CNN covers NAU, the Amero & NAFTA superhighway

Oh Rat, you're such a whiner. Attacking your sources is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. How can you say nobody has the right to question your sources?

You are the one doing the evading and you are still evading. Things he "may or may not have said"? He already admitted he said them. Why would you continue to lie to cover up his racism?

 

Pressed_Rat - Just out of curiosity, what is your objection to their goal? Is it that there will no longer be individual nations or is it that they will be in control? If it is the former, why? If it is the latter, why? If it is both, I'd like to know why you're against it.

 

If you have studied their plans, the answer should be quite clear. Do you treasure individualism and the ability to think and reason for yourself? They not only want to erode the sovereignty of nations, but the sovereignty of the individual as well. They have also said that once their plans are complete, they are going to drastically reduce the world population through whatever means necessary. I suppose if you think Hitler's nazi Germany was a good thing, then you might be in favor of this agenda, except it's going to be much worse than that. We are not talking merely about a one world government, but a one world fascist dictatorship.

You should be asking yourself WHY they want this world government. Is it because they want a better world for humanity or because they want to be able to better control humanity? If it's the former, then you need to ask yourself why it's being done in secret, and by the same people and organizations who have been behind so much of the death and destruction in recent history.

 

I've established two facts from this response:

1. You are afraid of them (though you're not even sure who "they" are).
2. You desire individualism.

Fear and Desire. They are ever present in every mind.

A few questions for you:

1. What is your evidence that they want to reduce the world's population.
2. Why is it a problem if they do? People die. We're all going to die eventually. What difference does it make?
3. Is individualism actually beneficial to humanity as a whole?
4. What does it mean to be an individual?
5. Are any of us (human beings) actually necessary?
6. Are the majority of people actually productive members of society, or are they just in the way? (Consider prisoners, retards, genetic defects like Diddles, the obese, drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, pimps, prostitutes, porno stars, numerous rappers, people who live in trailer parks, Christians who believe that they are saved by a man's crucifixion and expect to go to a paradise in the sky, Muslims who believe it is alright to beat women and force them to obey, Hindus who can't even get their shit together enough to clean up their environment and stop the spread of disease, Africans who are dying of AIDS and starvation, Skinheads, Rednecks, Nascar Fans, Wrestling Fans, etc). Why does the world need these people? They destroy themselves and each other with alcohol, drugs, weapons and cigarettes.

In essence, why is this a problem? If the majority of human beings are nothing more than individualists driven by their own material desires and internal fears, then what benefit are they to the whole of humanity? Basically you are saying that these men are evil because they wish to destroy individualists who think only of their own petty desires and fears.

What is so great about individualism? What is so wonderful about people living only for their self?

So what if they do intend to do this? They clearly (if you're not just crazy) have a specific type of people in mind who they will keep around. What type is that? If you want to be a survivor then all you have to do is be that type of person.

See, what you're not considering is this: IF there is a super-secretive group of men who are trying to take control of the world and unite all of the nations then:

1. They are far more intelligent than you are.
2. They have the ability to work together while everybody else is fighting.

I would trust them before I would trust you. You can't compromise and refuse to work with others.

You want it to be your way or no way at all. You can't explain WHY you view these views as negative with any logical sense and you're not offering any other solution to the very clear problems. In essence, you're a whiny, liberal, idiot on a message board who has nothing to give to the world other than his fear of those who are attempting to create a peaceful environment for human beings. I would rather live in the world that they are trying to establish AFTER all of this shit goes down than live with a bunch of fuckin Muslims who think that a book written 1,500 years ago is the "Word of God" and that women are objects to be controlled and owned and beaten from time to time. The hypocrisy in religious memes like you is overwhelming. You believe in heaven and that this life is just a test, yet you're afraid to die? That proves that you don't actually believe it. If this life is "just a test" as the religious claim then what the fuck is the problem? What exactly are you fighting for in this life?

Have you ever met any of these men?

 

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'm going to respond anyway...Yes, people die. But I do not believe it is ever up to us to decide who lives or dies. Mother nature can wipe out as many people as she wants--but I don't want any of my species playing a role in deciding who goes. It's common sense--if your mother died of natural causes, would you not feel differently about her death than if she were murdered? Why do you think that would be?

My philosophy is: communalism on the outside, individualism on the inside. Yes, we are a social species and must be willing to work together and cooperate. But deep down, everyone must be willing to think for him or herself, because sometimes, the masses are wrong. Herd behavior is only good when used as a basic survival strategy; groupthink for use in everyday life is fucking scary.

For the survival of the Earth? Certainly not. But most members of any species have a vested interest in the survival of their own kind. This is why orgasms exist--to encourage procreation.

To implement this point of view on the mainstream would plunder humanity down a dark hole of black-and-white rationality. In other words, it's easy to talk shit like this, but a whole other thing to go up to the mother of a retarded child and say, "Sorry, your kid doesn't make the cut. We're going to have to kill him." As for most of the other "losers" you mentioned, the thing you are forgetting is that human beings DO have the capacity to TURN THEIR LIVES AROUND and become what I suppose you would call productive. Child molesters, maybe not so much, but who the hell am I to judge?

And what exactly does "productive" mean? Is a stay-at-home mom productive enough for you? She's not contributing to the formal work sector, so let's kill 'em all!

In order for the world to follow your way of thinking, we would all have to agree on a definition of terms, which in itself would be impossible. Or, we can forget what the masses have to say, because we're going to write them off as stupid so we don't have to feel guilty when we get rid of them (which is precisely what the nazis did, but anyway...)

You are assuming individualism means that you ONLY live for yourself. (Again, the problem of defining terms). The vast majority of individualists have their own and their families best interests in mind, but most of them DO believe in supporting the community at large as well. You are assuming individualism and communalism are mutually exclusive; my argument is that they are not.

Well, considering most of these men (illuminati members, Western politicians) are both White and extremely wealthy, I would assume they want more wealthy white men such as themselves. Oh, but a few others could probably stick around, as long as they work menial jobs their whole lives and don't start trouble. After all, it's not like rich white people have ever destroyed entire civilizations or anything...

Oh, ok. That's easy enough. Glad I don't have to compromise my values or anything. I'll just go tell my friends to bleach their skin white and start investing in Halliburton.

Money and power do not equal intelligence. And again, there are different types of intelligences, you need to define your terms. Do you mean formal education, which is only financially available to a select few in the world anyway? Or would social and cultural intelligence count as well?

If you're going to criticize someone for being too individualistic, then I would criticize you for being too communalistic. Extremes are never a good idea.

I can't speak for the other guy, but I'm not religious. I'm not afraid of my own death, I am worried about the future of my own species. And I value freedom over peace--I believe human beings were made to rise above the phenomenon of Group Think, to realize ourselves AND each other as free, INTER-DEPENDENT beings, who were never made to be either completely alone, or completely DEPENDENT on a human-made system of control.

But, if you wish to join them, go ahead--I would never infringe on your freedom to do so.

 

Its funny how that is so core to your theory, yet you can't even begin to substantiate it and when anyone asks you to you go into hysterics.

If your theory is absolutely, definitely true, why do you need to lie constantly?

 

Substantiate what? The fact that the banks print money out of nothing? Why exactly do you think our currency is so devalued, Pepik? What do you think causes inflation?

 

Our currency is devalued?

 

You obviously live under a rock, so I guess not. That's why the US dollar is at all-time record lows with the Canadian dollar and the Euro.

 

Yes but the Canadian dollar and Euro are not gold backed currencies either. They are 'fiat' currencies too. So what is happening?

When the US dollar was reaching record highs against the Euro you still believed there was a globalist central banker conspiracy. And that's the point, your logic is so circular and ad hoc than no matter what happens you can always say "Aha! Exactly as my conspiracy theory predicted!".

Besides, you've already admitted the Federal Reserve is controlled by the government and is not private. The foundation of your whole theory has been proven to be fantasy.

 

No, I never admitted the FED is government-controlled. I said it has the outward appearance of being government-controlled when it is in fact controlled by the private banks.

 

No, you said it was government controlled but claimed that it doesn't matter since the globalist owl worshipping child molesters control the government.

Its always the same story. The conspiracy controls everything, therefore the conspiracy controls everything. Therefore nothing has to be proved, because if you control everything you would let any proof leak out now would you? So the fact that there is no proof is proof of the conspiracy!

Give it a rest Rat, I've asked you more times than I care to remember to show how private banks control the Fed. Every single time, you lie and evade exactly the way the conspiracy websites tell you to.

 

I'll try again,only cause im bored an have 3 hours before my plane takes off.
instead of starting from scratch, lets begin were we left off,

1. Wheres construction begun? "and dont just point at a map of north america" like corsi and beck do, we want city ,highway#, mile marker
2. Whos doing this work.
3. Whos paying for it
4. Whos lost their land?

 

That's not really a conspiracy theory that's a fact.

Money used to be backed by a commodity(gold, silver, ect), and there were competing currencies.

currently there is only one "official" currency in the u.s. and that is the federal reserve notes printed by the federal reserve. The federal reserve is not a u.s. agency it is a private entity that works closly with the federal government.

because the money is not backed by anything other than the word of the feds this private entity is able to print money(with no backing commodity, hence "out of thin air") as needed in order to control inflation and deflation.

the more money they print and circulate the less the value of the money that is in cirulation(inflation).

in other words this private bank controls our money.

Also the banks use the fractional reserve system to loan more federal reserve notes(the representative of real assets) than they can back through actual assets.

Those are the reasons our now global monetary sytem is debt/credit based instead of asset(real holdings, objective wealth) based.

That's the way i understand it when pressed_rat rants about international bankers.

If this is wrong please explain why (without sarcasm or ridicule please).

 

Maybe there is a confusion of terms.

Federal Reserve:
The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. The Federal Reserve System, created in 1913, is a quasi-governmental/quasi-private banking system composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils.

Federal Reserve Notes:
A Federal Reserve Note (FRNs or ferns) is a type of banknote issued by the Federal Reserve System and is the main type of paper currency in the United States.
Federal Reserve Notes are fiat currency, with the words "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" printed on each bill. (See generally 31 U.S.C. § 5103.) They are issued by the Federal Reserve Banks and have replaced United States Notes, which were once issued by the Treasury Department.

Fiat Currency:
In economics, fiat currency or fiat money is money backed by government demand for it as legal tender in payment of legal liabilities, such as taxes. It is often associated with paper money because legal liabilities are created and settled by documents which are usually paper. Without government demand for certain kinds of paper as legal tender, such as bank notes, only specie is unlimited legal tender. However this is not universally true, as some currencies, (notably sterling issued by Scottish banks[1]), are not legal tender but are accepted by longstanding confidence.

A bank of issue whose notes enjoy legal tender status by government fiat can use its own notes, making their redemption in specie optional — a matter of the 'monetary policy' of the bank in question. Historically, the institution of fiat currency has preceded and enabled the demonetisation of specie, via a monetary policy decision not to offer payment in specie at par, e.g. by suspension, devaluation or redemption in bullion or foreign currency instead. Eventually this leads to no form of payment, redemption or exchange whatsoever being offered by the issuer and a system of freely-floating national currencies, none of which is "redeemable" by fixed amounts of specie or any given commodity.


Gold Standard:
The gold standard is a monetary system in which the standard economic unit of account is a fixed weight of gold. Under the gold standard, currency issuers guarantee to redeem notes, upon demand, in that amount of gold. Governments that employ such a fixed unit of account, which will redeem their notes to other governments in gold, share a fixed-currency relationship. The gold standard is not currently used by any government or central bank, having been replaced completely by fiat currency. However, private currency, backed by gold, is in use.

Hard Currency:
Hard currency or Strong Currency, in economics, refers to a currency in which investors have confidence, such as that of a politically stable country with low inflation and consistent monetary and fiscal policies, and one that if anything is tending to appreciate against other currencies on a trade-weighted basis. The term can also be used to refer to a currency backed by a precious metal such as gold or silver, where the supply of that precious metal is not easily able to be increased.

Fractional-Reserve Banking:
Fractional-reserve banking refers to the common banking practice of issuing more credit than the bank holds as reserves, when loaned money is used and then deposited in the same bank or a different bank. Through this process, banks in modern economies typically loan their customers many times the sum of the credit reserves they hold .

Global Financial System:
The global financial system (GFS) is a financial system consisting of institutions and regulations that act on the international level, as opposed to those that act on a national or regional level. The main players are the global institutions, such as International Monetary Fund and Bank for International Settlements, national agencies and government departments, e.g., central banks and finance ministries, and private institutions acting on the global scale, e.g., banks and hedge funds.

Deficiencies and reform of the GFS have been hotly discussed in recent years.

Inflation:
Inflation is measured as the growth of the money supply in an economy, without a commensurate increase in the supply of goods and services. This results in a rise in the general price level as measured against a standard level of purchasing power. There is a variety of inflation measures in use, related to different price indices, because different prices affect different people. Two widely known indices for which inflation rates are commonly reported are the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures nominal consumer prices, and the GDP deflator, which measures the nominal prices of goods and services produced by a given country or region.

Mainstream economists' views on the causes of inflation can be broadly divided into two camps: the "monetarists" who believe that monetary effects dominate all others in setting the rate of inflation, and the "Keynesians" who believe that the interaction of money, interest rates and output dominate other effects. Keynesians also tend to add a capital-goods (or asset) price inflation to the standard measure of consumption-goods inflation. Other theories, such as those of the Austrian school of economics, believe that inflation results when central-banking authorities increase the money supply (Monetary inflation).

Monetary Inflation:
Monetary inflation is the term used by economists of the monetarist, neoclassical or Austrian school of economics to differentiate the primary or direct inflation in the money supply from price inflation which they view as a result or symptom of the former. Originally "inflation" was used to refer to monetary inflation, whereas in present usage it commonly refers to price inflation.

The description of the actual mechanism varies according to each school, but there is overall agreement among them that there is a cause and effect relationship between supply and demand of money and prices of goods and services measured in monetary terms. Although the system is complex and there is a great deal of argument on how to measure the monetary base or how much factors like the velocity of money affect the relationship, and even more disagreement on what is the best monetary policy, there is a general consensus on the importance and responsibility of central banks and monetary authorities in affecting inflation. Inflation targeting is advised by followers of the monetarist school, while Austrian economics often calls for an end to fractional reserve banking and a return to some kind of gold standard.

Austrian School:
The Austrian School, also known as the “Vienna School” or the “Psychological School”, is a heterodox school of economic thought that advocates adherence to strict methodological individualism. As a result Austrians hold that the only valid economic theory is logically derived from basic principles of human action. Alongside the formal approach to theory, often called praxeology, the school has traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history. The praxeological method allows for the discovery of economic laws valid for all human action, while the interpretive approach addresses specific historical events.

This Aristotelian/rationalist approach differs both from the currently dominant Platonic/positivist approach of contemporary neo-classical economics and the once dominant historical approach of the German historical school and the American institutionalists. Regardless, Austrian economics has made significant contributions to modern mainstream neo-classical economics. Additionally, the Austrian school is quite heterogeneous, with various branches of the school at various times throughout its history taking a range of positions from presenting a radical alternative to mainstream economics to contributing directly to mainstream neoclassical economics, though even in that case often through techniques that remained distinctly Austrian.[1]

While the praxeological method differs from the current method advocated by the majority of contemporary economists, the Austrian method derives from a long line of deductive economic thought stretching from the 15th century to the modern era and including such major economists as Richard Cantillon, David Hume, A.R.J. Turgot, Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, Nassau Senior, John Elliott Cairnes, and Claude Frédéric Bastiat.

The most famous Austrian adherents are Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Gottfried von Haberler, Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, George Reisman, Henry Hazlitt, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. While often controversial, and standing to some extent outside of the mainstream of neoclassical theory—as well as being staunchly opposed to much of Keynes' theory and its results—the Austrian School has been widely influential because of its emphasis on the creative phase (i.e. the time element) of economic productivity and its questioning of the basis of the behavioral theory underlying neoclassical economics.

Because many of the policy recommendations of Austrian theorists call for small government, strict protection of private property, and support for individualism in general, they are often cited by conservatives, laissez-faire liberal, libertarian, and Objectivist groups for support, although Austrian School economists, like Ludwig von Mises, insist that praxeology must be value-free. They do not answer the question "should this policy be implemented?", but rather "if this policy is implemented, will it have the effects you intend?".


Any disagreement regarding these definitions?

 

The above listed terms are from various wikipedia pages, are linked to within the text.


Please don't start knocking my use of wikipedia, it's faster and easier to use, lets just discuss the actual terms.

 

Now from my understanding Pressed_rat would be an austrian thinker(probably rothbardian), no?


so our financial problems would seem to stem from the monetary policy of debt/credit that we have set up, and this policy seems to benefits some more than others.

It appears to me that international central bankers do control the worlds wealth throught their manipulation of monetary policy through the use of fiat money and fractional reserve banking. They get to decide how much "money" is printed(thus also determining the worth of that currency), and they loan out more currency than they have reserves to back up. Some of the biggest client of these banks are the various governments of the world, including the U.S. government.

We all live on inflated debt that our governemnt owes to these banks and due to fractional reserve banking and the fiat system it's difficult or impossible to pay back to the bankers because they decide the value of what you are paying back and there is always interest compounded on top of interest.

And this hasn't always been the case and central banking has been fought since the founding of the country.

No? Yes?

 

I think i'll post the above posts of mine in a seperate thread, it needs a discussion of it's own outside of the whole "N.A.U." thing:

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3855973#post3855973