Is There A World Banking Conspiracy?

[desiresjab]

Is there a world banking conspiracy? If there is one, who is at the top of such a conspiracy?

[desiresjab]

The questions were too difficult.

Who would be behind a banking conspiracy? Ummm...bankers, eh?

When you control a country's money supply, you control that country, whoever rules, as the original banking Rothschild once said in slightly different words.

The Federal Reserve Bank is not a goverment institution, but named to be associated with the government by the unwary. They are a private consortium of banks under almost zero federal oversight or extensive auditing.

Beyond the fact that central banks love war and turmoil because they get to lend more of a country's own money to itself than at any other time, some billionaire bankers are dreamers, too. After so many decades on the peaks, they know what is best for everyone, for humanity and the globe itself. They form a vision. Not coincidentally, every step of this vision will further enrich them, but nonetheless it is a sincere vision. They know what is best, not just for starving negros in the bush but for middle class plebians of civilized countries everywhere, as well. They form a communal vision of a global future. Others of their dreamers' ilk and social class are easily persuaded to join the billionaire bankers' visionary club. Since the vision is so profitable, it must be right.

What the mega corporation wants is the entire world as its customer base. Behind that, yeah, there was some dreaming once upon a time. The globalization of political institutions now underway is a direct result of the vision of dreamers like Rockefeller and J. P Morgan becoming reality. How many are excited to have Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie still living their dreams through them and to be implementing the world order they set in motion for them?

Even Dante foresaw a time of world government. It probably has to come about in our history, if we last long enough. But do you want the world goverment and order of the Morgan's and Rockefeller's coming about? A world government has almost absolute power, and there is no other country to protest its treatment of you on your behalf or to run away to. People can never overthrow a world governemnet, so they have to be careful they get the right world governmet the first time.

Certain other politicians and thinkers have taken up the reins of driving this vehicle and delivering the new world order to the world.

Much of your perspective will come from how you feel about multi-culturalism and culturism in general.

I have a better world vision than the one our global masters are trying desperately to implement. Next time I will outline a superior world order.

[desiresjab]

So what could our billionaire bankers' visionary club really do? Controlling the world is hard, after all.

After controlling the money supply, which it does through central banking, politicians of proper mindset must be in place at all levels, to actually be in control, and you have to be in control of those politicians, or all you have is a freaking semi-honest system.

Those gentlemen were no dumb, meester. They saw the best way to acheive their ends was to train the politicians at their own think tank, and advertise them as graduates.

Of course The Council On Foreign Relations is not a government entity any more than the Federal reserve system is, even less so. Rich socipaths cannot be expected to wait out the political winds to carry out their ends. They needed to train all important or up and coming politicians in their vision, not just those of one party. That is why politicians as diverse in opinion as Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice are both graduates.

The next important task is to get those people into office where they can pull the puppet strings you have provided them. One of the easiest and cheapest places to use insider influence is in securing cabinet level positions. If you have your man in at least as high as a cabinet member, he can appoint those under him who will spread your infleuence. Thus, the cabinet and lower appointed postions in our government are stuffed full of graduates of this one think tank.

[desiresjab]

Sure there is a world banking conspiracy. The world is full of people who know what is exactly best for other people. Most new politicians do not run for office to enrich themselves, but because they are idealists. Every profession has its idealists, and why should banking be any different?

Rockefeller and Morgan had a vision. Is it reasonable to assume they didn't? The documents exist to show what that vision was. It involved a little more than trade routes, folks. When they have already bothered to spend the millions to get into office who they wanted, and gotten the appointments they wanted, they do not then fall asleep congratulating themselves, but go about instituting their vision.

We have a government that meddles constantly in the affairs of other nations because it takes that kind of governement to institute the vision of the men in control. Mind control and United Fruit Company go hand in hand. The masses do not complain when things are good for them and they have been convinced by propaganda that their government is out there vigilantly protecting their rights day and night. What is it really protecting?

Why would mega-bankers found an institute for foreign policy in the first place, we must ask ourselves? How does that help the billions of dollars to keep rolling in? Those billions rolling in is always the first part of their plans. To these fellows, no plan would be worth having that did not further enrich them. From their heights, they needn't even soil themselves in the daily arena of politics, which they can control from above. That is what the puppeticians they trained at their institute are for.

[desiresjab]

How big is this so-called conspiracy that I keep harping on about? It is so big that it usually does not even recognize itself, let alone bear recognition by common others.

No one is in a position to shape and inspire as many young minds as college professors and educators. The like minded from this field have to be fully indoctrinated at the institute too. Some will even teach special courses at the institute. Back home, from their positions they can spread the doctrines meshed with history and poilitics and philosophy to coming generations. No one at the institute presented them in whispers with a conspiracy, so they do not present any kind of conspiracy to their students. The mechanism is subtle.

Captains of industry take many of the courses. These same captains are scouted for presidential appointments as cabinet members and key lower level positions, like college footbal players are scouted for the pros. Top generals and admirals take courses at the institute, or teach them.

The basic three-way revolving door is some cycle of Government and industry and education. When one thinks of the number of underlings supplying support unknowingly to a master conspiracy, that number, though incalculable, is staggering as a thought. Mid level management of any multi-national corporation, graduate students entering the teaching profession, high military personnel, all have been indoctrinated by their superiors. Now, as they go about their business, they may not recognize each other as particiapants in the same broad conspiracy.

Why a conspiracy at all? What is the point? The answer lies in Darwinistic capitalism, not humanism. Too many peoples in the world are still not good, stable customers. This was so in the time of the founding fathers (of CFR), and it is still true today. Think of the billions of poor folk that still do not have a MasterCharge card. Who knows just how much force it will require to get everyone behaving like good customers, what kind of measures and policies wil have to be put in place, which revolutions will have to be quashed or assisted? They will work on it as it comes. Most of us will not even know we are working on it with them.

[YesNo]

If there are any conspiracies they are subject to social mood or herding that controls them, not deterministically, but like a disposition to prefer to behave one way rather than another. Once social mood becomes negative, assuming a market crash, the central banks will likely be blamed for everything and talk of conspiracies might become very popular, but that, too, would be part of social mood.

Conspiracies have individuals who are working together to manipulate other individuals. Herds are more like groups which contain what some see as individuals.

[prendrelemick]

Every thing you say is true (desiresjab) it is an unfair system that works for just enough people to be sustainable and self sustaining. Where I disagree is with the overall conspiracy theory - it doesn't need one. There is no one "in charge" but the system itself. Bankers, financiers, plutocrats etc. may think they are, and indeed can conspire together, but even the biggest and most powerful of them are just replacable parts. If Rockerfeller and Morgan had both been run over by a bus, would anything be different now? The system is too robust because it has evolved, (is evolving) rather than been created. It fulfills essential aspects of human nature, (greed and one-upmanship). Everyone in the system is working for themselves.

One final and very depressing thought: What's the alternative? (and let's not go for the Aleppo option).

[Danik 2016]

We are having a modest bank conspiracy in my countyr right now. The banks are striking for wages improvement.

As for the more general matter, I think the bank problem is a part of a greater problem, the universal economic system. It should changed and adjusted to serve peoples needs, not peoples need be adjusted to serve the economical system. If it ever worked at all it doesn´t do so any more.

[desiresjab]

Every thing you say is true (desiresjab) it is an unfair system that works for just enough people to be sustainable and self sustaining. Where I disagree is with the overall conspiracy theory - it doesn't need one. There is no one "in charge" but the system itself. Bankers, financiers, plutocrats etc. may think they are, and indeed can conspire together, but even the biggest and most powerful of them are just replacable parts. If Rockerfeller and Morgan had both been run over by a bus, would anything be different now? The system is too robust because it has evolved, (is evolving) rather than been created. It fulfills essential aspects of human nature, (greed and one-upmanship). Everyone in the system is working for themselves.

One final and very depressing thought: What's the alternative? (and let's not go for the Aleppo option).

This is a very good post. Yes, the system is quite robust. After a while complex operations take on a life of their own and do not particularly need anyone in charge. Even great manipulators cannot control every event that will spill from their actions. None of them are working on a conspiracy as they go about their business, but doing what has to be done.

Now a man like Morgan would conspire and know he was doing it. Not a lot of moral character in old J.P. What was right for him was right for the world. Those of his class can always use the excuse that their own fortunes are tied intimately to the fates of thousands of middle class employees, and thereby to the fate of the whole country. Before others can do well, they themselves have to be doing well. A very convenient and easy rationalization with elements of truth in it.

[Danik 2016]

Every thing you say is true (desiresjab) it is an unfair system that works for just enough people to be sustainable and self sustaining. Where I disagree is with the overall conspiracy theory - it doesn't need one. There is no one "in charge" but the system itself. Bankers, financiers, plutocrats etc. may think they are, and indeed can conspire together, but even the biggest and most powerful of them are just replacable parts. If Rockerfeller and Morgan had both been run over by a bus, would anything be different now? The system is too robust because it has evolved, (is evolving) rather than been created. It fulfills essential aspects of human nature, (greed and one-upmanship). Everyone in the system is working for themselves.

One final and very depressing thought: What's the alternative? (and let's not go for the Aleppo option).
Was is the Aleppo option?

[Pompey Bum]

Or as Gary Johnson put it: "What is Aleppo?"

[prendrelemick]

The kind of revolution that ends up killing everyone and destroying everything. Like Aleppo today.

Perhaps The Bitcoin shows what could be done - a world wide democratic medium of exchange as flexible and convienient as official money, but neither created or controlled by a central authority. I thought it interesting how it was attacked/discredited by Government agencies when it began to catch on.

[Danik 2016]

Thanks, prendre. As the world is today it is difficult to imagine money/wealth dissociated of power.

[YesNo]

I don't think bitcoin is backed by anything, but it is an alternative to whatever fiat currency one is currently using. There is something called bitgold (GoldMoney site) that backs deposits with precious metals and can convert deposits into other currencies when withdrawn. I don't have an account with them nor do I have any bitcoins, so I don't have any experience with how it all works. Also, I think precious metals will drop in price, so why buy them now?

[Danik 2016]

You are right, Yes/No, whatever species of money they create, must be backed by some real worth in the Nacional Treasure. If that wasn´t so, everyone would be able to fabricate money.

[prendrelemick]

The days when "money" was based on something tangible are long gone anyway.


My son has some bitcoin , he told me something of them today.

They were earned (or created) in the first place by rewards for solving problems - or "mining" for answers rather than gold. The problems are getting more and more difficult so that now only one or two a year are found, and there will never be more than about 20 million of them in circulation. Compare that with banks that create money from nothing. But that's not the point.

They can be easily traded for a bank's version of money. (The son bought his within 5 mins of downloading an ap) Current rate aprox £450 per coin. Unlike "bank money" the price or supply cannot be politically manipulated, (remember "quantitive easing") their worth is set by supply and demand. You can buy or sell goods and services with them with a RFID contactless app on your phone, just the same as bank money, but they have no physical form - that's not the point either.

Here's the point, they are run and administered by a blockchain rather than a bank. In the bitcoin context, a blockchain is a digital ledger that records every bitcoin transaction that has ever occurred. It is protected by cryptography so powerful that breaking it is typically dismissed as "impossible". More importantly, the blockchain resides across a network of computers, (of all the users). Whenever new transactions occur, the blockchain is authenticated across this distributed network, before the transaction can be included as the next block on the chain. (Thankyou Wikipedia )

This means it is a system outside Bank and Government control and National Boundries. There are no costs or commisions for transactions, no profits to shareholders etc... And they can't just fabricate money because there is no 'They'- there is no one in charge.

There are other virtual currencies too.

Now, I only found all this out today and have not thought about the implications. But if someone offered me a bitcoin for a weeks work I think I would accept.

[YesNo]

The bitcoin seems similar to having a rare coin except:

(1) It is more or less liquid depending on the demand in the virtual community.
(2) It has no transaction costs.
(3) It has no storage costs.

I assume you would have to compute capital gains and losses should the value change from the time of purchase to the time of sale.

People who like having a real silver or gold coin in their hands would not likely want something like this. They would not trust the liquidity and in exchange take on transaction and storage costs for the real coin. I assume they would have to pay capital gains taxes as well if they have any capital gains but not if the coin is legal tender and they want to exchange it for face value.

The bitgold account tries to offer the best of both worlds. There is real gold underlying the account, but it is still electronic and that gold is not in the person's hand. But transactions are easier.

As I mentioned, I don't have any of these figuring the price of precious metals is still too high. At the moment having the fiat currency (dollars, pounds, euros, whatever) is the easiest way to handle transactions assuming the currency does not inflate rapidly. I guess that inflation risk is why people diversify into a precious metal or bitcoin currency.

[Danik 2016]

The days when "money" was based on something tangible are long gone anyway.


My son has some bitcoin , he told me something of them today.

They were earned (or created) in the first place by rewards for solving problems - or "mining" for answers rather than gold. The problems are getting more and more difficult so that now only one or two a year are found, and there will never be more than about 20 million of them in circulation. Compare that with banks that create money from nothing. But that's not the point.

They can be easily traded for a bank's version of money. (The son bought his within 5 mins of downloading an ap) Current rate aprox £450 per coin. Unlike "bank money" the price or supply cannot be politically manipulated, (remember "quantitive easing") their worth is set by supply and demand. You can buy or sell goods and services with them with a RFID contactless app on your phone, just the same as bank money, but they have no physical form - that's not the point either.

Here's the point, they are run and administered by a blockchain rather than a bank. In the bitcoin context, a blockchain is a digital ledger that records every bitcoin transaction that has ever occurred. It is protected by cryptography so powerful that breaking it is typically dismissed as "impossible". More importantly, the blockchain resides across a network of computers, (of all the users). Whenever new transactions occur, the blockchain is authenticated across this distributed network, before the transaction can be included as the next block on the chain. (Thankyou Wikipedia )

This means it is a system outside Bank and Government control and National Boundries. There are no costs or commisions for transactions, no profits to shareholders etc... And they can't just fabricate money because there is no 'They'- there is no one in charge.

There are other virtual currencies too.

Now, I only found all this out today and have not thought about the implications. But if someone offered me a bitcoin for a weeks work I think I would accept.
For me that is absolutely amazing. A decentralized money system that is not linked neither to any banks nor to any countries! Well, as turned to Google to learn more I saw several propagandas o my Brazilian page offering bitcoins for sale. It seems that we are not having pure bitcoin yet at least. The two systems are mixing.

[prendrelemick]

I wonder, is it legal tender? it's the same as having a bag of beans to trade for a lawnmower - does tax come into that? If any profit is in bitcoin is it profit? What you (yes/no) say about capital gains and legal tender is interesting. Can you have capital gains on something that is intangible? What if you get them as a wage and use them to buy goods rather than cash them in? (the bag of beans analogy again) Would you even need to declare them to the taxman? I used to repair up my neighbours walls, and he would transport my sheep to market - all undeclared -but I'm rambling now!

Danik: The only way to get them now is to buy them with bank money or trade them for something because the 'problem mine' is worked out.
My son did say there are agencies (would be JP Morgans) trying to monetize the system by offering to hold and trade them for a fee for clients. (selling shovels to gold miners) He also said that these are regularly attacked and hacked by anarchic hackers who want to keep big buisness out. He got his through an auction, with no fees or commission. Another thing he said, is each coin or part coin is individually recognisable by the system - making theft or fraud difficult.

I should add all my 'knowledge' comes from a 5 minute chat with The Son, nothing deeper than that

[YesNo]

Regarding capital gains tax, I don't think barter arrangements have to worry about capital gains tax because no transaction measured in a fiat currency was involved. Also one can get around capital gains by using cash (bills, coins) and not report the transaction. There might be a legal issue with not reporting that transaction. But if you bought something with cash and the transaction was recorded, the government probably knows about the transaction or can find out. Then if you sell what you bought the government would know that as well and the difference would be liable to capital gains (or losses). The losses are important because they might reduce your other taxes so this is not all a bad system considering that you have to pay taxes.

You could have capital gains on something that is intangible such as a stock or option transaction through a broker.

I missed an item in my list. Besides (1) liquidity, (2) transaction costs and (3) storage costs, there is also "counter-party risk" with using a bitcoin. You mentioned one such risk with those hackers. You are now dependent on a counter-party to keep the record of the bit coin you own safe. That is another reason why some people want real coins made out of real metal in their real hands. No counter-party risk. They will take care of the risk from thieves by purchasing real safes and real guns.

I'm not recommending any of this. It seems that gold, silver and bitcoins are all overpriced. At least with gold and silver even if they drop through some deflationary pressures (that is, everything drops in value) they will still retain some value.

[Danik 2016]

......

[Danik 2016]

I can´t answer you on the tax part prendre, my knowledge of bitcoin been so recent. All I know is that the propaganda is officially in the net and that that bitcoins are pretty expensive.
Anyway if one going to sell or buy them for the usual money i don´t see any advantage in them.
As for personal work favour exchanges, seems ok but I wouldn´t publish them anywhere. ;)

I found this forum on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/

[prendrelemick]

I reckon they make no sense as a commodity or investment but only as a useable currency. And I'm not sure they are that yet.

[YesNo]

They would have to be a form of legal tender to be a currency. A legal tender would be something one could use to remove a debt or obligation that the other person has to accept at a certain value. The bitcoin, or bitgold, would probably have to be sold first to get a legal currency.

I think the main problem is debt. If we have inflation, then the debt gets removed by less expensive dollars or pounds. If salaries increase then for the same amount of work we get more currency and can more easily pay off the debt.

But if we have deflation then everything, including salaries, drops in value except for the debt. That debt is still payable in dollars or pounds or euros even though the value of those currencies are deflated, that is, they are harder to get. Rather than having gold or bitcoins, I would prefer being out of debt and not offering any credit. Of course bankruptcy is an option in a severe deflation. That is the risk the creditor takes unless the government bails out the creditor by bailing out the debtor and raising taxes. That's probably too simplistic, but it is what popped into my head at the moment.

Edit: This just occurred to me. Sometimes debt is denominated in US dollars, which means it has to be paid back in dollars not some other currency, but the debtor gets income in euros. If the value of the euro drops in terms of the dollar, then the debtor has to earn more euros to pay off the dollar denominated debt.

[prendrelemick]

The legal status of a non legal tender an interesting point you raise. If you paid a bill in Bitcoin (agreeing beforehand with your supplier) Could he later claim the account is still unpaid because bitcoin is not legal tender? Money is about confidence in the end.

This goes back to the original poster's theme on bank conspiracies, and what alternatives are there. I can see the blockchain regulated financial system working only if it were to reach a critical mass of users. But then what about credit and debt and enforcement of financial agreements? They have to be backed by Law.

In the past banks worked because people and governments had confidence and trust in them. Now they work because people and governments are afraid of them - or a world without them.

[YesNo]

When my dad died he had accounts at many different banks not because there was a lot of money involved, but he did not trust any one bank to survive and he didn't trust the government insurance against bank failure. He remembered the 1929 depression.

I have heard of people preferring to put money in safes because savings accounts at banks offer little interest and they don't trust the savings in a bank that could fail. In the US there's a federal insurance (FDIC) to support confidence in banks that banks pay to protect depositors, but the depositor is making a loan to the bank when they put money in a savings account and for that they collect some interest (and maybe negative interest in some cases, or so I've heard, today). If all banks failed, I don't know if that federal insurance would be able to cover the losses. It should work for a smaller number of failures.

As far as bank conspiracies go, I wonder what banks are conspiring to do?

[Vota]

A world government leads to the collapse of diversity, and completely removes the checks and balances in place that keep the human race relatively free. Considering the population disparity between different races, as well as birth rates, and the open borders policies and thinking of multiculturalists, it's not unreasonable to say that sometime in the near future, people classified as white or western European will die out, which is basically a slow form of cultural and racial genocide. This isn't conspiracy theory. Look at the statistics. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Globalization is basically a post-modern revolt and full on assault on western culture. It isn't a good thing. The propaganda about everyone getting along and having no borders, and being under the rule of a benevolent World Government is a pipe dream.

Each country should have the right to protect its border, protect its culture, and protect its racial identity - which is almost always tied to its culture.

Western Europe is already facing the massive repercussions of allowing millions of migrant into their countries, many of whom come from a religious background that is inherently intolerant of other beliefs. That's a really bad idea, and the politically correct politicians are doing everything in their power to block the truth from being made public about the horrible problems this is creating - because that would mean admitting that they are and were wrong about multiculturalism.

I'm all for the sharing of ideas, fair and open trade between countries, travel between countries, and legal immigration, but each country should have the right to protect its culture and people from the veiled intolerance of multiculturalism.

[YesNo]

It does seem that globalization is a form of intolerance against those who do not want to blend in to globalist uniformity. I don't know how the banks are involved in this. It looks like the increase in debt may bring down the globalist structures with the banks failing when the debt cannot be repaid.

[Press]

Unfortunately, the New World Order is closing in on their one world government stranglehold. Greedy bankers only see one color, green, and the more the merrier, especially if they remain atop the pyramid apex above the other 99%.

[desiresjab]

A world government leads to the collapse of diversity, and completely removes the checks and balances in place that keep the human race relatively free. Considering the population disparity between different races, as well as birth rates, and the open borders policies and thinking of multiculturalists, it's not unreasonable to say that sometime in the near future, people classified as white or western European will die out, which is basically a slow form of cultural and racial genocide. This isn't conspiracy theory. Look at the statistics. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Globalization is basically a post-modern revolt and full on assault on western culture. It isn't a good thing. The propaganda about everyone getting along and having no borders, and being under the rule of a benevolent World Government is a pipe dream.

Each country should have the right to protect its border, protect its culture, and protect its racial identity - which is almost always tied to its culture.

Western Europe is already facing the massive repercussions of allowing millions of migrant into their countries, many of whom come from a religious background that is inherently intolerant of other beliefs. That's a really bad idea, and the politically correct politicians are doing everything in their power to block the truth from being made public about the horrible problems this is creating - because that would mean admitting that they are and were wrong about multiculturalism.

I'm all for the sharing of ideas, fair and open trade between countries, travel between countries, and legal immigration, but each country should have the right to protect its culture and people from the veiled intolerance of multiculturalism.

I am in basic agreement with your post. The Quigley-ites have won, however. They already did it. They already brought 60,000,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the last 52 years. Somebody did. You see, it's done. I hate to say it. What we have now is a sore belly. The food has been swallowed. There was even more at work behind these actions than a desire for votes from each administration which brought them ashore wholesale. A deeper philosophy which has turned rotten with intolerance for that which is home cultural rather than multi-cultural. All groups of whites protesting for the preservation of or acknowledgement of whites to civiliztion will be labled racist. Groups of other colors doing the same thing will be hailed as pioneers of civil rights.

There will be no more whites, and that is one of the long term goals of the so-called multi-culturalists. I say, let each race purify itself. People can marry whoever they want, but it is also okay for those to exist who do not want to mix. That philosophy is not evil, and those who hold that view do not need to be stamped out or suppressed. Many today want to immediately mark it evil, however, to associate it with Ku Klux Klan and other vile racists. If they can associate such ideas with the vile, they have their excuse to stamp out those who hold counter views which are not politically correct. I do not care if it is some folk in Nigeria who want to do this or some folk in Estonia. The thing is, it is all right, it is not evil. You cannot have diversity unless these various cultures and lineages are preserved. Everything homogenized together is not my idea of diversity, it is my idea of homogenization.

[YesNo]

You cannot have diversity unless these various cultures and lineages are preserved. Everything homogenized together is not my idea of diversity, it is my idea of homogenization.

That makes sense. Diversity requires the preservation of differences. However, we need to preserve tolerance for these differences as we enter a period of more negative social mood.

[Ecurb]

Considering the population disparity between different races, as well as birth rates, and the open borders policies and thinking of multiculturalists, it's not unreasonable to say that sometime in the near future, people classified as white or western European will die out, which is basically a slow form of cultural and racial genocide.



I am in basic agreement with your post. The Quigley-ites have won, however. They already did it. They already brought 60,000,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the last 52 years. Somebody did. You see, it's done. I hate to say it. What we have now is a sore belly. The food has been swallowed. There was even more at work behind these actions than a desire for votes from each administration which brought them ashore wholesale. A deeper philosophy which has turned rotten with intolerance for that which is home cultural rather than multi-cultural. All groups of whites protesting for the preservation of or acknowledgement of whites to civiliztion will be labled racist. Groups of other colors doing the same thing will be hailed as pioneers of civil rights.

There will be no more whites, and that is one of the long term goals of the so-called multi-culturalists. I say, let each race purify itself. People can marry whoever they want, but it is also okay for those to exist who do not want to mix. That philosophy is not evil, and those who hold that view do not need to be stamped out or suppressed. Many today want to immediately mark it evil, however, to associate it with Ku Klux Klan and other vile racists. If they can associate such ideas with the vile, they have their excuse to stamp out those who hold counter views which are not politically correct. I do not care if it is some folk in Nigeria who want to do this or some folk in Estonia. The thing is, it is all right, it is not evil. You cannot have diversity unless these various cultures and lineages are preserved. Everything homogenized together is not my idea of diversity, it is my idea of homogenization.

Good grief! Having mixed race children constitutes "racial genocide"? Silly me, I thought that "genocide" constituted killing people, not having mixed race babies.

Perhaps we should ban miscegenation, once again, according to Vota and DJ. Trump, trump trump the boys are marching / Cheer up comrades here they come!

Conservative icon Ronald Reagan said, "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev!" Now Vota and DJ want to build walls to preserve racial and cultural purity, and avoid the horror of "homogenization". Of course it is true that if cultures CHANGE they cannot be PRESERVED. So what? Why should some cultures (especially those that promote the belief systems promulgated by DJ and Vota) be preserved? Is change necessarily a bad thing, or is it only bad if one happens to be a citizen of a wealthy country, a member of an elite social class, and a white man who thinks his culture and "race" is threatened by interbreeding?

By the way, you CAN "have diversity (without) these various cultures and lineages (being) preserved." Why couldn't you? Cultures and lineages can CHANGE, and remain diverse, as anyone with the ability to reason can clearly see, but Vota and DJ cannot.

I shouldn't bother responding to these posts; what good can it possibly accomplish? However, perhaps a lack of response will persuade some readers that Vota's and DJ's opinions are widely accepted here at LItnet, which (I hope) they are not.

[desiresjab]

I do not mind the existence of some enclaves in the world dedicated to preserving pure African, northern European, Chinese or native American bloodlines. Some people mind very much even the mention of it. To them it just has too much flavor of Nazi eugenics. The Chinese are a billion strong and almost pure--pure asian at least. This has not hindered them. The cause can be wrong or right, the action itself is neither, but yet another expression of humanity. The action has a serious hangover from 20th century abuses, yet in itself is neither evil or good. I would say its morality is unknown though it is sharply criticized at first mention as something abhorrent by today's breed of brain police.

No, these separate cultures do not have to exist to study them, just as elephants will be studied and remembered when they are gone. Not I am against cultural change, unless it is imposed rather than evolutionary. The multicultualism movement is someone's political idea of evolution (namely Carrol Quigley), not evolution that occurred by itself. This may be known as directed evolution, not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on who is doing the directing and how much they are doing. Everyone will never agree on how much or exactly what should be done.

[Jackson Richardson]

I wasn't aware there was a "pure" white race in the US. I thought it was a melting pot.

Will one of President Trump;s first acts be to have the inscription on the Stature of Liberty corrected to read "Get lost you tired and hungry masses".

[YesNo]

I wasn't aware there was a "pure" white race in the US. I thought it was a melting pot.


From my experience it is a melting pot. My mother is German and my father is Czech. Apparently the Germans and Czechs don't get along, or so I heard, but they are both European. Since my wife is Chinese this makes our children half Chinese, a quarter German and a quarter Czech.

[desiresjab]

Some say the pot is full. Some say turn the heat down. These are not even the interesting questions to me. Those get discussed right now over in Cosmology. Who should be allowed in and who should be allowed to use which bathroom do not interest me much at all, it is the passing parade, merely half an hour spent with the human soap opera before I return to contemplate matters I believe are more universal. I do not get foamy mouthed over politics, nor have much time to spend with those who do. But I like to write, so I am apt to show up anywhere with opinions that will be controversial to some. Mere opinions are not worth much defense--mine or anyone else's. May all beings be happy.

[byquist]

Let's say a world central banker's cabal, who look out for "me, myself, and I".

Why do they control interest rates instead of letting the market decide where rates should be. Why are they constantly paying piddly fines for rigging everything. Why is there boilerplate in their literature that you, putting money in a bank account, are turning over the ownership of the money to them. And if necessary, they can do a bail-in and grab some of that money lest they become insolvent or get their salaries reduced. Why do they want to do away with cash and go all digital?

Read Zerohedge dot com for a month and you'll get a good education about banking and a lot of other subjects, and have some humor too.

[Emil Miller]

I wasn't aware there was a "pure" white race in the US. I thought it was a melting pot.

Will one of President Trump;s first acts be to have the inscription on the Stature of Liberty corrected to read "Get lost you tired and hungry masses".

I'm not American but we can but hope.

[Scheherazade]

There will be no more whites, and that is one of the long term goals of the so-called multi-culturalists. I say, let each race purify itself. People can marry whoever they want, but it is also okay for those to exist who do not want to mix.People are not forced to marry people from any particular race/culture.
That philosophy is not evil, and those who hold that view do not need to be stamped out or suppressed. Many today want to immediately mark it evil, however, to associate it with Ku Klux Klan and other vile racists. If they can associate such ideas with the vile, they have their excuse to stamp out those who hold counter views which are not politically correct. I do not care if it is some folk in Nigeria who want to do this or some folk in Estonia. The thing is, it is all right, it is not evil. It is evil if it is done to prove the superiority of one particular group or race... To diminish the power and rights of certain groups.
You cannot have diversity unless these various cultures and lineages are preserved. Everything homogenized together is not my idea of diversity, it is my idea of homogenization.Diveristy does not require keeping the status quo. It requires recognising and respecting the groups that make up a given society. These groups have always and will continue to change in our societies because they are organic and we cannot keep assigning pre-constructed meanings and characteristics to them.

For example, if you want a really diverse society or diversity in your society, you need to recognise the existence of LGBTQ groups and their rights rather than stifling them. And it is indeed evil to try to oppress anyone who happens to be different - hence deserves "less"- based on your own idea of worthiness.

It is one of the most puzzling issues to me that the US, which is a nation of immigrants is demonstrating one of the most overt forms of racism and lack of acceptance. And I am a little taken aback that there are not more voices of outrage heard even on this Forum, which I consider to be my home page on the net.


I shouldn't bother responding to these posts; what good can it possibly accomplish? However, perhaps a lack of response will persuade some readers that Vota's and DJ's opinions are widely accepted here at LItnet, which (I hope) they are not.Hear, hear!

[Vota]

Good grief! Having mixed race children constitutes "racial genocide"? Silly me, I thought that "genocide" constituted killing people, not having mixed race babies.

Perhaps we should ban miscegenation, once again, according to Vota and DJ. Trump, trump trump the boys are marching / Cheer up comrades here they come!

Conservative icon Ronald Reagan said, "Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev!" Now Vota and DJ want to build walls to preserve racial and cultural purity, and avoid the horror of "homogenization". Of course it is true that if cultures CHANGE they cannot be PRESERVED. So what? Why should some cultures (especially those that promote the belief systems promulgated by DJ and Vota) be preserved? Is change necessarily a bad thing, or is it only bad if one happens to be a citizen of a wealthy country, a member of an elite social class, and a white man who thinks his culture and "race" is threatened by interbreeding?

By the way, you CAN "have diversity (without) these various cultures and lineages (being) preserved." Why couldn't you? Cultures and lineages can CHANGE, and remain diverse, as anyone with the ability to reason can clearly see, but Vota and DJ cannot.

I shouldn't bother responding to these posts; what good can it possibly accomplish? However, perhaps a lack of response will persuade some readers that Vota's and DJ's opinions are widely accepted here at LItnet, which (I hope) they are not.

The definition of genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

Now I didn't specifically state who I was talking about, and I'm not going to, other than to make obvious allusions to a large culture that practices a religion that has been the scourge of the world since the early 7th century; that condones the lawful killing and raping of kafirs; that practices cultural genocide, which btw, can be found within the doctrines of the Koran, Sira, and Hadith.

It should be pretty obvious what I'm referring to. I have no particular dislike or prejudice against any race, but there are ideology's that I strongly dislike, and anyone that has actually studied History, and can see the patterns, knows what I'm talking about. I'm called a bigot when I criticize the most intolerant ideology in existence. Ironic really.

It's one thing to say that civilizations rise and fall. It's one thing say that cultures come and go. It's another to be woefully ignorant of the doctrines and methods of an ideology that is actively trying to subjugate the rest of the world, and is responsible for the deaths of over 250+ million people over the past 1400+ years, and has roughly 1.5 billion adherents.

All I'm doing is putting two and two together. I'm all for diversity. But there's a difference between diversity and cultural genocide. There's a difference between being tolerant and being tolerant due to sheer stupidity and ignorance. You probably think I'm paranoid, but if you don't understand the political - cultural ideology I'm talking about, and most people don't except on the most surface of levels, then you really don't have any business making statements that amount to little more than arbitrary and prejudicial conjecture.

60,000,000 immigrants have been allowed into this country over the last 52 years. How many of you have bothered to look up the racial statistics of those let in? You'll find a surprising lack of western and eastern Europeans - and it's not as if people from those countries, of predominantly caucasian descent, haven't been trying. You see there's a whole mess of weird and bad things going on in the U.S. that is never, and will never be talked about in the mainstream media, and to even bring it to light brings down the wrath of political correctness, which is no better than Thought Police. Sad really.

Lastly, there are moral absolutes. To even argue with another person's viewpoints already suggests the latent belief that there is right and wrong, good and bad. Some art is better than other art. Some books are better than other books. And some religions and ideologies are just plain evil. Look to the primary figure of any religion and you will know that religion/belief system and what it stands for.

I'm done with these forums.

[YesNo]

Lastly, there are moral absolutes. To even argue with another person's viewpoints already suggests the latent belief that there is right and wrong, good and bad. Some art is better than other art. Some books are better than other books. And some religions and ideologies are just plain evil. Look to the primary figure of any religion and you will know that religion/belief system and what it stands for.

I'm done with these forums.

I hope you stick around. It is good to hear different positions. Arguments help clarify positions if people take advantage of those differences and don't freak out.

From my perspective death is the great melting pot. We all go to the Light, all of us, from the Hitlers to the Mother Theresas. If we don't, then there isn't any Light to go to. And in that case, death is still a great melting pot.

Before we go there, diversity makes things interesting, but that is going to make determining right and wrong or good and bad difficult. We cannot completely objectify these subjectively experienced positions or we mechanize them.

As I see it we are at the beginning of a deep depression. Social mood is just beginning to get negative. Negative means there will be more fighting among groups and splintering into smaller groups. Money "velocity" will show down. Economic optimism will turn to economic pessimism. To bring this back to the topic of the thread and re-ask the question if there is a world banking conspiracy, most of us will ultimately say there is and hatred will turn against these banks as they fail when global debt collapses.

Why is it good to know this? So we respond with humanity as the economic contraction plays out.

[Danik 2016]

As I see it we are at the beginning of a deep depression. Social mood is just beginning to get negative. Negative means there will be more fighting among groups and splintering into smaller groups. Money "velocity" will show down. Economic optimism will turn to economic pessimism. To bring this back to the topic of the thread and re-ask the question if there is a world banking conspiracy, most of us will ultimately say there is and hatred will turn against these banks as they fail when global debt collapses.

Why is it good to know this? So we respond with humanity as the economic contraction plays out.

As I see it social mood has already been very negative in the last times specially in the new millenium. And this negativity is bound to increase.
It is less clear to me how much this has to do with economics. It certainly has to do with education and collective values as some groups act without any restraint.
And I guess it would be good if we all started reading carefully the most important world news and the news of our countries to avoid beeing taken by surprise by them.

[YesNo]

If I recall the chart correctly, Elliott Wave International plotted the US Dow Industrial Average against the price of gold and claimed that the negative turn began around the year 2000 which agrees with your experience.

I am still trying to understand what Robert Prechter means by "social mood". It is "unconscious" and a kind of "herd" thinking. It drives the markets and social events. He is not mechanistic nor deterministic in his social thinking which I was glad to find out since I think he is in general right. On the positive side, social mood generally keeps us moving forward. There are just negative corrections that we have to get through.

[Danik 2016]

I like the expression "social mood" because it is generally descriptive and doesn´t relate specifically to religion, race and/or nationality which I take to be are the more sensitive aspects when you discuss human behavior.

[YesNo]

The problem with social mood is that it isn't clear how it starts because it is not something one is aware of and yet as individuals we must be responsible for it. For example, why do we like a certain kind of humor today rather than a decade ago? Replace humor with anything else that groups of us tend to like or dislike. This makes me think that we are not really individuals. There is more to us than the sum total of us as individuals.

It is also not rational. If one thinks of being rational as making a choice that optimizes some utility in response to some stimulus, this is more like providing a stimulus rather than a response. That's good in a way. Being rational is what a computer does. I type in a character and the computer rationally responds to my stimulus by printing the character on the screen. If the computer just started typing stuff, I would think it were broke.

[Danik 2016]

What I understand as negative social mood is the increasing violence trend. For example: The is no direct connection between the more than 90 executions in Brazilian prisons last week and what happened in Fort Lauredale. But I don´t think that both acts of violence would have happened 20 or maybe even ten year ago.

[YesNo]

Violence would be an effect of social mood whether done by the government or by some other group. Even preferring to watch violence in movies would be the effect of a negative mood.

Prechter calls those effects "sociometers" if one can get enough data to measure those changes. The best sociometer is a market chart because it picks up social mood faster as it affects the sector represented by that market. Not all markets are alike. He then uses wave counts discovered by Elliott in the early twentieth century to predict changes in the market. Although right now in the US markets are high. The social mood starts shifting in the third wave and then hits the top in the fifth wave. It gets worse as the markets move lower, but then even it changes eventually.

However none of this determines how individuals will respond.

Regarding whether there is a world banking conspiracy, I can see how there could be one, but those bankers are trying to keep the economies going for everyone, both rich and poor, by lowering interest rates or providing liquidity for assets. One could interpret that as keeping the rich rich, but I don't think that is their conscious motive at the moment. They are just making a mistake that I would probably make as well were I one of them. When I start saying to myself that their motive was just to make the rich rich, then I would have also succumbed to the conspiracy theory. But by then it might actually be a correct theory.

[YesNo]

I was thinking more about Prechter's interpretation of Elliott Waves and it occurred to me that it has a lot in common with Niles Eldredge's punctuated equilibria. Both are theories of evolution. Both are opposed to views that evolutionary change is random. Prechter's socionomics is opposed to the "efficient market hypothesis" and "random walks". Eldredge's Darwinian theory seems to be opposed to neo-Darwinism with evolution coming from random changes to genes. Prechter needs "social mood" to drive his non-random social evolution. Eldredge needs the existence of "species" to drive change during periods when the equilibrium is punctuated.

Of course I might not understand either of these theories correctly.

[Danik 2016]

I get a very general idea of what you mean but I would have to get more into it as I don´t know any of this authors. I suppose they are economic analysts.

[YesNo]

Prechter is or was a market trader who found out about R N Elliott's almost forgotten theory in the 1970's. Since then he carried it into a sociological theory called "socionomics". It is the socionomics that I find more interesting. He did found a company called Elliott Wave International that provides market forecasts based on the theory.

Eldredge is a paleontologist who with Gould came up with punctuated equilibria as a way to explain the evolution of species.

I wonder to what extent physics is evolutionary? Given a physical law one should be able to go in both directions, the past and the future, but one shouldn't be able to tell the difference.

As far as predicting the future goes, people with psi abilities to see the future do this as well. Although they are not considered scientific because they do not use experimental data (market charts or fossil stratification or measurements of gravity), they do use intuition to see patterns and so do these scientists. If psi works then there must be something to see much like "social mood" or "species" or "gravity". Economists in general don't rely on something called "social mood". They would say social mood is caused by market behavior. Prechter flips that on its head claiming that social mood changes come first. They cause changes in market behavior.

To put this into the context of this thread, social mood causes an increased belief in banking conspiracies or, to avoid any deterministic suggestion with the word "cause", social mood makes it more likely that someone would be willing to see a banking conspiracy occurring.

[Danik 2016]

I can give you only a very limited answer based on intuition and not on specialized books. Banks need to make profit and when the economy of the countries doesn´t work they can´t make so much profit any more. What happens then is not so clear to me. Sometimes they break or they are absorbed by bigger banks.
As to the psi people I know very little about them. Maybe you are interested in them because you yourself had at least one vision.

[YesNo]

Psi does interest me because of the experience I had, although I don't seem to be able to predict the future very well.

Deflation can get a start from four sources: (1) Potential debtors no longer want to borrow money, (2) Debtors cannot repay the interest and principal on their debts and go bankrupt, (3) Creditors no longer want to loan money fearing bankruptcy and (4) Creditors experience too much loss through bankruptcies. These things don't affect everyone in the same way at the same time. People who are feeling a problem with debt and credit may start asking about a banking conspiracy.

The underlying question is whether there exists something called "social mood" that encourages people to not want debt or not want to lend? That would be a negative or bearish social mood. Or is the negative social mood the effect of randomness in the market? That is a major difference in perspective although I may not be explaining it clearly enough. It is almost the same question as asking: Did a real muse help me write that poem or did some random neurons firing in my brain write that poem?

[Danik 2016]

I am still not so sure when you are joking, when not. I suppose psi experiences and predicting the future are different things.
We usually have inflation here. The only thing I know about it is that prices go up and people can buy less with the same amount of money.

[YesNo]

Usually I'm not joking, but I am not always right and I change my mind. I figure I might as well take a light-hearted approach to whatever interests me since I don't know the answers to the questions.

Predicting the future is a kind of psi ability, but then scientists want to be able to predict the future as well. They normally do not consider what they do to be a psi ability, but the desire to know what the future will be could be viewed as a sort of psi potential. A computer couldn't care what the future is. I agree that psi includes more than predicting the future.

I don't understand how inflation starts or what social mood drives it, but I would like to understand that better. Recently the US Dollar has been strong although it is getting weaker. I imagine that would make other currencies weaker. I see inflation as a currency that cannot hold value for very long. This would be good for debtors and bad for creditors and so the creditors compensate by wanting higher interest rates. In a deflation the creditors do not want to loan money at all because they fear they will lose their principal through defaults and bankruptcies. Nor do people want to borrow because they do not trust they can make the payments.