Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Getting to the bottom of things -- the true hidden enemy in plain sight.

Posted 2 years ago on March 21, 2012, 2:45 a.m. EST by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Look carefully and deeply at who has the most to lose if the people rise up and win. Is it Corporations? No, they seek only to make a profit for their stranger shareholders. Is it the various governments of the world? No, they exist only to carry out the wishes of the real power behind the scenes. So what is that real power? Who are the actual owners of the world?

That group commonly known as the International Bankers. The actual true owners of Central Banks like the US Fed, the IMF, World Bank, etc. and various declared organizations like the Trilateral Commission, etc. These small number of incredibly ultra-powerful people are never elected, exist virtually unnoticed by the masses, and pass their power down generationally. They have been doing this quietly and surreptitiously for hundreds of years. They have occasionally made their intentions known either by accident or through purposeful investigation. They seek to enslave the entire world under world debt (owed to them) first as Global Economic Slavery, then, once that is in place, the implementation of Global World Government to preserve their dominion.

They will make it all look like it is for the betterment of the entire world. They are experts at convincing governments and manipulating public opinion that their way is best. But just look at the result of their activity after these hundreds of years of relentless execution of plans for world economic imperialism. Who does it best serve -- the billions of the world or them?

Read this book cover-to-cover -->> "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown, available here:

http://www.webofdebt.com/

A life-transforming read. You will never look at the world the same way after reading it. The blinders will be off. Knowledge is power.

This is the knowledge Occupy needs. This is the knowledge that shows where the focus should be, instead of diluting energy and resources in all different directions. This is the knowledge that will have the most proverbial "bang for the buck". But be realistically prepared for what you are going up against. These power-freaks will not just idlely stand by and watch their power be taken from them. They are so powerful, and control so many resources (both obvious and sinister), that this will be one of the most difficult and dangerous undertakings that We The People have ever attempted.

Be careful...be very careful.

18 Comments

18 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

When it all comes down to it, at the end of the day any economic system is man made.

It is an abstract concept that does not exist in its' own right until we give it credence by "buying" into with our support.

If the system is broken and doesn't serve the true purpose of making our lives easier and expediting transactions, then we need to change it.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the Owners, the Power-Elite, the Banksters have worked for literally hundreds of years to setup the current system we are trapped in. I say "trapped", because the world system of Central Banks (like the Fed for example) is setup to provide the money supply as perpetual debt. Every dollar that says "Federal Reserve Note" is actually the property of the Federal Reserve. It has been loaned to the US Government for public and private use. It is NOT the property of the US Government. If they existed, those would be "United States Notes"

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2516) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Interesting points Underdog. Yep, our government is all about their greenbacks! Spot on with your stuff, thanks a ton for sharing.

I will have to check if that book is available at my local shop.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You won't regret reading it, unless you don't want to know the truth. I'm sure you do, but many others are afraid to know it.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Awesome! Based on what you're saying here alone, it sounds like a worthwhile read :D

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Might I also suggest these videos as an introduction to the topic of discussion.

If you are short on time, the 1st one is only 10 min long -- a very quick high-level overview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm3DixfL9o0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The 2nd one is 45 minutes long, and is more recommended as it goes into more detail. It is animated and engaging.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Both of these videos provide some preliminary background as introductions prior to reading "Web of Debt", which I still recommend you do, btw.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Just finished the first one.

I have a question, the graph shown at 7:24 doesn't denote what the two lines are. What are they?

It also uses 2 data sets for the y-axis. That is purposely misleading for the narrator to say any conclusion can be drawn from that. That really should have been separated into two clearly labeled graphs.

Otherwise, the rest of it seemed pretty much right. But I do have to doubt its credibility.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

The X axis is time from around 1950 up to 2006. The two Y axis plots indicate that as Money Supply (Y1) increased from less than 2 trillion in 1950 up to around 10 trillion or so (rough estimate in my eyeballing the chart) in 2006, there was an inverse relationship of dollar devaluation (buying power) represented by Y2 from around 85 cents in 1950 to around 10 cents in 2006. The overall point that is being stated is that the more currency there is in circulation, the less valuable it is and the more of it is required to purchase any given good or service. Basic principle of inflation.

Why do you doubt the video's credibility? Are you saying the whole concept of Fractional Reserve Banking is incredible (if so, i would certainly agree), or that the information in the video itself is not credible (as in worthy of belief or confidence, i.e. untrustworthy)? If the latter, why?

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

I agree with the rest of the video in its' principles. But that graph is bogus, and thus I have to doubt the data and conclusions derived from it being presented to me.

At any point along the X-axis, the money supply and value has no variance as they are both correlated on the Y-axis. You can't have a single axis stand for 2 separate sets of data on the same graph, as it renders any delta for X meaningless. No valid conclusion can be drawn from it.

They should have either made it a 3d graph or two seperate graphs.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Understood. My guess is they were trying to get a quick visual concept across to the viewer in like 10 seconds or so, and were thus not interested in a long-winded and detailed explanation of currency debasement (aka inflation) at that point. Remember, this is just a very high-level and fast-moving overview of FRB and it's inherent inflationary outcome.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I would agree with much of that, but would add the important distinction that the international bankers are so bankrupt now, and with protests groups like OWS rising up and whole regions, such as Asia becoming more powerful and productive, they see themselves as losing their position as rulers of the world.

After centuries of their rule, this loss of power is intolerable to them. Like children losing in a board game, they just want to ruin the whole game for everybody.

What this means is that they want to trigger a nuclear war, by initiating an attack on that country which is now the potential battlefield where the world's nuclear powers would confront each other - Iran.

Both China and Russia have major interests in Iran, and a war by the US/Israel against Iran would quickly spill over the borders of both Russia and China, becoming a direct attack on those nations.

If the US or Israel starts tossing around nuclear weapons in Iran, even claiming that they are just bunker busters intended to destroy "potential" nuclear weapon facilities, we will have opened Pandora's box, making nuclear attacks an acceptable thing for nuclear nations to do.

Remember, the old saying is "if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword" and we have been living by the sword for too long.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Sounds like Armageddon doesn't it?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Indeed it does, but it doesn't have to happen. Representative Walter Jones' Resolution 107 is the closest thing to putting a stop to it:

http://www.dailypaul.com/220097/wnd-obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress

It declares that using offensive military force without congressional approval is an "impeachable" high crime and misdemeanor.

Considering that Obama and most of the Republican candidates are quite eager to start this nuclear "Armageddon", we need something right in their faces telling them clearly - you go to war, you get impeached now.

Please call your representative and ask him or her to support it.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

You know, this whole Presidential Authority and broad interpretation of Executive Powers strikes me as a bit hypocritical as there has been no declared war by Congress since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, and Bush1/Bush2 Iraq have all been "Police Actions". Why weren't all those Presidents impeached?

Don't get me wrong. I agree that efforts should be made to avoid any kind of conflict in the world's oil supply region. If that happens, and world oil supply is disrupted, you will see such world economic chaos that it will make the 2008 collapse look like a Sunday picnic.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

You have a point, but prior presidents always asked in one way or another, even though there was no formal declaration of war. In the case of Libya, Obama didn't ask in any way shape or form, putting our military at the use of a foreign entity, NATO. That's called treason.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Good point. I was not aware that he didn't ask, or at least make them aware of his intentions. Wonder if there was a reason like need for secrecy before attack or something like that.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, you're right, we should never have let those other wars happen. But this war in particular, we must not let happen, or we all are doomed.

[Removed]