Jump to content

Infrastructure in Your Area?


Jim Naseum

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.
No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.
That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.

If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it.

That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things.

Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news.

The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd.

Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US.

But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed.

First off, your response is exceptionally rude. When people's long standing beliefs are challenged, this kind of reaction of outrage is typical, but none the less unpleasant.

What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open.

And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface.

1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more.

2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world.

3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture.

Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired.

But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands:

Assumptions:

1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions.

2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all.

3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds.

4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery.

Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board.

How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that.

1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy.

2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions.

3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world.

4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy.

Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers?

If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going.

Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes?

Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes?

Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending?

Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending?

Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves.

Summary

The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure.

This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there.

It is all out there, and I am happy to post all of the whacko websites that espouse this drivel.

From a dozen bankers who control the world and what type of infrastructure they will allow us to have in the US in the posts up above to the massive retreat just above is pretty astounding. You are extrapolating real problems/issues in this Country into conspiracy theories.

It is out there, way out there. For example, you left out the most important part, those dozen or so bankers are controled by aliens.

"Goode’s description makes it almost certain that the person is Dr Henry Kissinger, who has long been rumored to be a key figure in classified extraterrestrial related projects. Most recently, Kissinger attended the Bilderberg Group meeting which occurred only two days after Goode and Gonzales had met approximately 200 human elites that offered a limited disclosure program to begin in November 2015. This would be followed by a 50 year moratorium in prosecuting elites involved in crimes against humanity."

The quote just above from a random search for "World bankers and aliens." Hundreds of articles back this theory up with good solid evidence.

Besides, everyone knows that the Trilateral Commission is run by aliens.

Another snipet:

"The name of the Trilateral Commission was taken from the alien flag/symbol called a "Trilateral Insignia" (Triade)

The Trilateral Insignia is found on the ships of recovered UFO's."

I am not really too concerned about the alien controlled bankers, because the people are in control of what the aliens really want, and there is a negoiation that goes on thats keeps that all in check.

What I am really woried about is the Illuminati, because they have the real power, and they only answer to Clarence.

 

 

Not much of an argument for a lawyer. You have not refuted even a word of my argument that most events are driven by causes the public can not see into. 

 

What would be the point of typing all that gibberish? None of which I mentioned. None of which was mentioned in my argument. I'll have to seriously re-evaluate my assessment of your historical and political understandings based on such a nonsensical expression of comprehension. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.
No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.
That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.

If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it.

That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things.

Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news.

The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd.

Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US.

But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed.

First off, your response is exceptionally rude. When people's long standing beliefs are challenged, this kind of reaction of outrage is typical, but none the less unpleasant.

What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open.

And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface.

1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more.

2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world.

3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture.

Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired.

But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands:

Assumptions:

1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions.

2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all.

3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds.

4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery.

Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board.

How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that.

1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy.

2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions.

3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world.

4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy.

Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers?

If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going.

Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes?

Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes?

Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending?

Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending?

Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves.

Summary

The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure.

This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there.

It is all out there, and I am happy to post all of the whacko websites that espouse this drivel.

From a dozen bankers who control the world and what type of infrastructure they will allow us to have in the US in the posts up above to the massive retreat just above is pretty astounding. You are extrapolating real problems/issues in this Country into conspiracy theories.

It is out there, way out there. For example, you left out the most important part, those dozen or so bankers are controled by aliens.

"Goode’s description makes it almost certain that the person is Dr Henry Kissinger, who has long been rumored to be a key figure in classified extraterrestrial related projects. Most recently, Kissinger attended the Bilderberg Group meeting which occurred only two days after Goode and Gonzales had met approximately 200 human elites that offered a limited disclosure program to begin in November 2015. This would be followed by a 50 year moratorium in prosecuting elites involved in crimes against humanity."

The quote just above from a random search for "World bankers and aliens." Hundreds of articles back this theory up with good solid evidence.

Besides, everyone knows that the Trilateral Commission is run by aliens.

Another snipet:

"The name of the Trilateral Commission was taken from the alien flag/symbol called a "Trilateral Insignia" (Triade)

The Trilateral Insignia is found on the ships of recovered UFO's."

I am not really too concerned about the alien controlled bankers, because the people are in control of what the aliens really want, and there is a negoiation that goes on thats keeps that all in check.

What I am really woried about is the Illuminati, because they have the real power, and they only answer to Clarence.

Not much of an argument for a lawyer. You have not refuted even a word of my argument that most events are driven by causes the public can not see into.

What would be the point of typing all that gibberish? None of which I mentioned. None of which was mentioned in my argument. I'll have to seriously re-evaluate my assessment of your historical and political understandings based on such a nonsensical expression of comprehension.

Lawyers deal with facts that have some modicum of proof. It is one of our shortcomings.

We leave the unsupported arguments to philosophers, theologians, talk radio hosts, conspiracy theorists, and the fringes.

However, if you would like to meet John Marrs I can introduce you to him and he can tell you about all that he has discovered and you can discuss the dots you have uncovered and which way they connect. He will definitely agree with you on dozen bankers and New World Order, however, be prepared for the UFO connection because he has uncovered them and laid them bare in one of his 3 plus New York Times best selling books.

Short of that, about the only thing I can do is quote the historic and psychological reasons why otherwise normal, intelligent rational people slip off into the nether regions and believe the things they believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Maybe my friend Professor Domhoff can reign you back in. He has never been afraid of rocking the boat, especially on views about how public policy is developed in the US, labor movement history, the power elite etc.

Howver, he has mentioned many, many times the trap you fall into when you start going down the conspiracy theory path of things like the dozen bankers, the think tanks, etc.

Here is one quick example from his blog, Who Rules America, where he discusses the problems of some of these arguments.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/conspiracy.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

I thought we were getting autonomous cars first? We get hovercrafts? Cool. They have big cushions so you can't damage anything. I wonder what kind of mileage they get? Or is this a conspiracy between the oil producers and the world bankers.
No sir. The world bankers don't need anyone else! "Dark Banking" is the mainspring of the the global economy, and therefore all governments as well. $33T in completely invisible cash.
That BS, plain and simple. Give me one mainstream study or book that says that, or even suggests that is the situation. I would be happy to give it a read.

If you cite the Swiss Study I think I will vomit. Please don't suggest I read globalresearch dot com or that nutty Canadian professor behind it.

That subject leads down a very dangerous path. People who believe that, not the possibility of it, but really believe it, typically are either ultra left or right wing. They typically also believe on some very scary things.

Stories about the Bilderberg Group, the Rothchilds,Lyndon LaRouche are all pretty old news.

The idea that a dozen world bankers determine whether Flatonio gets a road, Florida gets a bridge, or Flint gets new pipes is blatantly absurd.

Public infrastructure isn't even financed that way in the US.

But like I say, I would love to see a peer reviewed study or reputable book, I would love to read up on the subject to see if anything has changed.
First off, your response is exceptionally rude. When people's long standing beliefs are challenged, this kind of reaction of outrage is typical, but none the less unpleasant.

What's apparent to me is that your world view is limited to what everyone and anyone could see with their own eyes. In other words, how the world works superficially. There's a government, there are taxes, there are voters, and everything is accountable and in the open.

And yet we can look at some simple examples of events which aren't what the public sees on the surface.
1. Legislation. It's not written by Congresspeople as you would read in your civics books, it is written by people hired by industry. When those plans for a piece of legislation are hatched in the offices of say Verizon, or CitiBank, you have zero visibility to that process, and neither do any scholars who might be in a position to write some sort of peer reviewed paper on the "undermining of democracy." What you get to see is a result, and nothing more.

2. Covert operations. When the US covert operators, both agents and private operators, smuggle guns, assassinate people, disrupt elections, commit sabotage, smuggle drugs, move billions of dollars around the globe invisibly, what do you get to see of that? The answer is nothing. You have no visibility of any kind into those operations, nor do any scholars, or researchers. At best here's what you might get: An aggressive journalist, willing to risk his life, might investigate and come up with some tidbits left on the trail of these operations. It will be uncorroborated, hard to verify, part truth and part fiction, but it will definitely point to unseeable actions that change the world.

3. Hidden wealth. There exist many trillions of dollars that are off the books of any bank, or public institutions. The amount is of course disputable, but is estimated to be 2 or 3 times the US GDP. This is wealth controlled by sovereigns, by private individuals and by certain kinds of off-book consortia. You can't study what can't be seen. What can be see is the ACTION of this wealth on global markets. Currency exchanges, commodity markets, central banks operations. And like assassinations and covert operations, the trail can be sniffed, some tidbits can be discovered, without ever seeing the whole picture.

Now, you can deny that 1, 2, and 3 are real phenomena. That's the usual position of all who prefer to have a simple worldview uncluttered by forces they can't see. If so, no further discussion is needed or desired.

But, if you can understand 1, 2 and 3, it is only economic common sense that in the world of wealth some assumptions can and should be made in order to understand how it seems to stay in the same hands:
Assumptions:
1. The wealth was not found under a rock. It was accumulated by some strategy or another until it grew into fantastic proportions.
2. The owner of the wealth intends not only to keep it all, but to grow it all.
3. The reason it is held "in secret" and off the books (I'll assume you understand Bermuda, Switzerland, Cayman Islands), is that it is used in ways that would not be legal in various jurisdictions where transactions are being executed with these funds.
4. It is natural for all persons to do whatever it takes to defend their wealth against seizure, taxes, robbery.

Agreed? If yes, there's more to say. If not, nothing else needs to be said, and you can hold your previous beliefs that everything is accounted for above board.

How is policy made in the USA (as an example). The naive belief is that policy is made by the congressional and executive branches of government. Congress, WH, Pentagon, DOJ, FBI and so on down the line. But, that's not true precisely because we know some things out side of that.
1. We know that elected officials are bought by all kinds of wealthy influences. They want their say into policy.
2. We know that NGOs like CFR, Trilateral Commission, and umpteen think tanks have in their ranks, all the current and ex-government officials. And we know, all those NGOs have extensive public policy positions.
3. We know that all these NGOs are deeply funded, again by wealthy influences that want something for their money spent. Who are the largest funders? How do you know? But more importantly, the NGOs are themselves DIRECTED by a large cast of characters who represent the deepest pockets in the world.
4. The mix then of current officials, ex-officials, intelligence community, NGOs and their funders representatives, US business leaders, US media leaders make up what is called "The Washington-NY Establishment." Every activity from cocktail parties to institutional meetings, to binge, trips to office visits are where the ideas for policy are exchanged, debated, and eventually agreed upon. NONE of that is in the public record. NONE! None of that is lying on the surface for you and I to examine. You might as well say, "policy just appears." What you hear in the news is the tail end of a miles long process. What you hear is the politician announcing to CNN what this group has decided is the policy.

Who has the most at stake here? The president of the USA, or a global trillionaire with no country, no loyalty to anything but the wealth? Certainly not the POTUS. Who will have the most influence throughout this vast network of global influencers?

If you can't see the external, unseen source of influence, there's no reason to read on. Keep your old beliefs. If you can see how this might work, keep going.

Let's see how it works on something like "infrastructure." Spending on infrastructure comes out of taxes, somewhere. Who are the budget hawks? Why is there so much pressure to keep budgets in balance, with no deficits and retain very low taxes?
Can you see that the richest people want the lowest taxes?
Can you see that the richest people get hurt the most by deficit spending?
Can you see that there are 100s of institutions and NGOs and individual actors pressing every node in the government to reduce taxes and cut spending?
Why would people bow to all this pressure? They want to be re-elected. They want prodigious postings. They want a piece of the pie for themselves.

Summary
The amount of private money swamps the budgets of countries. This moves the pressure and influence from officialdom to private parties who have the wealth. e.g. He who has the gold, makes the rules. There is no mechanism and no incentive for the nominal government to resist this pressure.

This isn't a study for establishment scholars. The last thing they want is to undermine confidence in government. But that doesn't mean it isn't studied. No, I shall not do the homework for you. It's all out there.
It is all out there, and I am happy to post all of the whacko websites that espouse this drivel.

From a dozen bankers who control the world and what type of infrastructure they will allow us to have in the US in the posts up above to the massive retreat just above is pretty astounding. You are extrapolating real problems/issues in this Country into conspiracy theories.

It is out there, way out there. For example, you left out the most important part, those dozen or so bankers are controled by aliens.

"Goode’s description makes it almost certain that the person is Dr Henry Kissinger, who has long been rumored to be a key figure in classified extraterrestrial related projects. Most recently, Kissinger attended the Bilderberg Group meeting which occurred only two days after Goode and Gonzales had met approximately 200 human elites that offered a limited disclosure program to begin in November 2015. This would be followed by a 50 year moratorium in prosecuting elites involved in crimes against humanity."

The quote just above from a random search for "World bankers and aliens." Hundreds of articles back this theory up with good solid evidence.

Besides, everyone knows that the Trilateral Commission is run by aliens.

Another snipet:

"The name of the Trilateral Commission was taken from the alien flag/symbol called a "Trilateral Insignia" (Triade)

The Trilateral Insignia is found on the ships of recovered UFO's."

I am not really too concerned about the alien controlled bankers, because the people are in control of what the aliens really want, and there is a negoiation that goes on thats keeps that all in check.

What I am really woried about is the Illuminati, because they have the real power, and they only answer to Clarence.
Not much of an argument for a lawyer. You have not refuted even a word of my argument that most events are driven by causes the public can not see into.

What would be the point of typing all that gibberish? None of which I mentioned. None of which was mentioned in my argument. I'll have to seriously re-evaluate my assessment of your historical and political understandings based on such a nonsensical expression of comprehension.
Lawyers deal with facts that have some modicum of proof. It is one of our shortcomings.

We leave the unsupported arguments to philosophers, theologians, talk radio hosts, conspiracy theorists, and the fringes.

However, if you would like to meet John Marrs I can introduce you to him and he can tell you about all that he has discovered and you can discuss the dots you have uncovered and which way they connect. He will definitely agree with you on dozen bankers and New World Order, however, be prepared for the UFO connection because he has uncovered them and laid them bare in one of his 3 plus New York Times best selling books.

Short of that, about the only thing I can do is quote the historic and psychological reasons why otherwise normal, intelligent rational people slip off into the nether regions and believe the things they believe.

Did I mention John Marrs? New World Order? UFOs? Talk Radio? Ugh! I shall be compelled hereafter to group you with the rest of the peanut gallery for the inability to respond to any discussion with even a single intelligent thought. No shame in having to droop down to character assaults as your response? Ha ha.... What a laugh!

Lawyers are not known for their general knowledge, but to have to resort to pure low brow as a cover? That's poor! I've lost every shred of respect I had for you. 

The Jeff Matthews dude is the only guy with any range? I guess so!



Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Edited by jo56steph74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like there is simply not enough public money to keep the infrastructure in order.

I think the American nation has been sold a massive con job, beginning with Prop 13:  that we as a nation are "overtaxed".  This has been an easy sell, while incomes have declined, and the public has been a willing sucker for that view in spite of the results presented in this thread.  Needless to say, one party has been a more willing purveyor of this view, as election after election has been won at the national, state and local level because the pubic has been happy with the temporary good feeling of taxes being advertised as lower, and the false and forever unfulfilled promise of "smaller government."

 

Meanwhile, America's services and infrastructure have been degraded below that of European countries generally, because we're so unwilling to pay even to maintain that level.  We have to let big corporations and very wealthy individuals put their name on public buildings, stadiums, etc., in order to get them built.

 

The U.S. is not overtaxed compared with many other nations.  But lots of people think we are.

 

The net result is the country going into deeper and deeper debt in order to fund our lower taxes.  We have to pay for it eventually, even as we live on with the false believe that we are saving on taxes for the long run.

 

http://www.riponsociety.org/article/are-americans-overtaxed-3/

 

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17&p=4

Edited by LarryC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

"Therefore, new infrastructure will have very few friends in powerful places, and that's exactly what we see out there. These high level policies about where to put capital, are made by "bankers" and I don't mean your local branch manager. I mean the two dozen global bankers in charge of 75% of the world's total wealth. For them, a new sewer plant will; have nearly zero return on investment (using the term generally, not specifically) and so they won't lean that way on their political servants."

So that's what you started with, I addressed that, and you switch subjects or suggest no one in mainstream would venture down that road for fear of disrupting the entire political process.

So from there we go to 33 trillion in off the books cash held by (who again?). No it is now 35 trillion 5 posts later.

I'm supposed to know this or believe this on your say so? Your response is that "it is out there." But not too "out there" because "they" don't want it being public knowledge. It all makes sense that out of all the people in the country you somehow managed to find all the answers. Have you put this all together in your spare time. Interviewed local, state and federal politicians, been analyzing the fed reports the last few decades to see where the cash disappeared to? Or did you digest it from multiple sources.

I'm always a little leary of someone unwilling to atribute their sources. It is typically because those sources have problems.

Personally, I think the sources and arguments that Kissinger brokered a deal between the aliens and the two dozen world bankers are much stronger than what you have offered so far about how they control local infrastructure in the US like a sewer plant.

If we can sort that out I am happy to move on to addressing your next argument, which I was begenning to understand before your third argument.

So I guess I have to ask, for clarification, do the 2 dozen bankers make decisions that influence whether roads get repaired in a city in the US, and the other infrastructure problems you mentioned in your original post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, America's services and infrastructure have been degraded below that of European countries generally, because we're so unwilling to pay even to maintain that level.

 

I certainly agree about the degraded infrastructure, but I can't agree that the cause is "because we're so unwilling to pay even to maintain that level."

 

Here's why. 

Nothing in the budget policy works in a bottom up fashion. It's not like the people want X, Y, and Z and government attempts to provide that. It doesn't work that way. People get what is decided for them, and that begins with external demands of industry, the military industrial complex (The uninformed will call this a "conspiracy theory"), homeland security, drug war and current entitlements. 

 

The modern information economy just doesn't need a lot of infrastructure, they aren't demanding it from government. They want other more sophisticated business tools like more IP protections, bigger trade agreements and so on. No one that matters to the budget process is thinking, "Gee, we need better roads and bridges."

 

The role of government is to make sure the economic operators have what they need to be globally competitive. Your sewer system doesn't matter to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For any attempt at understanding US economic policy and political theory, one has to come to grips with NEOLIBERAL economics. 

 

QUOTE (bolding is mine)

 

At the national-level, neoliberal ideas have drastically changed how states operate. By heavily promoting market-based economies that highly value competition and efficiency, neoliberalism has moved countries closer to adopting social Darwinism. Under Thatcher and Reagan, for instance, Peters (2001) argues that neoliberalism directly led to the economic liberalization/rationalization of the state, the restructuring of state sectors, and the dismantling of the welfare state. As a consequence of these changes, the U.S. and the U.K. have seen things like the abolishment of subsidies and tariffs, the corporatization and privatization of state trading departments, a sustained attack on unions, and the individualization of health, welfare, and education. Although the idea that markets should fully dictate governments would have seemed ludicrous in prior decades (George 1999), Bourdieu (1999b) contends that neoliberalism as a form of national governance has become a doxa, or an unquestioned and simply accepted worldview. Harvey (2005) is thus not surprised that the ideas of capitalism have been infused into political, social, and cultural institutions at the state-level. By placing a mathematical quality on social life (Bourdieu 1999a), neoliberalism has encouraged formerly autonomous states to regress into penal states that value production, competition, and profit above all else, including social issues.

 

As can be seen from this brief description of neoliberalism and its repercussions, this ideology has led to many changes at the state-level, the international-level, and the individual-level. Such changes include the dismantling of the welfare state, the growing reality of global inequality, and the individualization of all actions. In spite of such negative outcomes, George (1999) argues that the hegemonic nature of neoliberalism makes it seem like the only possible economic and social order available. As a true doxa, neoliberalism has become an unquestioned reality as it now seems almost logical that the markets should be the allocators of resources, that competition should be the primary driver of innovation, and that societies should be composed of individuals primarily motivated by economic conditions (Coburn 2000). Against the onslaught of neoliberal ideals, some scholars such as Bourdieu and Harvey have argued that the populace must rise up and resist this ideology. With the effectiveness with which neoliberals have pushed forward their ideas, though, such an uprising seems unlikely at least in the near future.

end quote - Source: https://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2012/10/02/a-brief-examination-of-neoliberalism-and-its-consequences/

 

This policy has been in place in the USA since the mid 1970s and it has been the guiding policy no matter who is president or who runs congress. It is political party agnostic - because it is the economic policy of globalism. (Here's where all the people who don't know about this will begin to shout "Conspiracy theory!)

This is why the infrastructure is crumbling. This is why social benefits are being stripped and trimmed back. Because "people" - citizens - are not running the economy, and it simply matters not who you vote for, neoliberal economics will guide all important decisions. It trumps all other considerations in US economic policy, because it IS the policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Therefore, new infrastructure will have very few friends in powerful places, and that's exactly what we see out there. These high level policies about where to put capital, are made by "bankers" and I don't mean your local branch manager. I mean the two dozen global bankers in charge of 75% of the world's total wealth. For them, a new sewer plant will; have nearly zero return on investment (using the term generally, not specifically) and so they won't lean that way on their political servants."

So that's what you started with, I addressed that, and you switch subjects or suggest no one in mainstream would venture down that road for fear of disrupting the entire political process.

So from there we go to 33 trillion in off the books cash held by (who again?). No it is now 35 trillion 5 posts later.

I'm supposed to know this or believe this on your say so? Your response is that "it is out there." But not too "out there" because "they" don't want it being public knowledge. It all makes sense that out of all the people in the country you somehow managed to find all the answers. Have you put this all together in your spare time. Interviewed local, state and federal politicians, been analyzing the fed reports the last few decades to see where the cash disappeared to? Or did you digest it from multiple sources.

I'm always a little leary of someone unwilling to atribute their sources. It is typically because those sources have problems.

Personally, I think the sources and arguments that Kissinger brokered a deal between the aliens and the two dozen world bankers are much stronger than what you have offered so far about how they control local infrastructure in the US like a sewer plant.

If we can sort that out I am happy to move on to addressing your next argument, which I was begenning to understand before your third argument.

So I guess I have to ask, for clarification, do the 2 dozen bankers make decisions that influence whether roads get repaired in a city in the US, and the other infrastructure problems you mentioned in your original post?

 

I see you have typed out some more words here. Sadly, owing to your previous nonsensical replies to me, I no longer respect your thoughts enough to respond, or even read them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

“Conspiracy theory as a theory of power, then, is an ideological misrecognition of power relations, articulated to but neither defining nor defined by populism, interpellating believers as “the people” opposed to a relatively secret, elite “power bloc.” Yet such a definition does not exhaust conspiracy theory’s significance in contemporary politics and culture; as with populism, the interpellation of “the people” opposed to the “power bloc” plays a crucial role in any movement for social change. Moreover, as I have argued, just because overarching conspiracy theories are wrong does not mean they are not on to something. Specifically, they ideologically address real structural inequities, and constitute a response to a withering civil society and the concentration of the ownership of the means of production, which together leave the political subject without the ability to be recognized or to signify in the public realm.”

Mark Fenster,

Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.

Note the date of this book. Notice that he does not entirely discount conspiracy theories, they "address real structural inequities, and constitute a response to a withering civil society and the concentration of the ownership of the means of production . . . ."

Ownership of the means of production and t structural inequity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Therefore, new infrastructure will have very few friends in powerful places, and that's exactly what we see out there. These high level policies about where to put capital, are made by "bankers" and I don't mean your local branch manager. I mean the two dozen global bankers in charge of 75% of the world's total wealth. For them, a new sewer plant will; have nearly zero return on investment (using the term generally, not specifically) and so they won't lean that way on their political servants."

So that's what you started with, I addressed that, and you switch subjects or suggest no one in mainstream would venture down that road for fear of disrupting the entire political process.

So from there we go to 33 trillion in off the books cash held by (who again?). No it is now 35 trillion 5 posts later.

I'm supposed to know this or believe this on your say so? Your response is that "it is out there." But not too "out there" because "they" don't want it being public knowledge. It all makes sense that out of all the people in the country you somehow managed to find all the answers. Have you put this all together in your spare time. Interviewed local, state and federal politicians, been analyzing the fed reports the last few decades to see where the cash disappeared to? Or did you digest it from multiple sources.

I'm always a little leary of someone unwilling to atribute their sources. It is typically because those sources have problems.

Personally, I think the sources and arguments that Kissinger brokered a deal between the aliens and the two dozen world bankers are much stronger than what you have offered so far about how they control local infrastructure in the US like a sewer plant.

If we can sort that out I am happy to move on to addressing your next argument, which I was begenning to understand before your third argument.

So I guess I have to ask, for clarification, do the 2 dozen bankers make decisions that influence whether roads get repaired in a city in the US, and the other infrastructure problems you mentioned in your original post?

 

I see you have typed out some more words here. Sadly, owing to your previous nonsensical replies to me, I no longer respect your thoughts enough to respond, or even read them. 

 

 

Your "dinner parties" must be amazeballs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Jo, that was an excellent synopsis, and I mean that.

In addition, I want to add an observation I believe to be fact and which somewhat detracts from the "conspiracy" part of your theory.

The forces are exactly as you describe, except for one thing. They are coming from all directions. There are so many competing forces in politics that even though "money" buys policy for obvious reasons, the question being begged is whose money? CitiGroup's? Merill Lynch's? You see money coming from everywhere... from Big Pharma to Big Oil to Big Infrastructure to Big Prisons, etc.

The amount of distinct forces operating on politics is bewildering. It's not a few dozen guys pulling the strings from some darkened, heavily-guarded, sub-surface bunker with unfathomable technology. There is no "war room" of conspirators. The conspirators are everyone from everywhere. Obviously, one Wal-Mart is probably equal to 150 million of you and me... maybe more. But one Wal-Mart is not worth 150 million Microsofts.

You have described the ugly side of the process just fine. How else could politics work? People are innately who they are, whether they grow up under the guise of "communism," "socialism," etc. All of those -ism's are not unlike "the law." They are theories. They are intangible. They are matters of faith, limited by human fallacy. Some people ascribe to the idea of "Natural Law," for example. They believe that "man-made" laws are fallible and always remain in search of the "Natural Law." It's a mere aspiration, just like communism and socialism. It will never exist.

You will never have a government for "the people" operating under some impossible notion that "all men are created equal." Accept it for what it is. It's cool to point it out and talk about it, and I certainly enjoy people's thoughts on the topic because it is so complicated.

Sometimes, however, I am getting the impression that you think, "It's all so simple to fix if they'd just do all the things I say they should do." If you think that way, you should practice drafting a set of laws so you can ascertain how impossible it is to come up with the right set... especially given the fact that you have things getting in the way such as "prosecutorial discretion." Heck, if the PTB won't follow the laws (and you know they won't), there is no amount of dreaming-up of rules that will ever suffice.

I think the whole process is very organic. I don't think we are so capable of engineering as you seem to believe. I think the whole thing just kind-of happens, much like the idea of the Big Bang. What caused it? Who knows? It just is.

Yes, it would seem at first pass to be unorganized and sort of chaotic. I have thought long and hard about what sort of "order" can be put to it, or described for it. So, let me add a few thoughts.

1. Conspiracy is too much of a loaded word to try to use in popular culture. It gets mixed up with "absurd conspiracy theory" and then all hope of explanation is lost.

2. The way I arrive at an organizing hypothesis is to look really hard at the results and work back words.

3. History can be used to show that the wealthy have very similar objectives in every age.

From that, I do NOT subscribe to any kind of "backroom conspiracy of men." However, I believe strongly in the "common interests of men." For example, we know that the rich want lower taxes, lower wages**, reduced government spending and breakdown of labor unions. So, when they simply pursue those interests, there will be government pressure to lower taxes, lower wages and reduce spending....etc.

Furthermore, the truly dark money, that is the $35T or so that isn't on any books, is held mostly by sovereigns and banking cartels. And those interests are also in agreement, and since they are dominating the running of central banks (I don't here mean the "FED CHAIRMAN" which is a perfunctory position, I mean the guys who back the central banks with actual wealth), they are in a major policy making crux in all countries.

What Are Their Fears?

This dark money has several common fears also.

1. They are scared to death that if people live into their 80s after retiring at 67, the medical costs will be astronomical to society. Since these people are literally the "final source" of wealth, they fear that this massive cost will fall on them, wiping out their trillions in reserves. So, they act on that fear, by forcing (persuading, if you prefer) legislators to pass laws like raise the retirement age, cap off the benefits, freeze and increases, and so on. This is called "austerity" and it is pushed onto societies from Greece to Portugal, to the UK and to some degree the USA.

2. They are scared to death of rising populations. To a man (or woman) they are almost all misanthropists and eugenicists.

3. They fear capital controls returning. Since 1972 or so, the world has featured free movement of all capital. Any attempt at capital controls is fought off tooth and nail.

USA

We see a short list of over arching policies that NEVER change, no matter the political structure in place. Those policies are:

*Neoliberal economics (e.g. Milton Friedman, Chicago School)

*militarism - massive military budgets

*Global hegemony through military force

*Constant and perpetual covert action throughout the world to fight any left leaning tendancy

*Anti unionism

*Deep internal support for fascism, including training and $$ support for hard right military leaders throughout the world

*Highly regulated global trade agreements often running to thousands of pages, which secure US interests above all others

*Support for a massive international war on drugs

That list of general policies has not changed since the mid 1970s. Doesn't matter who is president or who runs congress. The reason it doesn't change is that those policies are the current consensus of the global dark money scions. Of which there are less than 100. So, to that degree, it acts a bit like a conspiracy. And,there are laws broken all the time by the instigation of one or more of these actors. The LIBOR scandal is an example, as is the manipulation of the gold market and the current manipulation of the oil markets. To that extent, there is a "conspiracy" - but it's a conspiracy by interest (not a legal term, of course.)

There is purpose to it all. Their purpose.

Now finally, can anything be done? No. And I don't promote any ideas for changing it. In the broadest sense, it has been with us for 10 thousand years and is never going away until some future date when a new purpose, other than the materialism is discovered.

Why am I interested? Because knowing how it works keeps me from wasting time on the superficial theatrical part of it, which is basically retail politics.

--------------------------

** Governments lower wages by negotiating global trade agreements that feature free movement of capital. This creates a persistent labor surplus which works to drive labor costs down by not letting them rise with productivity gains.

There have been changes there are ebb and flows. The two dozen bankers comment and their impact on the ability to obtain a new sewer plant was certainly conspiricist. But you have been walking back that statement right after you made it.

From Chip Berlet:

"Conspiracism tries to figure out how power is exercised in society, but ends up oversimplifying the complexites of modern society by blaming societal problems on manipulation by a handful of evil individuals.

This is not an analysis that accurately evaluates the systems, structures and institutions of modern society. As such, conspiracism is neither investigative reporting, which seeks to expose actual conspiracies through careful research; nor is it power structure research, which seeks to accurately analyze the distribution of power and privilege in a society. Sadly, some sincere people who seek social and economic justice are attracted to conspiracism. Overwhelmingly, however, conspiracism in the U.S. is the central historic narrative of right-wing populism.

The conspiracist blames societal or individual problems on what turns out to be a demonized scapegoat. Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bankers or Politicians - Who is in Charge?

 

I gave an example earlier of banking being the driver of world events when describing the coup in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. What the world saw was a religious and political struggle, but what sponsored the coup was the Dutch innovation in banking. Later, the Seven Years war would be fought between England and France, and once more it was banking which ruled the day. This time, the English, having learned from the Dutch, simply destroyed France only due to it's superior "new" banking strategy of created a low interest credit market in bonds that allowed England to massively out produce France in warships and materiel. 

 

But what about more recently than the 17th century? Look no further than the financial crisis of 2008. With the global economy on the precipice of total disaster, what were the President and Congress doing aside from twiddling their fingers - - - nothing. The global economy was pulled from the jaws of destruction NOT by any president of any country, not by any congressman. It was the US FED acting with Treasury Sec Paulson (fresh from Goldman Sachs), and a few Wall Street titans who saved the economy. The political actors were essentially powerless, and only the world's bankers and financiers could solve the problem. Of note here, is that the actual process, the negotiations, the arguments, the proposals were completely invisible to the public. A process with absolutely no public accountability. In fact, the bankers would not even tell congress who was going to get the bailout money! 

 

That's not a "conspiracy theory", it's simply the unaccountable actions of the world's real power holders. Nothing I have presented here regarding the power of global banking is even remotely connected to the foolishness that is understood by the uninformed as conspiracy theory.  There are no aliens, UFOs, or secret handshakes, because wealth doesn't need any of that nonsense to operate with power. 

 

Someone is actually the richest person in the world. Someone is the second richest, third, and right on down the line it goes. As it happens, the first dozen or so have wealth measured in trillions of dollars. And just as these "kind" of wealthy people pulled a coup to knock King James off the throne for William of Orange, and just as these "kind" of people tipped the balance in the Seven Years War to defeat France, and just as these "kind" of people bankrolled the Great War, the very same "kind" of people saved the US economy, and very possibly prevented a world depression in 2008. Aliens not required. 

 

In all cases these actions take place out of public sight, out of public accountability and simply put - "without the public even knowing how it works." According to the shouts "Conspiracy Theory",  these events couldn't possibly happen. And yet, they do. All the time. There would be no wars, without first bankers willing to provide the credit. 

 

The world runs on credit. It drives industry, it drives growth, it drives public budgets, it is the absolute hot core of the economy everywhere in the world, and it is controlled by wealthy "bankers" (and for those with literal minds, I don't mean the bank manager in the cheap suit at your local branch). 

Edited by jo56steph74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

hey are resented because they were smart enough to take the lower salary in favor of the better benefits they were lured with. While they were making less than their private sector counterparts, they were outside of social security, and that money was being invested in some form of pension plan for their benefit. Most, have been able to achieve a better result than social security.

Travis, isn't that in part because SS and all federal pensions like military have had very small to no annual increases because those are limited to CPI-urban COLAs? In recent years, the increase has been ZERO percent, which in no way keeps up with, for example, increases in property taxes.

I think this has been part of the game-rigging that Eliz. Warren refers to. It has shifted wealth and income downward for those recipients. And yet, the proponents of the "opportunity society" seem to want to cut SS.

Larry, you would have to point me to something specific to comment further on a particular plan or segment.

The CPI used to be a great index in terms of almost keeping up, unfortunately it isn't a very good index under certain conditions.

There arensome politicians who have paid lip service to the opportunity society. The previous administration, is a SOU discussed privitizing SS. It went nowhere. In fact, that administration added the Rx benefit card for seniors.

People currently receiving benefits don't get cuts, they get temporary stop-gap measures that keep SS funded.

Why? Because seniors from both parties vote, in very high percentages. This isn't lost on politicians from either party.

My generation they tinker with it, up retirement age, etc.

Now the question I have for you Larry, an MD/PhD from two of the most prestigious universities in the country, one from each coast, and having spent a career working with the world's greatest medical research center's on medical education, what is your opinion of the suggestion by the original poster that "they" have orchestrated a decrease in human life expectancy in the US in order to reduce the cost of SS and other pensions (through diet I believe is what he said above)?

Here is the actual quote:

"The Social Security & Medicare system has been engineered to statistically drive the LE downward gradually. I would bet the unspoken target is 70 to 75 years max.

With real dollar reductions in benefits, coupled with the worst diet in the developed world, they should reach that goal very soon. Maybe five years."

Is that possible?

I read a book about a famous lead paint study in Baltimore. Homes were given 3 different levels of abatement. 25 homes in each group. There was a major outcry from the 25 in the lowest group whose kids continued to get sick. There were accusations that the lowest group were human "guinea pigs." The medical research establishment got behind the researchers and said that is how research is done and noted that the protocols and selection were reviewed by an ethics committee at NIH.

It seems like there are better, cheaper and quicker ways to lower life expectancy than diet.

Edited by dwilawyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...