Messages

Thought this might titillate and amuse mainstream media junkie Maximilian this morning.. 

Operation Mockingbird in action?

https://www.youtube.com/v/sGqi-k213eE

grT

Tony Blair, the alleged war criminal, sticking his oar into the Brexit debate in advance of the Chilcot "whitewash" opps sorry inquiry..

Blair: "The U.K. may never leave the European Union and should therefore keep its options open following last month's referendum result.."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tony-blair-second-eu-referendum-chilcot-report-latest-news-a7116776.html

The Rothschild probably had $200 billion decades ago... but because they kept banking private, they lost a bit with some overall devaluation. Still, their inbreeding clearly worked to keep the family name going and in control of so much. The most powerful people own a holdings company with dozens of branches in the most varied fields. The Rothschild bought one or two of the premier wine farms in France, even.

You could devote a whole lifetime of website forums let a lone a single forum thread to the Rothschild banking dynasty and their associates, estimation of their collective financial wealth and their influence on the events of history and of the present day. Here is not the time or the place methinks..

Also remember it was a Rothschild who propositioned and successfully lobbied for the creation of a Zionist state in the Middle East. Lord Rothschild's influence in this matter should not be underestimated. Just examine the Balfour Declaration of 1926 to know that this is so. How many individuals in this world wield such power and influence to create a new sovereign state? A new country. Against the letter of international law. Not many I would submit.     

Here are some brief excerpts from "U.S. Money vs Corporation Currency" penned by the Alfred Owen Crozier in 1912. Crozier was a Midwest attorney who wrote 8 books on the political, legal, and monetary problems of the United States and who was considered by many to be an authority on the subject.

"[The Rothschild] descendants comprise the four great banking houses of that name in Europe—in London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna. In 1863 the wealth of this one family was conservatively estimated at $3,200,000,000, over three billions of dollars. This huge total compounded during the past fifty years and increased by incidental investments in mines, timber and many other things, may now amount to fifty or one hundred billions. No one outside knows the amount. With alliances controlled by this family it surely directly or indirectly controls a large portion of all government bonds and at least one-third of the world's estimated total wealth of $377,000,000,000.

But suppose the Rothschilds themselves only own $39,000,000,000, an amount equal to the bonded debt of all the governments of the world, with an annual income of $2,300,000.000 or two-thirds what their total wealth was in 1863. Any change either way in these figures will be a variation only in degree. In no way does it materially change the acknowledged potent fact that in all great national and international monetary and financial affairs the Rothschilds always play the ruling hand. They possess masterful genius and financial intellect. But it is the sheer weight of liquid or ready wealth held in such large quantity that all the nations of the world must go to the Rothschilds for financial assistance in time of peace, or before they can go to war whatever the provocation or emergency, that gives them supreme power in the world's affairs. No war can be waged without money, and no large nation can get adequate money to finance a war from anyone but the Rothschilds. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that whenever any war is begun the Rothschilds have consented thereto. They may finance both sides, because it is immaterial whether the interest profits they crave come from one or both countries. In fact the war furnishes an excuse recognized as legitimate for charging both nations higher interest rates not only on the new debts but on old obligations maturing and being refunded. Increase to 4 per cent from 3 per cent is a 25 per cent increase in the total income and in the value of bonds, measured by their earning power.

It is known, of course, that after the nations have fought for a while and murdered tens of thousands and wounded and permanently maimed hundreds of thousands of human beings on both sides, pressure exerted by other governments instigated by the financiers will force a quick compromise, leaving the nations both in approximately the same condition as before except that each has vastly increased its debt and the annual interest burden on its people while the financiers have gotten rid of accumulated capital in exchange for high interest gold bonds that can not be paid for perhaps thirty or fifty years. This surely is the result if not the deliberate plan.

Then again, the debt of the principal European countries has been doubled or vastly increased during the long period of "armed peace."



Anyway, back to Brexit..

grT

[@grt:]

@grt: Yeah, it's just disgusting that the B of E seem to warrant printing digital money out of thin air like that for the bankers even though the bankers are supposed to be bullet-proof now from these sort of market instabilities(so we keep being told)... I mean do they really need that extra funding and I'd be interested to know if any financial institutions have used some of that funding already to make themselves a lot more money during this period than they'd have to pay back? Virtually given a free-bee to make extra money if you know what I mean?

The more you delve into this one realises how complex the subject is. Prior to WWII many of the central banks, including the Bank of England, were privately owned institutions. In fact the Bank of England has been a privately owned institution since its creation in 1694 by a Scotsman William Paterson who famously stated "The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." Private ownership continued after Nathan Rothschild assumed overall ownership and control of the Bank of England in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo. The B of E was not put technically into public ownership until 1946. The control of the bank to all intents and purposes however remains in private hands with an appropriate clause written into the bank's operating license.

By contrast the Federal Reserve remains a conglomeration of private interests and private banks. It is independent of the U.S. government through operation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

The European Central bank and other nations' central banks are publicly owned but their decision making and operating remit remains independent of government and state authorities. So these days I suppose one might suggest it is more a question of the mechanism of control rather than perhaps a straightforward matter of ownership.

If one looks at the governors and management personnel of these banking institutions the influence from the private sector and moreover the American private banking sector is quite apparent.

It's an interesting and in some quarters a highly controversial subject. Certainly over the centuries enormous wealth has been accrued by a select few through the system of private centralised banking.

grT 

I've been down the pub Hawk..so watch out everyone! lol.

The answer to your question Hawk is simple. They "print" the money out of thin air. It's just digits on a computer system. Nothing more. Then they charge interest to the state to use the money they have so generated. That's how it works. It's a Fiat currency.

Of course the bigger and more overwhelming question is who is all this debt that overburdens the Western nations owed to?

Of course the answer to that tempting question is that proximately and ultimately the insurmountable and soaring debt is owed to the exact same people, the same entity if you like, that printed it out of thin air in the first place..

Ever felt like you've been had people?

grT 

Ok, you explained why being a sovereign nation has advantages but I still don't see how it solves fundamental problems of capitalism (like the ones I originally quoted from your post).

Might watch the video if it's not too long.

I no longer perceive the Western financial system as being capitalism vin. Not in the true sense of what capitalism is understood to mean. Bank bail-outs on a far reaching and mammoth scale do not fit with the definition. Nor do "bail-ins" for that matter. I think the present system is more akin to what I would describe as rampant "corporatism" and to many intents and purposes is arguably a kleptocracy in how it functions and operates. If 1% (some would say 62 families) own over 50% of the world's financial wealth then something has gone slightly askew with the concept of capitalism I think many would argue. The corporate interests that actively lobby at the EU are no different from the corporate interests that lobby elsewhere in the Western world and in particular in Washington.

So what I am suggesting is if you're out at least as a nation you might have more of a chance, to a small degree at least, of trying something a little different. Maybe you might have more of an opportunity to change and alter the financial system that operates in your country to the benefit of the majority. Take Iceland for want of a better example..

grT

As a final thought vin. My strong contention to you would be that if we truly seek peace and security for the world we must banish the private central banking system to the textbooks of history. A return to a state issued value based currency system of finance is in my honest opinion the only real hope for peace and security in this world. If mankind were insightful enough to do this not only would a state of reasonable financial stability be achieved but also such phenomena as false flag terrorism and currency wars would melt away into the ether..

Question is whether mankind is clever enough to look beyond the end its collective noses and actually do this.. Based upon current strategies out there at least a segment of mankind is adopting such an initiative.

I fear if things continue as they are then divide and conquer and infighting and disharmony, not to mention wars, will remain to be the symptom of the age. 

grT 

Too much free wine for lunch at the U.K. tax payers' expense Jean-Claude? 

https://www.youtube.com/v/XPgiI46FCDU

grT

Ok, you explained why being a sovereign nation has advantages but I still don't see how it solves fundamental problems of capitalism (like the ones I originally quoted from your post).

Might watch the video if it's not too long.

I no longer perceive the Western financial system as being capitalism vin. Not in the true sense of what capitalism is understood to mean. Bank bail-outs on a far reaching and mammoth scale do not fit with the definition. Nor do "bail-ins" for that matter. I think the present system is more akin to what I would describe as rampant "corporatism" and to many intents and purposes is arguably a kleptocracy in how it functions and operates. If 1% (some would say 62 families) own over 50% of the world's financial wealth then something has gone slightly askew with the concept of capitalism I think many would argue. The corporate interests that actively lobby at the EU are no different from the corporate interests that lobby elsewhere in the Western world and in particular in Washington.

So what I am suggesting is if you're out at least as a nation you might have more of a chance, to a small degree at least, of trying something a little different. Maybe you might have more of an opportunity to change and alter the financial system that operates in your country to the benefit of the majority. Take Iceland for want of a better example..

grT

It's not a coincidence, it was made on purpose. Maybe to stress the fact that the EU wants itself to be multi-language and multi-cultural (concepts hard to swallow for some, I know).
No wait, I've just read the text in the yellow square on the lower right corner of the image ...

BTW, I can also see people with square heads in the image. I'm sure some will have a perfectly conspiratorial explanation for that too. Not that I want to hear it though ...

I'm not saying you are wrong Max. Only comment I would venture is that an upside down star is of course a symbol associated with ancient Babylon. Which just as an observation does seem a little odd. Also it is notable that the baby infant cradled by the woman in the poster is the only human character in the poster depicted as having a normal "roundish" human head. Following complaints from members of the public and religious organisations this poster was promptly removed from circulation. Which again does strike one as being just a little odd.     

grT

If you were some how able to take the predatory banking cabal out of the equation (completely) and do away with the private central banking system (completely) and banish the Rothschild banking empire and its associates to the dark side of the moon and re-programme mankind to be naturally philanthropic in their dealings with their fellow man (or woman) then I might begin to agree with you Vin.

how exactly does isolation solve those problems, though? do you think unity caused them?

Well look, at the risk of being categorised as someone who would be better cared for in an asylum, if you follow the thinking of someone like Dr Paul Craig Roberts through to its conclusion then by extricating yourself, as a an independent sovereign state, from the union it serves to position your nation as a check and a balance to what is going on in Europe and the greater world. Envision, perhaps, a declaration of war by Washington against Iran. God forbid. If you rest independent then one's independent parliament might have the ability to exercise some influence and independence against such a decision to go to war. If your nation was part of an EU Superstate perhaps your nation's people and parliament (if such a thing existed) might not be able to bring the same independent influence to bear. Same goes for any action against Russia I suppose. Take the example of the U.K.'s parliament's decision in 2013 not to accede to Washington's request to participate in an aerial bombing campaign against the sovereign state of Syria. The U.K. parliament voted overwhelmingly against such action and the planned bombing campaign did not as a consequence take place.

I suppose what I am espousing here is the ability to indulge in independent thought and decisions as an independent sovereign nation. You might, just might, be able to avert an unnecessary and dangerous war that might have the potential to escalate into a much wider and more dangerous conflict.   

All I can suggest vin is that perhaps you give Dr Robert's video (radio interview) a listen (I'm not quite sure how easily you might follow the spoken conversation though as English is your second language). He expands upon this theme to quite an extent. As does John Pilger in his recent press interviews.

However, I suppose war is only one aspect of this. There are other potential advantages in the ability to have an independent sovereign voice heard on the world stage.

grT 

Observing vague similarities between 2 buildings (one of which has been seen only in ancient paintings) is one thing.
Implying there's a master plan and justifying that by the building similarities is another.

I was presuming this was a specific subject that held no interest for you Max..bearing this in mind I do not feel any such further discussion on this would prove fruitful.

Having said that it is perhaps reasonable to conjecture that there might be more than just a vague similarity between the EU Building and Bruegel's Tower of Babel. Based upon the EU Official Tower of Babel Poster Printed 1992. Others, yourself included, might reasonably suggest this is nothing more than mere coincidence. Certainly there does seem to be some undeniable symbolism involved with the matter of the poster.   



grT

noise ... geopolitics ... noise ... spoon fed ... noise ... mainstream media ... noise ... presstitute ...

I can't judge Mr. Roberts, I've only said that when discussing if an apple is red or green there's no need to bring arguments involving world domination, banks conspiracy or the tower of babel.
Because if you do so, people will stop listening to you. Even if a little part of what you're saying may have sense.

I'll be honest with you Max..you make a valid point. Insofar as if one expands upon a possible conspiracy to the man in the street too much then indeed in his eyes it does become unbelievable. That's very true. If you are engaged in an effort to wake up the masses, as Dr Roberts and others I think clearly are, then it is advisable perhaps to only reveal so much to them. Otherwise rather than waking up (if indeed there is any waking up to be done..) you will engender the opposite effect. So yes in that respect I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you. I do, however, consider that Dr Roberts is genuine and well meaning in trying to spread the message that he attempts to spread..

As regards the Tower of Babel..well I'm sure you and I do not want to delve into that one any further here and now. What I would say, however, is that sane and rational individuals have made the same observation..even Reuters carried a piece on this a while back..upturned stars and all. So I'm in some quite good company on that one including the P.R. department of the EU themselves.

Conspiracies of an arguably sinister nature do exist. Sadly. One only has to research such matters as the Gulf of Tonkin incident or Operation Northwoods to appreciate and realise that this is so.

So look, I respect your viewpoint Max. As I respect the viewpoint of others on this thread and elsewhere in the wider world but there will always be those who see life through different eyes..

Love and peace.

grT  

@grT: all the reports and declarations I've read say that ignoring the referendum result is not an option. So I don't know where Dr. Paul Craig Roberts gets his info, I suspect it's the same place he gets his space cookies from ...

Question is Max, some might say, where do you get your "space cookies" from? 

The problem when trying to discuss with people like you (or Dr. Whatever) is always the same: you feel obliged to decorate a few ideas that may have some interest with a load of world-scale conspiracy (and a few random videos from youtube).

Oh Max..where does one begin? lol.

Look, the truth is that you and people like you are always the same. You are predictable in that you form your whole perspective on the geopolitics of this world from what you are spoon fed on a daily basis by the mainstream media. The irony of this is that you formulate your thinking based upon a "presstitute" media that is owned by the same interests that own the international banking system including such spin-offs as the the Federal Reserve, the IMF and the European Central Bank. To name but a few.. The same private banking interests that control and influence governments. Hence your outlook on the world might seem a little naive. At least to some of us..

As for your attempted denigration of Dr Roberts, someone who has held high office in U.S. politics, U.S. journalism and U.S. academia, I'm afraid such denigration falls flat on its nose even before it's reached the runway.. I suppose you might seek to rubbish the reputation of highly respected and world renowned journalists of the likes of John Pilger also? Who knows? You might. But again I would say to you that shooting the messenger in this way merely serves to loosen the ground beneath your own feet.

So all I would say to you is rather than engaging in weak and predictable ad hominem attacks against such high profile individuals perhaps you might strive to present a more meaningful and coherent response to counter what they are claiming..?

People agree to differ over subjects like this all the time but that should mean that the standard of the conversation should decline.

Again just my honest opinion and I do not mean to seem rude in voicing it. I really don't.

grT 

It's like another news outlet round here now. Regurgitating press releases and predicting gloom and doom. I hoped the discussion might move to solutions the EU should be taking to make it work, but it seems we are still in the finger pointing and impending doom mongering stage for quite a while yet, especially as it is so much 'fun' for so many people. Sorry if that comes off as grumpy but try living here surrounded by the soothsayers and hind-sighters, then have to read it all again on my second favourite forum! So its best I step out for a bit now or it might make me.....

<grumpy emoji>

Joking apart Nick, I suppose that's all we can really do at the moment. Regurgitate press releases and commentary from the mainstream media or cite independent voices that may be out there.

It's quite an unprecedented situation that Europe and greater humanity faces over this "hiccup" caused by a majority vote in the U.K. to exit the European Union.

My own very take on this is that if Britain is allowed to stand alone in Europe then the true significance of this situation, the real difference that it might make, will be eroded to the point, both politically and economically, that it won't constitute that much difference to the chessboard anyway..  Just my personal opinion of course.

I suppose what I'm saying is that one's view of the world, notwithstanding the ingestion of "space cookies" by either side in this debate, is formed by one's personal perspective on the greater matters of mankind.  I suppose we all have our own perspective on life and the universe based upon the information and commentary we choose to give credence to. The MSM has its take and independent voices and minds have theirs..

https://www.youtube.com/v/jVzccbfmcus

grT

Question is Max, some might say, where do you get your "space cookies" from?