|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Aldous]
#6138315 - 10/05/06 11:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aldous said: Obviously, you fail to see that they found oil arrangements with most third-world autocrats, those they didn't install themselves, that is. Their problem is with third-world democrats controlling large oil reserves, like Chavez (other names evade me, I must admit). They had great arrangements with the Shah in Iran until he got ousted, with Saddam until he got nasty, they still have great arrangements with the Saudis, name it... They do have trouble with the Iranian mollahs, whose democratic score isn't that great, but still better than the Shah's.
If you think that Chavez is the result of true democracy, you're kidding yourself. I'm not talking about election fraud either, I'm talking about his restrictions on the media, and his use of state police power to intimidate opponents.
Also, I'm curious to know what part Bohemian Grove played in helping Putin come to power. He's definitely an autocrat, he's sitting on a lot of oil. Also in the list of top 15 oil producing nations, we've got Nigeria and China, shining examples of democracy, aren't they?
Infact, if we look at how much oil Bohemian Grove potentially controls, assuming most-extreme-conspiracy-scenario, out of the top 15 oil producing countries, they control US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and we'll even give them credit for Iraq.
The only problem is, that accounts for less than 40% global oil production (39% using 2004 figures).
So, again, I don't really understand what the problem is with Bohemian Grove. Even if they are plotting to take over the world, they're REALLY REALLY bad at it. Like, Dr. Evil-esque. They haven't been able to hold on to global oil control (Rockefeller ALONE controlled more than 40% of global oil production at the start of the century), they've missed out on REALLY big trends, like, you know, the internet.
Quote:
Aldous said: In your definition (which is the official one of US power), an autocrat is just an independent leader of a foreign country.
Really? Can you link me to where I said this was my definition?
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Economist]
#6140059 - 10/06/06 11:09 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you think that Chavez is the result of true democracy, you're kidding yourself. I'm not talking about election fraud either, I'm talking about his restrictions on the media, and his use of state police power to intimidate opponents.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't people from the US use his own country's media as a springboard for a coup against him? I don't care what country your from, your not going to allow your own media to be used as a tool to overthrow the govt. Remember lincon? Or was his govt not a "true democracy" either?
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
Vvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
|
the US was never a true democracy. We are a republic. There are very few examples of true democracy in all of history.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours
|
|
Quote:
RosettaStoned said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't people from the US use his own country's media as a springboard for a coup against him?
Exactly, and even after that, not one media outlet was shut down, not a single journalist was jailed, nothing. But still Chavez is a dictator who cuts down on freedom of expression, as everyone knows or, at least, guesses.
Quote:
Economist said: Really? Can you link me to where I said this was my definition?
No, I can't. Obviously, you never said that. I'm the one who said that. Am I entitled to? I was not stating a fact, I was editorializing (although I suspect I hit close to home).
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Aldous]
#6140927 - 10/06/06 03:59 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aldous said: No, I can't. Obviously, you never said that. I'm the one who said that. Am I entitled to? I was not stating a fact, I was editorializing (although I suspect I hit close to home).
You didn't hit close to home, more like "close to a nerve". For some reason many on this forum assume that because I don't believe in most leftist causes (socialism, medicare, a vast right wing conspiracy, etc.) that I must completely agree with either the Republicans or some part of the US government.
The reality is that I've always been a Libertarian, and I care about economic issues a hell of a lot more than social ones, hence my disagreement with a lot of the left.
To me, an autocrat is someone (an idividual) who uses the power of the government in order to gain control over a state, above and beyond mere rhetoric (i.e. Chavez making seizures at TV stations, or Putin ordering the break up of Yukos). Their relations with the US have nothing to do with my use of the term.
At any rate, the point I've been trying to make in this thread (and someone please jump in with a challenge) is that the Bohemian Grove group does not seem to be very good at controlling the world, even if you assume that the most extreme conspiracy theories are true.
If their goal really is world government, they're a lot farther from it now than they were just 50 years ago, and even farther than they were 30 years before that. They seem to lack any competence at all in making predictions about the future, like why did a college dropout see the whole "information age" coming, and none of them did? Why have the traditional retail outlets (which were founded by friends of Rockefeller and JP Morgan) lost ground to Walmart and Target?
Even if you look at the situation of the banking world, Bohemian Grove doesn't look so good. Daiwa Securities, Mizuho Securities, and Nomura Securities are all Japanese institutions that work directly with the Federal Reserve, and yet none of them have ties to Bohemian Grove. How can Bohemian Grove be even remotely competent and have lost major control over aspects of the US Banking system?
When you consider the world banking system, the situation is even worse. Why has Bohemian Grove allowed the Bank of China and the financial institutions of Hong Kong (let alone those of Japan and South Korea) to run unchecked? A century ago, the US and Europe ran Asia, now Asian banks run parts of the American Economy!
(note: I don't think that's a bad thing, I'm just making a point)
So, why be worried about Bohemian Grove? Even if the theories about them are true, they clearly aren't competent enough to achieve their goals.
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Economist]
#6141002 - 10/06/06 04:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So, why be worried about Bohemian Grove? Even if the theories about them are true, they clearly aren't competent enough to achieve their goals.
How in the hell could you know if they aren't competent enough to achieve their goals anyway? Nixon, Regan, Carter, Bush father and son have all been apart of this place, are you suggesting those people failed to achieve their goals?
An organization's success is determined by the success of their members. Ultimately every organization is just people, if those people succeed the group succeeds. I'd say whatever group the people of this "grove" belong to have succeeded immensely in achieving their goals.
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
RosettaStoned said: An organization's success is determined by the success of their members. Ultimately every organization is just people, if those people succeed the group succeeds. I'd say whatever group the people of this "grove" belong to have succeeded immensely in achieving their goals.
Unless they have a common goal of creating a world government (which is the claim made by Bohemian Grove conspiracy literature).
They have not reached this goal at all, and they are farther from it today than they were several decades ago.
The success of individual members of an organization does not matter if the organization as a whole fails. If Walmart goes out of business, does it matter if a cashier working for them somewhere wins the lottery?
Look at Enron. Many high ranking members of Enron were extremely successful business people, and did very well for themselves in non-Enron ventures. However, their Enron related goals were completely missed and the organization failed.
If Bohemian Grove exists to serve some nefarious end (i.e. World Government) then it is clearly not achieving that end, even if individual members are enjoying individual success.
If on the other hand, Bohemian Grove exists simply as a group of friends who help simply each other to achieve individual goals, then why be concerned? There are dozens of organizations of that type (similar minded people who work together to achieve individual goals). So why worry if one just happens to have had more success than others? Surely there are smaller examples of Bohemian Grove type organizations help individuals to achieve their own goals: the NAACP comes to mind.
So why worry about it?
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Economist]
#6141084 - 10/06/06 05:14 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Unless they have a common goal of creating a world government
Doing such a thing is nearly impossible I would imagine. So it would take a very, very long time to pull it off. For all we know, they could have made great strides in doing so, but yet still be far away from their ultimate goal. Making great strides in such an undertaking would be considered massively successful to anyone who is capable of objectively looking such matters.
What if their goal was 1st complete control of the US political will and commerce? One could argue this has already been accomplished. But your so quick to debunk anything that doesn't come from the horses mouth you deprive yourself of the ability to consider all possibilities.
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
|
Almost anything could be possible, but being possible isn't even close to being probably or actually happening.
IF the goal is a world gov't, they're doing an awful job at it. Nationalism is as high as it has ever been worldwide in the history of statehood.
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
RosettaStoned said: What if their goal was 1st complete control of the US political will and commerce? One could argue this has already been accomplished.
But that's just my point: they haven't. If they have complete control over US commerce, why have three Japanese firms (of which there is no representation at Bohemian Grove) been brought in as Primary Dealers to the US Federal Reserve system? Mizuho was even introduced after 2001.
How can Bohemian Grove have complete control over US commerce when Japanese influence over the banking system has grown since 2001? Or how about Walmart and Target, don't they make up a significant portion of US commerce? Microsoft, Apple, Intel? How can Bohemian Grove truly control commerce if they don't have any hand in these institutions?
Quote:
RosettaStoned said: But your so quick to debunk anything that doesn't come from the horses mouth you deprive yourself of the ability to consider all possibilities.
No, I'm just asking questions, and I have yet to recieve answers.
|
buckwheat
Cynically Insane

Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 11,179
Loc: Not Enough Characters to ...
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Economist]
#6141246 - 10/06/06 06:05 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said:
Quote:
RosettaStoned said: An organization's success is determined by the success of their members. Ultimately every organization is just people, if those people succeed the group succeeds. I'd say whatever group the people of this "grove" belong to have succeeded immensely in achieving their goals.
Unless they have a common goal of creating a world government (which is the claim made by Bohemian Grove conspiracy literature).
They have not reached this goal at all, and they are farther from it today than they were several decades ago.
The success of individual members of an organization does not matter if the organization as a whole fails. If Walmart goes out of business, does it matter if a cashier working for them somewhere wins the lottery?
Look at Enron. Many high ranking members of Enron were extremely successful business people, and did very well for themselves in non-Enron ventures. However, their Enron related goals were completely missed and the organization failed.
If Bohemian Grove exists to serve some nefarious end (i.e. World Government) then it is clearly not achieving that end, even if individual members are enjoying individual success.
If on the other hand, Bohemian Grove exists simply as a group of friends who help simply each other to achieve individual goals, then why be concerned? There are dozens of organizations of that type (similar minded people who work together to achieve individual goals). So why worry if one just happens to have had more success than others? Surely there are smaller examples of Bohemian Grove type organizations help individuals to achieve their own goals: the NAACP comes to mind.
So why worry about it?
Several decades ago there was no European Union. Now we have the EU and soon the North American Union. Serbia,Iraq,North Korea,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan. What all these countries have in common? They where not under the central banking system. Oh they also all got invaded,overthrown, wind up leaders, and useful idiots with extremist views put in place. That especially goes for Iran. Getting us all lined up for a world currency,a Fiat one.They will make the dollar crash(happening right now with Bernanke printing money like it's going out of style) and push the Amero on us or whatever they plan to call it. Asia i don't know how they intended to do that.
I will say i agree think the Bohemian Grove has little to do with this.It is a club where all the low level pawns of this NWO plan get together.The thing is those low level pawns are called presidents! You have to look to the CFR,Bilderberg group which leads to the Rothschild's at the top of the Pyramid.
Consider this
"Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today's dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!
Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:
$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%) $7.8 trillion US (@ 5%) $31.5 trillion US (@ 6%) $125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%) $491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)"
Edited by buckwheat (10/06/06 06:13 PM)
|
buckwheat
Cynically Insane

Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 11,179
Loc: Not Enough Characters to ...
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: buckwheat]
#6141258 - 10/06/06 06:10 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Oh yes i forgot every president that has taken or tried to take the power away from the banks has been killed. 
Edited by buckwheat (10/06/06 06:25 PM)
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: buckwheat]
#6141391 - 10/06/06 07:25 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
buckwheat said: Several decades ago there was no European Union.
The European Union developed slowly over the course of 50 years ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/enlarging_europe/html/eu_expansion.stm ).
They did it through open debate, and everyone saw it coming. Are you trying to suggest that it no one saw it coming? (Note: I'm not trying to be a jerk, I really don't understand this point)
Quote:
buckwheat said: Now we have the EU and soon the North American Union.
I know there are people who might want a North American Union, but do you have anything to show that it's going to happen soon?
Last I checked we couldn't even get CAFTA to truly include Free Trade, and the FTAA is completely in the toilet. In light of those developments I find it very hard to believe that we're suddenly going to be living under a far more expansive and encompassing agreement.
Quote:
buckwheat said: Serbia,Iraq,North Korea,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan. What all these countries have in common? They where not under the central banking system. Oh they also all got invaded,overthrown, wind up leaders, and useful idiots with extremist views put in place. That especially goes for Iran.
But what about China, India, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines?
They weren't under any central banking systems except for their own, and now they've done so well that many of them are buying into the US banking system (see the Japanese firms I listed in above posts).
Quote:
buckwheat said: Getting us all lined up for a world currency,a Fiat one.
Really, is there evidence this is already happening?
Last I checked the EU couldn't even get Britain to join the Euro. This was despite the fact that all the big Bohemian Grove players at the turn of the last century were intimately involved with British Banks. (Check out how JP Morgan got his start)
Quote:
buckwheat said: They will make the dollar crash(happening right now with Bernanke printing money like it's going out of style) and push the Amero on us or whatever they plan to call it.
Again, proof?
Bernanke has maintained the Federal Funds rate. In order to be "printing money like its going out of style" he'd have to be lowering the rate.
Quote:
buckwheat said: Consider this
"Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today's dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!
Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:
$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%) $7.8 trillion US (@ 5%) $31.5 trillion US (@ 6%) $125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%) $491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)"
Right, except where were the Rothchild's chief branches? Austria France Italy London
How many of those nations didn't suffer massive devastation and loss of capital, plus a currency revaluation during the two World Wars?
None of them.
Infact, it's even documented that the Rothschilds had to surrender all of their Austrain assets to the Nazis, even the conspiracy theorists don't deny this ( http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn01-4 ). So, the above calculation is probably meaningless, especially given how much money the Rothschilds would have been likely to invest in Austria and Germany, which couldn't have been recouped even after the wars were over.
Also, as for the Presidents who took power away from the bankers being killed: What about Teddy Roosevelt (expanded the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission, broke up Northern Securities Trust)? Or FDR (Threatened to pack the Supreme Court unless they interpreted the commerce clause to allow the Federal Government to regulate *everything*)?
I'd even suggest Woodrow Wilson, as the Federal Reserve Act that was passed included several changes he suggested personally, and that American bankers at the time were against (reserve requirements, political appointment powers).
You can disagree with me on Wilson, but that would still leave the Roosevelts.
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero


Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Economist]
#6141548 - 10/06/06 08:35 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
why have three Japanese firms (of which there is no representation at Bohemian Grove) been brought in as Primary Dealers to the US Federal Reserve system?
how far you wanna go with this?
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
buckwheat
Cynically Insane

Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 11,179
Loc: Not Enough Characters to ...
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Economist]
#6141812 - 10/06/06 10:16 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said:
Quote:
buckwheat said: Several decades ago there was no European Union.
The European Union developed slowly over the course of 50 years ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/enlarging_europe/html/eu_expansion.stm[/url They did it through open debate, and everyone saw it coming. Are you trying to suggest that it no one saw it coming? (Note: I'm not trying to be a jerk, I really don't understand this point)
It came to be. That is all i was trying to say, certainly a small step towards World Government
Quote:
Economist said:
Quote:
buckwheat said: Now we have the EU and soon the North American Union.
I know there are people who might want a North American Union, but do you have anything to show that it's going to happen soon?
Last I checked we couldn't even get CAFTA to truly include Free Trade, and the FTAA is completely in the toilet. In light of those developments I find it very hard to believe that we're suddenly going to be living under a far more expansive and encompassing agreement.
To be honest i don't know how they intended to accomplish this. They seem pretty set on 2010. [url=http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html]http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html
Quote:
Economist said:
Quote:
buckwheat said: Serbia,Iraq,North Korea,Iran,Afghanistan,Pakistan. What all these countries have in common? They where not under the central banking system. Oh they also all got invaded,overthrown, wind up leaders, and useful idiots with extremist views put in place. That especially goes for Iran.
But what about China, India, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines?
They weren't under any central banking systems except for their own, and now they've done so well that many of them are buying into the US banking system (see the Japanese firms I listed in above posts).
Ok, you just stomped me on this one.There must be something to it.
Quote:
Economist said:
Quote:
buckwheat said: Getting us all lined up for a world currency,a Fiat one.
Really, is there evidence this is already happening?
Last I checked the EU couldn't even get Britain to join the Euro. This was despite the fact that all the big Bohemian Grove players at the turn of the last century were intimately involved with British Banks. (Check out how JP Morgan got his start)
Isn't the evidence the forming of these Unions?The Trilateral Commission say the want the European,American,and Asian union. If and when they get all of them together.Gain control with a global benchmark to stop fluctuations. Then could manipulate each currency against each other,and suggest one currency.
Quote:
Economist said:
Quote:
buckwheat said: They will make the dollar crash(happening right now with Bernanke printing money like it's going out of style) and push the Amero on us or whatever they plan to call it.
Again, proof?
Bernanke has maintained the Federal Funds rate. In order to be "printing money like its going out of style" he'd have to be lowering the rate.
My mistake I was thinking of his helicopters comment. 
Quote:
Economist said:
Quote:
buckwheat said: Consider this
"Morton (1962) noted that the Rothschild wealth was estimated at over $6 billion US in 1850. Not a significant amount in today's dollars; however, consider the potential future value compounded over 147 years!
Taking $6 billion (and assuming no erosion of the wealth base) and compounding that figure at various returns on investment (a conservative range of 4% to 8%) would suggest the following net worth of the Rothschild family enterprise:
$1.9 trillion US (@ 4%) $7.8 trillion US (@ 5%) $31.5 trillion US (@ 6%) $125,189.1 trillion US (@ 7%) $491,409.0 trillion US (@ 8%)"
Right, except where were the Rothchild's chief branches? Austria France Italy London
How many of those nations didn't suffer massive devastation and loss of capital, plus a currency revaluation during the two World Wars?
None of them.
Infact, it's even documented that the Rothschilds had to surrender all of their Austrain assets to the Nazis, even the conspiracy theorists don't deny this ( http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn01-4 ). So, the above calculation is probably meaningless, especially given how much money the Rothschilds would have been likely to invest in Austria and Germany, which couldn't have been recouped even after the wars were over.
By that time would they have enough money to control everything?Given their history of financing all sides of a war. It's not beyond reason that they did the same when they had even more control.Especially when there are traces of them in everything pertinent to war profiteering.
http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewcommentary.php?storyid=121
Quote:
Economist said: Also, as for the Presidents who took power away from the bankers being killed: What about Teddy Roosevelt (expanded the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission, broke up Northern Securities Trust)? Or FDR (Threatened to pack the Supreme Court unless they interpreted the commerce clause to allow the Federal Government to regulate *everything*)?
I'd even suggest Woodrow Wilson, as the Federal Reserve Act that was passed included several changes he suggested personally, and that American bankers at the time were against (reserve requirements, political appointment powers).
You can disagree with me on Wilson, but that would still leave the Roosevelts.
Sorry i should have been clear i meant Print money.
Lincoln GreenBacks?
Reissuing Lincoln Greenbacks?
"1861: President Abraham Lincoln (16th President of the United States from 1860 till his assassination in 1865) approaches the Rothschilds to try to obtain loans to support the ongoing American civil war.
The Rothschilds agree provided Lincoln allows them a Charter for another United States central bank and are prepared to pay 24% to 36% interest on all monies loaned.
Lincoln was very angry about this high level of interest and so he printed his own debt free money and informed the public that this was now legal tender for both public and private debts.
1862: By April $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln’s debt free money had been printed and distributed. He went on to state,
“We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts.”
That same year The Times of London publishes A story containing the following statement, “If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world.
The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”
865: In a statement to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln states,
“I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institution in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe.”
Later that year President Lincoln is assassinated.
1881: President James A. Garfield (The 20th President of the United States who lasted only 100 Days) states two weeks before he was assassinated,
“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”
Edited by buckwheat (10/06/06 10:26 PM)
|
buckwheat
Cynically Insane

Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 11,179
Loc: Not Enough Characters to ...
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: buckwheat]
#6141923 - 10/06/06 10:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Err i think i messed up the page. Anyone know how i can multi qoute and not mess with the width?
|
Vvellum
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/04
Posts: 10,920
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: buckwheat]
#6142142 - 10/07/06 12:18 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
are you insinuating that Charles J. Guiteau and John Wilkes Booth were assassins for the Rothschilds?
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: kotik]
#6142426 - 10/07/06 02:41 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kotik said:
Quote:
why have three Japanese firms (of which there is no representation at Bohemian Grove) been brought in as Primary Dealers to the US Federal Reserve system?
how far you wanna go with this?
LOL, you win 
@buckwheat
VERY interesting. I spent a lot of time studying the development of banking in America, but mostly from the aspect of JP Morgan and crew (from a contemporary standpoint they seemed to have a gift for managing the money supply, something we need complex equations to esitmate today). I've come across some Rothschild stuff in the process (it would be hard not to), but it looks like I have some reading to do.
|
kotik
fuckingsuperhero


Registered: 06/29/04
Posts: 3,531
Last seen: 4 years, 4 months
|
Re: Bohemian Grove [Re: Economist]
#6142478 - 10/07/06 04:11 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said: I've come across some Rothschild stuff in the process (it would be hard not to), but it looks like I have some reading to do.
the Rothschild family is FASCINATING. He started his 5 sons out with intentions to start an empire. They developed their own language and alphabet, so no one could know what they wrote / said. They also practiced inter-marriage to protect family secrets. Rothscild is one of those names you don't see in the Forbes richest family list.. because they don't want to be listed
-------------------- No statements made in any post or message by myself should be construed to mean that I am now, or have ever been, participating in or considering participation in any activities in violation of any local, state, or federal laws. All posts are works of fiction.
|
|