The History Of The *Money Changers*

unifiedscene

Sweet Emotion wrote:

First of all, I'm not your fuckin bro. Second, I didn't dodge anything with you.
The fantasy is yours. I live a hell of life, kid. Yeah, I lived on the streets of NY for a few years. I've also traveled the world. I'm not wasting away behind a desk dreaming of some pussy ass ways to go out robbing people without consequence and the hiding from the cops. You're a coward. In this life and in your fantasy, which is really pathetic.

Easy bro. I'm not your kid either, but it didn't stop you from condescending to me and I didn't raise a stink about it. So you're going to have to live with "bro" unless you've got a preferred term of endearment.

Second of all, for the third time in a fourth post I'll make a fifth mention that my little 'Escape from NY' thing was meant in good fun and I think you're taking it a bit too seriously. As to cowardice, if managing to avoid being homeless in NYC for part of my life makes me a coward, so be it. It's kept me on good terms with the cops and made robbery unnecessary, for which I'm thankful. All I'm saying is if we descend to anarchy, I'd rather be one of the looters than the looted!

Where do you stand on a revolution? People are losing their homes, jobs, and careers already. How bad does it have to get before you think some change is needed?

exCuser

I discovered this documentary a couple months ago and watched it in one sitting, hardly realizing how long it was. Enjoyed it thoroughly. The truth shall set us free.

OutOfBreath

g under p wrote:

An interesting look into the timeline on Central Banks how they manipulate the citizenry. Plain and simple highway robbers, bailout what bailout?

THE FRENCH CONNECTION:The History Of The *Money Changers*

A

In reading the start of that timeline, the implied moral is that a central ruling monarch is much more preferable than "the money changers". Thus, according to this, the economy worked the best when an all-powerful king took control for himself...

Fair enough, but it seems to go flat against what most of the active opponents against the "money changers" think about state control...

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm

OutOfBreath wrote:

In reading the start of that timeline, the implied moral is that a central ruling monarch is much more preferable than "the money changers". Thus, according to this, the economy worked the best when an all-powerful king took control for himself...

Fair enough, but it seems to go flat against what most of the active opponents against the "money changers" think about state control...

Peace
Dan

Uh.
I think you are reducing the timeline and extrapolating illogical conclusions from it.

I didn't read this entire timeline so i'm not sure what else may be in it to criticize, but i have studied enough of the history of banking to understand that organized paper money banking, and the fractional reserve lending practices that followed it, did not truly come in to its own until around the 1600's.

Up until that time there had been a constant battle between governments and the forces of blacksmiths and "money changers". This battle was essentially over sovereignty, with ancient emperors and kings fighting private money interests for control of the economy -- something that any sovereign ruler would view as their right, and not that of a mere "money changer".

This deprivation of sovereign economic control was a non-issue for hundreds of years around the time of the middle ages, due to both the talley stick system's reign as "legal tender" of the day, and to religious "usury" laws (this is why Jews became enmeshed with banking and gained such a bad reputation among many, because they did not follow Church doctrine and were free to charge interest). However, coming in to the middle Renaissance period, as paper money took true prominence, and the banking interests organized more effectively, the battle between them and the sovereign rulers in europe again heated up.

While these rulers, through on to the Stuart kings, were largely resistant to banking interest pressures -- partly for religious reasons, and partly because it represented an obvious assault on their own sovereignty -- by the 1600's, the power of "the money changers" had simply grown too great.

They succeeded in "conquering" Amsterdam, and from there they began to use their own ability to print money and make loans to finance wars and opposition regimes throughout Europe in order to subvert unwilling sovereigns and replace them with new rulers that would take their loans.
(this, by the way, is the same process their successors passed on to the CIA itself, and then also to the "economic hitmen", in order to subvert entire governments and bring them to the will of the "real" rulers of the world).

As far as for the assertion that we would be "better" under monarchs, i hardly think that an idea well reasoned from this timeline.

America simply got "duped" in to a sad state of affairs -- and she got duped several times. Jackson had put an end to it, after a violent fight with the "den of vipers", as he called the central banking interest.

But after using a financial "crisis" as an excuse in the early 20th century, "the money trust" in America pulled a great swindle on the people. This history is attempting to repeat itself currently.

Though it is most unfortunate, i don't think this is a condemnation of representative government, so much as it serves as an admonition to the people that they need better keep watch over their sacred republic. Obviously we have fared no better than some of the sovereign rulers of old england in the fight against the money masters, but as of yet we have not fared any worse. Not yet, anyway.

AllEncompassingTrip

Sweet Emotion wrote:

First of all, I'm not your fuckin bro. Second, I didn't dodge anything with you.

What up bro!

AllEncompassingTrip

P.S. My own revolution involves not paying federal income taxes, not paying a mortgage, stocking up on guns and ammo, stocking up on some gold, growing veggies in my own backyard and raising some livestock for food, and fucking shooting anyones ass that wants to take it away from me..

Note: I am still happy to pay local taxes that support my community

NoK

Conservative religious-based militias from the right have been the popular choice lately.. Its time to bring back the days of leftist secular militants!

Yes I am joking.

DriftingByTheStorm

Milton Friedman wrote:

The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before. The most dramatic period of instability in output was, of course, the period between the two wars, which includes the severe (monetary) contractions of 1920-1, 1929-33, and 1937-8. No other 20 year period in American history contains as many as three such severe contractions.

This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System... and that the severity of each of the major contractions — 1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities...

Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes — excusable or not — can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic — this is the key political argument against an independent central bank...

To paraphrase Clemenceau, money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers.

:cool: