Topic: All Wars are Bankers' Wars - page 2. (Read 3731 times)

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.

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/

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

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.

History is theoretical? Hmm...

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

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

Ah good - we have agreement. 

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, 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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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