Friday, Feb 19, 2010
Not as off-topic as it seems - this is what boom-bust, Euro, etc. is all about
The New American: Global Fusion: The G20, IMF, and World Government
I sat once in a meeting ... at the Financial Times editorial offices in Blackfriars to listen to Mr. Pohl. He was a former president of the Bundesbank and he had been eased out of that presidency by Helmut Kohl specifically to work with Jacques Delors in the creation of the new currency, the Euro. And he was, I thought, extremely forthcoming. He said, "It is my duty to tell you my English friends ... that you will have to abandon the British nation state because the future has no provision for the nation state within it."
Posted by sneaker @ 01:33 PM (1629 views) Add Comment
65 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. icarus said...
A bloke in the pub said the same thing last night,
2. alan_540 said...
What's the problem with World Government? It works in Star Trek.
3. freemanphil said...
They will bring sovereign countries to the brink to where default is normalized and, we fall into the loving arms of a World Government that offers us no democratic or constitutional protections. A one world government run for and by the corporations.
------
"From the days of Sparticus, Wieskhopf, Karl Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, and Emma Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Winston Churchill, stated to the London Press, in l922.
"Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order." Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)
"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had mens views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913)
"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasnt such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clintons Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.
"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Maos leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history." David Rockefeller, statement in 1973 about Mao Tse-tung: (NY Times 8-10-73)
"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people - will hate the new world order - and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people." H. G. Wells, in his book entitled "The New World Order" (1939).
4. freemanphil said...
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation." David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
5. alan_540 said...
Beam me up Scotty!
6. freemanphil said...
Yes Alan, these people are weirdo's, but they are more powerful than you (partly because of your ignorance) and, don't shoot the messenger. I'm only parroting what powerful people have said, on the record.
7. alan_540 said...
phil, you're assuming ignorance on my part, I'm fully aware of the UN agenda. As to shooting the messenger, not so, but you have to retain a sense of humour about all this.
8. freemanphil said...
I do not find the idea of crucifying poverty and genocide funny. You will not be laughing when Shelter adverts are correct and a chicken costs £45. Try telling Jews killed under Nazi'ism to giggle about satanism and national socialism. Like, I always say, you thought National Socialism was bad? You aint seen nothing yet, welcome to International Socialism.
9. 51ck-6-51x said...
FMP - How is it in the elite's interests to make it impossible for the masses, on which they depend, starve to death? Surely it would make much more sense to make it a little comfortable (i.e. allow them to just survive, with the occasional bonus) to avoid any unpleasant uprisings - erm, kind of like ...now? Or are there too many and you are really talking about an elitist population control schedule?
10. tom101 said...
Careful 51ck-6-51x, fmp is a patriot apparently
11. freemanphil said...
666 - You are thinking from your logic. These people have all the money they want because they print it. You think differently because you have to earn money. What they want is power.
12. alan_540 said...
phil, sick is more on the ball than you give him credit for.
13. freemanphil said...
666 knows that he would not do this stuff, but he is trapped by his ego. He cannot understand that there absolutely are evil people on this planet. I am a Christian and the bible teaches us that evil is a force within the world. History shows us that evil constanly pops up and holds back humanity. Anybody who knows history cannot turn their eyes to all the evil, death and destruction from this century alone, like, look at our civilization circa 1910, the decency in society, the wealth, the productivity of the people. All this destroyed by 100yrs of war and inflation.
14. freemanphil said...
Just look at the fall of the Roman Empire, then again, caused by an inflationary period that collapsed the Roman currency. What followed? 1000yrs of darkness, followed by 500yrs of mediaeval serfdom. Tyranny is the norm. Innocent idiots prop up tyrants whilst they hold us all back from our full potential.
15. alan_540 said...
It's all about money innit? Money is the root of all evil as you know.
16. alan_540 said...
But seriously, would a world government be such a bad idea? Maybe it could indeed share resources and production globally to eliminate hunger and poverty not to mention war. Also, they could have a competition to design a really snazzy flag or emblem, a bit like the Federation logo in Star Trek - cool!
17. tom101 said...
As it stands the US does what it wants and we didn't even get to vote. I mean how much more do we have to do for the yanks?
18. alan_540 said...
Oceania, Eurasia, Eastasia are a reality, so where does that leave Airstrip One?
19. freemanphil said...
Money is absolutely not the root of all evil. That is like saying that guns make people evil, no, evil people abuse guns. But, those who seek to manipulate money, e.g. steal its value via the printing press are evil, but so are the sloths who refuse to vote with their feed and store wealth in real hard assets like constitutional gold.
Here is my favorite prose about money, from Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged:
Standing unnoticed on the edge of the group, Rearden heard a woman, who
had large diamond earrings and a flabby, nervous face, ask tensely, "Senior
d'Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world?"
"Just exactly what it deserves,"
"Oh, how cruel!"
"Don't you believe in the operation of the moral law, madame?"
Francisco asked gravely. "I do."
Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made
some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the
root of all evil—and he's the typical product of money."
Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw
Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco
d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of
exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to
produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish
to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money
is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the
looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the
men who produce.
Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the
conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others.
It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean
of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in
your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of
paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the
energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that
somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that
moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an
electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular
effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the
knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try
to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you'll learn
that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth
that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak?
What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth
is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who
invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made
by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of
the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—
before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man,
each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he
can't consume more than he has produced.
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will.
Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his
effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except
the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in
return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which
they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals
except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money
demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not
for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that
they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that
you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not
the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods.
Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but
your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they
offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade—with
reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins,
the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the
degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the
code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider
evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will
not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the
satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires.
Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of
causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the
mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what
he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the
knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if
he's evaded the choke of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for
the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The
man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with
his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his
inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds
come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man
may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who
would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to
his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.
But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he
corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and
you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been
distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one,
would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living
power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot
match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the
source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the
source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money
by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to
fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering
your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so,
then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then
all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not
an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is
evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil,
because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your
hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the
cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it
will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in
matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil?
To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know
and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you,
and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men.
It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in
proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers
of money are willing to work for it.
They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns
money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil.
That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men
live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—
their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or
to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no
moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as
they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich—will not remain rich
for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under
rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who
begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to
relieve him of the guilt— and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who
live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of
their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral
society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you
against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-
by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money
becomes its creators' avenger.
Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a
law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who
get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at
production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the
standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society
vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money.
Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is
done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to
produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you
see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when
you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws
don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see
corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know
that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not
compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality.
It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for
money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize
gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all
objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary
setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth
produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun
aimed at those who are expected to "produce it. Paper is a check drawn by
legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the
victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to
remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the
purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce,
when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is
destroying the world?' You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest
productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while
you're damning its life-blood—-money. You look upon money as the savages did
before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of
your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of
one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the
same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned,
defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you
mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was
produced by the labor of slaves—slaves who repeated the motions once
discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as
production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was
little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and
starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as
aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the
producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers—as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in
history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to
pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom,
production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set
free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and
instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the
greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the
American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would
choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people
who created the phrase 'to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever
used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static
quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a
favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.
The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted
cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you
to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity
as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your
magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the
labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who
simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the
power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide—as, I think,
he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask
for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal
with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or
dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."
Francisco had not glanced at Rearden once while speaking; but the moment
he finished, his eyes went straight to Rearden's face. Rearden stood
motionless, seeing nothing but Francisco d'Anconia across the moving figures
and angry voices between them.
There were people who had listened, but now hurried away, and people who
said, "It's horrible!"—"It's not true!"—"How vicious and selfish!"—saying it
loudly and guardedly at once, as if wishing that their neighbors would hear
them, but hoping that Francisco would not.
"Senor d'Anconia," declared the woman with the earrings, "I don't agree
with you!"
"If you can refute a single sentence I uttered, madame, I shall hear it
gratefully."
"Oh, I can't answer you. I don't have any answers, my mind doesn't work
that way, but I don't feel that you're right, so I know that you're wrong."
"How do you know it?"
"I feel it. I don't go by my head, but by my heart. You might be good at
logic, but you're heartless."
"Madame, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart
won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say
that when you'll scream, 'But I didn't know it!'—you will not be forgiven."
The woman turned away, a shudder running through the flesh of her cheeks
and through the angry tremor of her voice: to talk at a party!"
20. 51ck-6-51x said...
FMP,
I understand there may be a quest for power, but to yield power there must to be a dipole, those who seek power wish to maximise it, not make it meaningless.
"Evil" may rear it's head every so often, but who are you to say what course would have taken place without any given instance of it, and therefore label it as such (sure we can punish those with amoral intentions, but we cannot know what would have happened if they did not carry these intentions out).
FMP said, "...the bible teaches us that evil is a force within the world"
I refuse to argue anything from a base of religious faith - I do not deny you your faith in any way whatsoever (even though I am a firm atheist), but it is certainly external to any such debate. I am absolutely sure (from a base of knowledge only) that there are things we do not ,and will never, know (regardless of the truth or otherwise of any belief system) - that would include anything outside of our causal space, and hence would include any God. I would recommend Knowledge and it's limits by Timothy Williamson (but do note it's quite a tough read).
"Why is it that people think it's so evil? What is it about it that is scares people so deeply? Even ... and if one is ... because ... they are afraid that there's more to reality than they have confronted; that there are doors that they're afraid to go in and they don't want us to go in there either because, if we go in, we might learn something that they don't know - and that makes us a little out of their control." - Ken Kesey on the subject of LSD. Take it to it's logical conclusion (i.e. beyond societies fear of some psychoactive drug):
Maybe the elite is not a real body of people but rather just the effect of many normal individuals acting in a state of fear of the unknown. Maybe Jesus was right when he said (or rather as in interpretation of how he is quoted, in Matthew I think) we are all evil, but can do good?
21. 51ck-6-51x said...
Ah, Ayn Rand - good stuff.
- don't forget to hover your mouse over the image!
22. mark wadsworth said...
Alan at 16 said: "Maybe [we] could indeed share resources and production globally to eliminate hunger and poverty not to mention war."
You don't need global government for that - you just need free trade and free markets.
Home-Owner-Ism, the banking system, the EU etc etc is more or less the opposite of free trade and free markets, so there's no reason to assume that a global government wouldn't be even worse.
Further, different people like different things, so if there are lots of little countries, there will be some that are gay friendly and some homophobic, some where drugs are legal and some which don't even allow alcohol or tobacco, some which are anti-abortion and some which allow it, some which allow fox hunting or smoking in pubs and some which are hairshirt bansturbators, etc etc and as long as we had free movement of people, then you could choose to go wherever suits your particular tastes, prejudices etc.
23. freemanphil said...
Global government is about a failed socialist model in, say, China, being bailed out by the success of free markets in, say, America. Ultimately, it destroys capitalism and production, and, humanity, by destroying the foundations of freedom. Those who do not benefit from the fruits of their labour are not free. They will not do as much to help others, co-operation reduces, abundance reduces, quality of life goes down, less people are around inventing a better mouse trap.
The best way to create prosperity is, a) trade and b) demonstrate to others that freedom works.
24. tom101 said...
Freedom.... is that like the void between dictatorships?
25. happy mondays said...
@ tom101, no tom, freedom is about choices.. & the ability to let go..
26. freemanphil said...
Happy Nonedays, enough of that new age nonsense. Freedom is property rights.
- Since you own your destiny, you should have access to justice
- Since you own the fruits of your labour, you should have the ability to trade and save with a currency that cannot be debased and should not suffer taxation without representation. Socialism is tyranny. You know, I discovered that the bottom two bands of properties in Islington pay over £600 Council Tax and represent 2% of the budget. We don't need to tax them, the stinking thing is about control.
- Since you own yourself and your family, you must have the ability to protect yourself and your family, criminals who attack you should forgo their human rights.
- Since foreign countries may decide despotism, we must protect the borders economies more socialist and more despotic than our own. It was idiotic to let in people from ex-communist countries without waiting for them to become more developed, and, we sucked the lifeblood of their economy. Instead, we are blocking people from America and Australia who share similar ideals and standard of living.
27. alan_540 said...
@22 mark, free trade and self determination is the ideal I agree, and indeed was the doctrine of post-WW2 USA, at the height of her powers... and that's the crunch - as China & India become major players the US is put under pressure to defend her position - WTO & UN are the tools for this purpose, so the drive for global government is understandable from point of view of the US. Indeed it's a last gasp for consolidating her superpower status and influence, China is notably not included in this as they are the new superpower on the block, so for world governance read "keeping China in her place" - something that's easier for the US if they've got a good coallition behind them.
28. freemanphil said...
Alan, Europe, UK and USA are funding the rise of India and China by running up deficits to fund the welfare/warfare state. Us letting them purchase our sovereign debt is the only way that their cruddy products became more desirable than those made in Britain.
It is not cheap to ship things over the world, and very difficult to get products correct for the market, but, this transfer of wealth, via sovereign debt made it possible. This was the plan all along. It was a project of global socialism that could only be done by stealth, and, as I reported, we are now giving Indian company TATA almost £1bn in carbon credits to send our greatest steel mill overseas. Seriously, people should be outraged, and, we are only propping up horrid regimes abroad that would probably have collapsed without our support, or, have been swept away by a growing middle class, as occurred before WWII in Britain
, but, the bankers know that experience, so they wanted China and India to develop without a Middle Class, that was achieved also by the purchase of our debt, because it constantly devalued savings and income from those people, limiting the rise of a Middle Class to challenge the establishment there. But the whole thing is about to go pop, and the bank will be used to justify world government. Then, after that, poverty will be compulsory, and anybody who gets any hint of wealth will be snuffed out, with a boot stomping on the human face forever, as Orwell once predicted.
29. alan_540 said...
Well, I suppose it's better than fighting a constant war in order to subjugate the population and consume excess production whilst keeping the population in a constant state of fear and lacking all but the basic services... oh, right... I think I'll change my name to Winston.
30. devo said...
"poverty will be compulsory, and anybody who gets any hint of wealth will be snuffed out, with a boot stomping on the human face forever"
why?
i think you are confusing systems with personalities
31. alan_540 said...
I think we ought to start an Orwell appreciation group.
32. devo said...
phil, who would you describe as the living embodiment of evil?
33. braindeed said...
We already have one Alan....pop along sometime - lovely riverside setting
your comments have been noted, old chap
34. alan_540 said...
Ministry of Fear
35. alan_540 said...
...doubleplusgood!
36. happy mondays said...
Freakmanphil - (payback) we own nothing, you being a christian should know this, we are just care takers... However in a world full of greed , insanity, & injustice i will protect myself & family.. & when it comes to people coming here from ex communist countries, i have no problem with that, i have nothing to fear from these people, they are just pawns, like you & me, in a power struggle of sociopaths & crazy men .. You scare me, i thought at last, a religious man, who seems to be talking sense, but in post 26 you attack me, and have disregard for people trying to escape a sh*t life... As Al Murry would say 'Shame on you'
Peace , salaam , shalom, we are all one..
37. freemanphil said...
Happy Mondays, if you don't own your body, and if you don't take responsibility, it is owned by corporations and government. Now, of course, we can't take it when we go, but, whilst we are here, we must enforce justice, and, that means recognizing property rights.
If there is no such thing as property, then the ten commandments would be a fraud, because theft wouldn't exist. No, Christianity wholly supports property rights, and, was a corner stone of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. These were Christians saying that they wouldn't stand being stolen from.
What I say to all those who say that we don't have property, I say, OK, give me your clothes. When I start tearing them from you, leaving you in a cold street naked, you will suddenly understand that you infact have a claim, a property right over the clothes you bought, and you will suddenly find it in you to bash me over the head and grab the clothes back. That my dear is property rights and justice.
38. braindeed said...
Such an oldthinker Alan.....they keep catching our neighbourhood backpakers and pant scorchers....credit where it's due
39. devo said...
freemanphil
you haven't answered my question @32
let me rephrase it
who is your anger directed at?
give me names
40. braindeed said...
39. devo said...
who is your anger directed at?
Those commie bed-wetters
41. alan_540 said...
Just had a thought (first time for everything) - the Amero could presage preparations for the default of USA sovereign debt to China. This would explain the recent tensions between them - the US seem to be going out it's way to wind them up recently - Iran, arms to Taiwan, Google shutdowns, human rights accusations, Obama meeting Dali Lama, Hilary Clinton generally negative etc.
42. braindeed said...
41. alan_540 said...
Just had a thought (first time for everything) - the Amero could presage preparations for the default of USA sovereign debt to China
Don't Bogart the bong, Alan
43. alan_540 said...
braindeed, I don't follow that, could you explain what you mean?
44. alan_540 said...
Ah, right understand! Yes, off topic, fair enuff.
45. freemanphil said...
Devo, my anger comes from the erosion of my liberties. The system that taxes me and makes me suffer inflation. The system that does not protect me from GMO crops, toxic food, all these things, that tries to outlaw raw milk.
There is a small cabal who own the central banks. They bankroll government and the corporate monopolies, and they starve small business and grass roots politicians of capital. It is their policies. Who owns the banks? We know that Rothschilds own many of the banks. We know that the Queen has a big stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland. Some call them the European Black Nobility. They often call themselves the Iluminati. These are their words, not mine.
-----------
George Washington - 1798 Acknowledged that Illuminati activity had come to the USA: "It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am."
It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. ... In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; Leon Trotsky
"My Life: The Rise and Fall of a Dictator" pages 124-127
George Herbert Walker Bush: What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea - a new world order...to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind...based on shared principles and the rule of law...The illumination of a thousand points of light...The winds of change are with us now.
46. devo said...
'We know that Rothschilds own many of the banks.'
Do we? I don't.
primary sources please
47. devo said...
phil, the other names you mention are..
the queen and george bush
as individuals they don't impress me much
48. braindeed said...
47. devo said...
phil, the other names you mention are..
the queen and george bush
as individuals they don't impress me much
OOOOOO ....get her
49. devo said...
braindead!! stop making me laugh!!
i'm trying to think
50. braindeed said...
.....trying being the operative word.....you're giving old H Pee a run
51. freemanphil said...
I gave two examples of people who own central banks. You go look up more, I'm not wonderwoman.
52. devo said...
no, you made 3 vague references to people who probably don't have the same power they used to have.
the people with real power are named in black and white on the boards of the world's biggest central banks, banks and global corporations
most of them are no different than us, except that we haven't been given the opportunity to be corrupted by power
53. devo said...
let me put it another way
who do these guys answer to?
Bank for International Settlements
Board of Directors
Vacant (Chairman of the Board of Directors)
Hans Tietmeyer, Frankfurt am Main (Vice-Chairman)
Ben S Bernanke, Washington, DC; Mark Carney, Ottawa; Mario Draghi, Rome; William C Dudley, New York; Philipp Hildebrand, Zürich; Stefan Ingves, Stockholm; Mervyn King, London; Jean-Pierre Landau, Paris; Henrique de Campos Meirelles, Brasilia; Christian Noyer, Paris; Guy Quaden, Brussels; Fabrizio Saccomanni, Rome; Masaaki Shirakawa, Tokyo; Jean-Claude Trichet, Frankfurt am Main; Paul Tucker, London; Axel Weber, Frankfurt am Main; Nout H E M Wellink, Amsterdam; Zhou Xiaochuan, Beijing
Alternates
Paul Fisher or Michael Cross, London; Pierre Jaillet or Denis Beau, Paris; Donald L Kohn or D Nathan Sheets, Washington, DC; Hans-Helmut Kotz or Wolfgang Mörke, Frankfurt am Main; Peter Praet or Jan Smets, Brussels; Ignazio Visco, Rome
About the Board
The Board of Directors has at present 19 members (January 2010). The Board has six ex officio directors, comprising the Governors of the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve System. Each ex officio member may appoint another member of the same nationality. The Statutes also provide for the election to the Board of not more than nine Governors of other member central banks. The Governors of the central banks of Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland and the President of the ECB are currently elected members of the Board.
The Board of Directors elects a Chairman from among its members for a three-year term. The Board also elects a Vice-Chairman.
The Board is responsible for determining the strategic and policy direction of the BIS, supervising the management, and fulfilling the specific tasks given to it by the Bank's Statutes. It meets at least six times a year. Four advisory committees, made up of selected Board members, assist the Board in its work:
* The Administrative Committee reviews key areas of the Bank's administration, such as budget and expenditures, HR policies and IT. The Committee is chaired by the Board's Vice Chairman, Hans Tietmeyer.
* The Banking and Risk Management Committee addresses the financial objectives and the business model for BIS banking operations, and the risk management framework of the BIS. The Committee's Chairman is Stefan Ingves.
* The Audit Committee is the Board's contact with Internal & External Auditors and Compliance, and examines the implementation of the Bank's risk management framework and policies. The Committee is chaired by Christian Noyer.
* The Nomination Committee deals with the appointment of the six members of the BIS Executive Committee and is chaired by the Board's Chairman.
The Board has adopted a Code of Conduct for Members of the Board of Directors.
http://www.bis.org/about/board.htm
54. devo said...
now this list is significant because these guys have a licence to print as much money (er, currrency) for themselves as they d@mn well like
nice work if you can get
The Federal Reserve
The current members of the Board of Governors are
* Ben Bernanke, Chairman
* Donald Kohn, Vice-Chairman
* Kevin Warsh
* Elizabeth A. Duke
* Daniel Tarullo
* Adam Olterman Lundberg
notice the position of ben bernanke in both lists
and he seems such a nice guy
then again, so does Mervyn King.
55. Open Minded said...
I usually enjoy the HPC forum - many of the posts are very intelligent and insightful. Having said that, I'm seeing a noticeable increase in the activities of the tin foil hat/conspiraloon brigade. IMO it damages the credibility of this great site. How about keeping faithful to the subject and within the realms of sanity?
Is FMP the brother of the crackers STR, or possibly just another of his multiple personalities? The latter would go a long way to explaining the paranoia!
56. watching with amusement said...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
Yeah... I thiink we really have to watch out for this one world country thingy. I think we should be very scared.
57. freemanphil said...
If there were no countries, there would be no constitutional or democratic protections. War follows debt, countries go to war when they have robbed their citizens and can't pay their debt. So, that is a failure of citizens. If America falls, so does the world, because the American Constitution represents real freedom.
58. devo said...
@56. freemanphil said... the American Constitution represents real freedom
this calls to mind a quotation i read the other day...
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.
59. freemanphil said...
Devo, what are you trying to say? That myth is peddled around by those who won't let you know that we can peaceably get our country back, via education, political involvement and entrepreneurship. Until all avenues are closed, peaceful protest is the best way forward, and, we still haven't had a wave of libertarians attempt to get office in local government and Westminster. Farmers Markets and other grass roots businesses are yet to really take over the corporate monopolies. We have a lot of work to do, so, fear and violence are the last things we need. Violence would only motivate the state to clamp down even more, so, of course I am against violence, violence would be stupid, but those who do not want liberty plant the idea that libertarians seek a violent revolution. This is nonsense. All violent revolutions in history, with the possible exception of the American Revolution, were directed by the establishment to bring in new forms of tyranny. Even, possibly the American Revolution, because it did result in the centralization of power that allowed Washington to do what it is doing today, to foreign countries and the States. Any violent revolution in Europe would most probably be used to establish Brussels to full power, we do not want that.
60. devo said...
58. freemanphil said.. fear and violence are the last things we need
Agreed. But if justice is not seen to be done, and soon, people WILL take matters into their own hands.
61. freemanphil said...
Yes, hopefully by running for office, learning about the true power of the Jury, changing their spending habits to not support the corporations and taking money out of banks into bullion. We need mass refusal to co-operate. That is far more powerful than violence that feeds the system, because, know that we support and fund their system. Our savings, spending and more are used as weapons against us. The New World Order is like a huge judo throw that uses our energy to bring us to the ground.
You should listen to John Harris, and check out his website tpuc.org. He has some great ideas on LAWFUL REBELLION:
62. freemanphil said...
63. cat and canary said...
@2.) What's the problem with World Government? It works in Star Trek."
.... theoretically, i dont have a problem with a world government
...theres just one snag... who is going to run it?
...suddenly it doesnt look so good an idea, given the general behaviour and appetites of your average human being in power
64. sneaker said...
The problem with World Government?
Apart from the fact that it has been prepared in secret and is set to be almost entirely undemocratic, let's move on from the specific issues to some more general ones:
- if World Government goes wrong, where do you escape to? There is no West Germany in World Government.
- how do you prevent a tyrant taking charge? Remember that Hitler was democratically elected and generally though of as OK at the start. He only showed his colours after he amassed control. Like Stalin, actually.
- if a tyrant does get in charge, how do you depose them if they control the world army, world police and world database state?
- if states no longer compete, where is the force to keep a lid on excess?
The list is long, but these are the most important?
65. freemanphil said...
Allan Watts says that Star Trek was propaganda for the United Nations.
He notes that Enterprise always fights "rogue planets" sound similar to rogue states? Iran, Iraq, etc? The Clingons are, those who cling on to previous ways, and, the UN vision is for a vegetarian world, this is in their documents, the Starship Enterprise is vegetarian whilst the Clingons are meat eaters, and, always those they fight are meat eaters. Simply those who won't pay taxes and reduce production in line with the planetary coalition. Interesting perspective?
Allan Watts on the Alex Jones Show.