The Bank Protests Actually Explained

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I live in Canada. In Canada it’s just accepted we’re under the Crown’s economic umbrella. We still get gouged, directly in the eyes, by the dynamics of fiat banking (imo simply those dyamics being too complicated for the average person to figure out at a fundamental level, and so they get exploited) and, as a country (myself included) we simply don’t care about anything, really, and will just do whatever the world does. They protest down South; sigh, I guess we’ll protest up here.

In the US, their identity is kind of built -around- independence from the Queen. That’s why they fought that war; and money/banking is at the heart of every war. The US saw marked success during the periods of their economic freedom because they didn’t have to pay taxes just to use their own currency. It only makes sense. Lincoln, for example, having been tired with the European levies, introduced the US’s own non-European ‘greenback’ form of currency, and it was awesome–you can still find them today–but then was shot, and production halted immediately.

Skipping forward, by 1913 the Crown’s influence had managed to weasel back into US politics and they passed the Federal Reserve act, such that they would go back to the pre-war of independence paradigm of having European bankers taxing money it creates for the US such that they will have to borrow more taxed money to pay the initial tax. So it was a scam. Not ‘Federal’ if all the money is going out-of-country to Rothchild banks, and such. (Look it up. None of US income tax goes to anything in the US. Which makes the IRS’s fanatical prosecution, paid for by -more- American taxes, so fucking hilarious) In the objective, at least to the American people, this makes it kind of a cancerous ponzy scheme. Americans basically just flush money to banker elites for absolutely no reason. Hard to believe, maybe, but, like I said: just look it up.

Skip forward to Kennedy. Having tired of things like Lincoln, he passed a presidential order reversing part of the Federal Reserve Act such that the American government would print its down, gold-backed currency the same way Lincoln had done; and he was shot (obviously.)

Skip forward to today. In response to the continuing protests, the super rich are lobbying for more taxes to the kinda-rich ~300,000 range of personal income individuals, which is pretty Plutocratic-by-disguise, as the ultra-rich, and above them, the bankers who make money for entire countries, like the Rothchilds, continue to exert their modes of control by, instead of paying any taxes to anyone, instead collect global taxes from entire countries. The top of the pyramid, if you will (or getting close.) Countries like the US, so enmeshed with this network of corruption, have a tough time because Obama doesn’t want to get assassinated (career or life) if he touches the banking laws, but as time goes on, and as the ostensible plan to steer the world into a ‘have-and-have-not’ wage-slavery unbridled eco-tyranny hellscape continues forward, more and more people are taking notice, learning about the system, and deciding that they have had enough.

Expecting a coherent explanation/person explaining this situation to be shown on any corporate news agencies is implicitly kind of a waste of time. That’s why I’m writing this–for you–and from what I can tell the core of the protests have to do with what I’ve stated above. At least, at a fundamental level; anon has said, in the deepweb irc’s and likewise underground resistance areas: ‘we’re in public awareness of the problem now. We can command a legion of nerds at our whim–let’s use them.’ So some people don’t know any of this stuff, but just suspect (and are correct in doing so) that things are of such a scheming fashion, and they should protest. Those are the people the media focused on, obviously.

…

That is, that is one way of looking at it. The other is that this is all on time, and to be expected. Order from Chaos. The beauty of destruction, and all the rest of that masonic perspective. I’m not complaining things aren’t ‘just’ and I’m not some utopian white knight striving for the perfect world (though I do move in that direction, if given a choice of direction); I’m just saying, it is a ponzy scheme, and there’s no reason to engage in it if there are options, which there are.

No worry. Time’s up anyways.

Mom’s gonna fix it all soon.
Mom’s comin’ round to put it back the way it ought to be.

2

Nicely explained.

In some respects, it depends on the paradigm you’re operating in. For Kunstler, AKA Nameta 9, it’s peak oil, or the replacement of manual labour with automated machinery. Then the republicans and democrats have their paradigms, or their paradigm, I should say (A bunch of inexplicable/random shit just happend, but we’ll be ok, just keep buying, selling and bailing us out, uncle sam will take care of everything, or am I just operating out of my own paradigm). Then there’s the Ron Paul and Alex Jones crowd, who you most closely resemble, although clearly you’re not a Christian or a conservative, and perhaps you’re not even a libertarian. Maybe you’re with Michael Tsarion and Jordan Maxwell. And then there’s me. I used to follow Ron Paul and Alex Jones, even though I’m also Canadian, and I used to advocate the abolishin of the monarchy and the central banks. Now, I don’t care about Canada, I don’t care about America, I’m not a Canadian, I have no national or political loyalty or identity. Fuck capitalism, socialism and fascism, we’re philosophers, aren’t we? Let’s dream a better system. I’m not an activist, I’m a man of thoughts and words, not action. I will devise the system, I will lay out the blueprints others will implement, centuries after my death. I’m an architect, a visionary, a creator. I’m far too precious to be on the frontlines, or to follow someone elses ideology. Do you ever have creative thoughts, Gobbo? Do you ever get tired of trying to decide which paradigm is correct? Why not create your own, and get someone else to do the dirty work?

3

I have creative thoughts; my outlet used to be fiction. Now it’s other stuff.

4

:laughing:

5

As I suspected, the OP went over the heads of 99% of the people here.

6

If you see no humor in the above comment than you are heartless!

Take away the conspiracies and I agree with you. The fed is not a good system. I just find it hypocritical that you are supporting Obama and implying he wants to do the right thing. House republicans wanted to audit the fed but it was blocked by Obama and Democrats… Look up “audit the fed.”

7

You went astray somewhere. I support Obama like I would support erectile dysfunction for myself.

A couple things:

  1. Nothing I’ve said in this thread (except for the 2nd mason view at the end) so far is, in any conceivable way, a conspiracy. I’m just describing how banking works because there are 2 other threads with people who clearly don’t understand, at a fundamental level, how banking works. Read back. Find where I stated something that isn’t true in a publicly verifiable way.

  2. Conspiracies can be proven. The word conspiracy, in no (logical) way, implies ‘false information.’

  3. Just because I am (labeled) as a conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean that everything I say is a conspiracy. Acting like that is why the media introduces derp terms like ‘conspiracy theory’ – to see if you have in the faintest fucking grasp on actual thinking, or if you will gravitate to an emotional trigger word and completely avoid logic. Not ‘you’ but people.

8

I had no idea you were labeled a conspiracy theorist.

And it wasn’t the media that convinced me that you are a conspiracy theorist… I just tend to think that the problems in the US are not due to some intricate crime ring put together by the Rothschilds… I think it is a lot less intellectual than that. Democrats usually tend to believe that the government aught to fix problems… They thought the government could “fix” the banks… turns out they were mislead.

9

If you feel like presenting why you hold that belief… this is the thread to do it. It’s cool if you’re just taking a guess, but guesswork is for the other threads.

You know, the ones with 8 pages of people just taking wild fucking guesses and repeating terms they heard on television.

10

This guy basically holds your hand the entire way. He literally says ‘Ok, criticizing the Fed was once considered the province of nutjobs. It’s not, because of the following facts.’ If you can’t garner what I’m trying to get across, then this guy will probably explain it in a clearer fashion.

He even goes further than I do, and offers a (coherent) alternative to the Fed ponzi scheme, as many criticisms are just that, and don’t have anything to offer.

It’s long, it’s dry, and it’s awesome. He takes the stage at 5:05.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq_jabFG9aU[/youtube]

See what I give you in my threads? We don’t just circle jerk corporate media terms and make ourselves feel good. In this thread we do boring things and learn.

11

Want a reputable news source to read? Having an itching biological desire to read something written by one of the corporate organs? Need some authority?

We have that in this thread too.

cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/r … index.html

‎

A surprisingly astute gem.

12

Get your CNN socialist propaganda out of here! [-X :laughing:

13

OG, I understand fiat currency and the Federal Reserve (the latter, to a certain extent anyway.) I also believe I know something about how banking works. Where I get hung up is in your rant about the foreign banks, the Queen and the Rothchilds and how banks run.

Fiat money is worth nothing other than what the government says it’s worth–and what retailers will accept as value for products. That’s it. Period. While there may be plenty of precious metals in some parts of the world to back Reserve notes, fiat currency is needed to preserve the precious metal reserves most countries hold.

The Federal Reserve was established as a way of regulating the banking industry. Prior to 1913, the nation had gone through several down-turns that were the result of fraud and non-regulation. One of the major things the Federal Reserve was to do was to regulate the interest rates a bank to charge another bank for loams given from one bank to another. If all money is fiat money, this makes money transferring a matter, now, of a computer stroke. Money doesn’t really exist–except as a bunch of computer transactions–unless everyone involved with those computer transactions agree to the value of the fiat currencies that have no value to begin with.

So should every country in the world go back onto a real value-backed currency? How much would that devalue the fiat currencies of the world?

14

this made me lol pretty hard

15

:laughing:

16

I’m not against fiat banking; I’m against this form of fiat banking that has most western nations in a complete and total economic choke hold. I’m not saying everything must be backed by hard currency, but a centralized system that has a board of governors that all answer to the Crown is ridiculous and clearly not favorable to the US.

I mean am I just seriously that different, or is it really hard to see the logic of not paying a completely redundant tax? Someone just answer me that. Why not, at the very least, just have a centralized fiat system exactly like this one, but where the trillions of dollars stay in the country? Derp.

Hey, have you ever heard of that trillionaire guy? No? That’s because there isn’t one–except for the Crown banking cartel. That’s why the Rothchilds and stuff are not on the ‘Richest People in the World’ listing of ~100-200 billion range. They make the money. Why even bother to count it? That implies you’re actually playing the game.

Alright, Liz, I believe we’re fully through the looking glass now.

I will tell you something. In the coming years more and more chaotic shit is going to occur and this world will be ‘destroyed’ (likely metaphorically, but we’ll have to see how everyone behaves); a new order will rise from those ashes. That world be of a cooperative vision. If you can’t see where we’re going then you have no intention in the matter. You’re just a bystander. Obviously the people leading the boat will have a majority say in the decision, but there is still room for negotiation.

17

For what it’s worth, I laughed writing that too. :slight_smile:

18

Oh… My… God… He is Illuminati!

19

Who is taking the money?

And I don’t think that western nations got wealthy at the direct expense of poor nations. Western nations created a lot of wealth… and that’s why they have it, in my opinion.

20

It’s not about the money. It’s about control. (But like I said, England-routed elite banking families, the Rothchilds being one of them, are ‘taking’ the money.)