Its not who backs our money, its who control's its quantity

This has been a Krallum Presentation

11/16/2011 4:14:02 PM

For God's sake read a book.

11/16/2011 4:18:40 PM

Care to recommend one on economic issues? Totally unrelated but i just bought The Road.


Is it not a little ridiculous that Obama borrowed money from private banks to give money private banks?




This is really a better one. Made in 1995, Predicts a breakdown in the money creation process then 'disaster', war and then a financial crisis.


I'm Krallum and i approved this message.

[Edited on November 16, 2011 at 4:37 PM. Reason : Anytime you want to recommend me a book would be sweet]

11/16/2011 4:25:26 PM

did you intentionally fuck up all those commas/non-commas in the OP?

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 10:07 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2011 10:07:20 AM

Start here

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/FRconspire.htm

Hint: If you're watching a youtube 'documentary' and it has creepy music played over a video of a money printing press, it was probably made by a dumbass. There is so much misinformation out there it's created an entire culture of monetary conspiracists.

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2011 12:18:34 PM

I predict a rise in unemployment, a war, and higher gas prices in 10 years. If I'm right, can I be credible too?

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM. Reason : taxes will be higher too and the middle east will be unstable. I'm psychic.]

11/17/2011 1:34:39 PM

I private messaged beethoven because she posted a quote.

Quote :

" Me: I have a problem with this quote: ""I knew I'd have to work this day when I signed up and applied for the job. If I don't want to do it, there are thousands of people that would take my spot." You need to understand that it doesn't HAVE to be this way. The only reason it IS this was is because of the corporations and banks have ruined our economy because it controls the money. The banks lend to the government and the borrower is always the slave of the lender. Therefore our government is owned AND we the people are owned. Please watch the two hour video that krallum posted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g&feature=player_embedded The video shows you that what's happening isn't fate or coincidence, it's man-made. "

Quality lawyers who refuse to look at evidence. She's arguing why she doesn't have to watch this video. Lawyers comparing herself to best buy workers ITT.



[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2011 1:47:59 PM

Thanks for blowing a private message out of context I did wonder if you were going to cross post, so I made them a bit more salacious for you. Enjoy, even if it is a dick move. I don't have to justify how I spend my free time to you, of all people.

Perhaps you'd like to post the actual messages I was replying to?

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM. Reason : ]

11/17/2011 2:04:27 PM

You don't need to watch these videos. Just read the Wikipedia article on the Federal Reserve and its history.

Yeah, a lot of people here will spew some bullshit about how the Federal Reserve is completely benign, usually the same people that are the first to blast any other corporation. The reason for this is that the Federal Reserve is what fuels the perpetual welfare/warfare state,

The Federal Reserve creates money. It produces nothing. It lends out money to banks at .25% interest, who then lend it out to you at 5-30% interest. That's really all you need to know.

Fed’s $16 Trillion Dollar Secret Slush Fund Props Up Our Way Of Life

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-25/markets/29978854_1_debt-ceiling-full-report-money#ixzz1dzZMuRtF

These aren't conspiracy theories. Why we do we allow a private bank to control the money supply? They are not accountable to voters. They are not even accountable to Congress.

11/17/2011 2:21:20 PM

hahaha. geniusboy, i think your plan to 'reveal' those PMS backfired. i like beethoven86 even more than i did before and you are even more of a retard.

11/17/2011 2:23:31 PM

Quote :

"I did wonder if you were going to cross post, so I made them a bit more salacious for you."

"lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous!"

11/17/2011 2:26:57 PM

who is this beethove86. i'd gladly engage in business with him if the opportunity presented itself.

11/17/2011 2:41:08 PM

This is me at my most recent trial :


But, in real life, I'm a female, who will gladly accept your business. Gotta keep making enough money to make GeniusBoy angry.

And I'm sorry Krallum, but GeniusBoy screwed up your thread.

[Edited on November 17, 2011 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ]

11/17/2011 2:46:19 PM

I have a friend who got me to watch those videos already. Not on youtube, but it's the same thing.

there's something to the idea of creating something really new and better adapted to our times. You have things that incorporate social philosophy and economics.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/
http://seasteading.org/

And then the conspiracy theorists show up

http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

True story. This has been a mrfrog presentation.

11/17/2011 2:46:34 PM

Look, about banks and conspiracy theories....I know this much...

Banks loaned nations cash and the nations promised to pay that money back. When it became difficult for countries to pay this back the banks asked for "austerity" measures which was nothing more than saying "you know all that money we loaned you to give to your citizens so long as you give it back to us + interest...well, fuck your citizens, you gotta stop giving it to them and give it back to us and we'll accept nothing less". And here is the money line, when the leaders of 2 nations decided that they didn't want to play this game and it put the payback to these banks in jeopardy...these leaders were pushed out of their positions in record time. Record fucking time with hand picked puppets put in their place.

This is some reasonably unprecedented shit about who really runs things.

11/17/2011 7:48:12 PM

Quote :

"Why we do we allow a private bank to control the money supply? They are not accountable to voters. They are not even accountable to Congress."

This is what this thread is about. Why doesn't congress create their own money and collect the profit themselves instead of relying on private banks who are currently allowed to lend an INFINITE amount for every dollar they physically have.

This video is an hour but just listen to what he says in the first 5 minutes

Quote :

"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one third from 1929 to 1933.”"

From 2007 to 2008 banks recalled 40% of the cash in circulation. These people are unelectable and do not have public interest in mind. Why do we let this happen?

All i'm asking is why do we have a debt to private banks and not to our own government?

I'm Krallum and i approved this message.

11/17/2011 8:57:35 PM

this is why i cant take anyone seriously that doesn't support Ron Paul.

If you don't support Ron Paul, you're clearly are just not very intelligent or you are part of the .0001% that has a reason to try to keep him down.

11/17/2011 9:29:07 PM

Why is the perception of gold being "money" intelligent?

If anything, people who want to the gold standard are demonstrating a lack of intelligence.

11/17/2011 11:01:10 PM

because gold keeps people honest and doesnt allow us to be raped by the dollar and debts created out of thin air???

Should I really have to still explain this after all thats happened these last few years

11/17/2011 11:27:48 PM

As this guy explains gold is not a solution because it doesn't matter what our money is backed by, all that matters is who can take and put that money into circulation. There is no reason that private banks should have that power. I totally support ron paul but this is one area where I think he is wrong. As this guy also says this was the main issue in american politics until WWI. After WWI the banks controlled the media due to loans and mortages and effectivly sensored this issue. This is most obviously explained in the first video where dorothys shoes are changed from silver to ruby in the wizard of oz destroying the symbolism of the free silver movement of the late 19th century. Look at the timeline.

I'm Krallum and I approved this message

11/18/2011 1:56:02 AM

Quote :

"Why is the perception of gold being "money" intelligent? If anything, people who want to the gold standard are demonstrating a lack of intelligence. "

Ok, gives us your screed on why it is such a terrible idea.

11/18/2011 7:23:43 AM

Because gold is a scarce resource and whoever is in control of it controls how much money there is in circulation. The only requirement for a currency to be valid is that everyone agree on it. Talley sticks were used for 700 years in england (during the part where they took over the world)

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

11/18/2011 8:08:41 AM

I'm thinking that anyone who has the intellectual wherewithal to make money would never waste their time watching a two hour screed on youtube.

11/18/2011 9:55:43 AM

Quote :

"This is most obviously explained in the first video where dorothys shoes are changed from silver to ruby in the wizard of oz destroying the symbolism of the free silver movement of the late 19th century. "

Seriously though, I don't think people who want the gold standard are lacking in intelligence; I think they just acknowledge that "everyone agrees" that gold is valuable and the likelihood that the entire civilized world one day says "Fuck Gold, I think buttons are valuable!" is probably pretty low. I'm not saying I agree with it, but this is how I've heard it explained.

The problem with not having a physical item backing your currency is that it allows the denomination of each currency note to be relative to what is reported. Currently, the dollar is floated based on our own market indexes and the value of our global goods to the rest of the world. The problem is that when it is floated like this, it leaves things open to manipulation. See China's trading policy with the US. While they have eased up on their firm fixing of their currency, they still greatly undervalue the Yuan which creates artificial prices for goods. While backing our currency with a physical item doesn't help us force China to "play fair" (different issue), this currency fixing does illustrate the possibility for abuse between trade partners.

If you have gold, or anything else, backing the dollar, it's definitely simpler to evaluate where our currency is.

11/18/2011 10:24:20 AM

Are you saying that the value of our money is not currently being manipulated? Lol

I'm Krallum and I approved this message.

11/18/2011 10:33:59 AM

^How did you get that from what I posted?! We currently do not use a standard which means manipulation is very possible. Maybe I didn't make that point clear enough.

Quote :

"Currently, the dollar is floated based on our own market indexes and the value of our global goods to the rest of the world. The problem is that when it is floated like this, it leaves things open to manipulation. See China's trading policy with the US."

So.... yeah, saying "our money is not currently being manipulated" is 180 degrees from what my last post says.

11/18/2011 10:46:43 AM

Quote :

"Because gold is a scarce resource and whoever is in control of it controls how much money there is in circulation"

This only applies in situations where the "control" of it has been abdicated to someone that isn't a proper steward of the money. What is the worse option for the 99% ers, that some entity would attempt to withdraw all the gold from circulation and cause a world crisis where the 99% would rise up or that someone would surreptitiously counterfeit the money by creating more of it out of thin air?

11/18/2011 3:44:55 PM

Quote :

"They are not accountable to voters. They are not even accountable to Congress."

First, it was congress that voted the Fed into existence to begin with

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/FRconspire.htm#2

Second, the board of governors is appointed by the President just like supreme court justices, except for shorter terms, making the Fed more accountable to voters than SCOTUS. Just like SCOTUS, congress can block Fed appointments as well.

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/FRconspire.htm#4


Also, going to ask this right now: How many factoids will I have to prove wrong before you ask yourself i you know as much about the Fed as you think you do, and if you should really be so vocal in your opposition?

[Edited on November 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2011 3:48:59 PM

http://www.secretofoz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=75

He has written 22 books and two documentary videos, including:

Quote :

"1. The Hormone Headache - New ways to prevent, manage, treat, migranes and other headaches. , 222 pages, soft-backed, published by Macmillian, 1995. $20. Over 20,000 in print. 2. The Truth About TMJ - How to Help Yourself, the leading book on the temporomandibular joint problem. 148-pages, 1994, soft-backed. $20 3. The Money Masters 203 minutes, 1996, a documentary history of the privately-owned central banking scheme and its effects on American history. $20 retail (2 VHS tapes or 1 DVD). Over 50,000 in print. 4. On the Horns of the Beast: the Federal Reserve and the New World Order - How a group of private bankers have been given a monopoly over our money. 158 page, softback. $20. 5. Legend of the Holy Lance - A fact-based novel about the lance that pierced the side of Jesus. 240 pages, Hardback, $27.95; softback, $20. 6. Breathing for Musicians - a 96-page manual for music students showing them common mistakes made in the teaching of wind instruments and voice. $20. 7. Why America Is Free: A History of the Founding of the American Republic 1750-1800 – A 208-page 7-grade hard-backed text on the American revolutionary period, 1998, published by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association for The Society of the Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., $20. Over 60,000 in print."

Is there a secret banking conspiracy against proper breathing for musicians?

[Edited on November 19, 2011 at 4:05 PM. Reason : v]

11/19/2011 4:05:22 PM

Quote :

"Fed’s $16 Trillion Dollar Secret Slush Fund Props Up Our Way Of Life"

Oh yes the 16 trillion dollar one. This is a cute one where fedhead fuckshits count loan extensions as separate loans. Here's all you need to know about this one:

Let's say I loan you $1 for 1 day. You need a loan of $1 for tomorrow too. So instead of paying me back then getting a new loan, I just give you another day to pay me back. If I do this for a week how much money am I loaning out total?

Reasonable person: 1 dollar

Fedhead: 7 dollars

[Edited on November 21, 2011 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

11/21/2011 11:05:41 AM

Wasn't impressed with it. Turned it off after 15. This is not a documetary. It is a position piece/video editorial. I refuse to watch films that label themselves as documentary's when they are not.

These film maker's try to present themselves in a more credible light by prostituting the term documentary. Just like Michael Moore.

[Edited on November 21, 2011 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2011 12:01:33 PM

Quote :

"First, it was congress that voted the Fed into existence to begin with"

Thanks for this groundbreaking revelation. Back when I voted for my representatives in the early 1900s, the Fed seemed like a great idea. It really backfired on me.

Quote :

"Second, the board of governors is appointed by the President just like supreme court justices, except for shorter terms, making the Fed more accountable to voters than SCOTUS. Just like SCOTUS, congress can block Fed appointments as well."

The Fed chairman is appointed. Do you not understand how appointed officials are, in fact, not democratically elected? Bush appointed Bernanke. Obama re-appointed him. Bush and Obama were supposed to be polar opposites, yet they have the same person controlling monetary policy in this country. It also happens to be the guy that has adopted the highly destructive zero interest rate policy.

Quote :

"Also, going to ask this right now: How many factoids will I have to prove wrong before you ask yourself i you know as much about the Fed as you think you do, and if you should really be so vocal in your opposition?"

You've proved nothing wrong. You demonstrated that you don't know much about the Fed or the history of banking in the United States.

Hoops, you're out of tricks since you didn't have a leg to stand on to begin with, so you're just attacking positions of other Fed opponents that are not held by me or anyone else here. Intellectually dishonest? Absolutely. Par for the course with you? Yep. Come back when you've got something of substance.

Quote :

"Oh yes the 16 trillion dollar one. This is a cute one where fedhead fuckshits count loan extensions as separate loans. Here's all you need to know about this one: Let's say I loan you $1 for 1 day. You need a loan of $1 for tomorrow too. So instead of paying me back then getting a new loan, I just give you another day to pay me back. If I do this for a week how much money am I loaning out total? Reasonable person: 1 dollar Fedhead: 7 dollars"

16 trillion dollars in separate, discount window loans were given out. If those loans were simply extensions, that makes it even worse.

Why do defend the Fed? Do you think they're looking out for you? Do you actually support ZIRP?

11/21/2011 1:43:00 PM

Quote :

"Is there a secret banking conspiracy against proper breathing for musicians?"

you laugh, but improper breathing is one of the most common mistakes if not the most common mistake that average musicians make. And it affects practically the entirety of the instrumental process for wind musicians. then again, I seriously doubt that this dude is claiming there is a banking conspiract against correct breathing techniques.

11/22/2011 9:22:06 AM

Quote :

"Thanks for this groundbreaking revelation. Back when I voted for my representatives in the early 1900s, the Fed seemed like a great idea. It really backfired on me."

Lol there goes the entire Constitution, by this reasoning.

Quote :

"The Fed chairman is appointed. Do you not understand how appointed officials are, in fact, not democratically elected? Bush appointed Bernanke. Obama re-appointed him. Bush and Obama were supposed to be polar opposites, yet they have the same person controlling monetary policy in this country. It also happens to be the guy that has adopted the highly destructive zero interest rate policy."

The Chairman as well as the entire board of governors is appointed. They're subject to Senate approval just like SCOTUS. They have shorter terms than SCOTUS. Why aren't you bitching about SCOTUS being unaccountable?

Quote :

" [quote]16 trillion dollars in separate, discount window loans were given out. If those loans were simply extensions, that makes it even worse."

Lmao you are such a fucking gullible sap. And really, extensions totalling 16 trillion are worse than 16 trillion in completely distinct loans? What the fuck kind of reasoning is this? I swear I could write an article myself claiming it was 60 trillion, do some fuzzy math to "prove it", and you'd believe it simply because it would confirm your existing conspiratorial conception of the Fed.

Quote :

" [quote]You've proved nothing wrong. You demonstrated that you don't know much about the Fed or the history of banking in the United States."

I've stated nothing incorrect whatsoever, you on the other hand have made some pretty fucking shaky statements, here and elsewhere, that shows that your knowledge of the Fed is the same old conspiratorial horse shit that's peddled in these youtube videos and Ron Paul forums.

Quote :

"Why do defend the Fed? Do you think they're looking out for you? Do you actually support ZIRP?"

I'm refuting your dumb horse shit that's spread all over the internet by poorly crafted conspiracatorial propaganda like the video here. To hear somebody complain that they're not "accountable to the people" when in fact they're moreso than SCOTUS is just a plain funny. You're grasping for straws when you say they're "undemocratic" because they're appointed by our Democratically elected President.

You have it in your mind that they're an evil, evil group of criminal masterminds because simplistic, cartoonish, hyperbolic explanations for the nation's problems appeal to simpletons like you. It'd be way too much work to learn about the wide array of complex and nuanced factors that drive our economy, so you've settled on the simplest and most dramatic one. So you'll buy any stupid shit said about them even if it's couched in tons of false information. That's your own bias clouding your assessment of the credibility of your sources.

If I'm "Defending" them, it's from the charge that they're essentially a Captain Planet villain. Greenspan certainly mismanaged the Hell out of it, Bernanke isn't doing much better. I certainly wouldn't defend their particular actions, but I'll take it over the gold standard or whatever shit you're into, and you should know this by now. Inflation and the economy in general is still way, way more stable than it was prior to its establishment.

11/22/2011 11:08:28 AM

I mean seriously, destroyer, do you hate the Constitution too because it was ratified before you were born?

Do you hate SCOTUS too because the justices aren't elected by Direct Democracy?

Let's see your gripes actually have some consistency instead of being ad hoc hypotheses to back up your Bond-villain Fed paranoia.

11/22/2011 11:10:32 AM

You do realize that I'm an anarchist, right? I only see the Constitution as an improvement over completely unrestrained government, which is what you seem to prefer. It's not perfect, it's just better than Congress and the President doing whatever the fuck they want.

Quote :

"The Chairman as well as the entire board of governors is appointed. They're subject to Senate approval just like SCOTUS. They have shorter terms than SCOTUS. Why aren't you bitching about SCOTUS being unaccountable? "

They are unaccountable. Lifetime appointments are a truly awful idea. The reason I focus on the Federal Reserve and not SCOTUS is because the Fed has a major hand in the global economic crisis, and they're largely to blame for fueling the boom. But, yes, I am opposed to the Supreme Court, especially in the absence of term limits.

Quote :

"I've stated nothing incorrect whatsoever, you on the other hand have made some pretty fucking shaky statements, here and elsewhere, that shows that your knowledge of the Fed is the same old conspiratorial horse shit that's peddled in these youtube videos and Ron Paul forums."

Does the Fed lend out money to Primary Dealers at .25%, or is that a conspiracy?

Quote :

"If I'm "Defending" them, it's from the charge that they're essentially a Captain Planet villain. Greenspan certainly mismanaged the Hell out of it, Bernanke isn't doing much better. I certainly wouldn't defend their particular actions, but I'll take it over the gold standard or whatever shit you're into, and you should know this by now. Inflation and the economy in general is still way, way more stable than it was prior to its establishment."

That is an absurd claim that you aren't prepared to defend. Less than two decades after the creation of the Fed, we had the worst depression in history, mostly due to the actions of the Fed. Now, we're running up on the end of a 40 year fiat bubble, and it's not going to end well either.

There were recessions and panics prior to the creation of the Fed, but even most of those were the result of inflationary monetary policy. The creation of the Fed just guaranteed that we would never be able to build a stable banking system, and that we would always have booms and busts.

I mean, are you not one of the same guys that would gladly come out to criticize the likes of Goldman Sachs? Where do you think Goldman Sachs got so much money from?

11/22/2011 11:28:12 AM

new link: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/FRconspire.htm

12/6/2011 4:19:13 AM

Quote :

"You do realize that I'm an anarchist, right?"

No, you're not. You're only acquainted with the most colloquial, vulgar, and historically detached definition of "anarchism" so you've confused yourself with one. You're a secular feudalist at best.

Quote :

"That is an absurd claim that you aren't prepared to defend."

I'm entirely prepared to defend it, as is anybody else who attended high school.

Quote :

"The creation of the Fed just guaranteed that we would never be able to build a stable banking system, and that we would always have booms and busts."

You're on fucking crack.

Quote :

"I mean, are you not one of the same guys that would gladly come out to criticize the likes of Goldman Sachs? Where do you think Goldman Sachs got so much money from?"

Capitalism. Do we really have to do do this dance every single time where you say "Gubmint gave them laws and they used them to get money" and I say "They got the money legit then used it to get laws" ?

12/6/2011 9:30:22 AM

Quote :

""Gubmint gave them laws and they used them to get money" and I say "They got the money legit then used it to get laws" ?"

Either way, we should repeal the law, right?

12/6/2011 10:47:04 AM

Quote :

"No, you're not. You're only acquainted with the most colloquial, vulgar, and historically detached definition of "anarchism" so you've confused yourself with one. You're a secular feudalist at best."

My definition of anarchism is the lack of a state. You know...the real definition. Voluntarism. I don't owe you shit.

Quote :

"I'm entirely prepared to defend it, as is anybody else who attended high school. "

So you're going to make the claim that the economy is way more stable with the Federal Reserve? Are you living on the same planet as me? This is arguably the worst the economy has been since the last depression that the Federal Reserve caused, and there's no end in sight.

Quote :

"You're on fucking crack."

I did not claim that there were no booms and busts prior to the Fed. I said that the Fed guaranteed that we would not have a stable banking system, as the Fed was created by federal legislation, making it virtually impossible to get rid of.

We had expansionary bank policy prior to 1913, but banks were eventually allowed to fail.

The chart you posted isn't particularly relevant; it charts inflation. I don't agree that deflation is a bad thing, and I think that inflation is the equivalent of theft. At points in the 19th century, deflation was relatively high but economic growth was strong. Lower prices are not a bad thing, no matter how badly you want to believe that lower prices will bring the economy to a screeching halt.

The only examples you can provide where deflation was bad is when the deflationary depression (credit crunch) followed reckless monetary expansion.

^

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 11:44:36 AM

wait wait in this version all the links work, especially that PDF near the end: http://web.archive.org/web/200012090901/http://members.home.com/flaherty15/conspire.htm

12/6/2011 11:52:55 AM

Quote :

"last updated September 5, 2000"

Appropriate. Certainly, nothing happened in the past 11 years that might shed some light on the subject.

Quote :

"Opinion: A central bank is a reasonable use of the constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause, according to many federal court and Supreme Court rulings. Although the constitution forbids States from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender, it places no such restriction on Congress."

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 11:58 AM. Reason : ]

12/6/2011 11:56:48 AM

Quote :

" Myth #10: Congressman Louis T. McFadden exposed the Federal Reserve scam in the Congressional Record. Hypothesis: On the floor of the House in 1932, McFadden accused the Federal Reserve of costing the government enough money to repay the national debt several times over, of causing the Great Depression, and of many other terrible things. Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance "

LMAO!!!

[Edited on December 6, 2011 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2011 4:28:38 PM