“While technically and legally the Federal Reserve note is an obligation of the United States Government, in reality it is an obligation, the sole actual responsibility for which rests on the reserve banks…The government could only be called upon to take them up after the reserve banks had failed.”
— Paul Warburg, founding father of the Fed
In other words, our money is bank fiat money, issued in partnership with a whore-government. The taxpayers are the guarantors of a privately issued currency.
Hmmm…now we can have endless wars and endless social spending, until a great nation is ready for the Leash. Sounds a lot like the last 100 or so years…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“While technically and legally the Federal Reserve note is an obligation of the United States Government, in reality it is an obligation, the sole actual responsibility for which rests on the reserve banks…The government could only be called upon to take them up after the reserve banks had failed.”
— Paul Warburg, founding father of the Fed
In other words, our money is bank fiat money, issued in partnership with a whore-government. The taxpayers are the guarantors of a privately issued currency.
Hmmm…now we can have endless wars and endless social spending, until a great nation is ready for the Leash. Sounds a lot like the last 100 or so years…[/quote]
Where do you find all this crazy shit? The government has to come up with money in case the resrve banks run out, and this means the Illuminati is taking over the world?
In a free society unsound banks must be allowed to fail. This as well as many other implications of freedom do not meet the requirements of the power-elite and thus the common man will be bound by the chains of economic slavery – forever and ever, ramen.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In a free society unsound banks must be allowed to fail. This as well as many other implications of freedom do not meet the requirements of the power-elite and thus the common man will be bound by the chains of economic slavery – forever and ever, ramen.[/quote]
In a free society free men must be allowed to kill others over disputes.
One of the more interesting coincidences of history is that WWI commenced shortly after America went to central banking in 1913. A central bank allows you to greatly increase spending capability by simply creating currency. No need to go to the voters for approval, or to worry about the consequences — most Americans simply scream at the checkout clerk for rising prices.
I’m beginning to think the American people are so evil that they deserve to be manipulated. I mean, let’s face it — they sold their children into servitude, so they could get little motorized chairs to drive around in, when they go cash their Social Security plunder-checks.
Let the bankers rule the cattle — who gives a shit…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’m beginning to think the American people are so evil that they deserve to be manipulated.
[/quote]
This is a fallacy. Many may be evil but more are probably just ignorant.
The inherent nature of the political machine is to trade votes for a pieces of the pork and power thereby expanding government. Politicians are then inclined to protect these interests lest they lose their piece of the pork. So they sell policy to the ignorant American public in the form of insurance and safety nets. All it takes is one sad example in history to scare people into the arms of government.
Sheep! Every single one of them. Evil is mostly perpetrated by politicians as ignorant as the people they represent but the real evil is done by those elite that have every intention of leading the country into a complete hegemony. Whether this is done via a conspiracy or not is irrelevant. The results are all that matter.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
In a free society free men must be allowed to kill others over disputes.
Under what precept?
Freedom.
So your notion of freedom is its justification for taking someone else’s freedom by killing them? I am afraid your notion is completely backward.[/quote]
I find your concept of freedom very limiting. If I cannot do what I want I am not free.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I find your concept of freedom very limiting. If I cannot do what I want I am not free.
That isn’t the definition of freedom. I cannot fly does that make me “not free” because I cannot do what I want?
Freedom is sovereignty over one’s own life – one’s own life only.
What if my life choice is to take another life?[/quote]
Then you will met with collective armed resistance- Lots of angry men celebrating their freedom by hanging you with your own intestines.
On the other hand, lots of societies lived quite well with formalized duels, so if you find someone who wants to shoot it out with you at 6 o clock in the morning, good luck and why not.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I look all around nature and I see differently. Taking lives appears to be the natural order of things.[/quote]
You could say it is part of the natural order but no less so than any other category of human action. Man also has the ability cooperate and exchange his knowledge and labor with those around him. How is violence any more or less part of our nature than cooperation? What makes it the “proper” way of behaving verses cooperation?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I look all around nature and I see differently. Taking lives appears to be the natural order of things.
You could say it is part of the natural order but no less so than any other category of human action. Man also has the ability cooperate and exchange his knowledge and labor with those around him. How is violence any more or less part of our nature than cooperation? What makes it the “proper” way of behaving verses cooperation?[/quote]
I am not talking about proper. I am talking about freedom.