It's nice to see people finally realizing the shit going on behind the scene.
only habdful of us. most people are so tired and fed up with news bombardment that they just learned to ignore it and switch themselves off to any thinking.
Topic: 'Dollar valueless, about to crash' - World Bank whistleblower (Read 5249 times)
only habdful of us. most people are so tired and fed up with news bombardment that they just learned to ignore it and switch themselves off to any thinking.
It's nice to see people finally realizing the shit going on behind the scene.
You don't think the thread would have been full of people picking out all the more extreme statements from the interview, and thinking that they were good reasons to mistrust her opinion on Bitcoin?
I would prefer that she never mentions Bitcoin.
I think we should get all the tinfoil hat types in a big room and get them to decide once and for all which one of these groups secretly controls the world:
Freemasons
Illuminati
Rothschilds
Skull and Bones
Trilateral Commission
Vatican
Nobody
They have their shit together, which is why everything is so shit, and that it couldn't get much worse without concentration camps and human ovens, or nukes detonated Jericho/Revolution/etc-style.
You don't think the thread would have been full of people picking out all the more extreme statements from the interview, and thinking that they were good reasons to mistrust her opinion on Bitcoin?
I would prefer that she never mentions Bitcoin.
I think we should get all the tinfoil hat types in a big room and get them to decide once and for all which one of these groups secretly controls the world:
Freemasons
Illuminati
Rothschilds
Skull and Bones
Trilateral Commission
Vatican
Nobody
+1 I don't know about tons of gold being stored somewhere, it could be true but maybe not. But a lot of what she's saying is absolutely true, not just the corruption going on at the highest level. Don't discredit her just because of a few things that may seem unbelievable to you.
Someone who comes out with things like this:
Quote
They are not given the basic information about what is really going on and who is benefiting from the economies that they are being told… they are being told that they have no money, they have taken an entire city, Detroit, and declared it bankrupt. When what’s actually happening is their tax dollars are not even staying in the society, their tax dollars are going by treaty to the United Kingdom, and then they are being transferred to the Vatican, to the bank of the Vatican. This is not a society that is going to be sustainable on any basis, for any reason.
Just sounds plain nuts, so why should I pay any attention to anything else she says?
Yeah Murraypaul is correct. She's a nutcase, after saying stupid shit like this I have no need to listen to anything else she says. Ok, she worked at the world bank, that doesn't give her anymore credibility in the nonsense shes saying. I agree, and many of us on this forum agree that the US dollar is heading for default and there are shonky dealings going on in the background in the finance world. But just because you believe that and she said a similar thing, doesn't make everything she says a miracle and theres a conspiracy or insider knowledge. Too many crazies on this board.
You don't think the thread would have been full of people picking out all the more extreme statements from the interview, and thinking that they were good reasons to mistrust her opinion on Bitcoin?
I would prefer that she never mentions Bitcoin.
I think we should get all the tinfoil hat types in a big room and get them to decide once and for all which one of these groups secretly controls the world:
Freemasons
Illuminati
Rothschilds
Skull and Bones
Trilateral Commission
Vatican
Nobody
im afraid we might loose our means of communicating also. once mobile and internet networks are down - we are back in stone age. except of elite surely.
Get yourself a Baofeng UV-5rtransmitter. $35 off amazon (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_6?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=baofeng+uv-5r&sprefix=baofen%2Caps%2C225, and you can listen/broadcast on several bands, including the popular HAM bands, GMRS, FRS, MURS. Get one for each member of your family. Pick a frequency for personal communication and keep tabs on the local HAM freqs/repeaters.
If you don't have a HAM license, then don't broadcast now, just listen, at least the repeaters. You'll want to listen to the HAMs in a disaster anyway, they're usually the ones coordinating communication between various organizations anyway.
Great tip. Thanks.
Let me reiterate that, unless you have a HAM license, to stay off the HAM repeaters. The FCC could potentially fine you *a lot* of money for misuse, and the HAMs don't take lightly for using their equipment w/out a license. For common folks, however, FRS and MURS you can use right now.
GMRS requires a license (inexpensive), although the chances of getting busted for unlicensed GMRS use isn't very high. Just keep in mind the fines.
Now in an anarchist situation (say zombies, or total societal collapse), then no one is going to give a shit, and that's why I mentioned this radio, since you communicate with others if you need to on the various bands.
I'd also suggest keeping (at least) one in a faraday cage in case of a major solar flare that causes major power outages, plus a hand-crank radio (also for GMRS and FRS and is on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000P0O12I/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=3PRAOZ3JGCYVI&coliid=I2D0HB6QF5P9F9))
Good video but looks like the girl's fashion show 
One thing most of the people don't understand is that the new money is not backed by debt (they are backed by NOTHING), as long as this common misconception spreads, bankers can have their party much longer
For example, every month FED print money to purchase government bonds. If those money are really backed by government bonds (debt), then the ownership should belong to government. Government should OWN both bonds and money
But in reality, government sold those bonds to FED in exchange for money to spend. This means that those money originally belongs to FED. How come the FED have the ownership of those money without doing anything? This is the root of today's problem: FED bought almost everything through printing money, it is much more fraudulent then debt based money issuing, it is pure robbery
One thing most of the people don't understand is that the new money is not backed by debt (they are backed by NOTHING), as long as this common misconception spreads, bankers can have their party much longer
For example, every month FED print money to purchase government bonds. If those money are really backed by government bonds (debt), then the ownership should belong to government. Government should OWN both bonds and money
But in reality, government sold those bonds to FED in exchange for money to spend. This means that those money originally belongs to FED. How come the FED have the ownership of those money without doing anything? This is the root of today's problem: FED bought almost everything through printing money, it is much more fraudulent then debt based money issuing, it is pure robbery
It is my understanding that Dollars are indeed backed by nothing (Fiat) like you said, but are also backed by Debt as they are lent into existence at an interest rate to the Users.
I think we should get all the tinfoil hat types in a big room and get them to decide once and for all which one of these groups secretly controls the world:
Freemasons
Illuminati
Rothschilds
Skull and Bones
Trilateral Commission
Vatican
Nobody
Freemasons
Illuminati
Rothschilds
Skull and Bones
Trilateral Commission
Vatican
Nobody
You can make fun all you want about people having suspicions about these groups gathering in secrets but be sure that the people in those groups aren't eating cupcakes with a cup of tea when meeting up. Otherwise they won't fight like hell to keep they reunions secret.
Thinking otherwise is either planely naive or stupid
It's not even really in secret anymore. It's common knowledge
When European royalty, U.S. government officials, the CEO's of major multi-national corporations, and other assorted powerful figures are filmed regularly meeting every 2 or 4 years, it strains credibility to ignore the possibility of conspiratorial motives, and presume they all just want to discuss the best schools for their kids or some other fluff.
I think we should get all the tinfoil hat types in a big room and get them to decide once and for all which one of these groups secretly controls the world:
Freemasons
Illuminati
Rothschilds
Skull and Bones
Trilateral Commission
Vatican
Nobody
Freemasons
Illuminati
Rothschilds
Skull and Bones
Trilateral Commission
Vatican
Nobody
You can make fun all you want about people having suspicions about these groups gathering in secrets but be sure that the people in those groups aren't eating cupcakes with a cup of tea when meeting up. Otherwise they won't fight like hell to keep they reunions secret.
Thinking otherwise is either planely naive or stupid
I didn't think she sounded nuts at all, although I can understand how people who don't know what's really going on might jump to that assessment.
As a thought experiment, imagine that the main thrust of her interview had been that virtual currencies like Bitcoin have no chance of worldside success, and she had also make the comments about Hawaiin gold, Detroit taxes going to the Vatican and the Jesuit hold over China.
You don't think the thread would have been full of people picking out all the more extreme statements from the interview, and thinking that they were good reasons to mistrust her opinion on Bitcoin?
I'm sure plenty of people would have done that, mainly due to their pro-Bitcoin bias, but also possibly because they fall into the fallacy of ignoring a sound argument because of other, unrelated opinions of the source. People are what they are. *shrug*
It wouldn't change that her views don't sound nuts to me, considering that I know at least a couple of those opinions are true, and most of the rest are plausible, and that they were all at least tangential to the main focus of the interview (the failing dollar, not Bitcoin.)
I didn't think she sounded nuts at all, although I can understand how people who don't know what's really going on might jump to that assessment.
As a thought experiment, imagine that the main thrust of her interview had been that virtual currencies like Bitcoin have no chance of worldside success, and she had also make the comments about Hawaiin gold, Detroit taxes going to the Vatican and the Jesuit hold over China.
You don't think the thread would have been full of people picking out all the more extreme statements from the interview, and thinking that they were good reasons to mistrust her opinion on Bitcoin?
Good video but looks like the girl's fashion show
One thing most of the people don't understand is that the new money is not backed by debt (they are backed by NOTHING), as long as this common misconception spreads, bankers can have their party much longer
For example, every month FED print money to purchase government bonds. If those money are really backed by government bonds (debt), then the ownership should belong to government. Government should OWN both bonds and money
But in reality, government sold those bonds to FED in exchange for money to spend. This means that those money originally belongs to FED. How come the FED have the ownership of those money without doing anything? This is the root of today's problem: FED bought almost everything through printing money, it is much more fraudulent then debt based money issuing, it is pure robbery
One thing most of the people don't understand is that the new money is not backed by debt (they are backed by NOTHING), as long as this common misconception spreads, bankers can have their party much longer
For example, every month FED print money to purchase government bonds. If those money are really backed by government bonds (debt), then the ownership should belong to government. Government should OWN both bonds and money
But in reality, government sold those bonds to FED in exchange for money to spend. This means that those money originally belongs to FED. How come the FED have the ownership of those money without doing anything? This is the root of today's problem: FED bought almost everything through printing money, it is much more fraudulent then debt based money issuing, it is pure robbery
But I'm not going to say she's nuts just because it sounds unbelievable to me. How can you?
To be clear, I haven't said she is nuts, I've said that in that interview, she sounded nutty. Because, well, she did, didn't she?
Maybe she was just having a bad day, who knows?
I didn't think she sounded nuts at all, although I can understand how people who don't know what's really going on might jump to that assessment.
I've heard most of what she said before. US taxes going to UK? True, if you consider the private (undisclosed) banks running the Federal Reserve as "the UK." That money going to the Vatican? I've heard rumors to that effect, but have yet to see evidence... but given the weirder things that HAVE turned out to be true, I'm not going to just dismiss it because it contradicts my current "normal" worldview.
But I'm not going to say she's nuts just because it sounds unbelievable to me. How can you?
To be clear, I haven't said she is nuts, I've said that in that interview, she sounded nutty. Because, well, she did, didn't she?
Maybe she was just having a bad day, who knows?
For the things that I can't prove I still prefer believe someone that worked at the World Bank and that has a lot to lose saying those things than a nobody like you trolling anonymously on a public forum.
How exactly am I trolling? Or does that simply mean not agreeing with you?
What does she have to lose now, she's already been fired.
If she was saying these things while still employed there, then she would have a lot to lose.
It is entirely up to you who you choose to believe, but there are lot of red flags in her interview.
I don't know about tons of gold being stored somewhere, it could be true but maybe not. But a lot of what she's saying is absolutely true, not just the corruption going on at the highest level. Don't discredit her just because of a few things that may seem unbelievable to you.
Someone who comes out with things like this:
Quote
They are not given the basic information about what is really going on and who is benefiting from the economies that they are being told… they are being told that they have no money, they have taken an entire city, Detroit, and declared it bankrupt. When what’s actually happening is their tax dollars are not even staying in the society, their tax dollars are going by treaty to the United Kingdom, and then they are being transferred to the Vatican, to the bank of the Vatican. This is not a society that is going to be sustainable on any basis, for any reason.
Just sounds plain nuts, so why should I pay any attention to anything else she says?
I have come across many opinions or views during my life that I found completely ludicrous when I heard them the first time, until I discovered later that they actually held some truth. I'm not saying that the above is true or not, as I simply do not know enough about the subject and I have no information to confirm or deny what she's saying. But I'm not going to say she's nuts just because it sounds unbelievable to me. How can you? She obviously didn't have time to explain everything in a short interview, so why don't you ask her some questions yourself about this if you're so sceptical?
For the things that I can't prove I still prefer believe someone that worked at the World Bank and that has a lot to lose saying those things than a nobody like you trolling anonymously on a public forum.
Maybe, but what she said in this video is factually correct and most of it fairly easy provable.
So these thing are factually correct?
Quote
they have taken an entire city, Detroit, and declared it bankrupt. When what’s actually happening is their tax dollars are not even staying in the society, their tax dollars are going by treaty to the United Kingdom, and then they are being transferred to the Vatican, to the bank of the Vatican
Quote
the Jesuits have a very strong stranglehold on China as well
Quote
the amount of gold in the deposit in the Bank of Hawaii is 170 000 tonnes
Quote
If I would quote all the nutty things you have said, with your logic, your are not a reliable source of information for us.
I'm not holding myself out as one. I'm not giving TV interviews, am I?
So maybe you can explain us how the world's corruption is actually going on instead of just bashing everything?
That will be way more constructive for us.
That will be way more constructive for us.
No, why should I try to rework her words into something comprehensible?
The questions was whether she was a reliable source or not.
IMHO, given some of the nutty things she has said, not.
Maybe, but what she said in this video is factually correct and most of it fairly easy provable.
Nobody is always 100% right but does this makes you 100% wrong?
If I would quote all the nutty things you have said, with your logic, your are not a reliable source of information for us.
Jump to: