comp.sys.mac.advocacy

George Graves wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 19:47:06 -0700, Maverick wrote
> (in article <_umdnYNyF6C3s2HanZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@bresnan.com>):
>
>
>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>That and many others as well. From what I was told, Ford Mo. Co., JP
>>Morgan, and a few others were busy funding both sides of the war and
>>getting rich off of it. Odd that our history books do not mention this
>>aspect of both wars.
>
>
> You are right about that. Do you know that Opel, for instance, remained a
> subsidiary of GM throughout the entire war? Hitler confiscated most
> foreign-owned German companies in WWII, but not Opel. In fact, Hitler allowed
> GM to buy controlling interest in Opel in 1938, a number of years after he
> nationalized most strategic manufacturing.
>

So the real big question then is what the heck was WWII about and for?
To me it looked like a power grab by the bankers over the worlds money
system. I suppose there are other minor reasons, but I haven't found
any other than money. The odd part about the cold war was that we
funded the communists in its early phases and supported Stalin and
Lenin. So something bad stinks in all of this and haven't been able to
put my finger on the real issue here. Also, we supported Mao (Mouse
Dung) as well. (hehehe... I like that one you coined.)