All Wars are Bankers' Wars

[Athom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfEBupAeo4#t=151

The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest.
After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.
But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders.
Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws", the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild's chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton.

[1715156556]

1715156556

[1715156556]

1715156556

[1715156556]

1715156556

[1715156556]

1715156556

[1715156556]

1715156556

[hilariousandco]

The banking institutions are the biggest evil in the world. Nothing new here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgVZSIPzH1o

[Hawker]

lol

Let me get this straight.  Human societies trade and use currency.  The organisations we create to facilitate this are called banks and the people who run banks are called bankers.  A human society that trades and uses a currency cannot exist without banks any more than a human society that eats potatoes can exist without farms.

So if all wars are bankers' wars, then all wars are also farmers' wars.

The same stupid logic applies to doctors of course.  And teachers.  And....you get the picture.

[Carlton Banks]

In a way, Hawker is right (although he is hilariously naive with the reason he gives)

Top central banking staff are not sitting around their boardroom discussing prospective invasions, military strategies and arms deals. It's the powerful individuals who control those banks, from outside their administrative structure, that are really the author of these conflicts.

They are not bankers, but they exercise a huge amount of control over banks, and also a huge amount of control over politicians and political parties, and also a huge amount of control over corporations, not to mention a huge amount of control over large news media organisations. And they do this in most countries on the planet.

The evidence from the past proves all this rather consumately. In the present, it's a little more difficult to pick fact from fiction. But the idea that these small ruling interests have given up on their control model when it's demonstrably worked so well for so long, well, it's stretching the credible a little.

[Hawker]

In a way, Hawker is right (although he is hilariously naive with the reason he gives)

Top central banking staff are not sitting around their boardroom discussing prospective invasions, military strategies and arms deals. It's the powerful individuals who control those banks, from outside their administrative structure, that are really the author of these conflicts.

They are not bankers, but they exercise a huge amount of control over banks, and also a huge amount of control over politicians and political parties, and also a huge amount of control over corporations, not to mention a huge amount of control over large news media organisations. And they do this in most countries on the planet.

The evidence from the past proves all this rather consumately. In the present, it's a little more difficult to pick fact from fiction. But the idea that these small ruling interests have given up on their control model when it's demonstrably worked so well for so long, well, it's stretching the credible a little.

You imply that the ones in control are somehow "other" when in fact they are just our neighbours who happen to work in banks.  Every society that has a currency will also have banks and of course those banks will have people called bankers working in them.  The idea that they control politicians is laughable.  The ones I know can't even control their kids.

[bryant.coleman]

Is the problem only with privatized banks? Are government owned banks free from this?

I'd like to know.... because in some nations such as Cuba, all the banks are owned by the government.

[Carlton Banks]

In a way, Hawker is right (although he is hilariously naive with the reason he gives)

Top central banking staff are not sitting around their boardroom discussing prospective invasions, military strategies and arms deals. It's the powerful individuals who control those banks, from outside their administrative structure, that are really the author of these conflicts.

They are not bankers, but they exercise a huge amount of control over banks, and also a huge amount of control over politicians and political parties, and also a huge amount of control over corporations, not to mention a huge amount of control over large news media organisations. And they do this in most countries on the planet.

The evidence from the past proves all this rather consumately. In the present, it's a little more difficult to pick fact from fiction. But the idea that these small ruling interests have given up on their control model when it's demonstrably worked so well for so long, well, it's stretching the credible a little.

You imply that the ones in control are somehow "other" when in fact they are just our neighbours who happen to work in banks.  Every society that has a currency will also have banks and of course those banks will have people called bankers working in them.  The idea that they control politicians is laughable.  The ones I know can't even control their kids.

No, Hawker, they are not your neighbours, nor mine. I'll say it again: they are not any type of banker. These people are plutocrats.

You get your worldview from the news and media that plutocrats control. That's why you're struggling with this. Did you never hear the expression "don't believe everything you read in the newpapers"? There is no clause in that statement that says it only applies to tabloids and celebrity gossip.

[hilariousandco]

Is the problem only with privatized banks? Are government owned banks free from this?

I'd like to know.... because in some nations such as Cuba, all the banks are owned by the government.

Government banks may only be "government" banks on paper. I don't know anything about the Cuban banking system so I cant comment on that particular instance.

[Hawker]

In a way, Hawker is right (although he is hilariously naive with the reason he gives)

Top central banking staff are not sitting around their boardroom discussing prospective invasions, military strategies and arms deals. It's the powerful individuals who control those banks, from outside their administrative structure, that are really the author of these conflicts.

They are not bankers, but they exercise a huge amount of control over banks, and also a huge amount of control over politicians and political parties, and also a huge amount of control over corporations, not to mention a huge amount of control over large news media organisations. And they do this in most countries on the planet.

The evidence from the past proves all this rather consumately. In the present, it's a little more difficult to pick fact from fiction. But the idea that these small ruling interests have given up on their control model when it's demonstrably worked so well for so long, well, it's stretching the credible a little.

You imply that the ones in control are somehow "other" when in fact they are just our neighbours who happen to work in banks.  Every society that has a currency will also have banks and of course those banks will have people called bankers working in them.  The idea that they control politicians is laughable.  The ones I know can't even control their kids.

No, Hawker, they are not your neighbours, nor mine. I'll say it again: they are not any type of banker. These people are plutocrats.

You get your worldview from the news and media that plutocrats control. That's why you're struggling with this. Did you never hear the expression "don't believe everything you read in the newpapers"? There is no clause in that statement that says it only applies to tabloids and celebrity gossip.

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

[dank]

lol

Let me get this straight.  Human societies trade and use currency.  The organisations we create to facilitate this are called banks and the people who run banks are called bankers.  A human society that trades and uses a currency cannot exist without banks any more than a human society that eats potatoes can exist without farms.

So if all wars are bankers' wars, then all wars are also farmers' wars.

The same stupid logic applies to doctors of course.  And teachers.  And....you get the picture.

Did you forget you're on a bitcoin forum?  Why do we need a central authority over a decentralized system of exchange?

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

No truly free society will be ruled and bound to any monetary system.  Money is what enslaves us, we cannot spend our lives how we truly wish to when we're giving away a greater good of our energy for a paycheck.

I know this may be hard accepting as someone who's accumulated a good amount of wealth, but society can not only function without money, it can function better.  And it is inevitable, a part of evolution to abandon the concept of greed that divides us.  There is nothing you can do to stop earth becoming a family.

[Carlton Banks]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

Ok: the people controlling banking corporations do not work for them. They are not bankers.

If bitcoin takes off, your millions will be Zimbabwe dollars. A bitcoin-based society will not have bankers, or banks (although it may take another generation until the techno-phobic minority adapt to handling their own money).

I hope you ride this transition well, right now you're hopelessly unaware of the dynamics of geo-politics and monetarism.

[uranian]

I don't know of any country that has gone to war when it's been on a gold standard. The only way wars can happen is when countries go on to fiat money, and private corporations called banks profit from the fiat money system; those who profit from war are banks, and as much as I dislike Occam's razor, perhaps it applies here. Central banks and governments (the BIS and the moves towards world government with the likes of the EU) profit by their mutual arrangement, if they are not the same thing already.

And to rant a little, we've had the biggest financial crime in the history of the recorded world with LIeBOR; we've had QE to infinity for years; we have derivatives markets (which are basically about manipulating interest rates, the price of money, too) in the quadrillions, re-assigned arbitrary values at the change of a computer model; we have massive manipulation of at the very least the stock markets, the bond markets and the precious metals markets; we've had a secondary LIeBOR theft that most people won't even of heard of, another ongoing for decades theft by manipulating forex rates...our financial markets are the deepest cesspool of stewed shit I can imagine. Bitcoin stands as the alternative to all of this; when it sees adoption as a daily transaction currency (that's beginning in early 2014 for a few tens of thousands shops in the UK), it will - perhaps along with hyperinflation, or some economic disasterzone - I hope, cast out the den of vipers all over again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw9jXppiQEo

[Hunterbunter]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

Ok: the people controlling banking corporations do not work for them. They are not bankers.

If bitcoin takes off, your millions will be Zimbabwe dollars. A bitcoin-based society will not have bankers, or banks (although it may take another generation until the techno-phobic minority adapt to handling their own money).

I hope you ride this transition well, right now you're hopelessly unaware of the dynamics of geo-politics and monetarism.

Of course a bitcoin-based society will have bankers. Banks are in the business of creating loans, for the purpose of raising capital (among other things) to get work done, without taking a proportional share of the profits like an investor would.

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

[uranian]

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

BTC is a new technology that decentralises banks. So while I agree that it's just a token, no different from gold, seashells or fiat money, it's a completely new system of banking, in that everyone is the bank. How money is created is central to how a monetary system works, and BTC is again different from the current corporate system of money creation. Money is perhaps the only thing that every person wants, so control of the creation of money is as a Rothschild noted, the key to controlling the laws. In BTC, anyone can create the money supply, not just a handful of corporate, for profit, corrupt banks.

[Carlton Banks]

Of course a bitcoin-based society will have bankers. Banks are in the business of creating loans, for the purpose of raising capital (among other things) to get work done, without taking a proportional share of the profits like an investor would.

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

You're thinking of loan companies, they're different to banks. It just so happens that the majority of banks offer loans too.

The banking business is fundamentally based around securely storing deposits, not lending. People in a cryptocurrency based economy have no need for paying for secure storage for their money.

[Hunterbunter]

Of course a bitcoin-based society will have bankers. Banks are in the business of creating loans, for the purpose of raising capital (among other things) to get work done, without taking a proportional share of the profits like an investor would.

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

You're thinking of loan companies, they're different to banks. It just so happens that the majority of banks offer loans too.

The banking business is fundamentally based around securely storing deposits, not lending. People in a cryptocurrency based economy have no need for paying for secure storage for their money.

On that note, most people don't want to be their own banks, hence the existence of banks for hundreds/thousands of years.

[Hunterbunter]

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

BTC is a new technology that decentralises banks. So while I agree that it's just a token, no different from gold, seashells or fiat money, it's a completely new system of banking, in that everyone is the bank. How money is created is central to how a monetary system works, and BTC is again different from the current corporate system of money creation. Money is perhaps the only thing that every person wants, so control of the creation of money is as a Rothschild noted, the key to controlling the laws. In BTC, anyone can create the money supply, not just a handful of corporate, for profit, corrupt banks.

Just because anyone can create it, doesn't mean everyone will want to.

You can set up a bank too if you want. Just raise the capital.

You can produce btc too if you want. Just raise the capital for mining hardware.

[Hawker]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

Ok: the people controlling banking corporations do not work for them. They are not bankers.

If bitcoin takes off, your millions will be Zimbabwe dollars. A bitcoin-based society will not have bankers, or banks (although it may take another generation until the techno-phobic minority adapt to handling their own money).

I hope you ride this transition well, right now you're hopelessly unaware of the dynamics of geo-politics and monetarism.

I have over 1000 Bitcoin, a few rental properties and will buy a few thousand more Bitcoin if price falls.  Either way, I'm fine.  Thanks for your concern.

Its clear you are one of those people who believe they have a unique insight into a hidden reality that mere mortals can't grasp.  Good luck with that.

[Hawker]

Of course a bitcoin-based society will have bankers. Banks are in the business of creating loans, for the purpose of raising capital (among other things) to get work done, without taking a proportional share of the profits like an investor would.

Thousands of years of monetary practice won't just disappear because there is a new token of value.

You're thinking of loan companies, they're different to banks. It just so happens that the majority of banks offer loans too.

The banking business is fundamentally based around securely storing deposits, not lending. People in a cryptocurrency based economy have no need for paying for secure storage for their money.

On that note, most people don't want to be their own banks, hence the existence of banks for hundreds/thousands of years.

Exactly - if you have a trading economy, you will have bankers.

[bbulker]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

A few million? That's a joke, right? The bloodlines that have the control are worth trillions counting all assets.

[Hawker]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

A few million? That's a joke, right? The bloodlines that have the control are worth trillions counting all assets.

Bloodlines eh?  Do they do DNA tests before allowing you to buy shares in HSBC now? 

[bbulker]

Bloodlines eh?  Do they do DNA tests before allowing you to buy shares in HSBC now?  

Ah, so you weren't joking, you're just very ignorant.

[Hawker]

Bloodlines eh?  Do they do DNA tests before allowing you to buy shares in HSBC now?  

Ah, so you weren't joking, you're just very ignorant.

Ah, ignorance, it truly is bliss!  Whenever you laugh at a conspiracy theorist, the next thing is to be called 'ignorant' or 'naive'.

Are we going to start talking about the 'sheeple' soon?  Or do you have a little more respect for your compatriots?

[johnyj]

You can only control something as long as its power/knowledge are much weaker than yours. Previously 99% of the people have zero knowledge about money and currency, thus those who know how money works can control the society. But since the financial crisis, people's knowledge about fiat money and the whole banking system are improving day by day, eventually they will wise up and become more and more difficult to control

20 years ago, if you grab a person on the street and ask them where is the money in their wallet originally come from, 99% of them have no idea. Today it is not very different, but some of the people are starting to see the truth

[Anonylz]

You can only control something as long as its power/knowledge are much weaker than yours. Previously 99% of the people have zero knowledge about money and currency, thus those who know how money works can control the society. But since the financial crisis, people's knowledge about fiat money and the whole banking system are improving day by day, eventually they will wise up and become more and more difficult to control

20 years ago, if you grab a person on the street and ask them where is the money in their wallet originally come from, 99% of them have no idea. Today it is not very different, but some of the people are starting to see the truth

Very truth jonhyj, I hope 2014 will be the year we can break free of the banks, even if this mean my easy life will become a whole less easy.

[hilariousandco]

I hope 2014 will be the year we can break free of the banks, even if this mean my easy life will become a whole less easy.

I think 2014 is being a little optimistic, but maybe in our lifetime.

[Hawker]

You can only control something as long as its power/knowledge are much weaker than yours. Previously 99% of the people have zero knowledge about money and currency, thus those who know how money works can control the society. But since the financial crisis, people's knowledge about fiat money and the whole banking system are improving day by day, eventually they will wise up and become more and more difficult to control

20 years ago, if you grab a person on the street and ask them where is the money in their wallet originally come from, 99% of them have no idea. Today it is not very different, but some of the people are starting to see the truth

Very truth jonhyj, I hope 2014 will be the year we can break free of the banks, even if this mean my easy life will become a whole less easy.

In a free market, there will always be banks.  So your life will remain easy for a long time yet. 

[Carlton Banks]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

Ok: the people controlling banking corporations do not work for them. They are not bankers.

If bitcoin takes off, your millions will be Zimbabwe dollars. A bitcoin-based society will not have bankers, or banks (although it may take another generation until the techno-phobic minority adapt to handling their own money).

I hope you ride this transition well, right now you're hopelessly unaware of the dynamics of geo-politics and monetarism.

I have over 1000 Bitcoin, a few rental properties and will buy a few thousand more Bitcoin if price falls.  Either way, I'm fine.  Thanks for your concern.

Its clear you are one of those people who believe they have a unique insight into a hidden reality that mere mortals can't grasp.  Good luck with that.

Over 1000? What's wrong with government money that you needed to spend half a million dollars on internet tokens?

[Hawker]

I suspect the people you call "plutocrats" are just people who are worth more than a few million.  If Bitcoin takes off, you'll be one of us :-)  Meanwhile, my point remains.  Any society will have bankers and pretending they are "other" is silly.

Ok: the people controlling banking corporations do not work for them. They are not bankers.

If bitcoin takes off, your millions will be Zimbabwe dollars. A bitcoin-based society will not have bankers, or banks (although it may take another generation until the techno-phobic minority adapt to handling their own money).

I hope you ride this transition well, right now you're hopelessly unaware of the dynamics of geo-politics and monetarism.

I have over 1000 Bitcoin, a few rental properties and will buy a few thousand more Bitcoin if price falls.  Either way, I'm fine.  Thanks for your concern.

Its clear you are one of those people who believe they have a unique insight into a hidden reality that mere mortals can't grasp.  Good luck with that.

Over 1000? What's wrong with government money that you needed to spend half a million dollars on internet tokens?

Look at my sig.  I have been running Bitcoin shops since 2011 and mined a few thousand.

Not sure what that has to do with banks though.  In a free market, there will always be banks.

[Carlton Banks]

In a free market, there will always be analogue mobile phones...

And why are you holding so much BTC? Don't you know how risky the cryptocurrency concept is long term? Your thousands of BTC could go to zero.

[Hawker]

In a free market, there will always be analogue mobile phones...

And why are you holding so much BTC? Don't you know how risky the cryptocurrency concept is long term? Your thousands of BTC could go to zero.

I don't care if they do.  Bitcoin is the most important social experiment going on the Internet this century.  Personally I don't think the value will ever go as low as zero but what's far more interesting to me is whether Bitcoin succeeds as a currency.  

Assessing risk in capital markets.  Packing securities to finance major projects.  There are tons of services that specialist banks provide that business won't want to be without.  As long as there is an economy worth investing in, people will want to borrow to raise capital and that means banks will be around. 

[bbulker]

Ah, ignorance, it truly is bliss!  Whenever you laugh at a conspiracy theorist, the next thing is to be called 'ignorant' or 'naive'.

Are we going to start talking about the 'sheeple' soon?  Or do you have a little more respect for your compatriots?

Ah, the times you get called a conspiracy theorist for knowing a little history. You are the one that attacked first, mocking on a subject you know very little about. Where is your respect? I suggest you visit a library for the first time in your life.

[Carlton Banks]

In a free market, there will always be analogue mobile phones...

And why are you holding so much BTC? Don't you know how risky the cryptocurrency concept is long term? Your thousands of BTC could go to zero.

I don't care if they do.  Bitcoin is the most important social experiment going on the Internet this century.  Personally I don't think the value will ever go as low as zero but what's far more interesting to me is whether Bitcoin succeeds as a currency.  

Assessing risk in capital markets.  Packing securities to finance major projects.  There are tons of services that specialist banks provide that business won't want to be without.  As long as there is an economy worth investing in, people will want to borrow to raise capital and that means banks will be around.  

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. You tin foil hat people are always claiming bitcoin is this big sophisticated technological currency revolution, yet it can't even hang onto 50% of it's value for more than 5 minutes. Anything that's totally intangible, worth zero, suddenly becomes worth 100's of dollars, and picks up wide-eyed mouth frothing acolytes as a result is nothing short of a crypto-cult ponzi scheme.

Do you really think bitcoin can get rid of banks, Hawker? You're an idiot for even suggesting it.

[Hawker]

In a free market, there will always be analogue mobile phones...

And why are you holding so much BTC? Don't you know how risky the cryptocurrency concept is long term? Your thousands of BTC could go to zero.

I don't care if they do.  Bitcoin is the most important social experiment going on the Internet this century.  Personally I don't think the value will ever go as low as zero but what's far more interesting to me is whether Bitcoin succeeds as a currency.  

Assessing risk in capital markets.  Packing securities to finance major projects.  There are tons of services that specialist banks provide that business won't want to be without.  As long as there is an economy worth investing in, people will want to borrow to raise capital and that means banks will be around. 

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. You tin foil hat people are always claiming bitcoin is this big sophisticated technological currency revolution, yet it can't even hang onto 50% of it's value for more than 5 minutes. Anything that's totally intangible, worth zero, suddenly becomes worth 100's of dollars, and picks up wide-eyed mouth frothing acolytes as a result is nothing short of a crypto-cult ponzi scheme.

Do you really think bitcoin can get rid of banks, Hawker? You're an idiot for even suggesting it.

Ah good - we have agreement. 

[Hawker]

Ah, ignorance, it truly is bliss!  Whenever you laugh at a conspiracy theorist, the next thing is to be called 'ignorant' or 'naive'.

Are we going to start talking about the 'sheeple' soon?  Or do you have a little more respect for your compatriots?

Ah, the times you get called a conspiracy theorist for knowing a little history. You are the one that attacked first, mocking on a subject you know very little about. Where is your respect? I suggest you visit a library for the first time in your life.

You get called a conspiracy theorist for having a conspiracy theory. 

[Carlton Banks]

In a free market, there will always be analogue mobile phones...

And why are you holding so much BTC? Don't you know how risky the cryptocurrency concept is long term? Your thousands of BTC could go to zero.

I don't care if they do.  Bitcoin is the most important social experiment going on the Internet this century.  Personally I don't think the value will ever go as low as zero but what's far more interesting to me is whether Bitcoin succeeds as a currency.  

Assessing risk in capital markets.  Packing securities to finance major projects.  There are tons of services that specialist banks provide that business won't want to be without.  As long as there is an economy worth investing in, people will want to borrow to raise capital and that means banks will be around. 

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. You tin foil hat people are always claiming bitcoin is this big sophisticated technological currency revolution, yet it can't even hang onto 50% of it's value for more than 5 minutes. Anything that's totally intangible, worth zero, suddenly becomes worth 100's of dollars, and picks up wide-eyed mouth frothing acolytes as a result is nothing short of a crypto-cult ponzi scheme.

Do you really think bitcoin can get rid of banks, Hawker? You're an idiot for even suggesting it.

Ah good - we have agreement. 

Next I suppose you're going to backpedal about your opinion that bankers are the cause of all wars.

[bbulker]

You get called a conspiracy theorist for having a conspiracy theory. 

History is theoretical? Hmm...

[Carlton Banks]

You get called a conspiracy theorist for having a conspiracy theory. 

History is theoretical? Hmm...

He's already proved that he's the real conspiracy theorist. He believes that completely invented currency, represented by bits and bytes in a database, can be actually worth money! Lol. He thinks it could "take off"! Everyone knows you can't just make money up, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

[Hawker]

You get called a conspiracy theorist for having a conspiracy theory. 

History is theoretical? Hmm...

He's already proved that he's the real conspiracy theorist. He believes that completely invented currency, represented by bits and bytes in a database, can be actually worth money! Lol. He thinks it could "take off"! Everyone knows you can't just make money up, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

If I were asked to grade your effort at sarcasm, I'd say "Must try harder."

[uranian]

Do you really think bitcoin can get rid of banks, Hawker? You're an idiot for even suggesting it.

It's been an interesting thread, and I'm glad that other people see BTC in the same light that I do, as something that can potentially save us from our banking overlords. A shame you had to start with the ad hominems, Carlton.

Here's an interesting link for those capable of mentally dealing with the fact that history is largely a conspiracy:

http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

[Carlton Banks]

Anyway, back to the thread.

History shows us that the central banking magnates were responsible for financing both sides of many to most wars in recent history. But I don't think that gets around the fact that corporate magnates have been proven to do the same. Not by lending money, but by lending material resources (metals, timber, chemicals, crude oil distillates...). Alot of the corporate guys also happened to be significant partners in banking corporations, which in turn had controlling stakes in the central banks.

So, what do we mean when we say "All Wars are Bankers' Wars"? Because it's not difficult to find the evidence that the most significant controlling interests in the banks who orchestrated these wars went to some lengths to obscure how much control they did have. There is also some evidence to suggest that they had some control over the state espionage services as well, such that catalysing events that trigger the declaration of war by a sitting Monarch could well have been the result of their actions, and not a genuine escalation of rivalry at all. There is much less doubt that these people also had ownership of news agencies, both the newspaper titles themselves as well as the international reporting networks. If a story was required to appear to affect public sentiment or perception, the tools to do so were readily available (and evidence suggests, frequently used)

How do we label these people, who use double agents, media networks, industry and banking, all in concert with one another, to tip nations into conflict? Bankers? It doesn't seem like an adequate description, even if control of banking is a vital component. I would suggest that the others are just as vital, especially if you want to be able to tweak the result of the conflict in the way you desire the most.

[bryant.coleman]

History shows us that the central banking magnates were responsible for financing both sides of many to most wars in recent history.

I'd agree here. Only two types of people benefit from wars. The first one are private security contractors (or mercenaries to be precise). The second type are the bankers.

[Hawker]

History shows us that the central banking magnates were responsible for financing both sides of many to most wars in recent history.

I'd agree here. Only two types of people benefit from wars. The first one are private security contractors (or mercenaries to be precise). The second type are the bankers.

I grew up in a war zone.  Ireland - there were many sides but lets look at the two main ones - the IRA and the UDA - who fought one another and killed about 3000 people.

Did either pay their volunteers?  No.

Did either own banks? No.

Did either ever lack popular support?  No.

People go to war when there is something worth fighting for.  No need for banks.

[Carlton Banks]

History shows us that the central banking magnates were responsible for financing both sides of many to most wars in recent history.

I'd agree here. Only two types of people benefit from wars. The first one are private security contractors (or mercenaries to be precise). The second type are the bankers.

I grew up in a war zone.  Ireland - there were many sides but lets look at the two main ones - the IRA and the UDA - who fought one another and killed about 3000 people.

Did either pay their volunteers?  No.

Did either own banks? No.

Did either ever lack popular support?  No.

People go to war when there is something worth fighting for.  No need for banks.

Overexagerrating is just your default setting, isn't it?

Besides, if you heard about the official reports into the Irish paramilitary conflict (which wasn't strictly speaking a war anyway), you'll know that the British espionage services were infiltrating the paramilitaries and influencing their operations to their own ends. They forced or tricked some people (involved in the conflict or not) into bombing targets that would undermine support for the paramilitaries. Or they targetted Irish people as scapegoats for bomb attacks in England that were conducted not by the paramilitaries, but by the British espionage services (again, to undermine support for Irish paramilitaries).

This was an official report. You know, the same sort of officials that never conspire against normal people. Interesting how the connection between the espionage agencies ties in with the power brokers that own controlling stakes in the banks, don't you think?

[Hawker]

History shows us that the central banking magnates were responsible for financing both sides of many to most wars in recent history.

I'd agree here. Only two types of people benefit from wars. The first one are private security contractors (or mercenaries to be precise). The second type are the bankers.

I grew up in a war zone.  Ireland - there were many sides but lets look at the two main ones - the IRA and the UDA - who fought one another and killed about 3000 people.

Did either pay their volunteers?  No.

Did either own banks? No.

Did either ever lack popular support?  No.

People go to war when there is something worth fighting for.  No need for banks.

Overexagerrating is just your default setting, isn't it?

Besides, if you heard about the official reports into the Irish paramilitary conflict (which wasn't strictly speaking a war anyway), you'll know that the British espionage services were infiltrating the paramilitaries and influencing their operations to their own ends. They forced or tricked some people (involved in the conflict or not) into bombing targets that would undermine support for the paramilitaries. Or they targetted Irish people as scapegoats for bomb attacks in England that were conducted not by the paramilitaries, but by the British espionage services (again, to undermine support for Irish paramilitaries).

This was an official report. You know, the same sort of officials that never conspire against normal people. Interesting how the connection between the espionage agencies ties in with the power brokers that own controlling stakes in the banks, don't you think?

I appreciate you are trying to map a reality that doesn't fit into your world-view.  

And you are correct that the Irish and British secret services were involved.  So were North Korean agencies, Palestinian entities, a South African organisation, the Libyan government and a lot of Irish Americans.  But they came after the essential element - 2 peoples had something that was worth fighting over and there was enough religious hatred to guarantee that never week went by without an attack of some kind.

People who hate one another for whatever reason will go to war.  They don't need governments.  They don't need bankers. To blame bankers for human nature is a mistake.

[Carlton Banks]

Nice that we've found a conspiracy theory you can believe in (well actually, better make that two...)

What do you think was motivating the Irish people that wanted to be ruled by the British? Power? Money? How were they expecting to benefit from having their administration decided by a foreign political power?

[Hawker]

Nice that we've found a conspiracy theory you can believe in (well actually, better make that two...)

What do you think was motivating the Irish people that wanted to be ruled by the British? Power? Money? How were they expecting to benefit from having their administration decided by a foreign political power?

Identity.  They are Loyalist; truly British and they have will never betray the Queen.  They are Protestant and would regard Catholic rule as oppression.

If you are curious, the Nationalists have the same things in reverse.  Irish and loath being forced to serve the Queen.  Catholic and regard the Protestant Church headed by the Queen as an abomination.

Most people won't kill or die for power or money. But they will kill or die for their idea of right and wrong.

[Carlton Banks]

Nice that we've found a conspiracy theory you can believe in (well actually, better make that two...)

What do you think was motivating the Irish people that wanted to be ruled by the British? Power? Money? How were they expecting to benefit from having their administration decided by a foreign political power?

Identity.  They are Loyalist; truly British and they have will never betray the Queen.  They are Protestant and would regard Catholic rule as oppression.

If you are curious, the Nationalists have the same things in reverse.  Irish and loath being forced to serve the Queen.  Catholic and regard the Protestant Church headed by the Queen as an abomination.

Most people won't kill or die for power or money. But they will kill or die for their idea of right and wrong.

Skilled and intelligent psychopathic manipulators tend to win political leadership battles. They don't care about right or wrong, and they don't care about tribal identity. They care solely about being the alpha.

Do you believe that the people with the psychological skills to cultivate a community toward identifying with being ruled by a foreign power didn't have the same foreign power backing their leadership aspirations?

[Hawker]

Nice that we've found a conspiracy theory you can believe in (well actually, better make that two...)

What do you think was motivating the Irish people that wanted to be ruled by the British? Power? Money? How were they expecting to benefit from having their administration decided by a foreign political power?

Identity.  They are Loyalist; truly British and they have will never betray the Queen.  They are Protestant and would regard Catholic rule as oppression.

If you are curious, the Nationalists have the same things in reverse.  Irish and loath being forced to serve the Queen.  Catholic and regard the Protestant Church headed by the Queen as an abomination.

Most people won't kill or die for power or money. But they will kill or die for their idea of right and wrong.

Skilled and intelligent psychopathic manipulators tend to win political leadership battles. They don't care about right or wrong, and they don't care about tribal identity. They care solely about being the alpha.

Do you believe that the people with the psychological skills to cultivate a community toward identifying with being ruled by a foreign power didn't have the same foreign power backing their leadership aspirations?

Not bothered about psychopaths to be honest.  Its been my experience that perfectly decent lads will beat you to death if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Fundamentally, you are trying to create an "other" and blame that for the fact that we are a violent species.  It won't work.  Where you have people, you will always have violence.  When you have nations or tribes intermixing, you always run the risk of riots or wars.  Its not psychopaths or bankers or Jews that causes wars - its us.

[Carlton Banks]

Nice that we've found a conspiracy theory you can believe in (well actually, better make that two...)

What do you think was motivating the Irish people that wanted to be ruled by the British? Power? Money? How were they expecting to benefit from having their administration decided by a foreign political power?

Identity.  They are Loyalist; truly British and they have will never betray the Queen.  They are Protestant and would regard Catholic rule as oppression.

If you are curious, the Nationalists have the same things in reverse.  Irish and loath being forced to serve the Queen.  Catholic and regard the Protestant Church headed by the Queen as an abomination.

Most people won't kill or die for power or money. But they will kill or die for their idea of right and wrong.

Skilled and intelligent psychopathic manipulators tend to win political leadership battles. They don't care about right or wrong, and they don't care about tribal identity. They care solely about being the alpha.

Do you believe that the people with the psychological skills to cultivate a community toward identifying with being ruled by a foreign power didn't have the same foreign power backing their leadership aspirations?

Not bothered about psychopaths to be honest.  Its been my experience that perfectly decent lads will beat you to death if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Fundamentally, you are trying to create an "other" and blame that for the fact that we are a violent species.  It won't work.  Where you have people, you will always have violence.  When you have nations or tribes intermixing, you always run the risk of riots or wars.  Its not psychopaths or bankers or Jews that causes wars - its us.

This whole 'create an "other"' argument of yours makes no sense at all. You can't just choose at which stage of the investigation of cause and effect that suits your argument to close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears.

All you're demonstrating is that you don't want to confront the very different strings of events, and the actors in those events, and the differing motives of the individual actors, that really begin and prosecute each separate war. Saying 'us' cause wars is like insisting that the sun lets us see in the daylight.

Carlton: what about the electro-chemical mechanisms of the human eye, the evolutionary forces that drove human genetics to express the cells that conferred those mechanisms, the fabric of space-time that permits the propagation of the electro-magnetic energy, the cyclical nuclear fusion that generates the light rays, the quantum energy that variously induces the existence of all of the above?

Hawker: Bah, that's all just conspiracy theory. The sun enables sight, the end.

[Hawker]

...snip...

This whole 'create an "other"' argument of yours makes no sense at all. You can't just choose at which stage of the investigation of cause and effect that suits your argument to close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears.

All you're demonstrating is that you don't want to confront the very different strings of events, and the actors in those events, and the differing motives of the individual actors, that really begin and prosecute each separate war. Saying 'us' cause wars is like insisting that the sun lets us see in the daylight.

Carlton: what about the electro-chemical mechanisms of the human eye, the evolutionary forces that drove human genetics to express the cells that conferred those mechanisms, the fabric of space-time that permits the propagation of the electro-magnetic energy, the cyclical nuclear fusion that generates the light rays, the quantum energy that variously induces the existence of all of the above?

Hawker: Bah, that's all just conspiracy theory. The sun enables sight, the end.

If that analogy makes sense to anyone else, by all means let them reply to it.  

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/viable-device-discovered-at-armagh-house-1.1641332

These guys are at war with their Protestant neighbours and the British security services.  They won't stop until the British surrendur and the Protestants leave Ireland.  If you went to Armagh 100 years ago, similiar guys were making similiar devices.  If gene therapy works and you live 100 years more and go to Armagh in 2114, you will find similiar guys making bombs of some kind.

I believe this is perfectly normal human behaviour.  Our history is a history of conflict and wars and there will never be a peaceful human society.  As it happens, its very unlikely there will ever be a human society without banks either.

You seem to believe that all wars are bankers' wars.  Do you believe that somewhere out there a banker is co-ordinating the IRA campaign to drive the Protestants out of Ireland and defeat the British Army?  

In the interests of fairness, I can provide a Loyalist alternative.  The UVF is still actively fighting Catholics and will carry on doing so until Doomsday.  Literally until Doomsday as they believe the Pope will have a role in the apocalypse.  IF you believe that there is a banker out there running that campaign as well, do let us know.

[Bitcoiner333]

The Zionist own the media and banks.

[Carlton Banks]

It doesn't matter how many times I tell Hawker what I believe, he's quite happy to present something I didn't actually say as the argument I'm making. And then arguing his counter-point to the fantasy.

Trolling, or just stupid? Trolling... and stupid?

[Hawker]

It doesn't matter how many times I tell Hawker what I believe, he's quite happy to present something I didn't actually say as the argument I'm making. And then arguing his counter-point to the fantasy.

Trolling, or just stupid? Trolling... and stupid?

I'm stupid.

Tell me what you believe causes wars.  Use small words as I am so stupid.

[Carlton Banks]

What causes war?

Hawker: people

What causes people to war?

Hawker: hate

What causes hate?

Hawker: religion

What causes religion?

Hawker: identity

What causes identity?

Hawker: living in a place


You're a bit of a reductionist, aren't you? If you're not reducing things to the simplest explanation you can imagine, you're over-exagerrating something else just because you like "winning".

Are you sure you're a millionaire businessman? You seem very insecure for someone with so much going for themselves.

[Hawker]

What causes war?

Hawker: people

What causes people to war?

Hawker: hate

What causes hate?

Hawker: religion

What causes religion?

Hawker: identity

What causes identity?

Hawker: living in a place


You're a bit of a reductionist, aren't you? If you're not reducing things to the simplest explanation you can imagine, you're over-exagerrating something else just because you like "winning".

Are you sure you're a millionaire businessman? You seem very insecure for someone with so much going for themselves.

Still waiting for you to say what you think causes wars.  If you want, use big words.

[Hawker]

The Zionist own the media and banks.

Isn't it nice when a conspiracy nut makes clear right from the start which particular flavour of conspiracy theory he prefers?

Thanks for your clarity.

[Carlton Banks]

Still waiting for you to say what you think causes wars.  If you want, use big words.

I think watching you sulk on your own is probably more productive. Your millionaire fortune will keep you company.

[Hawker]

Still waiting for you to say what you think causes wars.  If you want, use big words.

I think watching you sulk on your own is probably more productive. Your millionaire fortune will keep you company.

Hmmm.  You puzzle me.  On the one hand you predict a future where my Bitcoin will be a fortune such as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett amassed.  I have to say I like that Carlton Banks.  Not sure you are right but its nice that you predict such good things for me.

On the other hand, you spend forever defending the some conspiracy theory which does lead me to question your judgement that I am worth the equivalent of billions of dollars.  

Since we seem to be in agreement that the whole "all wars are bankers' wars" notion is bogus, I'll leave you in peace.  If it helps you, imagine me sulking and examining my property portfolio.

[ccwirral]

He was a lot nicer in the fresh prince =(

Sorry about your dad =(

[Kaligulax]

After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes. But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and know full well how easy it is to corrupt a nation's leaders.