador or Mexico, some parts of which have almost no property taxes, would be even lower cost. You would still have to purchase your land with money.
While I object to the MAGNITUDE of the Protection Money I pay to the State, I don’t object to paying some. What will you do when you get sick? You have no money. You will need the roads, to get to a hospital, where you will receive care on somebody else’s dime.
What if you have a dispute with your neighbor? Who will pay for police and a justice system?
When I said we chose, we still choose within constraints. Most people accept my freedom ends when it infringes on yours — injuring you, stealing your property, etc. That said, nobody is forcing us to be debt slaves. I know people who make almost no money, and they are not debt slaves (i.e. they have no personal debt), because they live VERY modestly and are extremely careful with their money.
Survivor writes: Ok I choose to live in a moneyless society where I get my own piece of land with no taxes and must survive on what I produce for myself.
Is that possible?
Who do you ‘get’ your land from? Who decides whether you or someone else gets the most desirable land?
Your freedom has limits in countries like the US. You will pay a modest amount of property taxes in a rural area for such a subsistence lifestyle under the current system.
When I said we chose, we still choose within constraints. Most people accept my freedom ends when it infringes on yours — injuring you, stealing your property, etc. That said, nobody is forcing us to be debt slaves. I know people who make almost no money, and they are not debt slaves (i.e. they have no personal debt), because they live VERY modestly and are extremely careful with their money.
We should be able to simply homestead land that isn’t being used.. land that doesn’t have a business or a home on it. Why does the US government need 640 million acres of land, or ownership of 25% of all land in the US? In the CAFR video I posted earlier, a “representative” was telling people that the land “belongs to the people”. It clearly does not. If you “choose within constraints”, you are not choosing. If I give you the multiple choice of what you can eat for dinner tonight and decide your choices are: cow feces, pig feces, chicken feces, or cat feces, what happens when you don’t want any of that?? Now I create a rule where if you do not eat it, crazy ignorant religious zealots will kidnap you and put you in a cage, else beat and kill you on the spot. We *are* being forced to be debt slaves, because quite frankly the national debt is fiction. The reason that it is fiction is because printing money is not a loan. Therefore, printing money is not a debt. Taxes are an excuse to pay back a debt that doesn’t actually exist and has no legitimacy. This “debt” (fiction) is expected to be paid back by the citizens for money spent without their knowledge or consent, by government. Printing money causes inflation, which steals our purchasing power, in addition to the fact that the act of printing money, provides the printer with the option to confiscate labor from anyone without actually producing anything. This is precisely why counterfeiting is illegal in the first place. The dollar is backed by labor. Using coercion to require people to do labor is slavery. There is no way to sugar coat it. The printing of money is not a loan. The national debt is fiction.
The dollar is backed by labor. Using coercion to require people to do labor is slavery. There is no way to sugar coat it. The printing of money is not a loan. The national debt is fiction.
This, Gentlemen, is the truth of the matter.
We should be able to simply homestead land that isn’t being used.. land that doesn’t have a business or a home on it. Why does the US government need 640 million acres of land, or ownership of 25% of all land in the US? In the CAFR video I posted earlier, a “representative” was telling people that the land “belongs to the people”. It clearly does not. If you “choose within constraints”, you are not choosing. If I give you the multiple choice of what you can eat for dinner tonight and decide your choices are: cow feces, pig feces, chicken feces, or cat feces, what happens when you don’t want any of that?? Now I create a rule where if you do not eat it, crazy ignorant religious zealots will kidnap you and put you in a cage, else beat and kill you on the spot. We *are* being forced to be debt slaves, because quite frankly the national debt is fiction. The reason that it is fiction is because printing money is not a loan. Therefore, printing money is not a debt. Taxes are an excuse to pay back a debt that doesn’t actually exist and has no legitimacy. This “debt” (fiction) is expected to be paid back by the citizens for money spent without their knowledge or consent, by government. Printing money causes inflation, which steals our purchasing power, in addition to the fact that the act of printing money, provides the printer with the option to confiscate labor from anyone without actually producing anything. This is precisely why counterfeiting is illegal in the first place. The dollar is backed by labor. Using coercion to require people to do labor is slavery. There is no way to sugar coat it. The printing of money is not a loan. The national debt is fiction.
I agree with you about the Federal Government owning too much land out West.
I’d disagree about the federal government spending money without knowledge or consent; all the money is tabulated, other than the black budget, it’s easy to look up what is spent where.
As for consent, we voted ourselves into this mess. The only way out is voting our way out, revolution, or opting out for a better deal (leaving the country). I suppose working in the gray economy for cash or going off-grid are other options.
As for coercion, ALL government is inherently coercive. The only difference between them, is in degree. Having paid tens of thousands of dollars in taxes last year, I feel I’m qualified to speak to that point. A century ago, our government was much less coercive, but still it was coercive. I paid more in taxes last year, than I spent on all my living expenses. The only thing I spent more on was savings & investment.
You have never really answered what the alternative is; i.e. how to pay for police and fire services, whether a government that arrests me when I violate someone else’s rights is also coercive, who pays for the judicial system in this world, etc.
The national debt is definitely not fiction; as it rises, our credit-worthiness goes down. While we can inflate ourselves out of it, that will have dire consequences. The higher it goes, the more interest must be paid upon it. So it is not like personal debt, which we can’t inflate our way out of, I’d agree with only that. I’d also say some components are more like a time bomb (e.g. social security).
Counterfeiting is only illegal for individuals, not for the Fed, haha. I agree with that and get your point.
I would prefer Federal lands be sold to pay off debt, as opposed to being given away in a neo-homesteading. We conquered those Western lands fair and square from the Native Americans, after all.
You will always ‘choose within constraints’ whenever you have government. You’ll ‘choose within a lot fewer constraints’ with a government that spends 1% of GDP vs one that spends 40%, though.
We *are* being forced to be debt slaves, because quite frankly the national debt is fiction.
Excuse me, but debt is not a fiction at all.
DEBT CREATES MONEY.AND MONEY EQUALS DEBT 1 to 1. This is not an opinion you can look it up if you dont believe me. So therefore if money is real, then debt is real.The reason that it is fiction is because printing money is not a loan. Therefore, printing money is not a debt.
Again, debt creates money 1 to 1. If the sum of all national debt and private debt worldwide is lets say 250 billion dollars, then there are 250 billion dollars of money.
Taxes are an excuse to pay back a debt that doesn’t actually exist and has no legitimacy.
Taxes are a tool to extract a portion of the money that you have worked for and other people receive.
This “debt” (fiction) is expected to be paid back by the citizens for money spent without their knowledge or consent, by government.
The debt isnt expected to be paid back, because it cannot be paid back. The debt increases because of interest. If all debts were paid back, then the amount of remaining money will be 0.
The only way to “pay back” all debt is to eliminate all money there is.Printing money causes inflation, which steals our purchasing power, in addition to the fact that the act of printing money, provides the printer with the option to confiscate labor from anyone without actually producing anything.
No, when money is being created by debt, the interest that the bank wants for their clicks on the computer, isnt being created. Interest causes the money printing/inflation.
Money Printing is a redistribution of money and also the way to stretch the period of time a debt-based money system can work until it collapses.
For example you have accumulated 60000 dollars, now the American Fed or their european branch european central bank prints another 50 billion to the already existing 250 billion dollars in the world, then you will still have 60000 dollars, but its only worth as much as 50000 dollars were worth before they printed the new money, because prices will go up by the same rate.
Of course they dont print that much at once, Im only trying to keep it as simple as i can.Any questions?
%
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
