NWO Monetary System

Post Reply New Topic

Seeing a specific region has nothing to do with the current socioeconomic institutions. The state of the region might, but the actual sight has nothing to do with it. Appealing to this is pointless.

Not only that, but here's what I've stated:
"I agreed with a global level criticism of conspiracy theories, that they defy previously accepted claims to an extent that the conspiracy theory is difficult to accept."

Absolutely nothing to do with any part of the world, or a panacea. In fact, I don't think I've even mentioned a panacea in this thread or said anything about specific economic policies. You've basically been trying to avoid economic questions anyway, so to say that I am mistaken on the economics is just rather questionable because neither of us have put forward economic policies.




I dunno, all caps, cuss words, etc. Seems angry to me, either that or that you are just putting on BS. Either way it goes against your character.


Umm... yeah, I don't have respect for your lot, and I will admit to that, but I don't really care to get into the depths of a particular conspiracy because most of them are not things I am interested in. I usually challenge grander claims such as "NWO", or "Federal Reserve" stuff, because it goes in line with my interests.

I really don't have interest. If you don't believe me then go do whatever you want, I've stated my lack of interest a number of times, and if any forum poster knows my posting record, they would probably know that I would tend to avoid a historical debate on anything.

Right.... because extreme anger, poor reasoning, and things like that are just the signs of a truth-seeker. Got it. Honestly, no, I just see you as another conspiracy theorist, just as angry and caught up in your mind virus as the others. I mean, you can disagree, but I don't think you've established most of your points on this topic, and even if there is some uncertainty about the London Bombings, I somehow doubt that this would be able to maintain the more extravagant claims of an NWO.


Umm.... no, I didn't degenerate into slurs. You said :
"I don't really understand is it just faith in an a supposed intimate knowledge of the workings that the simple reality becomes elusive to you?"

I responded with the following quip:
"The simple reality? The simple reality that a small group of people on this planet control every single damn thing in existence, and are using it to enslave us through these powers that apparently nobody notices, except for a small group of people who are, interestingly enough, unversed in the economic theory that they are criticizing and who only engage in youtube propaganda? Wow!! ! I am so freaking ignorant, how could I not see this! Are there lizards in this secret cabal?"

You already moved to a point where I considered you absurd, so I just mocked this for stepping out of line. You can call this degeneration, but you already attacked my knowledge of reality, despite having a lack of knowledge about the theories about how reality works, as you haven't challenged my knowledge of economics on a matter involving the monetary system.


And I am fine doing that. My comparison to the resurrection is valid enough. No, I am actually disinterested in debating this matter, you can disbelieve that, but I think you don't have enough hobbies if your big concern is "calling out" a person on a forum who really isn't interested in the topic. In any case, no, I really am not going to engage in a research project on behalf of a stranger on the internet to engage his special interest if I don't share it or care about it. It's pointless.


Ok....

As I said 'broken record'. It's pointless to debate you anyhow, irrespective of interest or not, considering 'economic theory' is apparently the be all and end all, for you. I do not think considering a conspiracy ultimately hinges on being thoroughly well versed in economic theory or not *shrugs* I'll reiterate - my focus lies in gerontology..if anything I think it is more important than money issues, in those terms. But then, who wants to live forever?

My 'favourite subjects' are chess and botany, actually. Yes, I was angry when I used caps - and drunk, as I have already noted - but that was evident in my replies in a number of threads - it wasn't specific targeting of you no matter how sanctimonious I find your parlay to be.



says it all.

Last edited by Concenik on 21 Apr 2009, 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Look me up on FICS (freechess.org) or chess.com sometime, I'd enjoy playing a couple games against you. On chess servers I go by "offtherook."

Ok, sounds good. Will do, thanks for the invite - usually I play over the board or at redhotpawn..

Broken record? I have my points, they've already been made, you just refuse to accept them or clarify your problem if it exists.

Economic theory is the end all be all if you are criticizing the monetary system of the US. Claims of a conspiracy are credible based upon the extent to which they engage mainstream economic theory, or at least engage in the logical structure to credibly reject it.

I just went to sign up for redhotpawn, and now am mildly annoyed at the excessive length of their ToS. Most of it is fairly standard stuff, but I always get upset at the bit where they say it "may be updated by us from time to time without notice to you." I don't like agreeing to a moving target, but unfortunately it seems like almost all license agreements include such a condition on them. I hardly ever get to play OTB because I don't feel like traveling to tournaments and I don't know very many people who play chess.

Come on, AG, get real. Clearly our little tête-à-tête had deviated onto the consideration of 'conspiracy theory and theorists' as a social phenomena, if you want to repeatedly overuse the same adage that's your look out.

I offered you the opportunity to pick holes in a presented conspiracy theory - you said you were not interested. fine. But I am really bored of this to and fro - it gets nowhere and you're just repeating the same protestations - I will continue to reply though out of sheer stubborness because the generalisations and pompousness requires so..

- However, there are plenty of 'conspiracy theorists' who do focus solely on economic institutions and practices..it would be unfair to lump them also in your 'them lot' definition. I stand by every comment I've made about the Fed in this thread thus far *shrugs*

A few months back, I personally verified the extent of AG's stubbornness in a little experiment. Trust me, he is more stubborn than you can possibly imagine and if you try to make this a contest of stubbornness, you will lose.

I'm not trying to make a competition of stubbornness but in order to make the claim beyond doubt you would have had to have conducted such an experiment equally so with me, too.

You might be surprised how stubborn I actually am once the 'lizards' card has been 'played'. It's too facile for 'us lot' to leave unchecked any longer imo and considering it was spat out almost immediately from the inset..

Nevertheless, my motivation is not a 'competition' as I made clear to AG about 2 pages back when he alluded to approaching it as such *shrugs*

And if I am invoking lizards, then I am appealing to and mocking the conspiracy theory large-scale worldview of all things being coordinated by a small group of mysterious individuals with unknown purposes.


I actually am more concerned about the larger scale issues rather than specific events, I don't study many particular events, and I am not going to start because some stranger drunkenly challenged me. In any case, you are just not accepting my protestations but are not rebutting them or anything else. Trust me though, Orwell is right, and this will probably continue for a few pages if that is what you want.


Right, even though the only thing you've done is posted a video and made a vague appeal to the global south and some rather questionable sources of information. I mean, the idea that the Federal Reserve is a servant of evil demands some form of theory, and very few of these seem credible at all.

In any case, yeah, it pretty much is fair to lump many conspiracy theorists in the same group when dealing with their subject. Just as it is usually fair to lump conservative Christians in the same group.

Well, nobody can make a claim beyond doubt, even if they did the experiment with you. The major issue is that Orwell perceives me as far enough away from the mean that I am too stubborn to be reasonably challenged.


I already explained why I spat it out, to mock your own arrogance. You can reject that, but you were asking for something by doing that. In any case, you lizardy freaks will probably get nothing accomplished by this, as all I have to do to undermine your efforts is to continually mock conspiracy theories the entire way across, making you just look like another stubborn idiot.(which undermines the ethos needed to be respected)

Prejudice is one of the great blinders for humanity; to imply others are idiots for having a different opinion than your own just comes across as somewhat sad to me, to be honest. You invite an interesting correlation with your comments about being stubborn, however. Mockery does not prove a case, or do anything but lessen the person delivering the comment. My two bits for now -


M.

Image credit: Jim Bourg/Reuters/Corbis
The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice

Yes, that is clearly your MO, I agree. Somewhat pathetic all in all. I've met much worse' internet tough guys' than you and other manner of egoistic pedants, by all accounts.

'Larger issues' tend to be comprised of specific events

Issues of stubbornness aside, I think my emotional intelligence is high enough to register that deigning further replies to this BS in nonsensical.

You will notice that I bolded 'lizardy freaks' - this is because you do not seem willing nor able to desist from such flaming - even though I initially attempted with civility to get you to desist. Rather than respond in kind and end up getting banned, I have agreed to simply refer such incidents of targeted hostility to the moderation staff from this point on..it's your choice, if you want to carry on using such a puerile tactic *shrugs*

Section 5 of the Federal Reserve Act 1935:

Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
University of California $1,385,675
Goldman Sachs $980,945
Microsoft Corp $806,299
Harvard University $793,460
Google Inc $790,564
Citigroup Inc $657,268
JPMorgan Chase & Co $650,758
Stanford University $580,904
Sidley Austin LLP $574,938
Time Warner $547,951
National Amusements Inc $541,251
WilmerHale $524,292
UBS AG $522,019
IBM Corp $518,557
Skadden, Arps et al $510,274
Columbia University $503,566
Morgan Stanley $490,873
US Government $479,956
General Electric $479,454
Latham & Watkins $467,311

John McCain (R)
Top Contributors

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
Merrill Lynch $371,295
Citigroup Inc $320,251
Morgan Stanley $271,152
Goldman Sachs $230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co $225,557
US Government $207,829
AT&T Inc $194,913
UBS AG $182,079
Credit Suisse Group $179,053
Wachovia Corp $169,057
PricewaterhouseCoopers $167,900
US Army $162,870
Bank of America $155,251
Blank Rome LLP $154,426
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $150,396
Greenberg Traurig LLP $146,437
FedEx Corp $132,974
US Dept of Defense $131,675
Lehman Brothers $125,357
Bear Stearns $117,498

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... tt2=Submit

Clearly, there is no manufactured dialectic - no corporate Cabal