Banking and Conspiracies

[Backatcha Bandit]

The phrase "International banking" is often a shorthand for "Jewish world conspiracy".

Not sure I follow your logic here, NS.

Are you saying that because of this 'International Banking' cannot or should not be discussed?

My argument is that whenever the mechanics of the international banking and financial system are discussed (whether those mechanics are a "scam" or not), then certain posters, yourself among them, conflate that discussion with parallel but separate issues about forces "controlling" those mechanics for their own ends. You may think such conflation is legitimate. I believe it's a separate issue.

We've already established that the 'forces controlling those mechanics' will do so 'for their own ends' - it would be odd if they didn't.

So what exactly are you saying here? Why is it a 'separate issue'?

If we're investigating 'traffic', for instance, why would we wish to exclude the actions of the 'driver' from our enquiry? You appear to be suggesting that we should in that case concentrate solely on the 'vehicle', ignoring the input of the person in control of the vehicle on the basis of what? That they might be Jewish?

In any complex system, we need to examine all the factors that govern it's actions. The systemic mechanisms AND the actors that utilise those mechanisms.

Setting arbitrary limits on the scope of our enquiry based on the possible or potential religious convictions of *some* of those actors is utter bollocks.

It's what Orwell termed 'crimestop'.

Yes, I know that conflating any discussion regarding 'International Banking' with 'Anti-semitism' is a popular reaction or thought pattern and a powerful mechanism for halting further enquiry into the nature of the 'International Banking' system. We also know that at least *some* of the actors within the system under discussion are or were Jewish.

I'm interested in understanding exactly what it is that you think is so *wrong* about discussing the actions of these actors - and more to the point, why?

 

[nino_savatte]

Not sure I follow your logic here, NS.

Are you saying that because of this 'International Banking' cannot or should not be discussed?

No, but the phrase is often used to mean "Jewish world conspiracy" and there are many who use it in this way. I often find that many conspiracy theorists who speak of such things will often make references to "Jews".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, but the phrase is often used to mean "Jewish world conspiracy" and there are many who use it in this way. I often find that many conspiracy theorists who speak of such things will often make references to "Jews".

In that case, wait for them to make that reference to 'Jews'. Otherwise others will be disallowed from using the term international banking, and from even positing the possibility that bankers may talk to each other and coordinate what they do.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why don't you actually wait for a poster to perform this conflation first before laying into them? Remember that this is a public discussion board and not everybody reading it is going to know about past posts. This kind of tiff is fucking tedious.

Believe me, so is seeing every single thread on this subject get "hijacked" by the conflaters.

Perhaps I don't "actually wait" because I'm enough of a pessimist to not think this thread would escape the same problem of "loonspuddery" that has dogged every other one.

 

[soulman]

You appear to be labouring under the delusion...<snip>

Not interested in your derailing tactics, or you lumbering around looking to bang someone on the head with a baseball bat. A non abusive answer to Backatcha Bandit's post #91 would be welcome...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not sure I follow your logic here, NS.

Are you saying that because of this 'International Banking' cannot or should not be discussed?

That would be stupid.
Do you disagree, though, that making people aware that "International Banking" is occasionally used by ideologically-motivated individuals and groups as "shorthand" for "Jewish World Conspiracy" is a worthwhile endeavour?

 

[nino_savatte]

In that case, wait for them to make that reference to 'Jews'. Otherwise others will be disallowed from using the term international banking, and from even positing the possibility that bankers may talk to each other and coordinate what they do.

Ah, but it's always there in the background and one is constantly aware of the euphemistic way in which the notion of the "International Jewish conspiracy" is presented. There's Icke and his "lizards", to give one example.

 

[Fruitloop]

Isn't the main point that the roles are sufficiently constrained that it doesn't really matter who in particular fills a role at a given time, their objectives will necessarily be the same as anyone else in the same role? Like with company law, where the only duty of the executive is to maximise shareholder value, it doesn't matter if you put the Dalai Lama in charge, he's still going to have to maximise value for the shareholders or face the sack, so why waste time and effort demonising specific, replaceable actors?

 

[ViolentPanda]

We've already established that the 'forces controlling those mechanics' will do so 'for their own ends' - it would be odd if they didn't.

So what exactly are you saying here? Why is it a 'separate issue'?

Because, IMHO, when an economist talks of the forces controlling those mechanics, he refers to forces defined by their relation to and engagement with finance; corporations and individuals who have invested in the ideology of Capitalism, whereas when someone with a CT bent talks of the forces controlling those mechanics, they refer to "occult" forces, hidden interest groups whose interst in Capitalism is mainly as a method of social control.
To me the two things are seperate. While one undoubtedly exists and the other may (although to what degree, who knows?), but they shouldn't be conflated.

If we're investigating 'traffic', for instance, why would we wish to exclude the actions of the 'driver' from our enquiry? You appear to be suggesting that we should in that case concentrate solely on the 'vehicle', ignoring the input of the person in control of the vehicle on the basis of what? That they might be Jewish?

Not at all. The religious ideology or cultural affinity of the "driver" doesn't matter at all, but if you assign the meaning (as much early 20th century anti-Semitic literature that fulminates against "international bankers" does) "evil Jew" to the driver of the vehicle of "international banking", then what is represented by the words "international banking" when used by certain people is different from the normative meaning. All I want is for people to be aware that the meaning of the words, when those words are deployed in some circumstances, is not the normative meaning, but rather a code.

In any complex system, we need to examine all the factors that govern it's actions. The systemic mechanisms AND the actors that utilise those mechanisms.

Setting arbitrary limits on the scope of our enquiry based on the possible or potential religious convictions of *some* of those actors is utter bollocks.

It's what Orwell termed 'crimestop'.

Yes, I know that conflating any discussion regarding 'International Banking' with 'Anti-semitism' is a popular reaction or thought pattern and a powerful mechanism for halting further enquiry into the nature of the 'International Banking' system. We also know that at least *some* of the actors within the system under discussion are or were Jewish.

I'm interested in understanding exactly what it is that you think is so *wrong* about discussing the actions of these actors - and more to the point, why?

I don't think it's "wrong" to discuss such things, IF it is done so in an open manner, that means acknowledging the multi-layered meaning of certain phrases, accepting that sometimes "international banker" is a perjorative reference rather than a description of a career role, and acknowledging the sources of and reasons for many of these issues.

 

[Blagsta]

Ditto my comment to VP.

Because it gets a little tiring after fuck knows how many years to see the same bullshit nutty anti-semitic shit trotted out by the same people time and time again.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because it gets a little tiring after fuck knows how many years to see the same bullshit nutty anti-semitic shit trotted out by the same people time and time again.

And your stupid spats are also a little tiring. If this is what you think of them, why not give them enough rope to hang themselves. Point out anti-semitism after it has happened and avoid pre-emptive strikes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Because it gets a little tiring after fuck knows how many years to see the same bullshit nutty anti-semitic shit trotted out by the same people time and time again.

I suppose it's not quite as irritating if you only encounter it occasionally, but I'm in my mid-forties, and unless I've been talking with someone versed in economics, something related to the "Jews taking over the world" thesis always bloody well comes up, even from supposedly well-informed people, and even from people who know I'm a Jew.

It's fucking tiring.

 

[Blagsta]

And your stupid spats are also a little tiring. If this is what you think of them, why not give them enough rope to hang themselves. Point out anti-semitism after it has happened and avoid pre-emptive strikes.

See how you feel after 5 years of it.

 

[phildwyer]

How can a human activity be "supernatural"? It makes no sense.

Is televison magic? Art? Literature? They all manipulate symbols to objective effect.

No they don't. They don't *have* any object effect. Money however does have objective effects, it contains power, it does things--and this despite the fact that it does not exist. It is a *magical* force, a force of exactly the same nature as that exerted by ritual magic. This was clearly seen by anti-capitalist thinkers who were familiar with magic, and the earliest critiques of usury condemn it precisely as a form of witchcraft. Karl Marx also famously writes of the "fetishistic," magical power of money:

"If I long for a particular dish or want to take the mail-coach because I am not strong enough to go by foot, money fetches me the dish and the mail-coach: that is, it converts my wishes from something in the realm of imagination, translates them from their meditated, imagined or desired existence into their sensuous, actual existence — from imagination to life, from imagined being into real being. In effecting this mediation, [money] is the truly creative power..... Money as the external, universal medium and faculty (not springing from man as man or from human society as society) for turning an image into reality and reality into a mere image..."

--Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844

 

[Crispy]

You see magic, I see the self-reinforcing patterns of behaviour of millions of semi-independant agents. It's like a ouija board, the influences are subtle and unintuitive. The individual inputs are microscopic to the point of being immeasurable. Yet the cup moves.

 

[sleaterkinney]

If I thought this was a sensible discussion, I'd join it.

 

[Fruitloop]

I'm trying to get a 50 pence piece to make me a cup of tea, but alas to no avail. Would it help if I used a larger denomination?

 

[Blagsta]

No they don't. They don't *have* any object effect.

Yes they do. Good art, literature can make my heart beat faster, change my breathing, inspire me to do things.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I'm trying to get a 50 pence piece to make me a cup of tea, but alas to no avail. Would it help if I used a larger denomination?

You won't get much proper tea for 50p in London.

 

[Jazzz]

I suppose it's not quite as irritating if you only encounter it occasionally, but I'm in my mid-forties, and unless I've been talking with someone versed in economics, something related to the "Jews taking over the world" thesis always bloody well comes up, even from supposedly well-informed people, and even from people who know I'm a Jew.

It's fucking tiring.

oh, well I'm Jewish too.

Are we trying to take over the world? I don't think so. Surely we can agree that we *aren't* trying to take over the world, and continue from there? Of course if it looks at any time like I'm claiming to attempt a world take-over, you can stop me right there. After all, someone will have to.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Because, IMHO, when an economist talks of the forces controlling those mechanics, he refers to forces defined by their relation to and engagement with finance; corporations and individuals who have invested in the ideology of Capitalism, whereas when someone with a CT bent talks of the forces controlling those mechanics, they refer to "occult" forces, hidden interest groups whose interest in Capitalism is mainly as a method of social control.
To me the two things are separate. While one undoubtedly exists and the other may (although to what degree, who knows?), but they shouldn't be conflated.

Interesting distinction, although not one I'd particularly agree with.

Money quite clearly is used as a 'method of social control' and the 'interest groups' which exercise this control are indeed to some extent 'hidden'. The term 'occult' could therefore quite reasonably be attached to such activities.

Quite what exactly your objection to discussing the nature of such is, I'm still not sure.

If it is just - as you appear to indicate - that certain terms have historically been used as 'code' to disguise bare prejudice, perhaps that warrants further discussion in it's own right.

The religious ideology or cultural affinity of the "driver" doesn't matter at all, but if you assign the meaning (as much early 20th century anti-Semitic literature that fulminates against "international bankers" does) "evil Jew" to the driver of the vehicle of "international banking", then what is represented by the words "international banking" when used by certain people is different from the normative meaning. All I want is for people to be aware that the meaning of the words, when those words are deployed in some circumstances, is not the normative meaning, but rather a code.

I don't think it's "wrong" to discuss such things, IF it is done so in an open manner, that means acknowledging the multi-layered meaning of certain phrases, accepting that sometimes "international banker" is a pejorative reference rather than a description of a career role, and acknowledging the sources of and reasons for many of these issues.

What I am keen to avoid, though, is the wholesale removal of wholly appropriate terms from the lexicon as a pre-emptive measure.

Words are important. I am reluctant to surrender whole swathes of the English language simply because they may have been tainted by previous misuse. If we simply 'replace' words or phrases with new ones that mean something slightly different, rather than defend the correct and appropriate usage of existing ones, what is to stop those that wish to 'codify' the use of the existing phrase from hijacking the new one?

Where does it end? Every time we surrender a word or phrase to those who would subvert it's true and appropriate (normative) usage, we lose the precision of language or ability to communicate the idea that it was originally intended to convey.

If we are to accept that the term 'International Bankers' is lost to us, then surrender whatever words we elect to replace it with for the same reasons, eventually we lose the ability to communicate anything on the subject.

Reference Orwell's 'Newspeak'.

 

[Jazzz]

Banking quotes #2

And let's have another quote. Now this one goes back a bit but is no less prescient. I wonder what he would have made of fractional reserve methods.

The trade of the petty usurer is hated with most reason: it makes a profit from currency itself, instead of making it from the process which currency was meant to serve. Their common characteristic is obviously their sordid avarice.
Aristotle 384-322 BC

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I suppose it's not quite as irritating if you only encounter it occasionally, but I'm in my mid-forties, and unless I've been talking with someone versed in economics, something related to the "Jews taking over the world" thesis always bloody well comes up, even from supposedly well-informed people, and even from people who know I'm a Jew.

It's fucking tiring.

What I find quite tiresome is that every time any discussion regarding the nature of money and banking comes up, it gets wrecked by some flap-jack making fucktard remarks about 'lizards', David Sodding Icke and thinly-veiled accusations of 'anti-semitism' and the like.

It remains the fact that nobody on this thread (or the one that prompted this discussion) has opined that "Jews taking over the world" or anything remotely similar, yet pre-emptive rants against such abound.

In my view, it's testament to the effectiveness of an identifiable method for limiting any discussion regarding or examination of 'International Banking', in that somehow many of us seem to have been conditioned into assuming that the phrase is indicative of 'anti-semitism', at a pre-concious or 'sub-intellectual' level.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Interesting distinction, although not one I'd particularly agree with.

Money quite clearly is used as a 'method of social control' and the 'interest groups' which exercise this control are indeed to some extent 'hidden'. The term 'occult' could therefore quite reasonably be attached to such activities.

Quite what exactly your objection to discussing the nature of such is, I'm still not sure.

If it is just - as you appear to indicate - that certain terms have historically been used as 'code' to disguise bare prejudice, perhaps that warrants further discussion in it's own right.



What I am keen to avoid, though, is the wholesale removal of wholly appropriate terms from the lexicon as a pre-emptive measure.

Words are important. I am reluctant to surrender whole swathes of the English language simply because they may have been tainted by previous misuse. If we simply 'replace' words or phrases with new ones that mean something slightly different, rather than defend the correct and appropriate usage of existing ones, what is to stop those that wish to 'codify' the use of the existing phrase from hijacking the new one?

Where does it end? Every time we surrender a word or phrase to those who would subvert it's true and appropriate (normative) usage, we lose the precision of language or ability to communicate the idea that it was originally intended to convey.

If we are to accept that the term 'International Bankers' is lost to us, then surrender whatever words we elect to replace it with for the same reasons, eventually we lose the ability to communicate anything on the subject.

Reference Orwell's 'Newspeak'.

I'll repeat myself.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to not use the phrase (or any other), I'm asking that people be aware that sometimes it is used as a code.

 

[Crispy]

It's quite good isn;t it? See also: Hitler was a vegetarian.

 

[ViolentPanda]

oh, well I'm Jewish too.

Are we trying to take over the world? I don't think so. Surely we can agree that we *aren't* trying to take over the world, and continue from there? Of course if it looks at any time like I'm claiming to attempt a world take-over, you can stop me right there. After all, someone will have to.

Sigh.

You and I agreeing that "we're" not trying to take over the world doesn't alter the fact that there are idiots out there who believe that we are through control of international finance.

Oh, and of course I'll stop you if you try to take over the world. Thanks for asking me.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's quite good isn;t it? See also: Hitler was a vegetarian.

Was he?

Probably explains all the references by various generals etc about flatulence.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Phil: Did you miss my post (think it was #25)? You haven't commented on it yet.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What I find quite tiresome is that every time any discussion regarding the nature of money and banking comes up, it gets wrecked by some flap-jack making fucktard remarks about 'lizards', David Sodding Icke and thinly-veiled accusations of 'anti-semitism' and the like.

It remains the fact that nobody on this thread (or the one that prompted this discussion) has opined that "Jews taking over the world" or anything remotely similar, yet pre-emptive rants against such abound.

So terribly sorry for my "pre-emptive rant" sir, I'll be sure not to do it in your presence again, sir.

In my view, it's testament to the effectiveness of an identifiable method for limiting any discussion regarding or examination of 'International Banking', in that somehow many of us seem to have been conditioned into assuming that the phrase is indicative of 'anti-semitism', at a pre-concious or 'sub-intellectual' level.

Blame "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and its' predecessors for that, or even better, blame the various European monarchs that expelled Jews so that they could appropriate their (obviously ill-gotten) assets.

And anyway, contrary to your expressed belief, it isn't generally about "limiting discussion", as I've (repeatedly now) stated.

 

[soulman]

I'll repeat myself.

I'm not asking you or anyone else to not use the phrase (or any other), I'm asking that people be aware that sometimes it is used as a code.

I'd rather you didn't continue repeating yourself. It suggests you don't think other posters on the thread are capable of understanding your point the first time. Or that they were not well aware of your point before this thread was started. Either way it makes you look like obsessive.