# Born Again American! A MUST SEE Video!



## MA-Caver (Dec 19, 2009)

What seems to be a grass-roots movement to take our country back and make the changes that have been promised us. Give it a listen to the video/song... It's powerful because it's honest. 
http://www.bornagainamerican.org/index.html

I placed this here in the Study because I think the idea merits discussion and ideas. 
Would this be a catalyst to make the changes happen as they need be? That enough people get together and shout out to make their voices heard by their government that a change could be made? 
I ended up crying by the time the video/song was finished. 
Felt like that song should be our new national anthem... truncated of course... 

What do you think?


----------



## Flea (Dec 19, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> I placed this here in the Study because I think the idea merits discussion and ideas.
> Would this be a catalyst to make the changes happen as they need be?



I doubt it.  It's a warm fuzzy pop song, and it doesn't make any specific statements or call for any particular action.  You can't harness motivation without any sense of direction, and this song is pure sentimentality.




> That enough people get together and shout out to make their voices heard by their government that a change could be made?


Not just as a result of this song or this website. It offers no call to action, other than a vague "register to vote and volunteer in your community."  Noble sentiments to be sure, but what kind of opinion or mandate is a politician supposed to read from that?



> What do you think?


I think the sentiment is admirable, and could be a useful building block for a more specific philosophy or initiative.  But other than boosting sales of handkerchiefs, I don't see any pragmatic merit in the song itself. :wink2:


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 20, 2009)

Flea said:


> Not just as a result of this song or this website. It offers no call to action, other than a vague "register to vote and volunteer in your community."  Noble sentiments to be sure, but what kind of opinion or mandate is a politician supposed to read from that?


Politicians aren't supposed to read from that... WE (the people) are.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 20, 2009)

That song hates free trade!


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 20, 2009)

Marginal said:


> That song hates free trade!


If free trade takes jobs and ships them overseas then I hate it too. 

It's never made any sense to me to take American wood like oak, pine, maple and ship it 10,000 miles to a country where they'll make furniture with it and ship it back 10,000 miles to here and sell it... oh sure the labor is cheap... I reckon it's what we pay for. 

I say abolish the Federal Reserve and let the Government make it's own money and we just MIGHT be better off not having to continually borrow AT INTEREST to pay off the interest that we borrowed at interest to fight wars on money that was borrowed.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 20, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> It's never made any sense to me to take American wood like oak, pine, maple and ship it 10,000 miles to a country where they'll make furniture with it and ship it back 10,000 miles to here and sell it... oh sure the labor is cheap... I reckon it's what we pay for.


It busts them lazy commie unions, therefore it's awesome.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 20, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> What seems to be a grass-roots movement to take our country back and make the changes that have been promised us. Give it a listen to the video/song... It's powerful because it's honest.
> http://www.bornagainamerican.org/index.html
> 
> I placed this here in the Study because I think the idea merits discussion and ideas.
> ...


I feel since you placed this in the study, that I should be bashing it or politicizing it. But, no, I will take it as I feel you are intending it for. It felt good seeing a wide group of Americans coming together in one voice touting the values, concerns, and traditions our country was founded on, with the blood, sweat and tears of years passed. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2009)

The problem with the song is that all of it's ideas are stuck inside the typical Left/Right American political screed.  NOTHING will change until everyone wants to pull back the curtain and see the problem for what it really is.  On the other hand, I think that this song shows that people are ready to do that.  They just need to take the next step...


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 20, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> They just need to take the next step...



What do YOU see as the next step?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> What do YOU see as the next step?



People need to learn where their money comes from and who really makes it.  They need to learn how the system controls them and how the people who make it control everything with the system.  Then we need to find these guys root out all of their tendrils of influence and design a new monetary system that isn't parasitic and oppressive.  Almost all of our major economic woes can be traced back to this.  From budget deficits, to health care, to education, to crime...you name it.  No reform will work under the umbrella of this system because the very nature of how we represent value and trade it is designed to transfer value into the hands of the few.  All systems will crumble under that kind of pressure and every aspect of society will be ensnared in a web of debt.  

It's a big step and a bitter pill to swallow for many, but that's the truth.  The system is designed to reduce you to virtual slaves.

Since this thread is about music, check out this website.

http://www.sons-of-liberty.net/

The lead singer of Iced Earth woke up about nine months ago and wondered what the hell he could do about all of this.  So he started a new band called the Sons of Liberty and released a new album FOR FREE in order to get the message out.  

The website has all of the links you need in order to learn what I'm talking about and about what the music is about.  I highly suggest you check it out.  The tunes are awesome and the advice offered on the website is salient.  



> 1. Remain objective and trust your gut instinct.
> 
> 2. Embrace the truth, regardless of how disturbing it may be.
> 
> 3. Assemble, coordinate, and get involved!



Check it out and wake up already.


----------



## Carol (Dec 20, 2009)

Which is still rather vague... :idunno:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 20, 2009)

Carol said:


> Which is still rather vague... :idunno:



What is vague?  Ah...well...just click on the link and take a listen.  Good music and I know you'll figure it out...


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 20, 2009)

OK... so you wanna replace the monetary system.  Since the economy is pretty well interrelated globally now, and one country's economy effects another's -- how do you make the change over without creating unimaginable chaos?


----------



## Marginal (Dec 20, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> People need to learn where their money comes from and who really makes it.  They need to learn how the system controls them and how the people who make it control everything with the system.  Then we need to find these guys root out all of their tendrils of influence and design a new monetary system that isn't parasitic and oppressive.  Almost all of our major economic woes can be traced back to this.  From budget deficits, to health care, to education, to crime...you name it.  No reform will work under the umbrella of this system because the very nature of how we represent value and trade it is designed to transfer value into the hands of the few.  All systems will crumble under that kind of pressure and every aspect of society will be ensnared in a web of debt.
> 
> It's a big step and a bitter pill to swallow for many, but that's the truth.  The system is designed to reduce you to virtual slaves.


You can't remove powerful people from the equation. Every time this has been tried, it fails because another power hungry person emerges. You get a slightly different structure with the same result. 

This isn't a one sided kinda issue either. Sure saying stuff like vote incumbents out is cute, but to restructure this system on the scale that is consistently advocated in the study under the guise of "waking up", you'd also have to dismantle every single corporation on the planet along with the governments. 

Then once you're living free and clear (how this is accomplished with a handful of laws and no infrastructure is iffy) in your cave, are you really better off? Not really.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> OK... so you wanna replace the monetary system.  Since the economy is pretty well interrelated globally now, and one country's economy effects another's -- how do you make the change over without creating unimaginable chaos?



Why would it have to cause chaos?  It's all just paper anyways.  The problem is that our money is created from debt and that our Constitutional government has almost no control over the process.  As it stands, as the Founding Fathers correctly pointed out, we are looking at a process that will transfer all of our wealth into the hands of the few.  So, even if the process was chaotic at first, wouldn't it be a fair price if we can maintain some semblance of freedom?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2009)

Marginal said:


> You can't remove powerful people from the equation. Every time this has been tried, it fails because another power hungry person emerges. You get a slightly different structure with the same result.
> 
> This isn't a one sided kinda issue either. Sure saying stuff like vote incumbents out is cute, but to restructure this system on the scale that is consistently advocated in the study under the guise of "waking up", you'd also have to dismantle every single corporation on the planet along with the governments.
> 
> Then once you're living free and clear (how this is accomplished with a handful of laws and no infrastructure is iffy) in your cave, are you really better off? Not really.



Look, you need to get a clearer idea of what is being discussed because you've got several huge misconceptions flying around in this post that are going to be major stumbling block for you understanding any of this.  Check out the link I posted above.  There are several documentaries, about a dozen books, and a multitude of websites for you to take a look at and learn so more.  

We have a perfectly good system, you know, a system that was designed to limit the influence of individuals or small groups over the mass as a whole.  The bottom line is that right now we have an entrenched global oligarchy that is openly stealing our wealth and our freedoms through stealth, violence, and obfuscation.  

When you get a clear picture of what's going on, you'll get a clear picture of where this is going.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 21, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> We have a perfectly good system, you know, a system that was designed to limit the influence of individuals or small groups over the mass as a whole.  The bottom line is that right now we have an entrenched global oligarchy that is openly stealing our wealth and our freedoms through stealth, violence, and obfuscation.
> 
> When you get a clear picture of what's going on, you'll get a clear picture of where this is going.


No. I see what's going on here quite well. 

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2009)

Marginal said:


> No. I see what's going on here quite well.
> 
> http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html



This isn't about libertarianism.  Ideology is a clever trap.  This is about YOU.  You and all of your progeny are being enslaved by an entrenched oligarchy.  Do you understand?  Do yourself a favor and do 24 hours of research on the subject.  Watch a couple of movies.  Order one of the books off of Amazon.  Yes, some of these guys have an ideological bias, and that only reflects the limitation of their minds...just as all our biases reflect the limitations of our minds.  

And then there are things that simply are happening.  You have to learn about these things and decide how you are going to deal with that.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 21, 2009)

Marginal said:


> You can't remove powerful people from the equation.


 
...happens all the time through-out the history of man. 

In regards to more recent history, we did it over 200 years ago and the Founders thought they had set up a pretty good way of helping to prevent it from happening yet again with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. They realized that government attracts the power hungry and expected "us" to help keep that in check. 

However, we got lazy and let control slip away... and once, when we tried to sieze it back, we had a great bloody war over it... and it continues to slip away.

It may take more blood, and more wars... but history often repeats itself. Perhaps not in your lifetime...but it will happen again as long as nothing changes. 

Anyway...

I signed up simply because this is where the focus should of our government should be right now, and sadly isn't. That's enough to tell you that you don't matter to them. Only special interests matter.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 21, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> This isn't about libertarianism.  Ideology is a clever trap.  This is about YOU.  You and all of your progeny are being enslaved by an entrenched oligarchy.  Do you understand?


I don't believe you accurately see where this oligarchy starts and ends. How long it's been in place, or the results of dispelling it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2009)

Marginal said:


> I don't believe you accurately see where this oligarchy starts and ends. How long it's been in place, or the results of dispelling it.



I totally understand what you are saying, but what is the alternative?  Correct me if I'm mistaking your point, but I read that you are saying that learning about this and attempting to change things won't matter because the oligarchy is too entrenched the same people always end up running things in the end.

If that's the case, then why should we spend time even talking about these things?  Are our masters so powerful that you really are helpless or have they convinced you that you are helpless and that you can't do anything about this huge problem?

Check out this video.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

What if the Founding Fathers had felt the way that you seem to feel?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 21, 2009)

Some people are willing to be a lap dog as long as the scraps they're thrown are tastey. What happens when the scraps stop coming though? 

You may find this interesting....

Short version:




 
Long version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0yU37mHf_M&feature=related

Makes you wonder... but as they say, perspective is everything.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 21, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I totally understand what you are saying, but what is the alternative?  Correct me if I'm mistaking your point, but I read that you are saying that learning about this and attempting to change things won't matter because the oligarchy is too entrenched the same people always end up running things in the end.


Different people probably, slightly different structure, same results at best. At worst, a whole lotta unnecessarily dead people if it doesn't fly. Then you end up reverting back to a stable (not necessarily desirable) structure.

I also wonder, slaves in exactly what sense? No matter the structure you're going to end up with someone who wields power over another. You will have to move with their agenda on some level. 

CC: The last time the government was controlled by the people, (a handful relative to the population even then) the nation hadn't been half formed yet. I get the impression you think the wrong side won the civil war. (I don't really see the enlightened self interest that must've been guiding the South's actions.)


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Different people probably, slightly different structure, same results at best. At worst, a whole lotta unnecessarily dead people if it doesn't fly. Then you end up reverting back to a stable (not necessarily desirable) structure.
> 
> I also wonder, slaves in exactly what sense? No matter the structure you're going to end up with someone who wields power over another. You will have to move with their agenda on some level.



The point of the current system is it's instability.  When the money supply can be expanded and contracted at the whim of the elite, a slow transfer of wealth occurs from the little guys (us) to them, as people/nations default on their debt and real assets are bought up for pennies on the dollar.  A stable system would be the ultimate weapon for leveling the playing field.

Economic slavery exists when all wage earners pay the expenses for their own bondage and divert all excess funds into paying back principle and interest on the money that was created for them.  A great majority of the world's population already lives this way and many people in the US are doing the same.  The banks have got it figured out, if you can inflate the prices of goods and hold down wages, you can make it so that all major goods and services require you to take out a loan for purchase.  This obligation demands some form of income from employers who depend on debt from the very same banks.  

The ultimate result of allowing private interests to control the money supply is that they can choke it off to anyone who doesn't toe the line.  This is the mechanism that the elite use to manipulate society.

There are many examples of people breaking free of this system.  Our country, in fact, has broken free of it several times in the past...which has led to times of great prosperity.  Only in the past 100 years have the citizens let it flourish to this point.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 21, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Some people are willing to be a lap dog as long as the scraps they're thrown are tastey. What happens when the scraps stop coming though?
> 
> You may find this interesting....
> 
> ...



CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberg...I feel like a John Bircher for even talking about this.  However, at least part of the time, they were absolutely dead on.  Yes, check out these videos.  Good stuff!!!


----------



## blindsage (Dec 21, 2009)

The revolution will not be televised.....but apparently it will be on the interwebs!!

I'm so glad there are people on here to educate us all on the 'truth' and of course come to the same conclusions that they do.  If only we all knew what they knew, then we'd have a _real_ revolution!


----------



## Marginal (Dec 22, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberg...I feel like a John Bircher for even talking about this.  However, at least part of the time, they were absolutely dead on.  Yes, check out these videos.  Good stuff!!!








There's another.



> The point of the current system is it's instability. When the money supply can be expanded and contracted at the whim of the elite, a slow transfer of wealth occurs from the little guys (us) to them, as people/nations default on their debt and real assets are bought up for pennies on the dollar. A stable system would be the ultimate weapon for leveling the playing field.


I'd argue that a stable system insures no such level playing field. Feudalism was a stable system. It still wasn't much fun for the peasants. What you are suggesting implies a fairly hefty amount of presumed value in the middle class, and that all their needs will be met if only our economic system was not so giddy on garbage debt. 

If that level of stability was actually there, few would be taking on these nutty debts in the first place. Would be plutocrats couldn't cash in if they were barging into a stable system.



> There are many examples of people breaking free of this system. Our country, in fact, has broken free of it several times in the past...which has led to times of great prosperity. Only in the past 100 years have the citizens let it flourish to this point.


When were people buying only what they needed? That seems to be the crux of the issue. It's not economic slavery if you think you need a brand new Escalade, a Blackberry, and feel pressured to buy a house "because houses only increase in value!!!!" That's stupidity. 

On top of that, most of the boom times you're talking about were marked by their rather brutal treatment of the people actually manufacturing the wealth. Factory towns where workers weren't allowed to leave, and could only purchase things from the company store with their company scrip, child labor, slave labor... Not exactly the ideal I'm looking for out of our society.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2009)

blindsage said:


> The revolution will not be televised.....but apparently it will be on the interwebs!!
> 
> I'm so glad there are people on here to educate us all on the 'truth' and of course come to the same conclusions that they do.  If only we all knew what they knew, then we'd have a _real_ revolution!



Hahaha laugh while you can, but we'll eventually get to a point where we can't afford to get snarky.  Or you can quit wasting time and actually check some of this stuff out.  What do you have to lose?  At any rate, what do you really hope to accomplish with this attitude?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2009)

Marginal said:


> I'd argue that a stable system insures no such level playing field. Feudalism was a stable system. It still wasn't much fun for the peasants. What you are suggesting implies a fairly hefty amount of presumed value in the middle class, and that all their needs will be met if only our economic system was not so giddy on garbage debt.



A stable monetary system actually has nothing to do with feudalism.  When you conflate the two, it's like comparing apples to oranges.  What I'm suggesting has little resemblance to what you are describing.  I'm not suggesting anything, only explaining how the system works and how it transfers wealth to the elite.  Look, crack a book or watch some of those videos linked above.  That's going to help you understand what is actually being discussed.  



Marginal said:


> If that level of stability was actually there, few would be taking on these nutty debts in the first place. Would be plutocrats couldn't cash in if they were barging into a stable system.
> 
> When were people buying only what they needed? That seems to be the crux of the issue. It's not economic slavery if you think you need a brand new Escalade, a Blackberry, and feel pressured to buy a house "because houses only increase in value!!!!" That's stupidity.
> 
> On top of that, most of the boom times you're talking about were marked by their rather brutal treatment of the people actually manufacturing the wealth. Factory towns where workers weren't allowed to leave, and could only purchase things from the company store with their company scrip, child labor, slave labor... Not exactly the ideal I'm looking for out of our society.



Money is created from debt.  Every piece of paper you have in your pocket and every digit in your bank account was created as a loan somewhere to to someone.  It doesn't matter what you buy.  You could have a society that was conservative and frugal to the extreme, and still, over time, the wealth would be transferred from society as a whole to those who create the money.  The reason for this is because the money to pay back the interest never exists.  Only the principle of any loan ever exists at one time and since the entire money supply is made from the principle of loans, it takes an ever increasing amount of debt just to pay off the principle and interest.  This is why we have continual inflation and this is why society will never be able to pay off it's collective debts.  The entire system is a scam that is designed to enslave you.  What you wrote above has nothing to do with anything that I'm talking about.  

This is a simple matter of sitting back and understanding that this is how it works.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 22, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> A stable monetary system actually has nothing to do with feudalism.  When you conflate the two, it's like comparing apples to oranges.  What I'm suggesting has little resemblance to what you are describing.  I'm not suggesting anything, only explaining how the system works and how it transfers wealth to the elite.  Look, crack a book or watch some of those videos linked above.  That's going to help you understand what is actually being discussed.


I think you missed the point. I'm more interested in reality. Where's the bedrock that will stabilize things? You've failed to say what it's supposed to be. ("Crack a book", and bland platitudes aren't solutions.)



> This is a simple matter of sitting back and understanding that this is how it works.


Could you list these golden ages where none were exploited uh... economically?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Money is created from debt.  Every piece of paper you have in your pocket and every digit in your bank account was created as a loan somewhere to to someone.  It doesn't matter what you buy.  You could have a society that was conservative and frugal to the extreme, and still, over time, the wealth would be transferred from society as a whole to those who create the money.  The reason for this is because the money to pay back the interest never exists.  Only the principle of any loan ever exists at one time and since the entire money supply is made from the principle of loans, it takes an ever increasing amount of debt just to pay off the principle and interest.  This is why we have continual inflation and this is why society will never be able to pay off it's collective debts.  The entire system is a scam that is designed to enslave you.



What are some ramifications of this scam?  Take a look at Health Care for example.  In the United States we have the two party system pointing fingers at each other blaming the other side for ruining the system.  One side says that they took away any oversight and protections from Big Pharma and this has allowed the system to bloat up and gouge the consumer.  The other side says that they regulated the system so that the crony corporations would benefit and the prices rose.  Both sides happen to be right and both culprits in this case happen to link back to the people who make the money and pull the strings.

Lets say in a perfect world, nothing happened to health care and we simply had a system, ANY system.  Under the current monetary scheme, with downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on inflation, the exact same conditions for regular people occur that people experience now.  People can't afford their health care!  When you pile on the effects of fascist corporate/government collusion (which both are consumers of credit and therefore controlled by the people who issue credit) it only accelerates the pace that people are no longer able to afford health care.

The end game is terrifying because the controllers of credit control the left and the right.  On one hand, they can sink any government with debt and completely control it because any institution that operates with this kind of monetary system goes bankrupt.  And on the other hand, any individual can be completely buried with debt eventually, because it will become the only means of legal exchange (legal tender laws).  

IMO, the scenario that gives the superclass massive fiat erections is the planned failure of social welfare programs as they bury once rich nations in debt so they tax the populace to oblivion.  Then they flip the controlled paradigm so that only you are responsible for your health care and you have no way of paying, therefore you must use credit.  That's the end game for health care under this system.  This is what they are doing to many other major institutions across the board.  

So, I hope people can see, this is the institution that lies at the heart of many of our problems as a nation.  Understanding how this works will help everybody understand how things got the way they did.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2009)

Marginal said:


> I think you missed the point. I'm more interested in reality. Where's the bedrock that will stabilize things? You've failed to say what it's supposed to be. ("Crack a book", and bland platitudes aren't solutions.)



No system is perfect, but there are better alternatives.  Just "crack a book" (LOL!) and make up your own mind.  Regardless, we aren't really at a point where we can discuss alternatives because most people do not understand what is wrong with the current system.  Hard currency, government fiat scrip, private value notes, it won't matter if you don't understand how this scam works because with all of those systems, they can be manipulated to create the very thing we have now.  

Fighting off an oligarchy that sought to control the monetary system is actually one of the little known aspects of the history of our own country.  The Federal Reserve is actually the fourth Central Bank our nation has struggled against.  The other three were put to the sword when people realized what they were doing.  The last was killed by Andrew Jackson, who survived two assassination attempts in order to do so.  Subsequent Presidents have also died, including Lincoln and Kennedy after taking measures that would have drastically changed the parasitic monetary system that was being built up at the time.

In the end, all of this is nothing new.  To trace the history of this system read two books, The Assent of Money and The Creature From Jeckyll Island.  Both of these books will help one understand the origin of the system and the players involved in perpretrating it all of the way back to the inception of the Bank of England and before to the various scams of the Venetians.



Marginal said:


> Could you list these golden ages where none were exploited uh... economically?



They never existed, but that's really not what we are talking about.  We are talking about a system of money that is a scam designed to enslave the world.  No one ever said anything about finding some mythical utopia.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 22, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Different people probably, slightly different structure, same results at best. At worst, a whole lotta *unnecessarily dead people *if it doesn't fly. Then you end up reverting back to a stable (not necessarily desirable) structure.


 
That's another thing we differ on. It is necessary at times as unfortunate as that is. On the surface that statement may sound a bit harsh, but most will not give up their power over you otherwise. On a more simple and perhaps understandable level, think in terms of self-defense where it comes down to your life or the life of the attacker. Which life do you choose? 



Marginal said:


> I also wonder, slaves in exactly what sense? No matter the structure you're going to end up with someone who wields power over another. You will have to move with their agenda on some level.


 
Complacency is a tool they've learned to use over the centuries. 

Give the masses enough to pacify them, to distract them from their ills and they will not challenge your authority as often. However, they only want to give enough to accomplish this and at times screw up enough for enough people to notice to do something.

It's happened over and over again throughout history. 

The Founding Fathers knew governmet naturally attracts the power hungry and hoped that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would help to prevent that with the watchful eye of the people. But, the people... the most unpredictable variable... have failed. 

Perhaps human beings are like sheep and need shepherds. Perhaps people can't handle the responsibility of freedom. Perhaps it is the best thing for us to have our lives ruled cradle to the grave. If that's true of the majority, it's definately not true for me. Let the rest of the world be ruled, just let me and those like me have at least one place where we can go to live free. 



Marginal said:


> CC: The last time the government was controlled by the people, (a handful relative to the population even then) the nation hadn't been half formed yet. I get the impression you think the wrong side won the civil war. (I don't really see the enlightened self interest that must've been guiding the South's actions.)


 
This nation can still be controlled by the people. I don't think it's too late though the time is getting closer where it will take bloodshed to change it. Every time another right is trampled on, every time what is mine is taken without my consent, the second hand moves a little more. 

It just depends on us and if we take advantage of the vast resources of informaton available and stop accepting what we're spoonfed by the mass media. 

And you would be right. I'm not naive enough to think that the Civil War had anything to do with anything so noble as ending slavery. It wasn't, and even the most elementary historian knows that. It was about what we're discussing here...power and money. You don't have to agree of course, you can go on believing what the public schools taught you in 5th grade and go on believing what you've been spoon fed.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 22, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Hahaha laugh while you can, but we'll eventually get to a point where we can't afford to get snarky. Or you can quit wasting time and actually check some of this stuff out. What do you have to lose? At any rate, what do you really hope to accomplish with this attitude?


What I hope to accomplish is for you to stop assuming that I and others haven't already checked some (or most) of this stuff out just because we haven't come to the exact same conclusions you have.  I'm not wasting time, but in my opinion you certainly are.  I did a lot of this research 10-15 years ago, but thanks for 'educating' me.  You aren't the first to discover this information, so please stop condescending to everyone like this information is new and we just don't know.


----------



## blindsage (Dec 22, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> In the end, all of this is nothing new. To trace the history of this system read two books, The Assent of Money and The Creature From Jeckyll Island. Both of these books will help one understand the origin of the system and the players involved in perpretrating it all of the way back to the inception of the Bank of England and before to the various scams of the Venetians.


It's not what you read, it's the quality of what you read.  If you aren't reading multiple volumes on the same topics to compare and contrast and then checking a little deeper into the validity of their claims then, yes, you can come to the conclusion that books like The Creature from Jeckyll Island is valuable, but when you look a little deeper you discover, hey this is an extreme right wing conspiracy theory diatribe where the author distorts facts to make his point. 

When you discover the various contradictions and distortions in the theories you're espousing, come back and join us and we can talk about actual politics and economics and discuss our problems realistically.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2009)

blindsage said:


> It's not what you read, it's the quality of what you read.  If you aren't reading multiple volumes on the same topics to compare and contrast and then checking a little deeper into the validity of their claims then, yes, you can come to the conclusion that books like The Creature from Jeckyll Island is valuable, but when you look a little deeper you discover, hey this is an extreme right wing conspiracy theory diatribe where the author distorts facts to make his point.
> 
> When you discover the various contradictions and distortions in the theories you're espousing, come back and join us and we can talk about actual politics and economics and discuss our problems realistically.



Those two books I suggested actually approach the same issue from vastly different points of view and yet the arrive and similar conclusions  The Assent of Money is actually written by a Harvard Professor.  The reason I suggested them is to show how these disparate POVs are now converging and what was considered "conspiracy" at one time, is now becoming main stream.  At least part of what Griffin says is true...and I don't agree with everything he's got to say.   As far as contradictions and distortions go, I'd very much like for you to have a go and point them out.  It's easy an easy thing to say...

Also, I'd check out what eating you about this.  I've basically said that people are being scammed and that we all need to wake up.  It's a call to action and read more about this subject.  What's wrong with that?  If I come off as authoritative, its because I beleive I've put in the time to understand how this actually works.  So, what's going on with 'tude?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2009)

blindsage said:


> What I hope to accomplish is for you to stop assuming that I and others haven't already checked some (or most) of this stuff out just because we haven't come to the exact same conclusions you have.  I'm not wasting time, but in my opinion you certainly are.  I did a lot of this research 10-15 years ago, but thanks for 'educating' me.  You aren't the first to discover this information, so please stop condescending to everyone like this information is new and we just don't know.



You really have looked at this stuff?  What have you read?  What did it say?  What conclusion did you draw?  Why is it different then mine? Why not simply explain your point of view and "educate" me on why you think what you do.  I've put a lot of time and effort into learning about this stuff.  These opinions are the culmination of learning that started fifteen years ago.  If you can look at the same material and deduce something different, I'd be extremely interested in how you arrived where you did.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 22, 2009)

Waiting for the obligatory "military industrial complex" reference....


----------



## Marginal (Dec 22, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> That's another thing we differ on. It is necessary at times as unfortunate as that is. On the surface that statement may sound a bit harsh, but most will not give up their power over you otherwise. On a more simple and perhaps understandable level, think in terms of self-defense where it comes down to your life or the life of the attacker. Which life do you choose?


When it comes down to breaking into someone's house and throttling them in their sleep because you've decided they will be a threat later on... It's no longer self defense. 



> Give the masses enough to pacify them, *to distract them from their ills* and they will not challenge your authority as often.


Straining against vast conspiracies that you really can't change (in part because not all of it exists or is accurate) much less name serves that purpose quite well. 



> The Founding Fathers knew governmet naturally attracts the power hungry and hoped that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution would help to prevent that with the watchful eye of the people. But, the people... the most unpredictable variable... have failed.



People aren't that hard to predict. 



> Perhaps human beings are like sheep and need shepherds.


If so, then you're a sheep and cannot be a shepherd regardless. (Unless you're not human.) 



> And you would be right. I'm not naive enough to think that the Civil War had anything to do with anything so noble as ending slavery. It wasn't, and even the most elementary historian knows that. It was about what we're discussing here...power and money. You don't have to agree of course, you can go on believing what the public schools taught you in 5th grade and go on believing what you've been spoon fed.


Did I say the civil war was about slavery? I love it when you put words in my mouth CC. It's HOT. :whip1:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2009)

archangel m said:


> waiting for the obligatory "military industrial complex" reference....



mic.  Lol!


----------



## blindsage (Dec 22, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Those two books I suggested actually approach the same issue from vastly different points of view and yet the arrive and similar conclusions The Assent of Money is actually written by a Harvard Professor. The reason I suggested them is to show how these disparate POVs are now converging and what was considered "conspiracy" at one time, is now becoming main stream. At least part of what Griffin says is true...and I don't agree with everything he's got to say. As far as contradictions and distortions go, I'd very much like for you to have a go and point them out. It's easy an easy thing to say...


I haven't read the Assent of Money, but from what I hear and read it is a legitmate academic book, whether I would agree with it or not.  I honestly haven't read Griffin's book either, but it doesn't take a whole lot of reasearch to find out what's in it and what kind of arguments he makes, especially when you've read a lot of other books and have studied a good deal of economic theory and history.  I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of the Fed, but if you're going to critique it properly then it's history, function, and actions should be presented truthfully.



> Also, I'd check out what eating you about this. I've basically said that people are being scammed and that we all need to wake up. It's a call to action and read more about this subject. What's wrong with that? If I come off as authoritative, its because I beleive I've put in the time to understand how this actually works. So, what's going on with 'tude?


What eating me is the approach.  You don't come off as authoritative.  Whenever someone disagrees with you, you just reply with a condescending "well you don't know because you haven't studied what I've studied" attitude.  You're getting a response to that.  Again, just because you've studied doesn't mean your the only one, or that your opinion is an inevitable result of the things you've studied.  Scholars disagree on things they've studied in immense detail all the time, why would your studies be any different?


----------



## blindsage (Dec 22, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> You really have looked at this stuff? What have you read? What did it say? What conclusion did you draw? Why is it different then mine? Why not simply explain your point of view and "educate" me on why you think what you do. I've put a lot of time and effort into learning about this stuff. These opinions are the culmination of learning that started fifteen years ago. If you can look at the same material and deduce something different, I'd be extremely interested in how you arrived where you did.


Because you don't approach any of your conversations this way.  People respond the way you present yourself and you rarely present yourself as an open and willing to discuss and debate kind of person.  It's a lot of pronouncements about how things "are" and when people disagree you just brush them off as not knowing.  I can quote from a library of books as well, but what you read and what you do with the knowledge are two different things.

I'm a critic of our government, the current financial/economic system, and the exploitation by elites as well, but you not only have to look at these things honestly, you also have to be honestly willing to engage in open discussion about things and be willing to learn from others, not just teach them.

Celtic Crippler and I have had a few debates on these kinds of things, but we actually debate from the get go (and probably talk a little ****) and it is honest debate, there is no "no, no you don't understand, read a book and then come talk to me."


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 22, 2009)

Marginal said:


> People aren't that hard to predict.


 
Agreed. Most often they'll resist change. Most often they'll choose the handout over having to work for it. Most often they'll trade freedom for what they percieve as security. Most often they won't think for themselves. 

...just a few observations. I'm sure you have more. 



Marginal said:


> If so, then you're a sheep and cannot be a shepherd regardless. (Unless you're not human.)


 
There's a good article on that. I believe it's actually posted on this forum somewhere... about how most are sheep and the sheep dogs are rare. 



Marginal said:


> Did I say the civil war was about slavery? I love it when you put words in my mouth CC. It's HOT. :whip1:


 
You didn't have to and what makes you think I put words in your mouth? 

You said, "_I get the impression you feel the wrong side won the Civil War"_

And I said, _"And you would be right. I'm not naive enough to think that the Civil War had anything to do with anything so noble as ending slavery. It wasn't, and even the most elementary historian knows that. It was about what we're discussing here...power and money. You don't have to agree of course, you can go on believing what the public schools taught you in 5th grade and go on believing what you've been spoon fed." _

..making the point that people are too lazy to seek out truth and prefer to accept what they're spoon fed instead. Not only that, but will vehemently hold onto those mistruths regardless of the evidence presented because to change would upset the foundation of every belief they have. It's too uncomfortable ... how's the saying go? Ignorance is bliss? 

It's quite difficult to overcome years of programming and even more difficult for many to deal with the harsh reality of things when the alternative is much more pleasent. Red pill or blue pill, Neo?


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 22, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I haven't read the Assent of Money, but from what I hear and read it is a legitimate academic book, whether I would agree with it or not.  I honestly haven't read Griffin's book either, but it doesn't take a whole lot of research to find out what's in it and what kind of arguments he makes, especially when you've read a lot of other books and have studied a good deal of economic theory and history.  I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of the Fed, *but if you're going to critique it properly then it's history, function, and actions should be presented truthfully*.


 
That's what these books do and it's kind of hard to put it in a nutshell because there is so much information.  In the span of this thread, I've summarized some points made by various people I've read and, based on the research these people have done, it certainly fits the criteria that you've laid out.  So, what's your beef?  If you think that this analysis is incorrect in some way, state your case.



blindsage said:


> What eating me is the approach.  You don't come off as authoritative.  Whenever someone disagrees with you, you just reply with a condescending "well you don't know because you haven't studied what I've studied" attitude.  You're getting a response to that.  Again, just because you've studied doesn't mean your the only one, or that your opinion is an inevitable result of the things you've studied.  Scholars disagree on things they've studied in immense detail all the time, why would your studies be any different?



It sometimes is easy to tell when someone really doesn't know what you are talking about or that a person would benefit from reading this or that book.  Why is it condescending to suggest that they read some of the sources in which have helped one derive their opinion?  It's not like I'm saying "your poopy poopy stupid you should read a book and actually get a brain."  I'm like, "Dude, check this out, it will help you see where I'm coming from."  On top of that, I spell it out pretty clearly what I'm trying to say in the medium of communication that we are using...most of the time...LOL!



blindsage said:


> Because you don't approach any of your conversations this way. People respond the way you present yourself and you rarely present yourself as an open and willing to discuss and debate kind of person. It's a lot of pronouncements about how things "are" and when people disagree you just brush them off as not knowing. I can quote from a library of books as well, but what you read and what you do with the knowledge are two different things.
> 
> I'm a critic of our government, the current financial/economic system, and the exploitation by elites as well, but you not only have to look at these things honestly, you also have to be honestly willing to engage in open discussion about things and be willing to learn from others, not just teach them.
> 
> Celtic Crippler and I have had a few debates on these kinds of things, but we actually debate from the get go (and probably talk a little ****) and it is honest debate, there is no "no, no you don't understand, read a book and then come talk to me."



Look, I've been around MT for a long time and have had many thoughtful discussions with people here.  I think this thread is being read in an emotional and overly personal way.  If you're offended, I apologize.  Now, back to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 22, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Agreed. Most often they'll resist change. Most often they'll choose the handout over having to work for it. Most often they'll trade freedom for what they percieve as security. Most often they won't think for themselves.



They'll take what they can and hurt who they can until someone tells them they can't. 



> There's a good article on that. I believe it's actually posted on this forum somewhere... about how most are sheep and the sheep dogs are rare.


It's crap.  



> You didn't have to and what makes you think I put words in your mouth?


Setting up the strawman you did kinda requires it. 



> You said, "_I get the impression you feel the wrong side won the Civil War"_


Which means, you think the South should have been able to break away from the union. 



> And I said, _"And you would be right. I'm not naive enough to think that the Civil War had anything to do with anything so noble as ending slavery. It wasn't, and even the most elementary historian knows that. It was about what we're discussing here...power and money. You don't have to agree of course, you can go on believing what the public schools taught you in 5th grade and go on believing what you've been spoon fed." _


 Which fails because I never said the civil war was about slavery. 



> ..making the point that people are too lazy to seek out truth and prefer to accept what they're spoon fed instead.



Which is not what I was saying even though you insist I did because you once again read whatever you wanted to in my statement. 



> Not only that, but will vehemently hold onto those mistruths regardless of the evidence presented because to change would upset the foundation of every belief they have. It's too uncomfortable ... how's the saying go? Ignorance is bliss?


That's nice. Again, when did I say the civil war was about slavery? Spoon feed me this. 



> It's quite difficult to overcome years of programming and even more difficult for many to deal with the harsh reality of things when the alternative is much more pleasent. Red pill or blue pill, Neo?


They're both Nyquil pills. Take red or blue because your cold doesn't care what time of day it is.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 22, 2009)

Marginal said:


> They'll take what they can and hurt who they can until someone tells them they can't.
> 
> It's crap.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 22, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Thanks for proving my point.


Lazy as always.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 23, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Lazy as always.


 
Typical. Resort to name calling when your (hesitates to even use the word) logic fails miserably. 

Give me something substantial to respond to other than _*"it's crap"*_ ... 

With points like that who could argue with you? I mean, damn... that's so well thought out and reasonable. What was I thinking? You're such a scholar. :lfao:

I'm not going to get into a flame war with you. It's not my fault you're frustrated because you can't supply a decent retort. Your post did prove my point about how people vehemently hold onto what they believe regardless of any logic, reason, or evidence to the contrary so my response was adequate enough. IMHO. :shrug:


----------



## Marginal (Dec 23, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Typical. Resort to name calling when your (hesitates to even use the word) logic fails miserably.


:uhyeah: I suppose this is all far easier than admitting you're wrong about your wild presumptions on my thoughts on the civil war. (Stuff like this is why I've never considered any exchange with you to be an argument, much less a discussion.) 

The sheep vs sheepdog is pointless. You want to view yourself as a hero shaping the unshorn masses. Fine. Use the essay to sneeringly dismiss anyone who disagrees with your point of view. You got it wrong however. 



> This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2009)

Gents, *play nice will ya.*  Holiday cheer and all that stuff.


And anyway, I thought I was the resident Civil War nutter? 

Thank you. 
Happy Holly Daze.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 23, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> And anyway, I thought I was the resident Civil War nutter?
> 
> Thank you.
> Happy Holly Daze.



The funny thing is, every time the civil war popped up in my classes from middle school onwards, the teachers always went over the causes. (Both middle school and high school even spent time on the secession debate.) They never said "it was about slavery" all in a rush to get to the teapot dome scandal etc.

That this is an issue to debunk makes me wonder... Who stops at fourth grade history?


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 23, 2009)

Marginal said:


> That this is an issue to debunk makes me wonder... Who stops at fourth grade history?


 
I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of people do. There are some who are total history nuts and some who are just ehh who cares? and probably a lot who are somewhere in between. 

I like history but honestly don't know as much as I feel I should.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 23, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of people do. There are some who are total history nuts and some who are just ehh who cares? and probably a lot who are somewhere in between.


Even if one barely pays attention, they should know more than what they might read off a happy meal box.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 24, 2009)

Marginal said:


> Even if one barely pays attention, they should know more than what they might read off a happy meal box.


Yeah true but they would know only of current history right? 9/11, the war on terrorism, tsunami, etc. I'm sure bits and pieces would be in there as well... a Civil War, a Revolutionary War, WWII & I , etc... major history.

But IMO what should be of interest are the people that created history and what they had done to make it. This may help influence those who will create more history in the next few years. 

Revolutions are usually started with a murmur anyway... there have been a few murmurs lately.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 24, 2009)

Marginal said:


> :uhyeah: I suppose this is all far easier than admitting you're wrong about your wild presumptions on my thoughts on the civil war. (Stuff like this is why I've never considered any exchange with you to be an argument, much less a discussion.)
> 
> The sheep vs sheepdog is pointless. You want to view yourself as a hero shaping the unshorn masses. Fine. Use the essay to sneeringly dismiss anyone who disagrees with your point of view. You got it wrong however.


 
Still waiting for a half way decent retort. It's sad that I have to point this out, but saying "*You're wrong" *is not a valid retort. It's simply juvenille. What's your next post going to be? "Your momma"? :lfao:

Do you ever back up anything you post with anything other than your opinion? No offense, but your opinion is not that valuable. Unless I missed the Bio on how you hold multiple Phd.'s in History, Political Science, etc, etc. 



Marginal said:


> The funny thing is, every time the civil war popped up in my classes from middle school onwards, the teachers always went over the causes. (Both middle school and high school even spent time on the secession debate.) They never said "it was about slavery" all in a rush to get to the teapot dome scandal etc.
> 
> That this is an issue to debunk makes me wonder... *Who stops at fourth grade history? *
> 
> *Even if one barely pays attention, they should know more than what they might read off a happy meal box.*


 
Boy...I'm really having to bite my tounge right now... as tempting as this is, I will not violate the forum rules by taking advantage of the door you just left wide open. :erg: 

I will say thay you apparently don't keep up with current events either. Civil War History curriculum has been largely removed from many schools; it's barely addressed to any extent. Unless you decide to further your education past high school, you likely won't learn anything significant about it. You could just read the Wiki version and probably learn more...



			
				MA-Caver said:
			
		

> Yeah true but they would know only of current history right? 9/11, the war on terrorism, tsunami, etc. I'm sure bits and pieces would be in there as well... a Civil War, a Revolutionary War, WWII & I , etc... major history.
> 
> But IMO what should be of interest are the people that created history and what they had done to make it. This may help influence those who will create more history in the next few years.
> 
> Revolutions are usually started with a murmur anyway... there have been a few murmurs lately.


 
That would require one to take it upon themselves to actually learn History, preferably as unbiased as possible in order to focus on the actual facts instead of opinion. It also requires one to question what is being spoon fed to them by the status quo. Two qualities that seem to be lacking in many. 

We can always hope... the resources are out there if one chooses to make the effort.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Do you ever back up anything you post with anything other than your opinion?


Pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 24, 2009)

Hey guys ... take it easy, eh?


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 25, 2009)

I just watched the video again... got tears in my eyes. 

Ya'll watch it again and lets look at what it's trying to say.


----------

