Topic: All Wars are Bankers' Wars (Read 3685 times)
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.
He was a lot nicer in the fresh prince =(
Sorry about your dad =(
Sorry about your dad =(
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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: 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.
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?
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.
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?
Trolling, or just stupid? Trolling... and stupid?
The Zionist own the media and banks.
...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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Jump to: