Usury War on Humanity/Emancipation of the Human Spirit | INFJ Forum

Usury War on Humanity/Emancipation of the Human Spirit

myself

Permanent Fixture
Apr 1, 2009
1,281
408
642
MBTI
INFJ
[video=youtube;FEheU28ea3c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEheU28ea3c&list=UU39gtP-luh7xIFYAa6Fxzew&index=1[/video]
 
Is this the whole idea that a shady cabal of Jewish bankers are seeking to enslave the world through the money system?

Its familiar from some place...
 
Is this the whole idea that a shady cabal of Jewish bankers are seeking to enslave the world through the money system?

Its familiar from some place...

You should watch it and find out...then you wouldn't need to ask
 
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]"Be the Change" means be the Banksters. [/FONT]

It is insufficient to simply be citizen journalists. Why? Journalists only report the news. They don't create it. Alternatively, Banksters and their minions create history.

In order for us to win our emancipation we must be the benevolent Banksters. Who create our own self-issued Hour Money systems.
[video=youtube;fYhVIuNuIFc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYhVIuNuIFc&list=UUdabr3ifCDfQZXvBuiTYArg[/video]
 
You should watch it and find out...then you wouldn't need to ask

And waste my time with some singularly unpersuasive David Icke Protocols of The Elders of Zion lite?

I value my time too much for that.
 
And waste my time with some singularly unpersuasive David Icke Protocols of The Elders of Zion lite?

I value my time too much for that.

You just said the following in another thread:

http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29328&p=795854#post795854

I tend to think that there's dialogue, then discussion and then that degenerates through a number of stages like debate and dispute to argument, each stage is less useful if the goal is truth, or a shared understanding which is a fair secondary objective were no mutually regarded truth or consensus can be reached.

The reason I think they are less and less useful is because emoting and psychological defensiveness plays the greater part with each stage of this degeneration.

Edmund Burke said that people should be grateful for their antagonists because they engage them in a sort of mental wrestling match and compell them to make better arguments and refine their arguments, forcing the close examination of their thinking that maybe they have not personally engaged in (bare in mind that Burke also thought that gut instinct or prejudice was a sounder basis for judgement than reason, like a lot of conservatives, who later did juxtaposition abstract and practical reasoning).

JS Mill liked debate societies and public discussions for what appears to be similar motives, although he was a fan of reasoning and rationalism rather than prejudice, he described Burke as a one eyed man and said that in the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man was king (a one eyed man is supposedly a myopic individual, its similar to a single minded man or one idea man).

In contrast to these sorts of thinkers who felt there was a role for managed and civil conflict, differences of opinion being good things for different purposes (better to prove yourself correct, better to pursue truth), Hitler hated debating societies and the atmosphere they generated, he hated conflict and wanted to end it once and for all with only a single prevailing opinion allowed. I tend to believe that both left and right are hankering after the outcome which Hitler thought was desirable rather than either Mill or Burke at this point.

Try and discuss mixed economies or financial regulation with a libertarian or the dominance of heterosexuality with a liberal and see what I mean.

You seem to be critical of hitlers refusal to consider others views and yet here you are doing exactly the same
 
"Be the Change" means be the Banksters.

It is insufficient to simply be citizen journalists. Why? Journalists only report the news. They don't create it. Alternatively, Banksters and their minions create history.

In order for us to win our emancipation we must be the benevolent Banksters. Who create our own self-issued Hour Money systems.
[video=youtube;fYhVIuNuIFc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYhVIuNuIFc&list=UUdabr3ifCDfQZXvBuiTYArg[/video]

You know the origins of these theories and how successful they were the last time right?

I mean I read Proudhon and his ideas about a people bank, free credit and money with no value in itself but only exchange value back when I was fifthteen or sixteen and they were extremely old ideas at that time, extremely old. Marx and others criticised them well.

Practically they've been tried and tried again in the shape of LETS schemes, Local Exchange Trading Schemes, which are fine as far as they go, time banks, labour or skills exchanges, they've all been suggested and tried in a dozen formats like Ivan Illich in Tools For Conviviality but they are often just reinvented barter systems, often employed by pretty desperate people with no cash and not a real alternative to the real cash economy. The gift relationship isnt ever likely to eclipse money.

Marx et al were pretty critical of socialist fiddling with distribution in the communist manifesto and elsewhere because they realised that while capitalism hadnt dispensed with class struggles it had took a massive step in the direction of the capacity to create the sort of super abundance and post scarcity society necessary to dispense with class struggles. It still makes sense. Rather than Zapatista merchantilism or any anti-Jew banker propaganda.
 
You believe there is equivalence between what I have said and Adolf Hitler?

You Godwined the thread in two posts. Got to be a record.

Yeah you express the same sort of arrogantly aggressive dogmatism

All i can say is i'm really glad you have no power
 
[MENTION=963]myself[/MENTION]

You're absolutely right that there should be increasing dialogue in the public sphere about alternatives to the current debt based system

There are many ideas out there and despite Larks attempts to brush them under the carpet many of them have not been given a fair try or are marginalised by the very same marxist elites that lark supports
 
[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] Thank you for your passion, but please argue elsewhere, do not hijack this thread.
 
@Lark and @muir Thank you for your passion, but please argue elsewhere, do not hijack this thread.

I'm not sure I know what you mean, I'm not hijacking the thread but its not a blog, at least I didnt think it was, so I can comment and I just happen to disagree with what you're putting out.
 
we have every reason to be optimistic
because we must have a change
be a visionary
imagine a new way to live
this is the work we must do
we owe this much to ourselves

we can do better
emancipation must come from the people!

we can do it, and we must, and we will!

we live for love! peace! truth! freedom!

[video=youtube;3TN5OuI4xd4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TN5OuI4xd4&index=42&list=UUdabr3ifCDfQZXv BuiTYArg[/video]

"Monetary reform is THE MOST essential challenge facing humanity.


But, what kind of monetary reform is best?
Money monopoly with or without government is the foundational problem. "He who has the gold makes the rules" means that a tiny few elite who control money issuance rule even without government.

The "have-nots" cannot ISSUE Federal Reserve Notes, gold, silver, Bitcoin or Lincoln Greenbacks. That means whoever does ISSUE those various forms of monopoly money will "make the rules". That means that an oligarch will usurp the will of the masses.

What can we agree on? Everyone knows that "barter beats the bankers". Why? 1. Barter is free 2. Barter is decentralized. 3. There's no 3rd party parasitism. 4. No inflation. 5. No contract fraud created by interest.

Solution? The "have-nots" must ISSUE their own anti-monopoly money in the form of Barter Scrip.

Hour Money is ISSUED by the have-nots for free, decentralized, and without interest."
 
I'm not sure I know what you mean, I'm not hijacking the thread but its not a blog, at least I didnt think it was, so I can comment and I just happen to disagree with what you're putting out.

rofl

how can you disagree with what he's putting it out after you have just said you didn't even look at it?

Now you don't seem like an idiot...so why isn't that inherent contradiction obvious to you?

You do this all the time...i gave you another example earlier in the thread

You made this big statement about how bad hitler was because he wouldn't listen to other peoples views and then you came into this thread and said you weren't prepared to listen to other peoples views

How can you not see how you are so ironic all the time? ('i'm being kind by using the word 'ironic' there)
 
http://moneyasdebt.wordpress.com/20...-credit-issued-by-treasury-rather-than-banks/

[h=1]BRING BACK the Bradbury Pound – interest-free – backed by Public Credit – issued by The Treasury rather than Banks[/h] Green Credit for Green Purposes was our proposal to the Treasury Select Committee in 2008 – ‘to do it electronically’.
But on 7 Aug 1914 the Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer did it on paper: John Bradbury signed the Bradbury Pound – instead of borrowing money from private investors for the Government.
Justin R G Walker talks about it to Brian Gerrish of UK Column on this video and mentions the ‘credit of the Nation’.
Austin Mitchell MP has been tabling Early Day Motions along the Public Credit since 2002. It sounds so simple and yet is so profound:

[MENTION=18]Brad[/MENTION]burypound is the Twitter handle.
William Franklin writes this awesome 6,000 word article with images about the historic context.
Here it is on another video:

[video=youtube;ZsXI38ey-nY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXI38ey-nY[/video]
 
[MENTION=4115]Lark[/MENTION] [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
You both have strong opinions, and that's ok, I just want to keep this thread on topic.
This is not a blog, but please respect my wish to keep this thread clean.

This thread is not a venue for you two to bicker with each other. Your arguing is boring.
Take your arguments elsewhere. This is a safe place for creative discussion. Keep it on topic or don't post at all.

I'll request that any further off topic posts be deleted from here on out.

[video=youtube;s6a_0zJDsr8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6a_0zJDsr8&list=UU82By0y-2ZdjigNu5bWY4LQ[/video]

"On Thursday 20th November 2014, for the first time in 170 years, UK parliament has debated the creation of money. Few people know that 97% of our money supply is created not by the government (or the central bank), but by commercial banks in the form of loans.

As the results of our recent poll show, most MPs lack a sufficient understanding of money creation. A worrying number of our MPs do not understand where money comes from. This leaves them ill-equipped to predict another financial crisis, deal with rising debt, housing bubbles or understand a fundamental driver of inequality."

More info: http://www.positivemoney.org/2014/11/uk-parliament-debate-money-creation-first-time-170-years/
 
@Lark @muir
You both have strong opinions, and that's ok, I just want to keep this thread on topic.
This is not a blog, but please respect my wish to keep this thread clean.

This thread is not a venue for you two to bicker with each other. Your arguing is boring.
Take your arguments elsewhere. This is a safe place for creative discussion. Keep it on topic or don't post at all.

I'll request that any further off topic posts be deleted from here on out.

[video=youtube;s6a_0zJDsr8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6a_0zJDsr8&list=UU82By0y-2ZdjigNu5bWY4LQ[/video]

"On Thursday 20th November 2014, for the first time in 170 years, UK parliament has debated the creation of money. Few people know that 97% of our money supply is created not by the government (or the central bank), but by commercial banks in the form of loans.

As the results of our recent poll show, most MPs lack a sufficient understanding of money creation. A worrying number of our MPs do not understand where money comes from. This leaves them ill-equipped to predict another financial crisis, deal with rising debt, housing bubbles or understand a fundamental driver of inequality."

More info: http://www.positivemoney.org/2014/11/uk-parliament-debate-money-creation-first-time-170-years/

I do find it exciting that the government is discussing such matters but at the same time i don;t trust zac goldsmith and not just because he is a tory politician but because of his own banking connections

He's connected to the rothschilds for example

These guys are the giys steering things from behind the scenes

They are the people who have been sabotaging the capitalist system so that they can move us closer to their system

This is why i think this discussion about money and how it works and if we even need money at all should be a public debate that includes all of the public and the private sector as well as the public sector because it could be easy in the current difficult economic evironment for these guys to lead us into a new system that on the surface seems good but could ultimately lead us down a path we don;t want to be on

I'll gve you an example...i have mentioned the idea of the government paying everyone money; this idea has been bandied around by david graeber who is an academic with links to the london school of economics. Whenever i hear david speak he makes sense to me and i agree with him about how we are enslaved by debt but his links to the LSE (which is a fabian socialist establishment) concerns me

So i think we should thoroughly discuss and turnover all these ideas in the public sphere before any changes are made

I;d like to hear what everyone has to say about these matters in case i've missed somethign before i come down on one side

I'd like to hear what the 'left' and the 'right' has to say, i'd like to hear from the libertarians as well as the mixed economies people and socialists, i'd like to hear from the bankers and the so called 'conspiracy theorists' and i'd like to ehar what the alternative media has to say about these various ideas becasue sometimes the bad guys disguise stuff as trojan horses (when their real intention is to enslave in a new way)

So the following idea seems good on the surface (giving everyone a chunk of money every year) but what kind of effect would that have on people psychologically? Would it end poverty or would it rob people of all purpose and challenge in life?

Thats a difficult question to answer and as i say i;d like there to be public debate on it because i trust humanity to find the right answer but sometimes the more aggressive/powerful people can hide the truth with their own ideas

Here's an article on the idea:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...y-you-alive/aaLVJsUAc5pKh0iYTFrXpI/story.html

Should the government pay you to be alive?

It sounds radical, but the ‘guaranteed basic income’ almost became law in the United States—and it’s having a revival now, with some surprising supporters.


By Leon NeyfakhGlobe Staff February 09, 2014

It was supposed to be better by now—maybe not all the way better, but definitely better than it is. With the unemployment rate still nearly 7 percent and more than 46 million Americans living below the poverty line, the recovery that was supposed to follow the Great Recession has been slow, frustrating, and increasingly worrisome.
It’s a problem that has bedeviled the country’s leading economists and its most powerful policy makers. But explain the whole mess to an 8-year-old, and you might hear a solution that will sound laughably obvious: Why not just give everyone some money? That way, even poor people could afford to feed their families and pay rent.
If that feels naive in its simplicity, prepare to be surprised. The notion of a government paying its people just for being alive has a name—“guaranteed basic income”—and has recently been making headway as a legitimate policy proposal in countries all over the world.
Activists in Europe, most notably in Switzerland, have succeeded at injecting the idea into mainstream political debate. A recent poll showed that it has the support of nearly half of Canadians. The president of Cyprus says he’ll launch a limited version of the scheme this summer. Brazil has been giving direct cash transfers to poor families ever since passing a basic income law in 2004; pilot programs have in recent years been carried out in India and Namibia.
In the United States, the idea of handing out unconditional government allowances is seen, understandably, as a nonstarter, despite enjoying some recent buzz among policy wonks. If nothing else, in today’s political environment, it just sounds too much like a socialist fantasy. But the idea has a deep legacy in the United States that almost uniquely stitches together figures on the left and right: Its prominent supporters have included Martin Luther King Jr. and John Kenneth Galbraith, and a version initially suggested by free-market economist Milton Friedman nearly became law under President Nixon. Recently, conservatives like Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, and Charles Murray, author of “The Bell Curve” and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, have stepped forward to support the idea; it’s also been embraced by the “Occupy”-affiliated academic David Graeber.
“You usually don’t have people from different ends of the political spectrum getting on board with the same sort of program,” said Brian Steensland, an associate professor of sociology at Indiana University and the author of the book “The Failed Welfare Revolution,” about how basic income went from being a marginal academic idea to a congressional bill and back again. “There’s just something in there that’s really appealing for people from a whole range of intellectual, philosophical, and economic perspectives.”
For pragmatists on the left, cash payments to all would be the fastest way to eradicate poverty, by making sure everyone, no matter their circumstances, has enough money to live on. For the utopian-minded, it holds the promise of a liberation from work—a way to make sure that the next John Lennon doesn’t have to waste all his time lifting boxes in a warehouse. For conservatives, it is a tool for rebuilding the bonds of civil society, putting people’s fortunes back in their own hands, and wiping out the messy, piecemeal, nanny-state safety net in one swoop.
At the moment, the idea is widely seen as too radical a departure from the status quo. Working out the mechanics would be a nightmare, and even that 8-year-old might suspect—rightly—that some people would just give up working. But even if the idea isn’t politically feasible in the short term, its proponents see it as the kind of deep-seated rethinking that may soon be needed to face a problem that doesn’t have an easy solution in our current system: that as technology, outsourcing, and other structural shifts transform our economy, it’s becoming increasingly clear that national prosperity does not necessarily mean there are enough good jobs for everyone who needs one.
In that light, the viability of a solution like the guaranteed basic income—and whether it can be made palatable to Americans for whom work ethic is a prized national value—ends up coming down less to politics than to the fundamental question of how we see the role of work both in the lives of individuals and in society as a whole.
***

America’s modern safety net is a complex machine, estimated to cost almost a trillion dollars a year, which operates on the premise that there are those who deserve help from the government and those who don’t. Unemployment benefits only go to people who can prove they’re looking for work; children’s health insurance is free only if their family income stays below a certain level. The goal, understandably, is for assistance to be temporary and limited to the people who really need it. But the real effect, many say, is an expensive tangle that subjects the neediest people to the most bureaucratic headaches, while tethering their lives to the requirements of government programs.
The idea of a guaranteed basic income throws all that out the window, replacing it with one straightforward policy that applies to everyone equally. Of course, not all basic income activists imagine the program working the same way. The most important argument is between those on the left, who generally believe that cash payments should be incorporated into the safety net we already have, and those on the right, who tend to argue they should just replace the entire welfare state. Beyond that, proposed plans have varied widely in their details. Charles Murray, in his book-length defense of the basic income, “In Our Hands,” suggests dismantling the welfare state and instead paying every citizen over 21 years of age $10,000 per year. Yale Law School professors Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott argue for one lump sum payment of $80,000 to be distributed to everyone on their 21st birthday. Others call for deciding on a particular income as a floor, and then using the tax system to make sure everyone takes home at least that much.
Though the concept of the state distributing money directly to its citizens has been around for centuries, in America the concept truly ripened during the 1960s.
This was not because of ’60s idealism, but because government economists looked out at the country and saw something terrifying. For the first time in history, they realized, job growth wasn’t keeping pace with the growing economy, meaning that there were segments of society where people couldn’t get work even as companies prospered.
This phenomenon, known as “structural unemployment,” combined with a fear about certain kinds of jobs being rendered obsolete by technology, led President Kennedy’s economic advisers to bring the notion of the guaranteed income to the table. It began to circulate in Washington policy circles in the form of a so-called Negative Income Tax — a term coined by Milton Friedman in his 1962 book, “Capitalism and Freedom.”
By the time Nixon and George McGovern were competing for the presidency in 1972, as Brian Steensland describes in his book, both the Democrats and the Republicans were floating versions of a basic income. McGovern advocated for a so-called Demogrant that would essentially drop a yearly gift of $1,000—not a full salary; more like $7,000 today—into the lap of every American. By that point, more than 1,000 economists had called on the federal government to adopt some kind of income guarantee immediately.
Despite all this momentum — even Donald Rumsfeld, who became director of the Office of Economic Opportunity when Nixon was elected, was a supporter — the idea ran aground after it was brought to Congress in the form of the Family Assistance Plan. It was voted down in committee, with some Democratic senators protesting that it wasn’t generous enough and others fearing it would disrupt the agricultural economy in the South.
According to Steven Pressman, an economist at Monmouth University in New Jersey and the co-editor of a 2005 book on the basic income guarantee, the idea suffered another blow in that period, when it was given a field test: a series of extraordinary social science experiments conducted between 1968 and 1980 in a number of US states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Colorado. In randomized trials, some households got unconditional cash transfers; others were assigned to “control groups” that did not.
The results confirmed the suspicions of skeptics: People who got the money worked less. Specifically, a small but significant percentage of secondary earners, typically women, reduced their working hours or dropped out of the labor force entirely. On top of that, the results showed that married couples who received cash transfers were more likely to get divorced.
guaranteed_income_crowd.jpg

“These two outcomes killed the idea,” said Belgian philosopher and political economist Philippe Van Parijs, one of the world’s most prominent advocates of a guaranteed basic income and a former visiting professor at Harvard. Ever since, Van Parijs said, the debate over how to end poverty in America has proceeded as if the option of a basic income simply didn’t exist.
***
In 2014, APPROACHING FIVE YEARS after the Great Recession technically ended, the problems the basic income scheme was supposed to solve in the ’70s have returned to the forefront: America’s gross domestic product is ticking up, and the stock market is booming—but millions of people are persistently, unfixably unemployed. As MIT professors Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue in their new book, “The Second Machine Age,” this will get even more extreme with time, as computers get better at doing jobs long reserved for people.
Between those shifts, and the mounting size of the safety net—add the ballooning cost of Medicare and Social Security to the government programs of the ’70s—some thinkers now believe we need to do more than wait out the post-recession hangover: Instead, we need a wholesale rethinking of government benefits.
“At some point, we are going to be spending such a ridiculous amount of money on [the welfare state] that it will become ridiculous to everyone,” Murray said. “Right now it’s already ridiculous to people on the right. How can we have ‘X’ trillions of dollars in transfer payments and still have 15 percent of the population below the poverty line? It’s idiotic. Well, at some point it will also become idiotic to people on the left, and so, that’s what I see as the opportunity, ultimately, for a grand compromise.”
That grand compromise, he explained, will involve the libertarian right saying, “we’ll give you on the left big government in terms of the amount of money we spend on people, if you will give us small government in terms of the ability of the government to screw around with people’s lives.”
“I don’t know when it’s going to happen,” Murray said. “But we are a lot closer to that point in 2014 than we were when I published the book [eight years ago.]”
Graeber, an anarchist and an anthropologist at the London School of Economics, sees a similar breaking point coming: “The free-market guys have been on this dogged campaign to convince people that any sort of visionary politics is only going to lead to the Gulag....But of course the system’s about to fall apart, as the people running it increasingly recognize.” The fact that even conservatives like Murray are coming around to the basic income idea, he said, means “they’re trying to grab onto it, because they know something’s gotta happen.”
***
Whether the American people could ever embrace some version of a guaranteed basic income may come down to how they feel about the results of those experiments from 40 years ago—the ones that seemed to show that people who get free government money tend to work less and get divorced more. While those outcomes were widely seen at the time as dooming the whole idea, some basic income proponents believed that view got it backward. The economist James Tobin, for one, a Nobel laureate who wrote the first technical paper on how a basic income would work, wondered why it had been seen as a negative thing that women, possibly stuck in marriages out of economic dependence, had been given the means to leave their husbands. And as Van Parijs remembers Tobin saying to him before his death in 2002, “If some people, for a period, want to make their own life easier by avoiding the double shift and getting up at 5 o’clock in the morning, why shouldn’t it be welcomed? Does it not make for a more flourishing life?”
The future of the basic income in the United States will depend on whether there’s room, politically, to discuss that question. It’s an article of faith in America that work is a positive value: full employment, full time, with no such thing as a free lunch. The basic income may be, as Martin Luther King Jr. suggested in his final book, a more moral and humane way than our current welfare system to share the fruits of a democracy. But it also requires a radical shift in thinking: by guaranteeing people money without requiring them to do anything in exchange, we decouple their value in society from their ability to do a job.
To some advocates of the basic income policy, this is an idea we have to start getting used to. Jobs, they suggest, are disappearing not just because of a temporary recession, but because technology is making it increasingly easy to build an economy with fewer laborers, thus driving the earning power of less skilled workers below the poverty level. This amounts to a looming disaster, the argument goes, unless we as a society commit to making sure everyone has enough to survive regardless of their employment status.
Put another way, the fact that humankind has advanced to the point where we need so much less human labor to maintain the same level of productivity can be seen as a positive, as long as we can let go of the belief that a full-time job is a prerequisite for a complete, meaningful life. If we live in a nation that can afford it, say the most utopian of the basic income thinkers, shouldn’t we give people the option of working less, or at least prevent them from having to scramble to stay alive?
For people who have never received a handout, who draw their dignity and identity from the work they do every day, that might sound like an unthinkable stretch. For others, it sounds like a solution.
Leon Neyfakh is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail leon.neyfakh@globe.com. Correction: Because of a reporting error, an earlier version of this article misstated the year George McGovern ran against Richard Nixon for president.
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] I don't have the energy to really read your last post, it almost hurts my eyes... too much copy/paste and poor formatting, it's overwhelming.
I skimmed over it for a few seconds, and it seems like we might be talking about different aspects of monetary reform.

I don't know really, I don't have the energy to focus on that block of text. Yes I'm being picky, but I've only got so much time/energy I care to spend sitting at the computer.

I'm not necessarily endorsing whatever Zac Goldsmith is doing, I just posted the video to share other perspectives being brought to the 'mainstream'.

I'm excited for the potential I see with local communities issuing their own local currency.

As the powerful creative beings we are, we are the ones with the ability to free ourselves from debt/slavery.
When we are issuing our own currency, we take back our power. We don't have to live like slaves for banker-thieves any longer.

For me, this is a call to action.
It's something creative and concrete.
It is a means of developing community.
This takes us beyond a mere critique of the matrix.
We must place our focus on solutions and become active in re-engineering the collective human experience.

We are here to be, to be free, to imagine, and create, to birth a new vision for all of humanity.

It's a time for us to figure this stuff out. I'm just excited to know this is being done all over the world.

If all world govt was to collapse tomorrow, we would be in barter mode. Instead of passively waiting for disaster, we can be actively engaging with our local communities now.

This is the place where idealism meets reality. Money is at the heart of it.

We all believe in the money we trade. Why? Why support the dirty dollar any more?

We can agree to do it ourselves, we can trade without including any other nasty corporations.

We can trade amongst ourselves without charging interest. It's a love based currency!

Y'know what I mean?! :D

[video=youtube;5rc4SI-15CQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rc4SI-15CQ[/video]
 
Is this the whole idea that a shady cabal of Jewish bankers are seeking to enslave the world through the money system?

Its familiar from some place...

Why jump to the conclusion that they're Jewish? I think you'll find that you're the anti-Semite here, by automatically associating 'evil banker' with 'Jew'. Were the Medici Jewish? No, and they're right up there with the Rothschild's as the very worst family of bankers in history. Thus it should be quite apparent that one need not be Jewish in order to be a cunt of the highest order; and thenceforth it can be extrapolated that one need not be an anti-Semite in order to hate and aim to destroy bankers.

Secondly, even if they are all Jewish, nobody is making an issue of their religion. They are committing crimes against humanity because they're bankers. Not because they're Jews. Scum is scum, doesn't matter which cosmic torture god it obeys; it must be eradicated.
 
Last edited:
Why jump to the conclusion that they're Jewish? I think you'll find that you're the anti-Semite here, by automatically associating 'evil banker' with 'Jew'. Were the Medici Jewish? No, and they're right up there with the Rothschild's as the very worst family of bankers in history. Thus it should be quite apparent that one need not be Jewish in order to be a cunt of the highest order; and thenceforth it can be extrapolated that one need not be an anti-Semite in order to hate and aim to destroy bankers.

Secondly, even if they are all Jewish, nobody is making an issue of their religion. They are committing crimes against humanity because they're bankers. Not because they're Jews. Scum is scum, doesn't matter which cosmic torture god it obeys; it must be eradicated.

Yeah, I didnt make any association between Jewry and banking, I just called your idea for what it is and the fact that you're an equal opportunities hater and expand the hate beyond Jewry to the "medici", ie Roman Catholics, doesnt change much about the character of the narrative.

You can keep your hate. Hope it works for you. Historically its been bad for everyone, like the Jonestown Kool Aid.