Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

critique of loon theories around banking/money creation/the federal reserve

sooty.jpg
 
cesare said:
There's much safety/security to be had within a tightly defined ideological structure - especially if you're a person that also finds safety in detail rather than conceptual thinking. I could also speculate about confidence/self esteem expressed in other ways e.g. engaging with the social world via the medium of puppetry, together with more than average talent in certain areas eg piano playing and chess.
Click to expand...

to be fair i reckon lots of people on here have got a "tightly defined ideological structure" thing is tho most people are able to adjust their theories to fit reality rather than adjust reality to fit their theories
 
love detective said:
What I also find revealing is his inability to talk about any other topics other than those that are packaged up and canned out to him by fellow CT's - so it's all speculation about 9/11, money, silver, immunisations etc..
Click to expand...

Jazzz isn't against immunisations as single measures which could be improved or refined (something many might agree with) more against the whole concept of vaccination:

The point is, most doctors will happily believe vaccines are the miracle they are continually portrayed as - they have spent years been indoctrinate to believe exactly that, and like all good cult members they are kept extremely busy. ... Perhaps a much better persuader is the enormous bonuses they receive for meeting targets. They will of course know full well that the vaccination paradigm cannot be questioned - god, even Wakefield has never done that! Because the rest of the pack will eat them alive otherwise. So they don't!
Click to expand...

Jazzz often equates antifascism with fascism:

Jazzz said:
Really, what is this? A rabble summoned to violently attack NF members with bottles?
I can't believe this is applauded on these boards. You think this is 'antifascism', it's nothing of the sort. It's the suppression of opinion by force which is precisely fascism.
If there was a group of football hooligans coming to town, what would a group entitled 'anti-football hooligans' composed of men with bottles that went out cruising for them be?
There is really no difference. Really.
Click to expand...

and stating that capitalists no longer care about any threat of Marxism or expropriation:

Jazzz said:
There are precious few people who really know what is going on. They control us by getting us to control ourselves. And such covert control can carry on as long as it remains undiscovered, which it has been doing for, well, at least as long as there have been pyramids on The Earth.

The people at the top - the ones who know what is happening - are the 'raised capstone' of the pyramid. That is why they love the symbol of the pyramid with raised capstone, with the 'all-seeing-eye'. If you've never looked at a dollar bill and asked yourself what that freaky shit is doing on there, you should start.

The rest of the pyramid, well it's the masons. That's what the masons are: 'pyramid builders', and it's why the points of the compass feature so heavily in their rituals (the sides of the great pyramids are aligned NSEW). Anyway, we could have a whole thread devoted to symbolism, but I shall try to give a precis of how it works.

At the top, but not 'all-seeing', will be people like presidents, captains of industry, senior civil servants, judges, police, etc. Also, the people who run crime. It is of course no accident that great criminals often hold positions of great power (this is of course something well known to the forum).

Not everyone at the top is involved in the conspiracy, but they will be struggling against it if they are not. This is the thing: it only takes a proportion of people to be corrupted at various lower levels for the whole thing to be corrupted. Imagine sports match fixing, say you wanted to fix the premiership. Now you could say that's impossible, you'd need to have everybody onside. But it's not. You would only need a few players from each team sworn to your bidding, and then you could plan the overall result without having to get every match to go your way. It's still random.

And this is the thing with the pyramid, which they frame as the shape of society. The people in the middle aren't moving as a unit. They are competing, genuinely. What they are doing is offering subservience to the higher levels, accepting their manipulation, and competing against their fellow levels, and lording it over the lower levels. It's a chaotic system, but the chaos is managed so that the house wins whatever the outcome.

ordo ab chaos

This is another beauty of it. By projecting chaos, they have the rest of us wondering what the fuck is going on. We see one guy, or one country, or a political party, against another country, another guy, another idea, another political party, and when we see that we think everything's out in the open. But it isn't. We are continually presented with false debates, and the real swizz is hidden in the 'false choice' of the conjuror.

Ultimately, they don't much care about single vaccines/MMR. Both are vaccination paradigms. The debate is allowed. The debate that is not allowed is vaccination/no vaccination. Ultimately, they don't much care about Labour or Conservative. The debate is allowed. But both are controlled by the same hand. Ultimately, they don't even care whether we have capitalism, communism, or marxism. The debate is allowed. As long as we do not question fractional reserve banking.
Click to expand...

Jazzz is a capitalist Democrat you get as much sense as you would from a capitalist Democrat:

Jazzz said:
Firstly let me say that the Jesus reference was a touch light-hearted - I'm not sure I believe the guy ever existed, although many do and I wouldn't hold it against them.

The banking scam should not be associated with capitalism, though they would love you to think so. You can have capitalism without central banks and you can have central banks and all their scams without capitalism. The whole capitalism/communism thing is the most fantastic distracting sideshow.

Look at what JFK was doing shortly before he was assassinated. He was pulling the rug out from the central bank scam by issuing interest-free money. Was he about to plunge the USA into communism? I don't think so. He was simply stripping the Federal Reserve - a private company - of its parasitic, bloodsucking grip on the citizens of the US. One must not underestimate the implications of what he was doing.
Click to expand...
 
frogwoman said:
to be fair i reckon lots of people on here have got a "tightly defined ideological structure" thing is tho most people are able to adjust their theories to fit reality rather than adjust reality to fit their theories
Click to expand...

Aye. Some people struggle with abstract thinking and social skills, which can manifest in some of the behaviours I was highlighting even at a high functioning level.
 
Jazzz said:
You aren't going to fully understand money creation by reading love-detective posts.

The extraordinary thing is that in these threads I back up my position by several quotes from economists who really know their stuff. I can't recall love-detective ever quoting anyone.

For instance, we had the Ann Pettifor link earlier (the one Spiney Norman liked, then when I pointed out it agreed with me totally, said he was reading it, then we haven't heard back from that).

The power to create money out of thin air - Ann Pettifor

I eagerly await anyone to find any quote from any serious economist to say echo love-detective's bizarre comment that "assets are funded by liabilities". Because that is nonsense, and it's come about because LD has had to adjust his position because he has had to make it up as he goes along. I invite all the participants fawning over love-detective - for no other reason that he is taking a contrary view to mine here, to find such a quote. At least Spiney Norman has had a go talking about money so puts his head above the parapet so to speak. My greatest disdain is for those that simply snipe. What's the point? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

I have got back to you on it. And despite your context-free quote she does not agree with you. Always best to actually read these things rather than skim them in an attempt to find a quote mine you think supports your argument without bothering to get your head around the over-arching arguments the piece is putting over.

And you may have trouble finding an economist saying assets fund liabilities for the same reason as you'd have trouble finding a physicist saying everything is made out of stuff. It's assumed that readers will already know this.
 
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/jfk.htm
To understand exactly what Kennedy's order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave the order its underlying authority. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The Silver Purchase Act of 1934 (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations. Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2
As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the Treasury's need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However, during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2
To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury
Secretary.2
E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2
In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
 
I think it's true though - the more and more you indulge in abstract thinking, the harder it must be to come back to and fel comfortable with the concrete upon which most social skills are based on

Look at Sheldon from Big Bang Theory for example
 
cesare said:
Aye. Some people struggle with abstract thinking and social skills, which can manifest in some of the behaviours I was highlighting even at a high functioning level.
Click to expand...

i can be a bit like that sometimes to be fair, i reckon a lot of people on here probably can. i suppose the difference is that people are aware of it and can therefore try and do something about it (although they might not succeed, i fucking havent lol).

i don't think the problem with these types of views is just because of people holding them having crap social skills, (not saying your saying it is mind) people can be very charming etc and manage somehow to be complete cunts.

i think theres sometimes a risk of writing these people off as loons and then underestimating the sort of influence these types of views can have. they might not necessasrily be "racists" or bad people. I've met quite a few people going on about this stuff, to the extent its starting to alarm me quite a bit because of the fact that it is so linked to anti-semitism. From my experience many are around my age and seem to have mental health problems but then you need to be asking why and how it is that these explanations start to look attractive if you have good reason to be paranoid and to be against the system etc. Something like what sihhi was talking about earlier in the thread

I dont have many answers, I do find it very worrying though and i think it's useful to point out the nazi/anti-semitic links and then try and counter peoples arguments or just ask them "have you thought about it this way" and then go on to talk about wage labour and work etc, most of of the time they will agree with you if they're not that deep into it.
 
love detective said:
I think it's true though - the more and more you indulge in abstract thinking, the harder it must be to come back to the concrete upon which most social skills are based on
Click to expand...
I don't think that's true. It might be the case that people who are attracted to very abstract thinking are less sociable, but that's a selection effect and not really anything to do with the concrete lived effects of abstract thinking per se. IME.
 
but why do people who are attracted to very abstract thinking self select to be less sociable in the first place? I think it's a trade off that they either consciously or sub consciously make - to do one thing makes them less effective at the other

obviously there are numerous exceptions but I think there is something to this
 
love detective said:
but why do people who are attracted to very abstract thinking self select to be less sociable in the first place? I think it's a trade off that they either consciously or sub consciously make - to do one thing makes them less effective at the other

obviously there are exceptions but I think there is something to this
Click to expand...
Besides, you're pretty good at this abstract thinking yourself, you have a wife and kids. Are you saying you're the exception to this rule? :D
 
social skills can often be quite subjective things tho, i mean not everyone likes a person with "good social skills" ... look at penny in the big bang theory totally not fitting in at all with the people she wants to be mates with lol
 
TruXta said:
That's not what I said was it? The selection is for abstract thinking, not lower social skills/desire to be sociable. I think.
Click to expand...
well i'm not saying people decide to have less social skills or a desire to be less sociable - but it's a necessary by product of indulging in activities that take you away from the concrete for sustained periods of time
 
definitely something in it, the times wheni havent been involved in political stuff very deeply have often been the times when ive gone out more, had more of a social life, been a lot more confident and self-assured etc

obviously i still had my views on things but you know
 
love detective said:
well i'm not saying people decide to have less social skills or a desire to be less sociable - but it's a necessary by product of indulging in activities that take you away from the concrete for sustained periods of time
Click to expand...
Ah. I still dunno if I agree tho - I think any prolonged solitary activity will make you a bit zoned out socially, whether it's conspiraloonery, playing the guitar or doing sports. Obsessions breed alienations?
 
love detective said:
I think it's true though - the more and more you indulge in abstract thinking, the harder it must be to come back to and fel comfortable with the concrete upon which most social skills are based on

Look at Sheldon from Big Bang Theory for example
Click to expand...

I think much of it depends on the extent and the focus. For example, you can think along abstract lines but keep an overall context in mind when developing your thought - a practical application. That type of abstract thinking isn't particularly at odds with interacting easily with the world around you. Or you can be prone to thinking of an idea then developing incredibly detailed bottom up justifications to the exclusion of all else - which can leave you isolated in your focus on that particular theory/set of theories.
 
love detective said:
I think it's true though - the more and more you indulge in abstract thinking, the harder it must be to come back to and fel comfortable with the concrete upon which most social skills are based on

Look at Sheldon from Big Bang Theory for example
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that it's fair to compare a laughable comedy character with anyone from The Big Bang Theory.
 
cesare said:
I think much of it depends on the extent and the focus. For example, you can think along abstract lines but keep an overall context in mind when developing your thought - a practical application. That type of abstract thinking isn't particularly at odds with interacting easily with the world around you. Or you can be prone to thinking of an idea then developing incredibly detailed bottom up justifications to the exclusion of all else - which can leave you isolated in your focus on that particular theory/set of theories.
Click to expand...

"shit social skills" are so subjective to be fair and depends entirely on the people you know ... well to a large extent anyway or i wouldn't be so crap at them from any direction :D
 
frogwoman said:
"shit social skills" are so subjective to be fair and depends entirely on the people you know ... well to a large extent anyway or i wouldn't be so crap at them from any direction :D
Click to expand...
I'm betting it's possible to identify a set of behaviours around "social skills" that are transferable between different social groups though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Laundering money the NatWest way
Replies
5
Views
388
not henry
N
RubyToogood
The most awkward bank holiday ever
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
314
Views
11K
steveo87
steveo87
danny la rouge
Council “bankruptcy”?
2 3
Replies
75
Views
5K
Smokeandsteam
Smokeandsteam
C
Rees-Mogg investment firm offloads Russian bank shares amid Ukraine tensions
Replies
4
Views
622
Sasaferrato
Sasaferrato
H
Conspiracy theorists blabbering about Covid-19
Replies
4
Views
708
stuff_it
stuff_it
Back
Top Bottom