logo Sign In

Most Influential Person — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.


May I take this opportunity to worship at the feet of all Americans for saving my puny Island from certain destruction. We held out from 1939 until 1944 without them, but that one year that they helped us was, of course, the decider. Thank You Thank you Thank you.
p.s Thank You.


Calm yourself and read both reasons i listed, there are two after all... There would be No US, if the french wouldnt have lended aid during the revolutionary war. Thanks for assuming so, but i am not some crazy american jocker. But i cant see the english and french ralying to defeat Hilter with out the US and Hitlers overzealousness towards Russia. IF Hilter would have laid off and not tried to ramrod into Russia during the winter things would have gone much much worse for all the good guys involved.

As for JFK and Reagan others have more than adiquitely covered the issues i would have raised...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
I think the companies do have influence. However, I believe the central banks have even more power. A good book on the subject of why wars happen, why the world is as terrible as it is, what we can look forward to in the future is "The Creature from Jekyl Island", which discusses the nature of the power central banks have. Yes, the companies have enormous amounts of money, but the central banks are the ones that hold it, or lend it, and collect interest on it, etc; There's a quote in the book, I forgot who said it and I know I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "Allow me to control the issuance of a nation's currency and I care not who is in control". Very interesting, very scary stuff.


I've read some on the subject, but I think most of what is attributed to baking institutions is mere speculation, almost a conspiracy theory... I've seen theories about banks profiting from selling organs (I mean HUMAN organs, not the musical instrument), too bizarre.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
I think the companies do have influence. However, I believe the central banks have even more power. A good book on the subject of why wars happen, why the world is as terrible as it is, what we can look forward to in the future is "The Creature from Jekyl Island", which discusses the nature of the power central banks have. Yes, the companies have enormous amounts of money, but the central banks are the ones that hold it, or lend it, and collect interest on it, etc; There's a quote in the book, I forgot who said it and I know I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "Allow me to control the issuance of a nation's currency and I care not who is in control". Very interesting, very scary stuff.


I've read some on the subject, but I think most of what is attributed to baking institutions is mere speculation, almost a conspiracy theory... I've seen theories about banks profiting from selling organs (I mean HUMAN organs, not the musical instrument), too bizarre.


That is wierd.

Think about the companies of the world, or for that matter, the companies in the US. By their very nature they compete with eachother. What do they have to gain by fighting wars? Central banking has been at the heart of conflict since the beginning of time. The big European banks being some of the biggest culprits. The Rothschilds, the Warburgs. The Morgans and Rockerfellers in the US. It's an old story. I've done a lot of research on Napoleon. One of the reasons he was constantly fighting in Europe was because he had France almost totally debt free, which means the European banks lost one of their biggest customers. What's the answer? Squeeze the credit of his neighbors and force them to get involved.

There's a lot of thought that the US got involved in WWI because massive loans from central banks to England and France were in danger of default, so the Luisitania incident "occured".
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

That is wierd.

Think about the companies of the world, or for that matter, the companies in the US. By their very nature they compete with eachother. What do they have to gain by fighting wars? Central banking has been at the heart of conflict since the beginning of time. The big European banks being some of the biggest culprits. The Rothschilds, the Warburgs. The Morgans and Rockerfellers in the US. It's an old story. I've done a lot of research on Napoleon. One of the reasons he was constantly fighting in Europe was because he had France almost totally debt free, which means the European banks lost one of their biggest customers. What's the answer? Squeeze the credit of his neighbors and force them to get involved.

There's a lot of thought that the US got involved in WWI because massive loans from central banks to England and France were in danger of default, so the Luisitania incident "occured".


I have always thought that in north america, as opposed to europe, banking institutions didn't gather so much power, mostly because of the economical stability of the dollar (although it has lost some value recently), and because banking institutions in the US are de-centralized. Also, because of financial issued far too complicated for me to talk about, north american banks are not reference for investments such as Cayman Islands or Switzerland...

I can think of thousands of north american companies, I can think of some who would profit from governmental decisions (Lockheed, Halliburton...), but I can't think of a north american bank with that same power...

BTW, what is the major bank in america?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

That is wierd.

Think about the companies of the world, or for that matter, the companies in the US. By their very nature they compete with eachother. What do they have to gain by fighting wars? Central banking has been at the heart of conflict since the beginning of time. The big European banks being some of the biggest culprits. The Rothschilds, the Warburgs. The Morgans and Rockerfellers in the US. It's an old story. I've done a lot of research on Napoleon. One of the reasons he was constantly fighting in Europe was because he had France almost totally debt free, which means the European banks lost one of their biggest customers. What's the answer? Squeeze the credit of his neighbors and force them to get involved.

There's a lot of thought that the US got involved in WWI because massive loans from central banks to England and France were in danger of default, so the Luisitania incident "occured".


I have always thought that in north america, as opposed to europe, banking institutions didn't gather so much power, mostly because of the economical stability of the dollar (although it has lost some value recently), and because banking institutions in the US are de-centralized. Also, because of financial issued far too complicated for me to talk about, north american banks are not reference for investments such as Cayman Islands or Switzerland...

I can think of thousands of north american companies, I can think of some who would profit from governmental decisions (Lockheed, Halliburton...), but I can't think of a north american bank with that same power...

BTW, what is the major bank in america?


The Federal Reserve, which is made to look like an instrument of government, but is really a cartel of private banks. This is a brief, rough summary of how it works:

The Fed was created in 1913 to serve as a "controller" for the US banking industry. Basically what they wanted to do was control how other banks (competitors) functioned, especially how much they could keep in reserve compared to their outstanding loans (lending ratio). It bothered them that many of their competitors were being fiscally responsible by keeping their lending ratio within reason, for example: they loaned out only 10 dollars for every 1 in the vault, whereas the big boys wanted to lend at a ratio of say, 1000 to 1 (the more money out in loans the more interest they could accumulate). However, due to the more pure, free-market economy at the time, this would not be doable without help. So, many of the power brokers at the time representing the huge central banks in Europe and the monied interests here (who still had family ties to "old money" in Europe) met at an island off the coast of Georgia called "Jekyl Island". This is where they decided to address the following needs:

1. How do they force their competitors to lend money at the same ratio as they do?
2. How do they make the rules even more favorable to them (ie: how do they control interest rates at which their own banks borrowed $$)?
3. How do they address "runs" on their cash supply that were damaging to their solvency (ability to meet short and long term debt)?
4. How do they break lose from a currency based on precious metals, that by definition forced them to be more conservative in their lending?
5. How do they eliminate or at least control new players in the game?
6. How do they keep the lower and middle classes under control in a society that was allowing them too much room for growth?
7. How do they create this animal without alarming the American public or the American government?

The answer was to create a private, central, controlling bank that did not look or feel like a central controlling bank. They did this by getting enough support in congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act, so named because it created an illusion of building a safety net to protect the American people from bank runs and currency drains that had hurt many people. Once the act was passed, that took care of item #7. They also made it look like the government exercises a modicum of control by allowing congress to appoint the Fed Board chairman.

The people behind this whole thing were avowed socialists, of the "Fabian Socialist" brotherhood, who basically wanted to create a banker's paradise by squashing the lower and middle classes and eventually nationalize private industry and property (the monetary and political scientists have always been in league) to exercise greater control over profits, lending, credit, interest, etc; The way to do this is via inflation, which the Fed creates in great measure every time they fire up the printing press (the result of breaking lose from a currency based on precious metals). If the people get too upity, they begin to prematurely call in loans, which forces the lending banks to do the same, while simultaneously forcing interest rates and inflation sky high. If the economy is in the doldrums, the politicians will get involved, giving the illusion that their actually doing something. This answers #6.

Numbers 1,2, & 5 are answered in the nature of the act itself. The rules and regs so heavily favored the Fed that new and existing banks either went under, or were forced to play by the rules. The Fed has the police power of the US government behind it.

Item #4: The Fed has been very good at talking about how an "elastic" money supply not bound by the rules of precious metals is good for the economy, but they've never been able to prove how it helps by creating inflation and runaway spending. The only value the dollar has is the amount of confidence people have in the US economy. No confidence = dead currency.

Now imagine what would happen if massive banks like Chase, Citi, and Bank of America all had loans to say...Iraq. And Iraq looked like it was going to default and write off the debt without repayment. The result for America would be disasterous, meaning that the banks mentioned would experience a massive run as people would have serious doubts about their solvency. This means one of two things: 1. The banks would go under because their lending habits have left almost no actual money in their depositors accounts. This would result in a near collapse of the American economy because of the domino effect it would have on the customers these banks services. Or, 2. The Fed steps in and prints more money. Which results in more inflation, which means the grip on the US economy is made even tighter anyway.

I know that was lengthy, but I think it's worth reading, even if you're not interested in banking.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I know that printing more money generates inflantion: during the war the nazis were secretly bringing counterfeit money into England in order to create such scenario. But the Federal Reserve is allowed to actually print money? There's a word for it, I don't know what is the word in english, you gotta have some uh, lemme call "credit", in order to print money. You can't just go on and print it...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
I think that is technically incorrect (Ric and JediSage). The Fed may print money, but I believe they only do it on the orders of Congress.

I'd have to look into it though. I could be wrong.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
I think that is technically incorrect (Ric and JediSage). The Fed may print money, but I believe they only do it on the orders of Congress.

I'd have to look into it though. I could be wrong.


The Fed is a private bank. The only thing it requires approval for is the appointment of the board chairman, thus giving the illusion it's under federal control. They can print money at will.

Ricar: The only thing the Fed needs to print money is a law stating they can, which was passed in 1913. Because we're no longer bound by a currency based on precious metals, the only limit on the amount of money that can be printed would be if we ran out of paper and ink.

Something else of note is that in tandem with the Fed Reserve Act the national income tax went through. An interesting tidbit: The law was never actually legally ratified. There is a growing movement of people who are legally challenging the law and winning.

Like Lenin said, the best way to crush the middle class is through taxes and inflation.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.


May I take this opportunity to worship at the feet of all Americans for saving my puny Island from certain destruction. We held out from 1939 until 1944 without them, but that one year that they helped us was, of course, the decider. Thank You Thank you Thank you.
p.s Thank You.


Calm yourself and read both reasons i listed, there are two after all... There would be No US, if the french wouldnt have lended aid during the revolutionary war. Thanks for assuming so, but i am not some crazy american jocker. But i cant see the english and french ralying to defeat Hilter with out the US and Hitlers overzealousness towards Russia. IF Hilter would have laid off and not tried to ramrod into Russia during the winter things would have gone much much worse for all the good guys involved.

As for JFK and Reagan others have more than adiquitely covered the issues i would have raised...


London, Newcastle, Leeds, Soutahmpton and any other English city you care to mention was bombed to shit during the war and we fought them off in airplanes, so if you're suggesting that Hitler was looking elsewhere and that's why he was eventually defeated by the UK/US alliance I'd have to disagree.

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I would sugest that the U.S government only intervene in foreign affairs if it is of some interest to them, be it security, financial, etc. It may not be an obvious interest, but they will have some interest, even if it's citizen's are unaware.


I agree, however it just never seems to work out that way. We could never make the case to invade anywhere there's a drop of oil, because everyone would scream about it. It is unfortunate, because I do believe the US can be a force for good, especially it's military. However, we're often in lose-lose situations because of the games our politicians play, and in the court of public opinion.


There's corporate interest as well, and that goes beyond the whole politics. The thing is, I belive it is wrong to intervere merely for financial interests. And if we consider how much money the belic industry makes for each war or military intervention, we must ask ourselves if these multi-billion dollar companies influence the political decision behind the killings and bombings... I must say, one should be very naivee if he thinks those companies don't influence the war industry at all.


I'm not just talking about corporate or finacial reasons (oil, etc), I'm also talking about things like aiding a coup to get rid of a leader that is standing in your way somehow.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father

London, Newcastle, Leeds, Soutahmpton and any other English city you care to mention was bombed to shit during the war and we fought them off in airplanes, so if you're suggesting that Hitler was looking elsewhere and that's why he was eventually defeated by the UK/US alliance I'd have to disagree.



again with the jump to conclusions mat. I never stated that Hitler was ignoring the us and uk. I stated that he was overzealous in his pursuit of victory over russia. Simply put he stranded huge amounts of troops in the eastern european winter and left them under armed and under supplied. Had he waited for winter to clear things may have gone differenetly. I think that the combined ally forces as well as the bombing of Japan could have still pulled it off, but we dont know...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Hugh Hefner
Which is the more foolish, the fool (the OT) or the fool who follows (the PT)?

"Stay back, or Mr...Fett gets it!"
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Count Dushku
Hugh Hefner


Hold up.

Thats pushing it
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Count Dushku
Hugh Hefner


I would say he definitely has been influential. On my list? No. But influential nonetheless. My personal fav so far though!
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com