Financial Revolution Underway Led by Global Banking System

kenny olav

PJ_Saluki wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong: 9/11 was a false-flag act of terrorism perpetrated by Zionists, Muslims, centralized banks and the U.S. government? Is that correct, at least as far as you're concerned?

That's hard to believe. All this "truth" made me think of this column by Maddox, a guy you probably think is a false-flag asshole.

I've been researching all this 9/11 shit since Nov of 2001 and it still gives me braineurysms. I haven't come down on one side of the fence yet. What I can say is there is a whole lot of information out there, and not all 9/11 conspiracies fall into the "Loose Change" genre. There are some theorists that dismiss Loose Change and Alex Jones' Prison Planet as disinfo, which is funny because Alex Jones himself is always talking about disinfo. But this makes me wonder, how complicated can this be? How many people need to be involved?

Here's a few websites that I am not exactly promoting, but they don't get a lot of attention, so I think their worth looking at...

http://www.oilempire.us/media-strategy.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

but beware, it would take months to read thru all of what you'll find there. I've probably only read 5-10% of it. That's all I can handle before the brain rebels.

nobody

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I don't see a lot of variation in the war on terror angle in the media internationally do you?

European news media, as a whole, offers quite some variation...tv as well as print media are critical of american policies. the war in afghanistan is a matter of great dispute, also within various countries political parties...
dunno about the bbc in particular...but being limited to English language news coverage might be a slight disadvantage when it comes to getting the overall picture of "world news"...

m.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

nobody wrote:

European news media, as a whole, offers quite some variation...tv as well as print media are critical of american policies. the war in afghanistan is a matter of great dispute, also within various countries political parties...
dunno about the bbc in particular...but being limited to English language news coverage might be a slight disadvantage when it comes to getting the overall picture of "world news"...

m.

Times are changing as more people begin to figure out what the situation is, and ask questions for themselves. They (let's just say "radical elite elements" for sake of over complicating the argument) are losing the battle, and they know it. Knowledge is key.

Rewind to a few years ago, and I'd be very surprised to see anyone openly dissenting on an ongoing basis against the status quo....especially Israel. Still isn''t there really. The odd piece, but it's toned down. People are afraid to say what they really think.

I've been calling it out for a while now (and learning daily), and taking endless flack in the process. A lot of hate......so much hatred in the world is all I can say. I've been a magnet for it just by asking questions, and trying to get people to think differently.

The media has an extremely powerful hold on what reality is for a lot of people. It's a very insidious tool in the wrong hands.

It's encouraging to see people finally awakening to the reality that there is perhaps more than meets the eye. I kinda figured once people started getting hit in the pocketbooks perceptions would begin to shift in other directions and seek answers.

People push, they push back. Back and forth it goes, which is why they are now moving towards unifying the international currency structure, and giving (have already gave actually) the FED and IMF broad sweeping new powers of control and oversight. It's all very slight of hand, and cunning.

Call it conspiracy, but just like some that called Ron Paul (and other economists) crazy, etc... are now seeing that there is perhaps more to the picture, and maybe they were right after all about a few things.

I'm of the school of thought that nothing in politics is casual, and it is all very well orchestrated and thought out....especially when there is billions, and trillions of dollars at stake.

I'm still learning.

OutOfBreath

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I don't see a lot of variation in the war on terror angle in the media internationally do you?

Yes, I do. Some american networks can be pretty bad, but they do not set the tone for coverage worldwide.

It seems pretty homogeneous to me in the sense that everyone is rooting for the same team for the most part. If this wasn't the case, you would see a lot more mainstream media outlets continuously bashing Bush, Cheney, et al (Israel) incessantly for suspicious anti-humanitarian war rimes. Are you seeing this at all? I'm not. Maybe your news agencies portray this angle and I'm just not aware of it? Sure there is the occasional story that raises questions and doubts, but for the most part they all play along with what Reuters and AP churns out.

Well, I am seeing it. We even have a party in our coalition government now that wants to boycott Israel for their crimes. The coverage we get from there is pretty balanced actually. Israel is certainly not getting a free pass here.

But that is not what this thread was about. (I know you love to talk about Israel) This was about bankers controlling evrything, and with an addition from you: Zionist bankers. I was asking, and are still asking for some sources on that claim. So far you're only talking about perception of media coverage, not about the source that has you convinced that it's a zionist banking conspiracy alike to the one we (don't) see in the media.

I see that certain US media is Israel and generally US foreign policy cheer-leading (Notably Fox and CNN), but they are not the entire media, and their impact is far less outside US borders. Here, there is coverage both ways as there are politicians and parties that are very gung-ho pro-US and others that are the opposite. Neither the US nor Israel gets any free passes generally. (although certainly in fringe papers)

But I wont relent in asking for sources on the zionist banking conspiracy claim of yours. I'd think you'd be delighted to state your case with the backing you can muster. I will just assume if you dont adress that, that you have no backing and you are only speaking for yourself and your opinion.

Peace
Dan

nobody

OutOfBreath wrote:

But I wont relent in asking for sources on the zionist banking conspiracy claim of yours. I'd think you'd be delighted to state your case with the backing you can muster. I will just assume if you dont adress that, that you have no backing and you are only speaking for yourself and your opinion.

Peace
Dan

sources are sparse, I would assume, except the ones that cook up ground-breaking truths like "the jews run everything" and "gypsies steal little babies" for centuries now...that's my own personal conspiracy theory;)

RolandTD20Kdrummer

OutOfBreath wrote:

Yes, I do. Some american networks can be pretty bad, but they do not set the tone for coverage worldwide.


Well, I am seeing it. We even have a party in our coalition government now that wants to boycott Israel for their crimes. The coverage we get from there is pretty balanced actually. Israel is certainly not getting a free pass here.

But that is not what this thread was about. (I know you love to talk about Israel) This was about bankers controlling evrything, and with an addition from you: Zionist bankers. I was asking, and are still asking for some sources on that claim. So far you're only talking about perception of media coverage, not about the source that has you convinced that it's a zionist banking conspiracy alike to the one we (don't) see in the media.

I see that certain US media is Israel and generally US foreign policy cheer-leading (Notably Fox and CNN), but they are not the entire media, and their impact is far less outside US borders. Here, there is coverage both ways as there are politicians and parties that are very gung-ho pro-US and others that are the opposite. Neither the US nor Israel gets any free passes generally. (although certainly in fringe papers)

But I wont relent in asking for sources on the zionist banking conspiracy claim of yours. I'd think you'd be delighted to state your case with the backing you can muster. I will just assume if you dont adress that, that you have no backing and you are only speaking for yourself and your opinion.

Peace
Dan

If you're looking for a mainstream article stating that, it's going to be about 5 - 10 years.

Mainstream isn't even willing to admit the FED is a private organisation (cartel really) of private interests completely separate of any sort of federal control or oversight.

Besides, they would be sued and slandered out of existence.

To say you don't see it, over me also does not indicate to me that it isn't the case considering all roads do eventually end at Israel's doorstep.

This is where the brush meets the canvas on the global landscape so to speak.

It's a rather tight inner circle. Why do you suppose it's so incredibly important to put Israel so high on a pedestal? It's a filter.

OutOfBreath

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

If you're looking for a mainstream article stating that, it's going to be about 5 - 10 years.

Mainstream isn't even willing to admit the FED is a private organisation (cartel really) of private interests completely separate of any sort of federal control or oversight.

Besides, they would be sued and slandered out of existence.

To say you don't see it, over me also does not indicate to me that it isn't the case considering all roads do eventually end at Israel's doorstep.

This is where the brush meets the canvas on the global landscape so to speak.

It's a rather tight inner circle. Why do you suppose it's so incredibly important to put Israel so high on a pedestal? It's a filter.

I'm not even asking about mainstream, although I am asking to refrain from obvious conspiracy-nut sites. There are some ground between the two. Can you get nothing from the in-between? If not, then fine, gimme the conspiracies. I want to see what's backing the claim.

Peace
Dan

Flannel Shirt

anyone who thinks the stockmarket is something more than white collar, for some reason respected gambling is fooling themself. stock market is a gamble. you play and you lose, its your fault. i have no sympathy. i put my money in a savings account. i will never get rich off it, but its my fucking money and it isnt going anywhere. unless my bank collapses, i will have it when i need it. if I do play the stock market, I make a quick buck, and move it to my savings account. buy and hold is retarded, and if you were duped into believing it, read a book.

id rather play the horses, its waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more fun, and I think the payouts are much better. 25-1 within two minutes vs. 25-1 over twenty years?

fuck all this nonsense. nobody is controlling anyone. the only thing worth investing in is LAND, because THEY AINT MAKING ANYMORE OF IT. anyone with a brain knows that.

sure, the original post is exciting, and it makes a good read and would make a good book/movie, but its nothing more than fiction.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

OutOfBreath wrote:

I'm not even asking about mainstream, although I am asking to refrain from obvious conspiracy-nut sites. There are some ground between the two. Can you get nothing from the in-between? If not, then fine, gimme the conspiracies. I want to see what's backing the claim.

Peace
Dan

Interesting how you're pressing on this give me links thing like it's going to prove you're right about something, and I'm wrong about something.

To be honest I don't keep a rolling excel spreadsheet of all the links I visit in every internet session over the *years* in case someone asks me for some of them. Someone, somewhere like that might exist somewhere in the world, perhaps in an internet almanac of some sort....besides, You can google whatever you like. I'm not going to dance for you in the area of discussion and lead it to a 10 page thread of people calling me every name in the book. I get enough of that already if you haven't noticed.

Call me wrong, exude your disbelief. that's fine. It changes nothing of what I know and have seen.

I've made my points. Take em...or leave em and apply them to what is happening in the world. If a lightbulb goes off, fine, if not...fine. The world still turns.

OutOfBreath

I'm not asking for a excel sheet either. But you havent given up 1 single source for your claims. Not 1 web-site, 1 book, 1 paper, nothing. I will assume you either have no source, or that they are so shady you wont show them. A claim is only as good as it's source. That's a very useful academic and scientific rule of thumb.

But fine, I'm not gonna force you to make your own case.

Peace
Dan

pearljamfan1212

OutOfBreath wrote:

I'm not asking for a excel sheet either. But you havent given up 1 single source for your claims. Not 1 web-site, 1 book, 1 paper, nothing. I will assume you either have no source, or that they are so shady you wont show them. A claim is only as good as it's source. That's a very useful academic and scientific rule of thumb.

But fine, I'm not gonna force you to make your own case.

Peace
Dan

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/09/ahmadinejad-says-its-the-jews-fault.html

happy now

OutOfBreath

pearljamfan1212 wrote:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/09/ahmadinejad-says-its-the-jews-fault.html

happy now

That's a source at least.

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm

end the fed

Samuel Adams wrote:

While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.

& For shits and giggles,
here is a link to some "proof" for you regarding zionist control.
The Rothschild Money Trust


While just about every bank in the world is stumbling and taking massive write downs and profit contractions,
Rothschild Investment Banking Posts Record Results.
Hmm.
Go figure.

OutOfBreath

Ah, drifting, I was wondering when you'd butt in.

See, you give your sources when you say something, and I respect that (although I don't respect some of your sources). But in this thread I have been met with nothing but dodging so far.

As for the book, it starts with the elders of Zion as reality and is written in 1940. Perhaps a fun read, but I am suspicious of it's agenda from the look of it.

And as for Rothschild reporting profit now doesnt prove much either in itself.

But that's 2 sources with the snap of a finger. Good job!

Peace
Dan

Kann

OutOfBreath wrote:

What's more likely, is that given the ideological drive towards more "free capitalism", less regulation, less government initiated by people with loads of money, have led to this situation, which has worsened because of "hands off" policies by the republicans in particular, but also deep within the democratic party. This is not only a US trend, but also noticable worldwide. Since it is apparent that hands off is not so good an idea after all, government re-regulates and takes the wheel again since it seems clear that the car couldnt drive itself after all, and we were heading straight off the road.

That's almost a little maxim for me: If "they" are so powerful, why do they bother with the schemes? Stability would be their best friend in the world. Conflicting interests and complicated interconnections for all of the involved looks to me much more likely.

Peace
Dan

This is particularly impressive if you compare politicians speeches before/after this summer. Here, our own midget in chief was all over deregulation, house loans guaranteed by the value of the house, massive privatisations etc. His most recent speeches have taken the words out of the mouth of our socialist party. It would be fun if it wasn't sad.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ah, drifting, I was wondering when you'd butt in.

See, you give your sources when you say something, and I respect that (although I don't respect some of your sources). But in this thread I have been met with nothing but dodging so far.

As for the book, it starts with the elders of Zion as reality and is written in 1940. Perhaps a fun read, but I am suspicious of it's agenda from the look of it.

And as for Rothschild reporting profit now doesnt prove much either in itself.

But that's 2 sources with the snap of a finger. Good job!

Peace
Dan

you and your "I'm being dodged man...dodged!".

funny stuff

OutOfBreath

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

you and your "I'm being dodged man...dodged!".

funny stuff

What's funny is not debating one's own thread and refusing to back up one's own controversial claims.

But if you dont wanna, I'm not gonna make you.

Peace
Dan

RolandTD20Kdrummer

OutOfBreath wrote:

What's funny is not debating one's own thread and refusing to back up one's own controversial claims.

But if you dont wanna, I'm not gonna make you.

Peace
Dan

Links or dodge!

lol...

DriftingByTheStorm

OutOfBreath wrote:

Ah, drifting, I was wondering when you'd butt in.

See, you give your sources when you say something, and I respect that (although I don't respect some of your sources). But in this thread I have been met with nothing but dodging so far.

As for the book, it starts with the elders of Zion as reality and is written in 1940. Perhaps a fun read, but I am suspicious of it's agenda from the look of it.

And as for Rothschild reporting profit now doesnt prove much either in itself.

But that's 2 sources with the snap of a finger. Good job!

Peace
Dan

Here is another one for you,The Rise of the House of Rothschild (1928), although the first link i gave you (The Roth. $ Trust) IS a classic.

Not available online, but also excellent, is The House of Rothschild: Money's Prophets.

The massive accumulation of wealth on the part of the Rothschild dynasty is a historical FACT, not some conspiracy theory.

It is a FACT that Nathan Rothschild all but cornered the entire British stock market by manipulation, after the defeat of Napoleon.

It is a FACT that the House of Rothschild was a significant force behind the creation of the Federal Reserve.

And then there is the outright Zionism:

on Baron Edmond de Rothschild wrote:

It is estimated that his total philanthropic expenditure in Palestine between 1884 and 1934 was about $6 million, an enormous sum at the time. On his death in 1934, almost 125,000 acres of land and more than 40 settlements testified to his contribution and support.

-source

6 Million, using 1900 as the average between 1884 & 1934, according to the inflation calculator is a whopping $147,682,023.32 or 150 Million in 2007 dollars.

Keep in mind,
i am no anti-semite.
My fathers family all but dissapeared to the death camps of WWII,
and i have a deep respect for the jewish tenacity of spirit.

But some things ARE documented history.

OutOfBreath

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Here is another one for you,The Rise of the House of Rothschild (1928), although the first link i gave you (The Roth. $ Trust) IS a classic.

Not available online, but also excellent, is The House of Rothschild: Money's Prophets.

The massive accumulation of wealth on the part of the Rothschild dynasty is a historical FACT, not some conspiracy theory.

It is a FACT that Nathan Rothschild all but cornered the entire British stock market by manipulation, after the defeat of Napoleon.

It is a FACT that the House of Rothschild was a significant force behind the creation of the Federal Reserve.

And then there is the outright Zionism:

-source

6 Million, using 1900 as the average between 1884 & 1934, according to the inflation calculator is a whopping $147,682,023.32 or 150 Million in 2007 dollars.

Keep in mind,
i am no anti-semite.
My fathers family all but dissapeared to the death camps of WWII,
and i have a deep respect for the jewish tenacity of spirit.

But some things ARE documented history.

The rothschilds certainly are wealthy, and some of them at least are zionists. That's fair enough, but it doesn't prove that the world and the financial market is run by a conspiracy of zionists. That they had the power to corner one market in napoleonic times, doesnt mean they have anything like that capability now. I'm sure they're influential though.

The problem though, is that the more pro-capitalism one is, the more pro-letting-these-people-rule-unhindered one is too.

Peace
Dan