Topic: One-world reserve currency inevitable and will enslave all nations? - page 7. (Read 19822 times)
March 20, 2015, 07:38:04 AM
March 19, 2015, 04:37:59 PM
Something can be shared without attaching my name to it. I as a reputational entity, am not important. The outcome of the work is. It shouldn't need my reputation to succeed. It should succeed on its own merits.
March 19, 2015, 04:26:36 PM
...
iamback
Perhaps O/T
Please DO let is know what you have been up to when you are done with your project. Perhaps with a new thread (assuming what you are doing is important). If I read you correctly, you might make your project open anyway once finished.
If what you are doing is important, the correct thing to do is to share your knowledge. Whether vaporware or not, even making errors enhances learning.
iamback
Perhaps O/T
Please DO let is know what you have been up to when you are done with your project. Perhaps with a new thread (assuming what you are doing is important). If I read you correctly, you might make your project open anyway once finished.
If what you are doing is important, the correct thing to do is to share your knowledge. Whether vaporware or not, even making errors enhances learning.
March 19, 2015, 04:11:26 PM
I can't respond to that because everything that I might be involved in is vaporware at the moment. And I don't even know how I would present it to this forum if at all, considering that I had long promised that I would never publicly endorse an altcoin.
Put it this way, if ever I work on something that is the solution, you will surely know about it. Otherwise it wasn't the solution!
If you mean you want to be first to speculate on it, or invest in something I would work on, I think there are people who follow me more closely and perhaps they will note your username here and private message you if they see something developing they think is important.
At this time, I am working on another (non-crypto-currency) software project and it won't be completed for at least another 3 weeks.
Also if I work on something, it will probably be (eventually) open sourced and it would not necessarily have my name on it (I haven't decided).
Also as I mentioned in the the multiple currencies thread I started the Altcoin discussion forum, I believe in making a system that is open to competition from new ideas.
Those who have followed me know that I was suffering from a debilitating chronic illness and this impacted my ability to work which is pretty much why I produced nothing but forum posts (and unpublished code) in period from 2012 - 2014. My productivity hinges on my health. I recently started a RAW vegetable diet with no carbohydrates, drinking olive oil, and most of my protein from WHEY ISOLATE (to reduce L-arginine which otherwise promotes growth of viruses similar to one I have). I have seen some signs that I have been able to work up to 18 hours a day as I used to before getting ill. My insomnia may have abated. And my athletics has increased and my headaches have decreased. If this sustains as a cure, then I might be on to a new wave of high productivity. Past high hopes have usually been disappointing. It is too soon to know as I am only on this diet for a few days thus far; before that I was on a Guyabano diet and over the past year or so experimenting with numerous homeopathic treatments such as CoQ10, AHCC, EGCG, Co-enzymated B complex, etc..
Put it this way, if ever I work on something that is the solution, you will surely know about it. Otherwise it wasn't the solution!
If you mean you want to be first to speculate on it, or invest in something I would work on, I think there are people who follow me more closely and perhaps they will note your username here and private message you if they see something developing they think is important.
At this time, I am working on another (non-crypto-currency) software project and it won't be completed for at least another 3 weeks.
Also if I work on something, it will probably be (eventually) open sourced and it would not necessarily have my name on it (I haven't decided).
Also as I mentioned in the the multiple currencies thread I started the Altcoin discussion forum, I believe in making a system that is open to competition from new ideas.
Those who have followed me know that I was suffering from a debilitating chronic illness and this impacted my ability to work which is pretty much why I produced nothing but forum posts (and unpublished code) in period from 2012 - 2014. My productivity hinges on my health. I recently started a RAW vegetable diet with no carbohydrates, drinking olive oil, and most of my protein from WHEY ISOLATE (to reduce L-arginine which otherwise promotes growth of viruses similar to one I have). I have seen some signs that I have been able to work up to 18 hours a day as I used to before getting ill. My insomnia may have abated. And my athletics has increased and my headaches have decreased. If this sustains as a cure, then I might be on to a new wave of high productivity. Past high hopes have usually been disappointing. It is too soon to know as I am only on this diet for a few days thus far; before that I was on a Guyabano diet and over the past year or so experimenting with numerous homeopathic treatments such as CoQ10, AHCC, EGCG, Co-enzymated B complex, etc..
March 19, 2015, 03:40:33 PM
Quote
Anonymity is difficult with Bitcoin (but not impossible if you are expert). Bitcoin is an important bridge between the legal tender national currencies and the altcoins.
There are many technologies in play here, and there are more coming. Stay tuned.
There are many technologies in play here, and there are more coming. Stay tuned.
Thanks for all the great thought!
I'd like to "stay tuned" and if you're speaking of your own solution, where should I watch for it? Here?
I'm looking for your ONE go-to place that I can follow. Too many threads on these forums!!
March 19, 2015, 02:31:47 PM
I really don't think a one world currency will happen anytime soon. Who would regulate it? How would it be backed up?
March 19, 2015, 12:51:58 PM
March 19, 2015, 11:33:16 AM
March 18, 2015, 11:30:54 AM
UN Framework for sovereign debt defaults
https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/koos-jansen/un-preparing-for-global-sovereign-debt-restructuring/
https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/koos-jansen/un-preparing-for-global-sovereign-debt-restructuring/
March 18, 2015, 11:27:31 AM
March 18, 2015, 10:07:19 AM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 18: Tor does not provide reliable anonymity!
From: iamback
Date: Wed, March 18, 2015 11:12 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tor is not reliably anonymous! If you are trusting Tor to protect your anonymity, the NSA has probably already de-anonymized you and is saving all the incriminating information for G20 tax hunts coming over the years.
Sadly even Tor's developers admit Tor has egregious problems and they are not sure exactly what happened in every case:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-need-some-love
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/thoughts-and-concerns-about-operation-onymous
Essentially all anonymous networks suffer three fundamental design problems which make them very easy for the NSA to de-anonymize:
1) Sybil attacks (the Guard Discovery attack is aided by this). All the anonymous networks don't pay the relay nodes, so economically the NSA can be a vast majority of those nodes. In other words, I don't think a free network can be anonymous!
2) Denial of service attacks. Again I think the only robust solution to this is to make sending network packets not free.
3) Low latency relaying. Thus de-anonymization is possible with timing attacks. Thus we must design a high-latency anonymity network.
4) Tor adds exit nodes interfacing to HTTPS which make correlation attacks so much more trivial due to all the side-effects on web sites! (even if you are not using an exit node, this reduces the anonymity set overall)
Subject: Mar 18: Tor does not provide reliable anonymity!
From: iamback
Date: Wed, March 18, 2015 11:12 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I know Tor never got compromised given the guy hosting the hidden service didn't do anything stupid, ... , if u run Tor with no javascript etc in a safe OS and dont reveal private information you are safe imo.
Tor is not reliably anonymous! If you are trusting Tor to protect your anonymity, the NSA has probably already de-anonymized you and is saving all the incriminating information for G20 tax hunts coming over the years.
Sadly even Tor's developers admit Tor has egregious problems and they are not sure exactly what happened in every case:
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/hidden-services-need-some-love
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/thoughts-and-concerns-about-operation-onymous
Quote
How did they locate the hidden services?
So we are left asking "How did they locate the hidden services?". We don't know.
...
Unfortunately, the authorities did not specify how they managed to locate the hidden services. Here are some plausible scenarios:
Bitcoin deanonymization
Ivan Pustogarov et al. have recently been conducting interesting research on Bitcoin anonymity.
Apparently, there are ways to link transactions and deanonymize Bitcoin clients even if they use Tor. Maybe the seized hidden services were running Bitcoin clients themselves and were victims of similar attacks.
Attacks on the Tor network
The number of takedowns and the fact that Tor relays were seized could also mean that the Tor network was attacked to reveal the location of those hidden services. We received some interesting information from an operator of a now-seized hidden service which may indicate this, as well. Over the past few years, researchers have discovered various attacks on the Tor network. We've implemented some defenses against these attacks, but these defenses do not solve all known issues and there may even be attacks unknown to us.
Another possible Tor attack vector could be the Guard Discovery attack. This attack doesn't reveal the identity of the hidden service, but allows an attacker to discover the guard node of a specific hidden service. The guard node is the only node in the whole network that knows the actual IP address of the hidden service. Hence, if the attacker then manages to compromise the guard node or somehow obtain access to it, she can launch a traffic confirmation attack to learn the identity of the hidden service. We've been discussing various solutions to the guard discovery attack for the past many months but it's not an easy problem to fix properly. Help and feedback on the proposed designs is appreciated.
*Similarly, there exists the attack where the hidden service selects the attacker's relay as its guard node. This may happen randomly or this could occur if the hidden service selects another relay as its guard and the attacker renders that node unusable, by a denial of service attack or similar. The hidden service will then be forced to select a new guard. Eventually, the hidden service will select the attacker.
Furthermore, denial of service attacks on relays or clients in the Tor network can often be leveraged into full de-anonymization attacks. These techniques go back many years, in research such as "From a Trickle to a Flood", "Denial of Service or Denial of Security?", "Why I'm not an Entropist", and even the more recent Bitcoin attacks above. In the Hidden Service protocol there are more vectors for DoS attacks, such as the set of HSDirs and the Introduction Points of a Hidden Service.
Advice to concerned hidden service operators
As you can see, we still don't know what happened, and it's hard to give concrete suggestions blindly.
Final words
The task of hiding the location of low-latency web services is a very hard problem and we still don't know how to do it correctly. It seems that there are various issues that none of the current anonymous publishing designs have really solved.
In a way, it's even surprising that hidden services have survived so far.
So we are left asking "How did they locate the hidden services?". We don't know.
...
Unfortunately, the authorities did not specify how they managed to locate the hidden services. Here are some plausible scenarios:
Bitcoin deanonymization
Ivan Pustogarov et al. have recently been conducting interesting research on Bitcoin anonymity.
Apparently, there are ways to link transactions and deanonymize Bitcoin clients even if they use Tor. Maybe the seized hidden services were running Bitcoin clients themselves and were victims of similar attacks.
Attacks on the Tor network
The number of takedowns and the fact that Tor relays were seized could also mean that the Tor network was attacked to reveal the location of those hidden services. We received some interesting information from an operator of a now-seized hidden service which may indicate this, as well. Over the past few years, researchers have discovered various attacks on the Tor network. We've implemented some defenses against these attacks, but these defenses do not solve all known issues and there may even be attacks unknown to us.
Another possible Tor attack vector could be the Guard Discovery attack. This attack doesn't reveal the identity of the hidden service, but allows an attacker to discover the guard node of a specific hidden service. The guard node is the only node in the whole network that knows the actual IP address of the hidden service. Hence, if the attacker then manages to compromise the guard node or somehow obtain access to it, she can launch a traffic confirmation attack to learn the identity of the hidden service. We've been discussing various solutions to the guard discovery attack for the past many months but it's not an easy problem to fix properly. Help and feedback on the proposed designs is appreciated.
*Similarly, there exists the attack where the hidden service selects the attacker's relay as its guard node. This may happen randomly or this could occur if the hidden service selects another relay as its guard and the attacker renders that node unusable, by a denial of service attack or similar. The hidden service will then be forced to select a new guard. Eventually, the hidden service will select the attacker.
Furthermore, denial of service attacks on relays or clients in the Tor network can often be leveraged into full de-anonymization attacks. These techniques go back many years, in research such as "From a Trickle to a Flood", "Denial of Service or Denial of Security?", "Why I'm not an Entropist", and even the more recent Bitcoin attacks above. In the Hidden Service protocol there are more vectors for DoS attacks, such as the set of HSDirs and the Introduction Points of a Hidden Service.
Advice to concerned hidden service operators
As you can see, we still don't know what happened, and it's hard to give concrete suggestions blindly.
Final words
The task of hiding the location of low-latency web services is a very hard problem and we still don't know how to do it correctly. It seems that there are various issues that none of the current anonymous publishing designs have really solved.
In a way, it's even surprising that hidden services have survived so far.
Essentially all anonymous networks suffer three fundamental design problems which make them very easy for the NSA to de-anonymize:
1) Sybil attacks (the Guard Discovery attack is aided by this). All the anonymous networks don't pay the relay nodes, so economically the NSA can be a vast majority of those nodes. In other words, I don't think a free network can be anonymous!
2) Denial of service attacks. Again I think the only robust solution to this is to make sending network packets not free.
3) Low latency relaying. Thus de-anonymization is possible with timing attacks. Thus we must design a high-latency anonymity network.
4) Tor adds exit nodes interfacing to HTTPS which make correlation attacks so much more trivial due to all the side-effects on web sites! (even if you are not using an exit node, this reduces the anonymity set overall)
March 18, 2015, 09:46:07 AM
Monero has a public ledger which attempts to provide anonymity via autonomous mixing with Cryptonote's one-time ring signatures. Monero does not have anonymity of the IP address sending the transaction to the public ledger, thus it doesn't have total anonymity. Fluffypony was proposing to add I2P (a.k.a. Darknet) integration, but I don't think any free onion routing "darknet" network can be resistant to Sybil attacks on anonymity. We've seen the Tor "darknet" fail spectacularly with its hidden services.
Anonymity is difficult with Bitcoin (but not impossible if you are expert). Bitcoin is an important bridge between the legal tender national currencies and the altcoins.
There are many technologies in play here, and there are more coming. Stay tuned.
March 18, 2015, 06:43:10 AM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 18: Armstrong admits finance has always required risk-less rents on society
From: iamback
Date: Wed, March 18, 2015 7:48 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong has now documented that the elite banksters have an incentive to take control of finance away from governments and into their own hands, e.g. a one-world reserve central bank.
My seminal essays explained that Finance (usury and debt) are the paradigm of ignorant, passive capital (a.k.a. stored monetary capital) extracting risk-less rents from the productive sector by subjugating the collective to fungible stored monetary wealth (which is always power-law distributed, thus giving rise to socialism). It is not a question of desire, the paradigm demands it be risk-less because debt is only mathematically possible with fractional reserve banking, which is an inherently bankrupt paradigm. This was possible when non-fungible knowledge production was not the dominant component of production; which was the case in the stone, bronze, iron, agricultural, and industrial age epochs. But the Knowledge Age inverts this fundamental economic relationship.
The true solution is not a one-world central bank controlled by the banksters under the ruse of international partnership. Rather it is the grassroots rise of the computer revolution enabling the individual mind as economically dominant! I pray that Armstrong will have an epiphany.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/18/austria-to-default-of-debt-of-10-2-billion-euros/
Subject: Mar 18: Armstrong admits finance has always required risk-less rents on society
From: iamback
Date: Wed, March 18, 2015 7:48 am
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong has now documented that the elite banksters have an incentive to take control of finance away from governments and into their own hands, e.g. a one-world reserve central bank.
My seminal essays explained that Finance (usury and debt) are the paradigm of ignorant, passive capital (a.k.a. stored monetary capital) extracting risk-less rents from the productive sector by subjugating the collective to fungible stored monetary wealth (which is always power-law distributed, thus giving rise to socialism). It is not a question of desire, the paradigm demands it be risk-less because debt is only mathematically possible with fractional reserve banking, which is an inherently bankrupt paradigm. This was possible when non-fungible knowledge production was not the dominant component of production; which was the case in the stone, bronze, iron, agricultural, and industrial age epochs. But the Knowledge Age inverts this fundamental economic relationship.
The true solution is not a one-world central bank controlled by the banksters under the ruse of international partnership. Rather it is the grassroots rise of the computer revolution enabling the individual mind as economically dominant! I pray that Armstrong will have an epiphany.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/18/austria-to-default-of-debt-of-10-2-billion-euros/
Quote from: Armstrong
The documents of the Medici family clearly state “to deal as little as possible with the court of the Duke of Burgundy and of other princes and lords, especially in granting credit and accommodating them with money, because it involves more risk than profit”. Distinctly, it is clear that the text continued showing that the Medici did not wish to lend to the princes of Europe for there was no way to collect a debt from a sovereign. The contract continued warning “many merchants in this way fared badly” and that “our fathers have always been wary of such involvements and stayed aloof, unless it was a matter of a small sum lent to make or to keep friends.” The Medici policy was “to preserve their wealth and credit rather than enrich themselves by risky ventures.”
The Baring Brothers folded. The Rothschilds, despite the conspiracy theories, have been replaced by the modern merchant banking style firm Goldman Sachs. I cover in detail the rise and fall of every banking family with documentary proof – not wild rumor and speculation.
This is history unfold once again in Austria. Sorry – the Rothschilds are not in the game this time. Not a single firm that has ever gotten involved with government has survived.
The Baring Brothers folded. The Rothschilds, despite the conspiracy theories, have been replaced by the modern merchant banking style firm Goldman Sachs. I cover in detail the rise and fall of every banking family with documentary proof – not wild rumor and speculation.
This is history unfold once again in Austria. Sorry – the Rothschilds are not in the game this time. Not a single firm that has ever gotten involved with government has survived.
March 17, 2015, 05:11:32 PM
Monero has a public ledger which attempts to provide anonymity via autonomous mixing with Cryptonote's one-time ring signatures. Monero does not have anonymity of the IP address sending the transaction to the public ledger, thus it doesn't have total anonymity. Fluffypony was proposing to add I2P (a.k.a. Darknet) integration, but I don't think any free onion routing "darknet" network can be resistant to Sybil attacks on anonymity. We've seen the Tor "darknet" fail spectacularly with its hidden services.
Anonymity is difficult with Bitcoin (but not impossible if you are expert). Bitcoin is an important bridge between the legal tender national currencies and the altcoins.
There are many technologies in play here, and there are more coming. Stay tuned.
March 17, 2015, 02:03:43 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 18: FATCA is forcing the world towards unified taxation
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 3:03 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nestmann.com/why-fatca-is-a-train-wreck-waiting-to-happen
http://www.nestmann.com/is-this-the-first-nail-in-the-coffin-of-citizenship-based-taxation
Subject: Mar 18: FATCA is forcing the world towards unified taxation
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 3:03 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nestmann.com/why-fatca-is-a-train-wreck-waiting-to-happen
Quote
But even here something very interesting is happening that I think will eventually derail the FATCA project. You see, the agreements that the US has signed with other countries call for the exchange of tax data to actually be… well… an exchange. But there will be no exchange because there’s no procedure in US law for that to happen. In other words, the IRS can demand that other countries send it data, but there’s no legal mechanism in place for the IRS to force US financial institutions to send information to foreign tax authorities.
...
Meanwhile, finance ministers in Germany, China, India, and other countries are starting to ask, “Where’s the data on our citizens investing in the US?” And there’s a deafening silence on the US end of that question. The US can’t force its banks to provide this information, and barring a sudden change of heart by the Republican majority in both houses of Congress, the earliest this could change is in 2017, after the 2016 elections.
...
Meanwhile, finance ministers in Germany, China, India, and other countries are starting to ask, “Where’s the data on our citizens investing in the US?” And there’s a deafening silence on the US end of that question. The US can’t force its banks to provide this information, and barring a sudden change of heart by the Republican majority in both houses of Congress, the earliest this could change is in 2017, after the 2016 elections.
http://www.nestmann.com/is-this-the-first-nail-in-the-coffin-of-citizenship-based-taxation
Quote
Obama Proposes Relief for Some Expatriates
Now the Obama administration has proposed a modest reform of the grossly unfair system of citizenship-based taxation in its 2016 budget presentation. Certain individuals who were dual citizens at birth would be permitted to expatriate under a considerably easier process than currently applies.
...
Does Obama Really Feel US Expatriates’ Pain?
...
But I don’t think Obama gives a rat’s ass about Americans living abroad. He’s much more concerned about making FATCA a success, so he can fulfill his campaign promise of “shutting down” what he calls “offshore tax havens.” And FATCA – the centerpiece of this plan – faces real threats, as I wrote about in this essay.
Now there’s another threat. In Canada, two US-Canadian dual citizens at birth have filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government. The lawsuit demands that the Canadian courts declare it illegal for the Canadian government to discriminate against US-Canadian dual citizens. The FATCA intergovernmental agreement between the US and Canada does discriminate – it forces Canadian financial institutions to release more information to the IRS than they are permitted to disclose to the Canadian tax authorities.
If this litigation succeeds, it could prove disastrous for FATCA – not just in Canada, but globally. But if Obama’s proposal becomes law, it would weaken the plaintiffs’ arguments – perhaps sufficiently to have their claims thrown out of court.
Now the Obama administration has proposed a modest reform of the grossly unfair system of citizenship-based taxation in its 2016 budget presentation. Certain individuals who were dual citizens at birth would be permitted to expatriate under a considerably easier process than currently applies.
...
Does Obama Really Feel US Expatriates’ Pain?
...
But I don’t think Obama gives a rat’s ass about Americans living abroad. He’s much more concerned about making FATCA a success, so he can fulfill his campaign promise of “shutting down” what he calls “offshore tax havens.” And FATCA – the centerpiece of this plan – faces real threats, as I wrote about in this essay.
Now there’s another threat. In Canada, two US-Canadian dual citizens at birth have filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government. The lawsuit demands that the Canadian courts declare it illegal for the Canadian government to discriminate against US-Canadian dual citizens. The FATCA intergovernmental agreement between the US and Canada does discriminate – it forces Canadian financial institutions to release more information to the IRS than they are permitted to disclose to the Canadian tax authorities.
If this litigation succeeds, it could prove disastrous for FATCA – not just in Canada, but globally. But if Obama’s proposal becomes law, it would weaken the plaintiffs’ arguments – perhaps sufficiently to have their claims thrown out of court.
March 17, 2015, 01:44:29 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 18: the USA built communism (FACT!)
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 2:48 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antony C Sutton: Wall Street and the rise of Hitler & communism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sah_Xni-gtg
http://www.antonysutton.com/suttoninterview.html
Subject: Mar 18: the USA built communism (FACT!)
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 2:48 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Armstrong deny the research of Anthony Sutton and now the revelation he posted to his own blog?
Does Armstrong have an open-mind to information that disagrees with his world-view that the elite don't cooperate globally?
Does Armstrong have an open-mind to information that disagrees with his world-view that the elite don't cooperate globally?
Antony C Sutton: Wall Street and the rise of Hitler & communism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sah_Xni-gtg
http://www.antonysutton.com/suttoninterview.html
Quote from: Anthony Sutton @ 1999
Q: Do you believe that there has been suppression of technology? Has it been major or minor?
AS - Yes there has been suppression but its going to be impossible to suppress the new emerging paradigm.
Q: The Federal Reserve, the House of Morgan, House of Rothschild and Skull and Bones are they related?
AS - Best source for this is a book by me THE FEDERAL RESERVE CONSPIRACY, 1995 CPA, PO Box 596, Boring OR 97007
Q: What do you see for the future?
AS - Chaos, confusion and ultimately a battle between the individual and the State.
The individual is the stronger; and will win. The state is a fiction sanctified by Hegel and his followers to CONTROL the individual.
Q: Can you tell the story of how you learned of Skull & Bones? And how you felt?
AS - I knew nothing of S&B until I received a letter in the early 80's asking if I would like to look at a genuine membership list. For no real reason I said yes. It was agreed to send the package by Federal Express and I could keep it for 24 hours, it had to be returned to the safe. It was a "black bag" job by a family member disgusted with their activities.
For the benefit of any S&B members who may read and doubt the statement; the membership list is in two volumes, black leather bound. Living members and deceased members in separate volumes. Very handsome books.
I spent all night in Kinko's, Santa Cruz , copied the entire volumes and returned within the 24 hour period.
I have never released any copies or identified the source. I figured each copy could be coded and enable S&B to trace the leak.
How did I feel? I felt then (as I do now} that these "prominent" men are really immature juveniles at heart. The horrible reality is that these little boys have been dominant in their influence in world affairs. No wonder we have wars and violence. Skull and Bones is the symbol of terrorist violence, pirates, the SS Deaths Head Division in WW Two, labels on poison bottles and so on.
I kept the stack of xerox sheets for quite a while before I looked at them—when I did look—a picture jumped out, THIS was a significant part of the so called establishment. No wonder the world has problems!
Q: Did any of Hitler's economic policies threaten the interests of the international bankers, and if so did that play a role in his downfall?
AS - Hitler's economic policies were OK'd by the bankers right through the war...ITT, Chase, Texaco and others were operating in Nazi-held France as late as 1945. In fact Chase in Paris was trying to get Nazi accounts as late as 1944. When we got to Germany in May 1945, I remember seeing a (bombed-out) Woolworth store in Hamburg and thinking, "What's Woolworth doing in Nazi Germany?" While we were bombed and shelled it was "business as usual" for Big Business. Try the Alien Custodian Papers.
See my BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY for more.
Union Banking is very important. I made a documentary for Dutch National TV some years ago. It got all the way through the production process to the Dutch TV Guide...at the last minute it was pulled and another film substituted. This documentary has proof of Bush financing Hitler—documents.
Maybe my Dutch friends will still get it viewed, but the apparatus reaches into Holland.
AS - Yes there has been suppression but its going to be impossible to suppress the new emerging paradigm.
Q: The Federal Reserve, the House of Morgan, House of Rothschild and Skull and Bones are they related?
AS - Best source for this is a book by me THE FEDERAL RESERVE CONSPIRACY, 1995 CPA, PO Box 596, Boring OR 97007
Q: What do you see for the future?
AS - Chaos, confusion and ultimately a battle between the individual and the State.
The individual is the stronger; and will win. The state is a fiction sanctified by Hegel and his followers to CONTROL the individual.
Q: Can you tell the story of how you learned of Skull & Bones? And how you felt?
AS - I knew nothing of S&B until I received a letter in the early 80's asking if I would like to look at a genuine membership list. For no real reason I said yes. It was agreed to send the package by Federal Express and I could keep it for 24 hours, it had to be returned to the safe. It was a "black bag" job by a family member disgusted with their activities.
For the benefit of any S&B members who may read and doubt the statement; the membership list is in two volumes, black leather bound. Living members and deceased members in separate volumes. Very handsome books.
I spent all night in Kinko's, Santa Cruz , copied the entire volumes and returned within the 24 hour period.
I have never released any copies or identified the source. I figured each copy could be coded and enable S&B to trace the leak.
How did I feel? I felt then (as I do now} that these "prominent" men are really immature juveniles at heart. The horrible reality is that these little boys have been dominant in their influence in world affairs. No wonder we have wars and violence. Skull and Bones is the symbol of terrorist violence, pirates, the SS Deaths Head Division in WW Two, labels on poison bottles and so on.
I kept the stack of xerox sheets for quite a while before I looked at them—when I did look—a picture jumped out, THIS was a significant part of the so called establishment. No wonder the world has problems!
Q: Did any of Hitler's economic policies threaten the interests of the international bankers, and if so did that play a role in his downfall?
AS - Hitler's economic policies were OK'd by the bankers right through the war...ITT, Chase, Texaco and others were operating in Nazi-held France as late as 1945. In fact Chase in Paris was trying to get Nazi accounts as late as 1944. When we got to Germany in May 1945, I remember seeing a (bombed-out) Woolworth store in Hamburg and thinking, "What's Woolworth doing in Nazi Germany?" While we were bombed and shelled it was "business as usual" for Big Business. Try the Alien Custodian Papers.
See my BEST ENEMY MONEY CAN BUY for more.
Union Banking is very important. I made a documentary for Dutch National TV some years ago. It got all the way through the production process to the Dutch TV Guide...at the last minute it was pulled and another film substituted. This documentary has proof of Bush financing Hitler—documents.
Maybe my Dutch friends will still get it viewed, but the apparatus reaches into Holland.
March 17, 2015, 12:56:01 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 18: russian and usa elite (DEEP STATE) cooperate (power sharing global hegemony)
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 1:54 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Armstrong deny the research of Anthony Sutton and now the revelation he posted to his own blog?
Does Armstrong have an open-mind to information that disagrees with his world-view that the elite don't cooperate globally?
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/new-evidence-surfacing-us-assassinated-general-patton/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html
Subject: Mar 18: russian and usa elite (DEEP STATE) cooperate (power sharing global hegemony)
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 1:54 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Armstrong deny the research of Anthony Sutton and now the revelation he posted to his own blog?
Does Armstrong have an open-mind to information that disagrees with his world-view that the elite don't cooperate globally?
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/new-evidence-surfacing-us-assassinated-general-patton/
Quote from: Armstrong
New evidence is surfacing that General George Patton was assassinated by the US government to shut him up for Patton’s position was clairvoyant to say the least that the Germans were not our enemy, it would be Communist Russia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3869117/General-George-S.-Patton-was-assassinated-to-silence-his-criticism-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html
Quote
The newly unearthed diaries of a colourful assassin for the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, reveal that American spy chiefs wanted Patton dead because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives.
...
Mr Bazata also suggested that when Patton began to recover from his injuries, US officials turned a blind eye as agents of the NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, poisoned the general.
...
In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war.
...
Mr Bazata also suggested that when Patton began to recover from his injuries, US officials turned a blind eye as agents of the NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, poisoned the general.
...
In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war.
March 17, 2015, 12:15:09 PM
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 17: we LOVE Armstrong more than he realizes
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 1:08 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illogical. In order to fund that safety net, it must expropriate from the productive sector, which is why Europe has no productive sector remaining, thus Europe will not be able to produce what it needs internally (will worsen in a negative feedback loop spiral flush into the toilet bowl) and thus it will rely on the Euro FX value to purchase for import its needs, but the Euro is collapsing in value as Euros are printed to bailout the safety net (indirectly via the banks who hold the sovereign bonds).
Correct the USA can expropriate from its productive sector and the productive sectors of the entire world with FATCA, the military, and mostly importantly because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world's financial system.
The USA is the wounded Godzilla that can possibly drag the entire global economy down into a Dark Age, if we don't find solutions.
The solution I advocate is a bottom-up, grassroots technological anonymous crypto-currency and fledgling Knowledge Age. I also concur with Martin Armstrong's vision of a global restructuring (when and if it becomes viable), because this is a way to avoid sinking too far into a Dark Age while waiting for the Knowledge Age to grow and take over with anonymous crypto-currency which the USA can not expropriate.
Armstrong seems to misconstrue my debate with him as one of total disrespect or disagreement. Rather I very much appreciate Armstrong's models, his sharing, his insights. My disagreement with Armstrong only rests on him preaching EXCLUSIVELY on top-down solutions and not also recognizing the potential rise of Creative Destruction. In the past few blog posts, he has alluded to Creative Destruction, but he still denies that anonymous crypto-currency and anonymous internet systems could potentially rise. He paints his world view that only he has the Solutions and doesn't recognize that DECENTRALIZED (not top-down controlled!) hackers are also very important for the world's future. Armstrong should recognize that he is also hacker, as defined correctly by Eric S. Raymond.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
Eric Raymond explains well why I am annoyed with Armstrong transitioning from his engineers vocation to a fucking political soapbox spouting off about the only Solutions are top-down destruction into a one-world reserve morass.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3514
Note Armstrong may not realize that one of the reasons his site exploded in popularity since 2013, is because I (who have read him since he started writing from prison) have been quoting him with links to his site from this Bitcointalk.org forum. If he shuts off his sharing, this will only hurt his site's popularity. He can verify that some of my threads on Bitcointalk.org have 60,000+ reads and he can verify via Alexa.com that Bitcointalk.org has 20 times more page views than ArmstrongEconomics.com does. I do agree with him charging for some of the details of his model's predictions, because it makes the information more valuable. But if he thinks crawling into a shell because he feels defensive about debate and discussion, then he has really lost objectivity. Hey Armstrong, grow some skin on your back. Just because you've finally met your intellectual cohort, embrace it, don't wither away into a hole in the ground!
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/what-can-we-do-3/
The irony is Armstrong is describing himself below. He thinks he is describing me, but I am not on the soapbox saying that I have the only Solution and that it requires all of us to bound together in the same agreement. Rather I am saying that we hackers can experiment with many variants decentralized (bottom-up) and if humanity adopts any of our solutions over time, then that is a free market result entirely consistent with thermodynamics, entropy, physics and Armstrong's cyclical models.
Armstrong even admits is he is fighting against thermodynamics, entropy, physics and his own cyclical models:
Armstrong has put himself in a [Hegelian Dialectic] dilemma because he feels he needs to convince society-at-large of the necessity of a top-down restructuring Solution in order to avoid a Dark Age, and he is trying to say that we who want bottom-up Creative Destruction are the reason the majority is always wrong. This egregious discombobulated illogic saddens me, because I otherwise respect Armstrong very much. It is so sad to see he has created these false demons in his mind.
Apparently Armstrong lost some of his sanity when he was tortured in prison. I can understand that. I pray he can come to his senses. I would help him any way I can. I love the man.
He wants so badly to fight those who tortured him that he thinks anyone who is questions his top-down solutions is perpetuating the torture of mankind. This is visceral for Armstrong. He can still feel the torture he went through in prison. This is sort of the dual of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Again I reiterate to Armstrong that the repeating outcomes of the collusion of banksters, central banks, and governance are facts he can't deny (and in fact he has proven with his excruciatingly detailed study of history). Whether it happens only by an invisible hand, by plans with alliances, or some combination of those, doesn't matter. My point remains valid that bottom-up technological solutions that create new frontiers in the Knowledge Age are also desirable.
Not only desirable, but I posit maybe the only solution. Because Armstrong must admit that it is very likely the cancer of our current system doesn't die until it has killed the host, thus the wounded Godzilla is going to be forcing us hackers to develop the anonymous technological solutions.
Touché.
:wink:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 18: Armstrong in denial of his stated world view
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 1:25 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong could benefit from adhering to his own advice and stop trying to force his world view of the future as top-down, Hegelian Dialectic dilemma. He ought to admit that just maybe our anonymous crypto-currency Creative Destruction might end up being the solution and not his post-prison-torture Stockholm Syndrome psychosis.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/how-i-see-the-world/
Subject: Mar 17: we LOVE Armstrong more than he realizes
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 1:08 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe is partially screwed, but has a socialist net that will keep default states afloat because it's in the interest of all intertwined.
Illogical. In order to fund that safety net, it must expropriate from the productive sector, which is why Europe has no productive sector remaining, thus Europe will not be able to produce what it needs internally (will worsen in a negative feedback loop spiral flush into the toilet bowl) and thus it will rely on the Euro FX value to purchase for import its needs, but the Euro is collapsing in value as Euros are printed to bailout the safety net (indirectly via the banks who hold the sovereign bonds).
Nations in heavy debt are screwed (i.e. the US), but the US can self sustain with it's political power and military might in the world.
Correct the USA can expropriate from its productive sector and the productive sectors of the entire world with FATCA, the military, and mostly importantly because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world's financial system.
The USA is the wounded Godzilla that can possibly drag the entire global economy down into a Dark Age, if we don't find solutions.
The solution I advocate is a bottom-up, grassroots technological anonymous crypto-currency and fledgling Knowledge Age. I also concur with Martin Armstrong's vision of a global restructuring (when and if it becomes viable), because this is a way to avoid sinking too far into a Dark Age while waiting for the Knowledge Age to grow and take over with anonymous crypto-currency which the USA can not expropriate.
Armstrong seems to misconstrue my debate with him as one of total disrespect or disagreement. Rather I very much appreciate Armstrong's models, his sharing, his insights. My disagreement with Armstrong only rests on him preaching EXCLUSIVELY on top-down solutions and not also recognizing the potential rise of Creative Destruction. In the past few blog posts, he has alluded to Creative Destruction, but he still denies that anonymous crypto-currency and anonymous internet systems could potentially rise. He paints his world view that only he has the Solutions and doesn't recognize that DECENTRALIZED (not top-down controlled!) hackers are also very important for the world's future. Armstrong should recognize that he is also hacker, as defined correctly by Eric S. Raymond.
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html
Quote from: Eric S. Raymond
hacker: n.
1. ...A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
hack value: n.
Often adduced as the reason or motivation for expending effort toward a seemingly useless goal, the point being that the accomplished goal is a hack. For example, MacLISP had features for reading and printing Roman numerals, which were installed purely for hack value. See display hack for one method of computing hack value, but this cannot really be explained, only experienced. As Louis Armstrong once said when asked to explain jazz: “Man, if you gotta ask you'll never know.”
1. ...A person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular.
2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming.
3. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
6. An expert or enthusiast of any kind. One might be an astronomy hacker, for example.
7. One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.
hack value: n.
Often adduced as the reason or motivation for expending effort toward a seemingly useless goal, the point being that the accomplished goal is a hack. For example, MacLISP had features for reading and printing Roman numerals, which were installed purely for hack value. See display hack for one method of computing hack value, but this cannot really be explained, only experienced. As Louis Armstrong once said when asked to explain jazz: “Man, if you gotta ask you'll never know.”
Eric Raymond explains well why I am annoyed with Armstrong transitioning from his engineers vocation to a fucking political soapbox spouting off about the only Solutions are top-down destruction into a one-world reserve morass.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3514
Quote from: Eric S. Raymond
Those who can’t build, talk
One of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.
The following rant will not name names. But if you are offended by it, you are probably meant to be.
I have been using the Internet since 1976. I got involved in its engineering in 1983. Over the years, I’ve influenced the design of the Domain Name System, written a widely-used SMTP transport, helped out with RFCs, and done time on IETF mailing lists. I’ve never been a major name in Internet engineering the way I have been post-1997 in the open-source movement, but I was a respectable minor contributor to the former long before I became famous in the latter. I know the people and the culture that gets the work done; they’re my peers and I am theirs. Which is why I’m going to switch from “them” to “us” and “we” now, and talk about something that really cranks us off.
We’re not thrilled by people who rave endlessly about the wonder of the net. We’re not impressed by brow-furrowing think-pieces about how it ought to written by people who aren’t doing the design and coding to make stuff work. We’d be far happier if pretty much everybody who has ever been described as ‘digerati’ were dropped in a deep hole where they can blabber at each other without inflicting their pompous vacuities on us or the rest of the world.
In our experience, generally the only non-engineers whose net-related speculations are worth listening to are science-fiction writers, and by no means all of those; anybody to whom the label “cyberpunk” has been attached usually deserves to be dropped in that deep hole along with the so-called digerati.
There are specific recurring kinds of errors in speculative writing about the Internet that we get exceedingly tired of seeing over and over again. One is blindness to problems of scale; another is handwaving about deployment costs; and a third is inability to notice when a proposed cooperative ‘solution’ is ruined by misalignment of incentives. There are others, but these will stand as representative for why we very seldom find any value in the writings of people who talk but don’t build.
We seldom complain about this in public because, really, how would it help?
One of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.
The following rant will not name names. But if you are offended by it, you are probably meant to be.
I have been using the Internet since 1976. I got involved in its engineering in 1983. Over the years, I’ve influenced the design of the Domain Name System, written a widely-used SMTP transport, helped out with RFCs, and done time on IETF mailing lists. I’ve never been a major name in Internet engineering the way I have been post-1997 in the open-source movement, but I was a respectable minor contributor to the former long before I became famous in the latter. I know the people and the culture that gets the work done; they’re my peers and I am theirs. Which is why I’m going to switch from “them” to “us” and “we” now, and talk about something that really cranks us off.
We’re not thrilled by people who rave endlessly about the wonder of the net. We’re not impressed by brow-furrowing think-pieces about how it ought to written by people who aren’t doing the design and coding to make stuff work. We’d be far happier if pretty much everybody who has ever been described as ‘digerati’ were dropped in a deep hole where they can blabber at each other without inflicting their pompous vacuities on us or the rest of the world.
In our experience, generally the only non-engineers whose net-related speculations are worth listening to are science-fiction writers, and by no means all of those; anybody to whom the label “cyberpunk” has been attached usually deserves to be dropped in that deep hole along with the so-called digerati.
There are specific recurring kinds of errors in speculative writing about the Internet that we get exceedingly tired of seeing over and over again. One is blindness to problems of scale; another is handwaving about deployment costs; and a third is inability to notice when a proposed cooperative ‘solution’ is ruined by misalignment of incentives. There are others, but these will stand as representative for why we very seldom find any value in the writings of people who talk but don’t build.
We seldom complain about this in public because, really, how would it help?
Note Armstrong may not realize that one of the reasons his site exploded in popularity since 2013, is because I (who have read him since he started writing from prison) have been quoting him with links to his site from this Bitcointalk.org forum. If he shuts off his sharing, this will only hurt his site's popularity. He can verify that some of my threads on Bitcointalk.org have 60,000+ reads and he can verify via Alexa.com that Bitcointalk.org has 20 times more page views than ArmstrongEconomics.com does. I do agree with him charging for some of the details of his model's predictions, because it makes the information more valuable. But if he thinks crawling into a shell because he feels defensive about debate and discussion, then he has really lost objectivity. Hey Armstrong, grow some skin on your back. Just because you've finally met your intellectual cohort, embrace it, don't wither away into a hole in the ground!
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/what-can-we-do-3/
Quote from: Armstrong
We will even shift some info away from the blog for those who are clients in order to preserve the integrity of some of the analysis making it more exclusive for it is widely plagiarized and distorted by others desperate to stand on their soap-boxes with nothing to offer society misrepresenting the facts and what we even say.
The irony is Armstrong is describing himself below. He thinks he is describing me, but I am not on the soapbox saying that I have the only Solution and that it requires all of us to bound together in the same agreement. Rather I am saying that we hackers can experiment with many variants decentralized (bottom-up) and if humanity adopts any of our solutions over time, then that is a free market result entirely consistent with thermodynamics, entropy, physics and Armstrong's cyclical models.
Quote from: Armstrong
The conspiracy nuts cannot accept that the world functions in a fascinating way according to physics as does everything else. No, they must attribute all powerful knowledge and evil plots to explain why they cannot escape the mob to see the reality of the world as it exists. They pretend to be all knowledgeable, yet close their mind to knowledge that does not satisfy their conclusionary expectations. They cannot rise above and observe their own actions and participation with unbiased eyes. To them, the world plots against them.
Armstrong even admits is he is fighting against thermodynamics, entropy, physics and his own cyclical models:
Quote from: Armstrong
I tried before to prevent trends and had to discover that they are set in motion and must run their course. I gave up and saw firsthand there was just no way to do anything for that would require altering humanity and changing the laws of physics that govern the markets which must swing between maximum and minimum entropy.
Yes, I could have saved Social Security transforming it into a wealth fund. But self-interests of politicians is always too overwhelming. True, I could revise the world monetary system in 30 days or less and correct the mistakes to prevent the crash and burn. But this is delusional for that would require people to see the problem and then say fix it. Their own self-interest is always in maintaining the status-quo.
Yes, I could have saved Social Security transforming it into a wealth fund. But self-interests of politicians is always too overwhelming. True, I could revise the world monetary system in 30 days or less and correct the mistakes to prevent the crash and burn. But this is delusional for that would require people to see the problem and then say fix it. Their own self-interest is always in maintaining the status-quo.
Armstrong has put himself in a [Hegelian Dialectic] dilemma because he feels he needs to convince society-at-large of the necessity of a top-down restructuring Solution in order to avoid a Dark Age, and he is trying to say that we who want bottom-up Creative Destruction are the reason the majority is always wrong. This egregious discombobulated illogic saddens me, because I otherwise respect Armstrong very much. It is so sad to see he has created these false demons in his mind.
Apparently Armstrong lost some of his sanity when he was tortured in prison. I can understand that. I pray he can come to his senses. I would help him any way I can. I love the man.
He wants so badly to fight those who tortured him that he thinks anyone who is questions his top-down solutions is perpetuating the torture of mankind. This is visceral for Armstrong. He can still feel the torture he went through in prison. This is sort of the dual of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Quote from: Armstrong
It would be like a man with a gun comes to rob you and you then try to argue that guns are illegal and he should not do this. He will laugh if not shoot you.
Between the media not reporting because they are controlled by corporate entities whose self-interest is at stake and the hopeless conspiracy theory advocates who seek to blame grand schemes without proof to explain their own helplessness, the majority will be misdirected and left hopelessly lost in the folds of their own mind knee deep in delusional bullshit. So it may appear hopeless, yet this is required for the majority must always be wrong and that is the energy that passes through the mob to create the boom and bust cycle. The majority will become convince at the top of a market that it will never end, Then, the slightest whiff of error creates the flash crash. They will blame some short-player to explain their greed and mistake, but in truth, they are the culprit. When you are at the extreme on both sides, they because the fuel to propel the market in the opposite direction. They will even outlaw shorts assuming they have manipulated the market. But that always makes it worse for only the short has the courage to buy in the middle of a panic.
Between the media not reporting because they are controlled by corporate entities whose self-interest is at stake and the hopeless conspiracy theory advocates who seek to blame grand schemes without proof to explain their own helplessness, the majority will be misdirected and left hopelessly lost in the folds of their own mind knee deep in delusional bullshit. So it may appear hopeless, yet this is required for the majority must always be wrong and that is the energy that passes through the mob to create the boom and bust cycle. The majority will become convince at the top of a market that it will never end, Then, the slightest whiff of error creates the flash crash. They will blame some short-player to explain their greed and mistake, but in truth, they are the culprit. When you are at the extreme on both sides, they because the fuel to propel the market in the opposite direction. They will even outlaw shorts assuming they have manipulated the market. But that always makes it worse for only the short has the courage to buy in the middle of a panic.
Again I reiterate to Armstrong that the repeating outcomes of the collusion of banksters, central banks, and governance are facts he can't deny (and in fact he has proven with his excruciatingly detailed study of history). Whether it happens only by an invisible hand, by plans with alliances, or some combination of those, doesn't matter. My point remains valid that bottom-up technological solutions that create new frontiers in the Knowledge Age are also desirable.
Not only desirable, but I posit maybe the only solution. Because Armstrong must admit that it is very likely the cancer of our current system doesn't die until it has killed the host, thus the wounded Godzilla is going to be forcing us hackers to develop the anonymous technological solutions.
Touché.
:wink:
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Mar 18: Armstrong in denial of his stated world view
From: iamback
Date: Tue, March 17, 2015 1:25 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong could benefit from adhering to his own advice and stop trying to force his world view of the future as top-down, Hegelian Dialectic dilemma. He ought to admit that just maybe our anonymous crypto-currency Creative Destruction might end up being the solution and not his post-prison-torture Stockholm Syndrome psychosis.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/17/how-i-see-the-world/
Quote from: Armstrong
Einstein was aware of his celebrity, but he never surrendered his own humble humanity. To live is to think, to conform is to surrender your thoughts. It is a willingness to expand the mind and simultaneously to never assume you are right. With each new day comes something new to learn and with that knowledge comes wisdom.
To see the future, we must comprehend the past. Opinion has little value for soap-boxes do not truly make a person taller. This is not a contest of who is right or wrong, for those who confine themselves to such a black and white world will never see the color that brightens the world. Wisdom comes from knowledge, which comes from trial and exploration. To assume you are right and reject any challenge is the mark of a fool, not of wisdom.
Einstein’s approach to the world was precisely that. Never surrender your imagination for within that spirit lies the truth and all wisdom.
To see the future, we must comprehend the past. Opinion has little value for soap-boxes do not truly make a person taller. This is not a contest of who is right or wrong, for those who confine themselves to such a black and white world will never see the color that brightens the world. Wisdom comes from knowledge, which comes from trial and exploration. To assume you are right and reject any challenge is the mark of a fool, not of wisdom.
Einstein’s approach to the world was precisely that. Never surrender your imagination for within that spirit lies the truth and all wisdom.
March 17, 2015, 11:10:00 AM
March 17, 2015, 10:12:34 AM
Jump to: