Banking and Conspiracies

[Backatcha Bandit]

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.

Righto.

Should you discover any instance of that or similar terms being used as a 'code' to hide anti-semitism, I'm sure you'll not be alone in pointing it out.

Can we take it, then, that you have no objections to discussing the 'occult-like' activities of International Bankers with reference to their use of the mechanics of the system as a method of social control?

 

[phildwyer]

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?

A 50 pence piece will certainly *get* you a cup of tea. It will produce a cup of tea where there was none before.

 

[phildwyer]

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

No. The reason is that I cannot help, nor do I greatly care, how people react to my use of traditional moralistic vocabulary in this context. In fact I believe that money is Satan, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[phildwyer]

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

That's subjective not objective. Money will have an objective effect no matter what you personally think about it.

 

[phildwyer]

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.

The history of the relation of Judaism to capitalism is very interesting. Karl Marx was still using the word 'Jew' as a synonym for 'capitalist' in the 1840's.

 

[Fruitloop]

A 50 pence piece will certainly *get* you a cup of tea. It will produce a cup of tea where there was none before.

Nope, it's just sitting there. I think the lack of arms, legs or intention might be the problem.

 

[phildwyer]

Nope, it's just sitting there. I think the lack of arms, legs or intention might be the problem.

No, the problem is that you are not using it correctly. Much as a kewpie doll will not have any effect unless you stick pins in it.

 

[phildwyer]

Nope, it's just sitting there. I think the lack of arms, legs or intention might be the problem.

Tell you what, put that 50p in the bank. You will find that it does quite a lot without any intervention on your part.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Nope, it's just sitting there. I think the lack of arms, legs or intention might be the problem.

Ahhh... you need the *magic words*:

'A cup of tea, please!'

('Abracadabra' is optional. )

 

[Fruitloop]

What else do I need in order for a 50p to make me a cup of tea? It would be no use on a desert island, or the moon, for example.

It seems to me that without a cup, some tea and someone who's prepared to do the making for 50p minus the cost of the ingredients, what I have is in fact an inert piece of metal.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

No. The reason is that I cannot help, nor do I greatly care, how people react to my use of traditional moralistic vocabulary in this context. In fact I believe that money is Satan, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

So you're perfectly happy to use terminology that inevitably turns your threads into pointless semantic masturbation? If you care so little about the subject that you deliberately help derail it then you have no right to bitch about the way the threads on the subject go nowhere.

If you wanted to discuss the topic you'd use more conventional language. It looks like you're doing it for no reason other than to amuse yourself and play with your own hobby horse rather than the topic itself.

 

[Blagsta]

That's subjective not objective. Money will have an objective effect no matter what you personally think about it.

No, its objective. My heart rate can be objectively measured.

 

[Fruitloop]

Actually, someone just made me a cup of tea for free. Gift economy madness!

 

[phildwyer]

If you wanted to discuss the topic you'd use more conventional language.

Why? I don't think the conventional language is appropriate.

 

[phildwyer]

No, its objective. My heart rate can be objectively measured.

But it will not increase unless you respond subjectively to the music. Money in contrast will be efficacious no matter what your subjective response to it.

 

[soulman]

soulman - What's convenient? Rants about bilderbergs and jews certainly aren't. Your views on economics on the other hand are defensible, I just don't share them. What about ecological economics? Marxist economics? Again, like phil, you're taking the standard arguments of mainstream economics and suggesting that's all economics can be, just because that's what's currently dominant.

Unless the mode of production changes 'ecological', 'marxist' and even participatory economics (parecon) remains capitalistic, firmly rooted within the current exploitative relationship.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Unless the mode of production changes 'ecological', 'marxist' and even participatory economics (parecon) remains capitalistic, firmly rooted within the current exploitative relationship.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'mode of production'?

I'd suggest that it's the mechanism that affords accumulated 'capital' the ability to *magically* re-produce and multiply without heed of other (environmental, moral etc) considerations - Usury - that's at fault, the driver of the 'exploitative relationship'.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

it [automatic accusations of 'anti-semitism'] isn't generally about "limiting discussion", as I've (repeatedly now) stated.

Regardless of what you've stated or how many times you do so, it is a fact that accusations of that type effectively do limit discussion.

My concern is that such an effect can potentially and effectively be used to give the discussion of 'International Banking' a 'taboo' status.

Obviously the Rothschilds are a Jewish family, and undeniably they are still among the richest and most powerful people on the planet.

If the fear of being branded an 'anti-semite' effectively prevents people engaging in discussions regarding their 'occult-like' use of the mechanisms of 'International Banking' for whatever purposes, such as as a 'method of social control', who's interests does that really serve?

 

[phildwyer]

Regardless of what you've stated or how many times you do so, it is a fact that accusations of that type effectively do limit discussion.

My concern is that such an effect can potentially and effectively be used to give the discussion of 'International Banking' a 'taboo' status.

Obviously the Rothschilds are a Jewish family, and undeniably they are still among the richest and most powerful people on the planet.

If the fear of being branded an 'anti-semite' effectively prevents people engaging in discussions regarding their 'occult-like' use of the mechanisms of 'International Banking' for whatever purposes, such as as a 'method of social control', who's interests does that really serve?

I competely agree. On the other hand, it would be foolish to ignore the historical connection between Judaism and usury. The important point to bear in mind, I think, is that it was the Christian *construction* of Judaism that connected it to money-lending, rather than any essential qualities of Judaism itself.

The Christian argument hinges on a dubious reading of Deuteronomy, but in general it draws from the idea that Judaism is a legalistic religion, hence associated with money, which Aristotle assigns to the realm of nomos (law) rather than phusis (nature). The best book on this connection is Benjamin Nelson's 'The Idea of Usury.'

But to suggest that anti-capitalism is antisemitic is offensive and absurd. A good sign of someone knowing nothing about Marx is when they accuse him of anti-semitism on the basis of 'On The Jewish Question.'

 

[soulman]

Can you clarify what you mean by 'mode of production'?

I'd suggest that it's the mechanism that affords accumulated 'capital' the ability to *magically* re-produce and multiply without heed of other (environmental, moral etc) considerations - Usury - that's at fault, the driver of the 'exploitative relationship'.

Yeah sure. I'm putting forward a marxist argument. So the mode of production is made up of:

1. The productive forces (human labour)

2. The means of production ( resources, materials, technology and so on)

3. The relations produced by the means of production (property, laws and social classes)

Unless the mode of production is changed the the relations between producer and owner remain intact regardless of how that relationship is mediated through 'economics'. So usury, the creation of non-existant capital becomes a tool for 'green economics' or 'marxist economics' or any other form of economics that fails to change the basic exploitative relationship between producer and owner, the relation that allows for 'usury'

 

[Blagsta]

But it will not increase unless you respond subjectively to the music. Money in contrast will be efficacious no matter what your subjective response to it.

Play Throbbing Gristle loudly to anyone and I guarantee you their heart rate will increase.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

The best book on this connection is Benjamin Nelson's 'The Idea of Usury.'

Any idea where one might find a copy for less than £100?

Putting it on the credit card would blow my 'irony' circuits.

 

[Lock&Light]

Any idea where one might find a copy for less than £100?

In the public library, I suspect.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Yeah sure. I'm putting forward a marxist argument. So the mode of production is made up of:

1. The productive forces (human labour)

2. The means of production ( resources, materials, technology and so on)

3. The relations produced by the means of production (property, laws and social classes)

Unless the mode of production is changed the the relations between producer and owner remain intact regardless of how that relationship is mediated through 'economics'. So usury, the creation of non-existant capital becomes a tool for 'green economics' or 'marxist economics' or any other form of economics that fails to change the basic exploitative relationship between producer and owner, the relation that allows for 'usury'

Cheers, Soulman.

For some reason I'm deeply sceptical that 'usury' can ever be used as a tool for 'good', or 'green economics' etc.

TBH I'm having as hard a time imagining how it could as I am articulating why it couldn't.

I'd like to come back to that later (when I'm not supposed to be doing something else), and when I do, it will probably be with reference to that 'Crusoe' thing of Gesell's that I'm continually trying to shove down everyone's throat.

R.C.: Then the cause of interest is to be sought in money? And Marx is wrong?

S: Of course Marx is wrong. He under-estimated the importance of money, the nervous system of economic life, so it is not surprising that he went wrong over other things of fundamental importance. Like all his disciples he made the mistake of excluding money form the scope of his inquiry. He was fascinated by the shining metal disks, otherwise he could never have used the following words: "Gold and silver are not by nature money, but money is by nature gold and silver, witness the coincidence of their natural properties with its functions".

R.C.: Practice certainly does not agree with Marx’s theory – that has been clearly proved by our negotiations. Money is for Marx only a medium of exchange; but money does more, it seems, than "merely pay the price of the goods it purchases". When the borrower refuses to pay interest, the banker can bang the door of his safe without experiencing any of the cares which beset the owner of goods (capital) – that is the root of the matter.

 

[phildwyer]

Any idea where one might find a copy for less than £100?

Amazon lists it for $50, or 25 quid.

 

[Blagsta]

I'd like to come back to that later (when I'm not supposed to be doing something else), and when I do, it will probably be with reference to that 'Crusoe' thing of Gesell's that I'm continually trying to shove down everyone's throat.

I think whoever wrote that, misunderstood Marx.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Righto.

Should you discover any instance of that or similar terms being used as a 'code' to hide anti-semitism, I'm sure you'll not be alone in pointing it out.

I'm sure I won't.

Can we take it, then, that you have no objections to discussing the 'occult-like' activities of International Bankers with reference to their use of the mechanics of the system as a method of social control?

You can take whatever you like, mate.

 

[slaar]

Unless the mode of production changes 'ecological', 'marxist' and even participatory economics (parecon) remains capitalistic, firmly rooted within the current exploitative relationship.

This doesn't make any sense. Changing the mode of production is a common feature of alternative economic streams of thought, including parecon. I happen not to agree with them, by and large, but they're there. You seem to think all conceivable economics is capitalist, which is a somewhat peculiar argument.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The history of the relation of Judaism to capitalism is very interesting. Karl Marx was still using the word 'Jew' as a synonym for 'capitalist' in the 1840's.

Karl Marx lived over a century and a half ago, his usage back then may have been entirely acceptable to him. That doesn't mean it's an acceptable synonym now, does it?

 

[bluestreak]

No. The reason is that I cannot help, nor do I greatly care, how people react to my use of traditional moralistic vocabulary in this context. In fact I believe that money is Satan, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

the funny thing is that i also believe money is satan, but in a completely different way!

and i think phil's points on the history connecting jews and usury is very good - jews became banking families in pre-modern europe for very good reasons. however it does not work the other way... especially not these days. perhaps some anti-capitalists are anti-semites but fuck those cunts. it is possible to be against the negative practices of modern capitalism without having any problems with jews. except the people with bad judaism of course, they're evil!