comp.sys.mac.advocacy

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:50:35 -0700, Alan Baker wrote
(in article
):

> In article <0001HW.C421089A00086F6BF01846D8@news.comcast.net>,
> George Graves wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:04:10 -0700, Alan Baker wrote
>> (in article
>> ):
>>
>>> In article <0001HW.C420FC31000586C2F01846D8@news.comcast.net>,
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:14:29 -0700, Maverick wrote
>>>> (in article ):
>>>>
>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:55:28 -0700, Maverick wrote
>>>>>> (in article ):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm... looks like I've found another avenue of exploration. Was
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> ever a period in time when Jews had to use the barter system that
>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>> include money and how did they ever gain any wealth off this system?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At some point in every civilization, barter is used. Even in
>>>>>>>>> colonial
>>>>>>>>> America, European settlers would barter with the native Indians, and
>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>> other for what they needed. Even as late as the middle of the 19th
>>>>>>>>> Century,
>>>>>>>>> trappers and "mountain men" were still bartering with the Plains and
>>>>>>>>> Western
>>>>>>>>> Indians such as the Nez Pierce and the Crow, and Sioux, Arapaho,
>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I got interrupted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To continue. At some point, currency always replaces barter as a
>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> exchange. After all, it's far easier to carry a coin purse than it is
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> carry several live chickens and bags of grain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that you are barking up the wrong tree, here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really. You've proven to me that they weren't involved with
>>>>>>> barter
>>>>>>> or were not successful at it. But with money they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess, it would help if I understood what you are getting at. Since
>>>>>> barter
>>>>>> is irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, I can't see what your
>>>>>> fixation
>>>>>> on it in the context of this discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The barter system doesn't use money. A moneyless system probably would
>>>>> eliminate the Jews problems... but barterering isn't a fair system
>>>>> anyways and was looking for a system that is actually better than money
>>>>> may do the world a better deal. But I don't have any ideas and haven't
>>>>> seen any suggested anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Money seems to be the Jews pitfall here. Of course I don't know what
>>>>> money and their religion have to do with each other.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing, really. The New Testament says that The Christ threw the money
>>>> lenders out of the Temple at Jerusalem. This seems to be the cause of the
>>>> Catholic Church's edict against Christians lending money. The Jews had no
>>>> such laws and since there was an unfulfilled need, Jews started to do
>>>> what
>>>> Christian Europe could not.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jewish usury had
>>>>>>>> nothing to do with barter. After all, this was the post-Roman era
>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>> talking about here and the idea of monetary exchange was firmly
>>>>>>>> embedded
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> European culture. While at some level, some bartering continued,
>>>>>>>> states
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> wealthy noblemen did not use it as a basis for their wealth. They
>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>> gold
>>>>>>>> and jewels and coin of the relm. When a king needed to raise an army
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> military adventure, it was gold and silver coinage (or more likely,
>>>>>>>> letters
>>>>>>>> of credit backed by the Jewish banking cartels) that he borrowed from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> Jews, not chickens, goats, and hens' eggs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That I can understand and agree with. I figure that they couldn't
>>>>>>> manage
>>>>>>> a way to get a form of usuary in a barter system, other than gold or
>>>>>>> silver in some form. I guess that old 'ops' Major I worked for back
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the 60s was correct. He said that it is the banks that run the world
>>>>>>> and dictate policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's more than partially right. While international banking is just one
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the pillars of power in the world, it is obviously one of the most
>>>>>> important
>>>>>> ones. Money, after all, makes the world go around. Control it and you
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> gone a long way toward controlling the world. But I think that the
>>>>>> Jewish
>>>>>> experience shows that controlling the money is not enough to insure
>>>>>> security
>>>>>> or to obtain a foothold on power. You need other things too. Which
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> explain why, after WWII, Jews diversified their "power" base.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing the Major did mention that WWII and WWI were nothing more
>>>>> than a financial instrument for increased gains.
>>>>
>>>> Many people blame both wars on the House of Rothschild.
>>>
>>> Many people are idiots.
>>
>> While that statement may be true, not knowing the truth of some event or
>> events in history does not automatically make one an idiot. If it did, we
>> all
>> qualify on a number of historical events where we were not told the truth.
>> Remember, history is written by the world's winners, I.E., those on top.
>> They
>> are always going to spin history to look as if they are on the side of
>> goodness and light. Some things that are hidden at the time do eventually
>> come out (such as the details of the Cuban Missile Crises) and some are
>> purposely hidden from us (Like the details of Kennedy's Assassination -
>> which
>> are sealed until the 75th anniversary of the event or Nov 22, 2038), and
>> then
>> there are things that we'll likely never know (such as the extent of
>> Nixon's
>> actual participation in the Watergate break-in or whether or not LBJ KNEW
>> that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was phony, or whether or not FDR had prior
>> knowledge of Pearl Harbor, etc.)
>
> Not knowing the truth doesn't make one an idiot. Not knowing but forming
> an opinion does.

>
> And even being shown to be correct later doesn't matter if one didn't
> have the requisite knowledge at the time one's opinion was formed.

When has that ever stopped anybody?