Colonel Panic wrote:However, those characteristics get applied to Jewish people more often than to other ethnic/religious groups.

It's a stereotype.

Agreed. The assumption that one race considers itself an elite is racism as much as anything else.

But Bob didn't say that, he said many Jews and was particularly refering to a couple of writers. Whether he has said anything genuinely to that effect in the past, I guess it is possible but I do not want the ugly task of re-reading his posts to find out.

Rick Reuben wrote:Basically, whichever country assumes leadership of the global new world order ( the UK transferred the reins to the US after WWII, at Bretton Woods ) also enjoys the right to force its fiat currency on the world as the standard of foreign exchange. This hegemony is maintained through the reasons stated above, but also through the fact that, once a foreign country becomes a holder of US currency reserves, they become a passenger on that ship; while they can grumble about the US Federal Reserve continually devaluing the currency through gross overexpansion of the money supply to fund wars, tax breaks, corporate welfare, etc., should they try and extricate themselves from the dollar, they first risk ostracization and intimidation by the financial elites , and they also risk setting in motion a collapse of the Emperor's New Currency, which will wipe out the value of the fiat US currency they have accumulated, punishing them in return.

You got the effects right, but not the causes. In fact, I can't really make out any economic sense out that half of it.

The dollar has a terminal illness

Incorrect.

In short, punishing the King ( the US ) for his greed cannot be accomplished without severe repercussions throughout world economies. And the King knows this, so the King will walk farther out onto the ledge printing funny money that costs him paper and ink but can be used to buy your oil and tangible goods, daring the foreign countries held hostage by dollar hegemony to object. Dollar hegemony is a license to steal, and the pressures that build up from excessive money supply expansion turn the world economy into a pressure cooker. The buyers of US foreign debt demand higher interest to compensate for the weakening dollar, then the US responds to the greater debt load that results by printing even more fiat currency to pay back holders of the increasing debt. You can see how this can snowball. The racket swallows up all who play if it blows up, so to dismantle it is like defusing a bomb, and any efforts to move away from the dollar are tiny slow steps, like what China is up to currently.[/size]

Holy mixed metaphors Batman! Can you explain this whole thing without them?

I believe that central banking is organized crime, and if Jews are overrepresented in positions of banking power, then that tells me that many Jews work harder than other folks to live lives of crime in that criminal world. Banking is an avenue to power, and many Jews have chosen it. Once they have taken it, they have manipulated world economies to enrich themselves, funded politicians who worked for Zionism, promoted murder and wars on false pretexts, and purchased media to help them cover it all up. Let their consciences deal with their actions, just like the consciences of the Italians who join the Mafia, or the Chinese who join the Triads, or the African-Americans who join street gangs, or the Latinos who smuggle drugs.

OK, I have no problem is calling you an unintentional racist after reading this. Do you think that different races of people have different characters or psychologies? If yes, please boil your brains.

I do not think any of this can be proven. There is no evidence aside from motive.

Phony ass punks who want to use different criteria for judging crime in the corporate board rooms and crime on the streets are a joke. Banking is organized theft. Just being a banker makes you poison on the Earth. Debt at interest is immoral. It is a form of slavery, and every person who chooses to practice it is evil, Jews or non-Jews.

Well I agree with this, only without the Vulgar Marxist language. Banking is most certainly not "theft", consumer finance is theft and credit is theft. Having a private body invest your money for you can be good or can be bad. I wouldn't like to be without the option of banking.

Wrong. Neither can be chosen, because they rest on the assumption that the Federal Reserve is a legal institution. It is not. It is specifically prohibited by the constitution, and it was never ratified. Neither was the IRS or the 16th amendment, for that matter. Therefore, every single person who works for the Fed is a criminal. The organization itself should not exist. You cannot skip over that and decide who has the right to work there. You may as well tell me that one person has more of a right to drive a car he stole from me than some other person. You can't understand that the institution of the Fed is the problem. Keep shilling for criminals. That's all you're doing with your crazed ranting.

What?!

To work at the the job of a central banker is to work at a criminal enterprise. Like I said, if many Jews choose that line of work, that doesn't speak very well for their morality or for their ability to resist stealing from the common folks. There is no way for me to 'approve' of the qualifications for anyone who takes that job, Jew or non-Jew. They are all engaged in fraud and theft and corruption and promotion of war and terrorism. It's their life of sin.

Meh, I don't like them much either.

Rick Reuben wrote:For those who need to cross reference 9/11 Truth and Clocker Bob's position on banking:
existing thread on the federal reserve

Rick, I mean Bob,

Perhaps your view of the world is far too nuanced and complex to possibly be compressed into a simple summary. But it seems to me you believe that world-dominating powers are centralized and hierarchical...i.e. there is a small number at the top calling the shots and coordinating the relationships of (as just one example) organizations as apparently at odds and different as al Qaeda and the CIA.

With such a situation it shouldn't be difficult to, in 2 or 3 short paragraphs without long cut-and-pastes (not to mention ad hominem attacks and school yard name calling), lay out (1) who is at the top and (2) how they pass on power to their inheritors without spilling the beans to the masses and (3) whether there is a notable degree of correlation (let alone causation) between their power and their ethnicity (religion, race, etc...).

You've pointed at a lot of your posts, but it seems to me that (1) (2) and (3) shouldn't be difficult to briefly summarize, in your own words.

When you don't do this your approach appears to involve as much obfuscation as anything, and certainly obfuscation by others makes *you* suspicious of what *they* say, or more to the point, what they *don't* say. You should expect the same in return.

Now, keeping in mind that in fact I haven't actually accused you of anti-semitism. I've merely pointed out that much of what you say sounds the same as what classic anti-Semites have been saying for centuries.

So if you can't provide a self-contained brief summary of (1) (2) and (3), perhaps you can explain how your views differ from the typical "The Jews control the media. The Jews control the banks, The Jews control everything, and they inflict unceasing evil on the rest of us." paranoia found among classic anti-Semites.

I hope there are significant differences. I really do.

And Bob, I mean Rick,

allow me to point something out that you would be well served in life to keep in mind. And that is this:

Just because someone says something you believe is incorrect, that doesn't mean they are lying. They might just be sincerely mistaken.

(Or you might just be sincerely mistaken.)

(Or you both might just be sincerely mistaken.)

And Bob, I mean Rick,

it should be obvious, but I'll point out that my last post above does not mean that I am saying that every time you've accused me of lying, I'm now saying I was mistaken.

And I'm not going to plow through every single accusation and respond to them. It takes a lot less time for you to make an ill-mannered accusation than it does for me to politely and constructively respond. So you can play that game by yourself.

I'll just provide a summary statement by saying while we (I) know more now than we (I) did then, I see no reason to shift my fundamental position on the war in Iraq. That position is not, and has never been, identical with the position of the Bush administration. It is my own position, and as much as you may think so, I am not obliged to merely choose between you and George Bush.

Rick Reuben wrote:

galanter wrote:
I really do.

Not intend to answer this question?

1: The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war of self-defense.

2: The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war of aggression.

Clear distinction. Pick one.

Those are not mutually exclusive.

Rick Reuben wrote:

galanter wrote:
I really do.

Not intend to answer this question?

1: The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war of self-defense.

2: The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war of aggression.

Clear distinction. Pick one.

I'll answer just this one. I'm assuming it's an important one to you because you've chosen to repeat it rather than others.

The answer is of a form that you yourself used a few posts back. i.e. The choices are insufficient to provide a meaningful response.

So my response, keeping in mind that a short response will always be incomplete at some level of detail, is this.

The US invasion and occupation of Iraq has a number of intents which individually some may not find compelling, but in their totality argue for the action. Those intents include (1) releasing the Iraqi people from the control and ongoing pain of a fascist regime, (2) protecting the region from the demonstrated aggression and threats of aggression from that regime, (3) protecting the US, US allies, and US interests from a regime that has demonstrated such aggression and threatened additional aggression, (4) enforcing the ignored demands made of an aggressor state after they were defeated in combat, and (5) removing any doubt of a threat regarding the ongoing use or proliferation of WMD's by a regime that was known to have not only possessed them, but also to have used them both at home and abroad.

So there you go. Keep in mind I'm *NOT* saying this is the case Bush made. This is the case I would make. They are different. They are, in this country at least, allowed to be different.

Now, can you explain the (hopefully significant) differences between your position and the classic anti-Semite position I noted above?

I'll check back later today or tomorrow.

I see now you've repeated many many questions. I think the above also answers many of them.

I will say this about international law. I don't hold it *as it is at this time* to be the highest good, the highest law, or even an effective or morally binding system.

Having a system of fair and humane international law is a wonderful goal. But we aren't there yet, and we should not pretend or act as if we are.

Now Bob, I mean Rick,

Can you explain the (hopefully significant) differences between your position and the classic anti-Semite position* I noted above?

-----

* i.e. "The Jews control the media. The Jews control the banks. The Jews control everything, and they inflict unceasing evil on the rest of us" style-paranoia

We'll never have a system that brings about a set of laws in the interests of mankind. Propaganda will make it seem as though the greater good will be at the forefront of political thought, but it will disregarded as the Geneva Convention. The fact is, through inaction on the part of our "leaders", people will continue to suffer like they've always been.