Zionists planned 9/11

So it really is an international jewish conspiracy to take over...what exactly? And why should I care if it is?

0 Replies

The Jewish/Oil Cartel conspiracy aims to control all of the world's wealth and oil. Then all workers rights will be taken away and unions will be forbidden. It is a massive push for power!

0 Replies

Good Lord! I had no idea. That explains everything.

0 Replies

mrcool011 wrote:

pachelbel wrote:
mrcool011 wrote:
This takes blaming the jews for everything to a whole new level. Hitler would be proud!

Hitler? You mean Bush? Same thing.

Yeah a man who started a war that killed 60,000,000 and killed 6,000,000 jews and bush are the same. You're a nut

Ha..ha..ha... convenient of you to place all of the blame on Hitler and nothing on any other party that had a role to play in the war.

If you know your history at all, what started WWI ? Who assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria? A Serb. When Serbia refused to put the assassin on trial, Austria declared war on them. So....who supported Serbia? Russia, who was backed by France, who was further backed by Britain. Those are the big players anyhow. Italy was in there as well, but they weren't anything to worry about.

Fast forward to the Treaty of Versailles, 1918. The allies totally stripped Germany of everything. They were made the scapegoat to pay for WWI as if they were the culprits who started it all. They were merely supporting the country who had justification in the whole war. And I might add, that if it wasn't for America entering the war, Germany had everyone beat, hands down. As early as 1916, they had the "upper hand" with no battles being fought on German soil. The Soviets were off to deal with their civil war, France was backing out, Britain was on the brink of starvation and lack of supplies, due to the surprising and successful U-boat campaign. Germany offered to leave everything as is, but just to end the war. Britain was considering it, until the Zionists approached the British War Cabinet and made a deal to bring America into the war on their side, in exchange for Palestine at the end of the war. (The Zionists had a lot of pull in Germany as they ran many of the banks, shipping companies etc...)

Once Britain agreed to this deal, the media propaganda machine went to work, using their smearing and villifying tactics to portray the Germans as evil people who ate babies and whatever else they could conjure up. You might remember their media posters stating "beat back the Hun", encouraging Americans to do their part to support the war. America was brought into the war and we know the rest of the story.

Now the interesting thing, was the Germans were unaware of the deception by the Zionists. Not until the Zionists held up the paper of the Balfour declaration at the Treaty of Versailles, did the Germans realize what had occurred. This set the stage for WWII.

On another note altogether, one must also consider historic events that were a few centuries prior to all of this.

On a more religious note in history, if I may draw your attention to the 16th century where the Vatican held all the power in Europe. It wasn't until a German monk by the name of Luther, defied the Vatican and translated the Scriptures into German, so everyone could read it for themselves instead of being manipulated and controlled by the Roman Church. This was called the Protestant Reformation.

The Vatican set up what is called a Counter Reformation. This is what is known as the Jesuits. The two world wars were simply the materialization of the planning and execution of the Vatican plans for "breaking" Protestant Germany. Revenge enacted on the very country which stood up against the Vatican in the 16th century. Islam and America (Protestant) are the next targets. Of course, America is used as the pawn to win these battles, as noone can dispute the industrial might of the US. America is being deceived into believing they are at risk by Islam, when they are not. It is the Vatican using their influence through the Zionist Israel, and other agencies to weaken America by fighting to weaken Islam. The Vatican then achieves their goal of eradicating two religious entities.

One other note, is that there are only 5 countries remaining in the world that do not have a centralized bank. This may have been posted by another member here, but this is interesting.
Iran
Libya
Sudan
North Korea
Cuba

Ahghanistan and Iraq were #6 and #7. But as we observe, they have been attacked and restructured. Iran is a target, North Korea is part of the "Axis of Evil", Sudan is enduring a civil war, and Libya & Cuba have always been dubbed as "Communist/terrorist" countries, so that's a no brainer.

Combine that with the plans to amalgamate North America into the NAU (North American Union between Canada, US and Mexico. Much the same as the EU) and a one world banking system will be in place to further control the money, and therefore, the people.

Yes, I have found out that the Zionists are indeed a problem, but they are a subterfuge for the entity working 'behind the scenes', and have been ever since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century; the Vatican.
This should be alarming to anyone whether you're religious or not. They WILL force everyone to conform to their religious ideology otherwise, dissenters and heretics will be dealt with. Freedoms such as speech and religion will be no more. Things will return to the way they were when Rome was in power back in the dark ages. They'll just have more technology and toys to keep people in line, that's all.

0 Replies

Americanadian is to be congratulated for his interesting explanation. He is basically correct but he does not highlight the influence of the oil cartel. The oil cartel is the group which has funded the bankers who control the flow of funds to support Zionism.

0 Replies

MarionT wrote:

The oil cartel is the group which has funded the bankers who control the flow of funds to support Zionism.

All roads lead to Rome.

As far as oil and funds are concerned, I read this elsewhere
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published on 17 Jan 2006 by Energy Bulletin. Archived on 18 Jan 2006.
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
by Krassimir Petrov

I. Economics of Empires

A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms?-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods?-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax?-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of "severing the link between the dollar and gold", in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond?- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren't strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush would want to seize those fields?-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have went into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished?-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Replies

You have it exactly right. It proves that the Oil Cartel exists. Oil is the life blood of capitalism and it could not exist without oil.

0 Replies

MarionT wrote:

You have it exactly right. It proves that the Oil Cartel exists. Oil is the life blood of capitalism and it could not exist without oil.

oil is the life blood of civilisation my dear

and why should we not protect it?

do you want to live in a tent in the desert with nomads?

0 Replies

Not if it costs millions of lives and can possibly lead to world wide nuclear disaster. We can live even if we cut our oil consumption radically. We would not live as well but at least we would live. The alternative is death by nuclear devices in our cities.

0 Replies

Americanadian:

The Bretton Woods Agreement was in 1971 and the US Dollar was decoupled from gold duriong Nixon's time.

See here: Bretton Woods 1971

Or

The Mises Institute monthly, free with membership

Sort archived Free Market articles by: Title | Author | Article Date | Subject

Volume 24, Number 2
February 2004

The Dollar vs. Gold
Christopher Mayer

There is a fly in the ointment of economic recovery: a dollar that just won't seem to stop its fall. The impression that this trend portends something ominous is bolstered by the inverse relationship of the dollar's value on international exchange and the price of gold. As the dollar has fallen in the last year, gold has risen. Meanwhile, US government officials repeat the refrain that they support a strong dollar. It seems that market forces have other ideas in mind.

To understand those forces, some background is necessary. Since the end of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971, the dollar has been an irredeemable currency, no longer defined or measured in terms of gold. Nonetheless, in an ironic twist, it has become the world's dominant currency and the core reserve asset of central banks all over the world. It has replaced gold as an international currency.

The transformation has not happened without consequences. One of these is that the discipline imposed by the gold standard is no longer operative. Another consequence, related to the first, is the profound effect this has had on international trade.

In the words of Benjamin M. Anderson, gold was "an unimaginative taskmaster." A taskmaster it was in an older age, when money was judged not on faith, but on the dependability of exchanging it for the yellow metal. Faith that paper money itself was of any lasting value would have struck our forebears as patently absurd.

Anderson commented on the nature of gold in his financial history of the United States that covered the years 1914-1946, titled Economics and the Public Welfare. In a chapter dubbed "The Tyranny of Gold," he offered the view of a wizened hard-money proponent who had glimpsed the essence of money and noticed irredeemable paper was not part of it. "Gold needs no endorsement," Anderson wrote. "It can be tested with scales and acids. The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it. No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and no compulsion is required."

In such a world, the value of the dollar was measured in terms of gold and its value fluctuated accordingly, based in large part on the public's estimation of its ability to convert the paper into gold. If they suspected that suspension of the gold standard was imminent or their convertibility was at risk, the dollar would be sold and the market would reflect a discount to its face value in gold.

Anderson used the 17 years between 1862 and 1879 as illustrative of this principle at work. A digression into this example may further demonstrate the point. This period was the infamous greenback period, where an irredeemable paper currency circulated in competition with an active gold market and a gold-based foreign exchange market. The greenbacks were legal tender notes issued at par with notes backed by specie. The value of the greenback bounced around continuously as the public digested and interpreted news and events that might impact the probability that they would be able to redeem greenbacks for gold (eventually). Of great importance during this time, as one might imagine, was the success or failure of the Northern armies during the Civil War.

For example, the Battle of Chickamauga in the fall of 1863 produced a Confederate victory when the Army of Tennessee drove the Army of Cumberland from the field. News of the battle caused the greenbacks to drop 4 percent. Since the greenbacks were issued by the North to pay for the war, Confederate progress was inimical to redeemable greenbacks.

However, as the Northern Armies achieved victories at Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Port Hudson, the greenback grew progressively stronger. A stunning reversal occurred in the summer of 1864, when the greenback would fall dramatically to only 35 cents as Congress closed the gold window. The market's reaction to Congress's theft led to the legislature reconvening within two weeks of their initial declaration. A swift repeal of the measure followed, "passed without debate" as Anderson reported.

The passage of the Resumption Act in 1875 mandated that greenbacks would be redeemable in specie beginning in January of 1879. As the date neared, the discount grew smaller and completely disappeared in late 1878 as gold payments resumed, as scheduled, in 1879.

Such was gold a taskmaster to the folly of governments. Issue too much paper and doubt is seeded in the market. Doubt did not then?-and does not now?-sustain the value of fiat currencies and the market's reaction, when it comes, can be swift and powerful as dramatically illustrated by the plunge in the greenback in the summer of 1864.

This is the discipline that is missing from money today, where growth in the money supply has far exceeded what would have been possible with a gold standard and where the steady dwindling of purchasing power has become accepted as normal.
Consequences in International Trade

The consequences of being able to inflate without having the stern disciplinarian of gold rapping one's knuckles are also profoundly illustrated by looking at what has happened to international trade.

When the gold standard existed, if the US inflated its currency the effect would be to stimulate imports as newly released purchasing power made them relatively cheaper than products at home. Conversely, exports tended to dwindle. Foreigners shipped us goods and we gave them paper in exchange. The result was a deficit in the so-called balance of payments, which was paid for by foreigners cashing in those dollars for gold.

The resulting gold outflow from the US would force the US to contract in order to prevent the loss of gold. By not adhering to its promise to redeem dollars in gold, the US would essentially have defaulted on its debts (which is eventually what happened). The subsequent contraction in the money supply would reverse the process, lowering prices at home and reversing the flow of gold.

All of this is generalized, of course. Governments routinely went off the gold standard for periods of time, usually during wartime, but public outcry and the market's reaction often forced them back to it. Gold was the adjustment mechanism in the market, the self-correcting force that kept trade imbalances from persisting.

Without this anchor, large trade imbalances have been able to persist for long periods of time, facilitating a tremendous increase in money and credit worldwide. As documented in Richard Duncan's new book, The Dollar Crisis, central banks around the world have built up large reserves of dollars. Those dollars flow back into the US banking system in the form of investments in US dollar-denominated assets?-the dollars themselves cannot be exchanged for gold, and hence they remain as debts never paid.

The inflow of dollars undoubtedly helped contribute to the stock market boom, the surge in property prices has also helped keep US interest rates artificially low. All of this results in massive malinvestment or misallocation of capital?-setting in motion the perpetual sequence of boom-bust, not only domestically, but internationally as well.

These imbalances cannot be expected to grow indefinitely. As Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin write in their book, Financial Reckoning Day, "From the truth that foreigners are generally willing to accept US dollars in exchange for valuable goods and services came the lie that they must always do so."

It has been said that every bubble has its pin?-foreigners, then, hold a very sharp pin capable of throttling the dollar should they suddenly tire of holding 4 percent Treasury debt. Collectively, foreigners hold $9 trillion in US assets, according to Financial Reckoning Day. Ben Bernanke has already reminded them that the US has a ready printing press. Bonner and Wiggin note, "In the sixty days following Bernanke's speech (on November 21, 2002), the dollar fell 6.4 percent against the euro and 10.1 percent against gold."
Coincidence? Or a taste of things to come?

Self-evidently, the large, sustained, current-account deficits of the US would not have been possible under the classical gold standard, because US gold reserves would have been depleted. Sustainable economic growth will be possible only when the international monetary system returns to a kind that does not generate rampant credit creation.
The Best Money

Gold is the best money, because for centuries, as a result of countless individual choices, it has evolved as such. It was not imposed on the market by force, but was cultivated in the soil of the market itself. It grew naturally in the open air of voluntary exchange, not in a cloistered greenhouse of government fiat. When governments said they supported a strong dollar, it meant that they would not attempt to undermine the gold backing that the market chose. Today, those words have little meaning.

Though the old classical gold standard was not perfect, it was, in Rothbard's words "by far the best monetary order the world has ever known, an order which worked, which kept business cycles from getting out of hand, and which enabled the development of free international trade, exchange and investment."

There is not much more one can ask from a currency.

Christopher Mayer is a commercial lender for Provident Bank near Washington, DC ([email protected]).

0 Replies

Coal could be converted to oil.

0 Replies

Coal converted to Oil? You must be kidding. Don't you know that the planet is drowning in its own wastes and that coal mining is deadly insofar as it releases tons of Co2 into the air?

0 Replies

Americanadian wrote:

mrcool011 wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
mrcool011 wrote:
This takes blaming the jews for everything to a whole new level. Hitler would be proud!

Hitler? You mean Bush? Same thing.

Yeah a man who started a war that killed 60,000,000 and killed 6,000,000 jews and bush are the same. You're a nut

Ha..ha..ha... convenient of you to place all of the blame on Hitler and nothing on any other party that had a role to play in the war.

If you know your history at all, what started WWI ? Who assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria? A Serb. When Serbia refused to put the assassin on trial, Austria declared war on them. So....who supported Serbia? Russia, who was backed by France, who was further backed by Britain. Those are the big players anyhow. Italy was in there as well, but they weren't anything to worry about.

Fast forward to the Treaty of Versailles, 1918. The allies totally stripped Germany of everything. They were made the scapegoat to pay for WWI as if they were the culprits who started it all. They were merely supporting the country who had justification in the whole war. And I might add, that if it wasn't for America entering the war, Germany had everyone beat, hands down. As early as 1916, they had the "upper hand" with no battles being fought on German soil. The Soviets were off to deal with their civil war, France was backing out, Britain was on the brink of starvation and lack of supplies, due to the surprising and successful U-boat campaign. Germany offered to leave everything as is, but just to end the war. Britain was considering it, until the Zionists approached the British War Cabinet and made a deal to bring America into the war on their side, in exchange for Palestine at the end of the war. (The Zionists had a lot of pull in Germany as they ran many of the banks, shipping companies etc...)

Once Britain agreed to this deal, the media propaganda machine went to work, using their smearing and villifying tactics to portray the Germans as evil people who ate babies and whatever else they could conjure up. You might remember their media posters stating "beat back the Hun", encouraging Americans to do their part to support the war. America was brought into the war and we know the rest of the story.

Now the interesting thing, was the Germans were unaware of the deception by the Zionists. Not until the Zionists held up the paper of the Balfour declaration at the Treaty of Versailles, did the Germans realize what had occurred. This set the stage for WWII.

On another note altogether, one must also consider historic events that were a few centuries prior to all of this.

On a more religious note in history, if I may draw your attention to the 16th century where the Vatican held all the power in Europe. It wasn't until a German monk by the name of Luther, defied the Vatican and translated the Scriptures into German, so everyone could read it for themselves instead of being manipulated and controlled by the Roman Church. This was called the Protestant Reformation.

The Vatican set up what is called a Counter Reformation. This is what is known as the Jesuits. The two world wars were simply the materialization of the planning and execution of the Vatican plans for "breaking" Protestant Germany. Revenge enacted on the very country which stood up against the Vatican in the 16th century. Islam and America (Protestant) are the next targets. Of course, America is used as the pawn to win these battles, as noone can dispute the industrial might of the US. America is being deceived into believing they are at risk by Islam, when they are not. It is the Vatican using their influence through the Zionist Israel, and other agencies to weaken America by fighting to weaken Islam. The Vatican then achieves their goal of eradicating two religious entities.

One other note, is that there are only 5 countries remaining in the world that do not have a centralized bank. This may have been posted by another member here, but this is interesting.
Iran
Libya
Sudan
North Korea
Cuba

Ahghanistan and Iraq were #6 and #7. But as we observe, they have been attacked and restructured. Iran is a target, North Korea is part of the "Axis of Evil", Sudan is enduring a civil war, and Libya & Cuba have always been dubbed as "Communist/terrorist" countries, so that's a no brainer.

Combine that with the plans to amalgamate North America into the NAU (North American Union between Canada, US and Mexico. Much the same as the EU) and a one world banking system will be in place to further control the money, and therefore, the people.

Yes, I have found out that the Zionists are indeed a problem, but they are a subterfuge for the entity working 'behind the scenes', and have been ever since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century; the Vatican.
This should be alarming to anyone whether you're religious or not. They WILL force everyone to conform to their religious ideology otherwise, dissenters and heretics will be dealt with. Freedoms such as speech and religion will be no more. Things will return to the way they were when Rome was in power back in the dark ages. They'll just have more technology and toys to keep people in line, that's all.

Thank you for an intelligent reply, which I completely agree with- except that I do think the Zionists are more of a threat. The world's key bankers are Jews/Zionists (see previous posts on this thread). There is perhaps a competition between the Vatican and the Zionists to get the world under their thumb.

I started a thread awhile ago about the Euro versus the dollar, and the significance of Iran wanting to go Euro. I predicted the US would threaten war, as they did with Iraq over the same issue.

Funny how the truth gets buried under political spins & propaganda such as "WMD's, war on terror, or let's bring em democracy and freedom!"

Would the troops in Iraq be there if they knew they were there to secure oil fields or the US dollar?

I don't think the Trojan war was over Helen, either. But I digress Cool

0 Replies

EURO vs DOLLAR
www.livingjourney.wordpress.com

Important News!!!- EURO vs DOLLAR- Important News!!!

Some time back I did a post about Iran's methodology in bringing the west to its knees. Iran has opened its Iranian Oil Bursary the IOB to European trading. The thing about that is this. Iran is offering Europe cheaper fuel, and now according to the Middle East News report, and many others I might add, the Euro is set to replace the dollar as oil currency, this will happen in July. This will send the stock market into a tail spin, because the American dollar is over inflated and needs OPEC to continue to trade with the American Dollar.

This will have a major impact on the market because when word gets out that the American dollar is no longer stable and starts to slide then share holders will be pulling out of American company stocks. Crash!!! Investors will lose faith in the American Stock Market, and will sell their stocks before they fall to much further. There are signs that this is already happening because the American dollar is losing ground against the Euro. You have to ask what will happen in July when the Euro is in full swing in trading with the IOB???

We have already seen that the dollar is sliding, and the thing to watch is if Gold starts to rise, then it will become obvious that the American dollars is not stable at all.

Here is my post that you really should read which gives you a basic background and understanding about the IOB and the American dollar. It will give you the answers to why is the dollar inflated, and why is the gold important? Trust me it is easy reading, if I can understand it then anyone can! Then come back to read the quotes that have been posted around the net from a number of different resources all saying the same thing.

Middle East News:

Iran: Euro to replace dollar as oil currency In July Iran will ditch the dollar in favour of the euro as the currency in which it will accept payments for its oil and natural gas exports, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Friday. The switch, first mooted months ago, was expected but Ahmadinejad's decision comes just as Washington is stepping up pressure on other United Nations Security Council members to act against Tehran for flouting agreements taken with the UN's nuclear watchdog. Ahmadinejad's announcement, made in Baku, Azerbaijan where the Iranian leader is attending a regional economics conference, appears aimed at weakening the United States' resolve to seek sanctions against Iran if it does not comply with the UN International Agency for Atomic Energy's demands. Some observers beleive the Iranian move could deal a severe blow the the American currency as many central banks from oil importing nations could choose to stock up their currency reserves with euros rather than dollars- AKI.

A BIG factor in what's going on in Iran and a BIG factor with the invasion of Iraq. It is not about WMD's, or democracy. Bottom line - it's about money. America wants to be top dog. At any cost. Who knew?

0 Replies

Sometimes you blame american imperialism and sometimes on MOSSAD why dont you nut jobs make up your mind!

0 Replies

danny_boy wrote:

Sometimes you blame american imperialism and sometimes on MOSSAD why dont you nut jobs make up your mind!

because, nutjob, it is both: american imperialism and mossad. can you possibly assimilate that fact? duh

0 Replies

danny_boy wrote:

Sometimes you blame american imperialism and sometimes on MOSSAD why dont you nut jobs make up your mind!

because, nutjob, it is both: american imperialism and mossad. they are one and the same. can you possibly assimilate that fact? duh

0 Replies

Do you think if you post twice it makes you right? You believe and advocate far fetched BS to justify your anti-semitism and I am the nut job?
Just explain to me what dont you blame on mossad??

Name me some major **** going down in the world that you dont believe mossad was behind??

Do you think they are behind global warming also?? Which if it existed you would most certainly blame on Israel.

0 Replies

danny_boy wrote:

Do you think if you post twice it makes you right? You believe and advocate far fetched BS to justify your anti-semitism and I am the nut job?
Just explain to me what dont you blame on mossad??

Name me some major **** going down in the world that you dont believe mossad was behind??

Do you think they are behind global warming also?? Which if it existed you would most certainly blame on Israel.

Danny

Don't get caught in pachy's web.

I have no doubt he believes the outlandish nonsense he spews, but at the same time he loves to come to these threads and attempt to provoke Americans. If they happen to be pro-Israeli Americans, so much the better, and if they happen to be Israelis...I suspect he is in heaven.

Provocation is not so bad, it is the mind numbing repetitiveness of pachy's that is objectionable.

0 Replies

Americanadian wrote:

mrcool011 wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
mrcool011 wrote:
This takes blaming the jews for everything to a whole new level. Hitler would be proud!

Hitler? You mean Bush? Same thing.

Yeah a man who started a war that killed 60,000,000 and killed 6,000,000 jews and bush are the same. You're a nut

Ha..ha..ha... convenient of you to place all of the blame on Hitler and nothing on any other party that had a role to play in the war.

If you know your history at all, what started WWI ? Who assassinated the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria? A Serb. When Serbia refused to put the assassin on trial, Austria declared war on them. So....who supported Serbia? Russia, who was backed by France, who was further backed by Britain. Those are the big players anyhow. Italy was in there as well, but they weren't anything to worry about.

Fast forward to the Treaty of Versailles, 1918. The allies totally stripped Germany of everything. They were made the scapegoat to pay for WWI as if they were the culprits who started it all. They were merely supporting the country who had justification in the whole war. And I might add, that if it wasn't for America entering the war, Germany had everyone beat, hands down. As early as 1916, they had the "upper hand" with no battles being fought on German soil. The Soviets were off to deal with their civil war, France was backing out, Britain was on the brink of starvation and lack of supplies, due to the surprising and successful U-boat campaign. Germany offered to leave everything as is, but just to end the war. Britain was considering it, until the Zionists approached the British War Cabinet and made a deal to bring America into the war on their side, in exchange for Palestine at the end of the war. (The Zionists had a lot of pull in Germany as they ran many of the banks, shipping companies etc...)

Once Britain agreed to this deal, the media propaganda machine went to work, using their smearing and villifying tactics to portray the Germans as evil people who ate babies and whatever else they could conjure up. You might remember their media posters stating "beat back the Hun", encouraging Americans to do their part to support the war. America was brought into the war and we know the rest of the story.

Now the interesting thing, was the Germans were unaware of the deception by the Zionists. Not until the Zionists held up the paper of the Balfour declaration at the Treaty of Versailles, did the Germans realize what had occurred. This set the stage for WWII.

On another note altogether, one must also consider historic events that were a few centuries prior to all of this.

On a more religious note in history, if I may draw your attention to the 16th century where the Vatican held all the power in Europe. It wasn't until a German monk by the name of Luther, defied the Vatican and translated the Scriptures into German, so everyone could read it for themselves instead of being manipulated and controlled by the Roman Church. This was called the Protestant Reformation.

The Vatican set up what is called a Counter Reformation. This is what is known as the Jesuits. The two world wars were simply the materialization of the planning and execution of the Vatican plans for "breaking" Protestant Germany. Revenge enacted on the very country which stood up against the Vatican in the 16th century. Islam and America (Protestant) are the next targets. Of course, America is used as the pawn to win these battles, as noone can dispute the industrial might of the US. America is being deceived into believing they are at risk by Islam, when they are not. It is the Vatican using their influence through the Zionist Israel, and other agencies to weaken America by fighting to weaken Islam. The Vatican then achieves their goal of eradicating two religious entities.

One other note, is that there are only 5 countries remaining in the world that do not have a centralized bank. This may have been posted by another member here, but this is interesting.
Iran
Libya
Sudan
North Korea
Cuba

Ahghanistan and Iraq were #6 and #7. But as we observe, they have been attacked and restructured. Iran is a target, North Korea is part of the "Axis of Evil", Sudan is enduring a civil war, and Libya & Cuba have always been dubbed as "Communist/terrorist" countries, so that's a no brainer.

Combine that with the plans to amalgamate North America into the NAU (North American Union between Canada, US and Mexico. Much the same as the EU) and a one world banking system will be in place to further control the money, and therefore, the people.

Yes, I have found out that the Zionists are indeed a problem, but they are a subterfuge for the entity working 'behind the scenes', and have been ever since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century; the Vatican.
This should be alarming to anyone whether you're religious or not. They WILL force everyone to conform to their religious ideology otherwise, dissenters and heretics will be dealt with. Freedoms such as speech and religion will be no more. Things will return to the way they were when Rome was in power back in the dark ages. They'll just have more technology and toys to keep people in line, that's all.

I suppose, Finn, you think that anyone who is Canadian (especially those ex-pats) are objectionable. Just because it doesn't fit your worldview doesn't make it wrong. I think Americanadian is right on. Anyone with a brain stem would think so.

As for Israel, I have objections to a country who has WMD's, who practices terror on citizens (Palestinians) and who are supported by the US, who, for some obscure reason, don't wish to call Israel a terrorist nation.

The fact is, Israel wants every country around it to disarm. How would YOU feel if you were an Iranian? Israel could blow them away.

You can spew your brew somewhere else Finn. It doesn't wash here :wink:

0 Replies

Zionists planned 9/11

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know