I was born in the 1940s and I can tell you that life used to be so much easier and everyone was so much happier. Feminism is a crock, it's just a way to hide the fact that one income no longer supports a family.

If I told you what life was like in the US in the 50s and 60s you would weep with despair over what we've lost. There was so much fun! So many parties, and get-togethers of various kinds. Technology was extremely limited so people got together in person, face to face. People were not struggling to survive, so there was time and money and energy for the good things in life. Very few people were fat, and it wasn't because we spent long hours at the gym. People were happy and not seeking gratification from food, since they already had pleasure in their lives.

My dad had only a high school education but supported a wife who didn't work and 5 kids. He bought his first house (single family) at age 28. He came home to a home cooked meal every night, a clean house, the laundry done, the car serviced, etc. Mom didn't work and handled all that stuff. A life like that for a high school graduate -- or even a college graduate -- in 2016 is only a dream.

Feminism is a crock, it's just a way to hide the fact that one income no longer supports a family.

Whoa I have never thought of it in that way. That makes total sense. Both people have to work now because they want to drive down the cost of labor, and they frame it like a womens' empowerment issue. Genius marketing there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ijg3EIaxdc - Relevant

Insane. And that is the strategy, slowly make things worse and worse so each new generation thinks this is 'the norm'.

Your perspective is very interesting yet fills me with melancholy. When did you become interested in conspiracy? Curious to see if it was pre-Internet or post Internet.

Not until 2003, the year I got high-speed internet. I've learned more in the past 13 years than in my entire previous life.

Excellent reminder.

It all started in the 40s when all the men were gone for the war and women took up traditionally male occupations. Rosie the riveter made some women want to leave the home. When the men came back from the war they wanted their jobs back but the women didn't want to leave the workforce. Because of this there was a large surplus of labor in the workforce that made it possible to lower wages. Employers like big business loved it because they now had a large source of cheap labor so naturally they pushed for more of it. Thus modern feminism was born

this sounds like a fairly tale, but I believe you. How sad...

Get off my lawn!

It's hard to believe how much has changed, and how fast. I wish I was alive back then instead of now.

but then you'd be all old and wrinkly now, it'd be tough to get pussy.

The past, for some, always looks better because memory lane tends to filter out all the warts.

If you ask blacks, latinos, or women, who wanted to be independent, of your same age... many of them will probably have a different recollection of that past.

That's why non-fiat currencies are a threat and are becoming increasingly popular among laborers.

For anyone interested in this, investigate what happened with Gaddafi and Libya

Exactly. He wanted to sell oil in gold backed African Dinar. Saddam wanted to sell oil in Euros

Both are dead. This world is less chaotic and coincidental than one might think. Look for the patterns, friends.

Damn, I never realized why the U.S. wants oil sold with the dollar. Now it all makes sense

good video

Leaked Hillary Emails even state this fact.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/

Cryptocurrencies and precious metals.

Bitcoin is a fiat currency. It's not popular among laborers, it's popular, and pushed by, early adopter nerds who are hoping to become rich by virtue of their early adopter status. It's a pyramid scheme.

bitcoin isn't fiat. fiat means "per decree". no-one is ordering you to pay your tax return in bitcoin.

It's just non-state fiat currency. It has no inherent value. It exists only if enough people believe it exists. I noticed you didn't argue against the fact that it's a pyramid scheme.

i can't be bothered with the pyramid discussion. but your definition of fiat currency is wrong. it's not whether people "believe" it to be, it's whether an authority has made it happen.

All currency is fiat currency, when you libertarians finally understand this simple concept, then maybe you'll be taken seriously by normal human beings. The question is WHO prints the money, NOT what sort of money is being printed.

all currency is most certainly not fiat.

"Fiat money is a currency established as money by government regulation or law.[1] The term derives from the Latin fiat ("let it become", "it will become")[2] used in the sense of an order or decree.[1] It differs from commodity money and representative money. Commodity money is created from a good, often a precious metal such as gold or silver, which has uses other than as a medium of exchange (such a good is called a commodity), while representative money simply represents a claim on such a good.[1][3][4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

Yeah, and what the hell does this accomplish? why the hard on for Gold backed currency with libertarians? How will people enjoy having 100's of thousands of dollars in paper that would have to be repaid in gold dollars?

What's the point?

Why, when libertarians say they are concerned with higher order things like peace, do libertarians spend theirs days wanking to the idea of gold money? You can't get 9/11 prosecuted, you can't get any false flag prosecuted, your only good presidents get killed without a finger getting lifted, yet you want to change the money? Why? for What purpose? Why the obsession with gold when it's literally the last of anyone's troubles? (Well unless you're investing in gold, in which case I'd understand the obsession and propaganda about gold).

you made an incorrect claim. i challenged that, and nothing else. so i have no idea why you went on this anti-libertarian rant. you must have some issues. best of luck sorting them out.

lol? the gold based currency is the libertarian talking point, if you're not defending it, why are you spreading a libertarian talking point? Are you just throwing stuff around for the fun of it?

i have said nothing about libertarians. i have stated that you're wrong in regards to currencies. please take your issues elsewhere, i'm bored of listening to your angry rants.

Yeah, avoiding stating you're a libertarian is a smart move, congrats.

I believe the main point is that no matter the currency, as long as it can be exchanged with items that currently hold value, the system cannot be broken. Everything that is worth owning or would be (for setting up a non fiat currency), already is. There is no beating the game.

Much longer than that; thousands of years.

The central banking scam specifically has been around 300 years, with the advent of the Rothschilds Central Banks in Europe. They then spread the system to almost every nation in the world.

Federal reserve is a private company who prints money and loans it to the government with interest. Our tax dollars pay the interest. Why doesn't the gov print money itself?

Most Americans can not wrap their simple minds around this notion and that is the problem. If it ain't broke don't fix it mentality but the whole reason the "Federal" Reserve was enacted was to counter a Depression which hasn't happened ever because Recessions/Depression happen every 7 years or so. PLUS the Federal Reserve actually caused the last recession by turning a blind eye to the Big Banks rigging the system.

There was the 1907 Panic that caused a big upset. Then the makers of the central bank came along to the government saying they could prevent any more recessions by enacting this central bank system. The day before Christmas, 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was passed. Then there was the great depression of the 1930s, but the Fed got to stay despite the obvious evidence it didn't work. Then we got stuck in this status quo, and anyone who opposed it was eliminated from any position of power. And here we are today, with every modern nation in debt to these central banks. So many governments are on the hook, so the banks can basically run the governments.

More money is owed than exists in the first place. That's the basis of the entire system. It should really be no surprise when no debt is ever forgiven and we just get more and more in debt. It's a mathematical certainty, regardless of how fiscally responsible a nation is. Then nations seriously in debt can be brought to war to reorganize the world pecking order, if the bankers feel like doing so.

I really wish people would wake up to this game that's being played on all of us. It's so obvious and in our faces, but it seems like only 10% of people really have any damn clue

If I tried to show this or talk to anyone about this they'd just say, get a job, or that's what poor people think, or in my fathers case he would just say that's how things have always been and just accept them. Fucking tired of accepting corruption.

Same. The tough part is coming up with a plan of action that will actually fix things instead of just get us more deeply ensnared in corruption. You can bet there are three-letter agencies just waiting to capture the momentum of any revolutionary actions. It's a very uphill battle. But it is worth trying, not like there's much else to do of moral consequence on this damned earth

It's a VERY uphill battle. And you're absolutely right about having to come up with a plan that will actually uproot the rot from our roots. It will have to be very comprehensive.

The best thing I've come up with is to slowly abolish positions of power, while people take control of their own lives through their communities. Getting rid of positions of power and empowering the individual. There's a lot of details as to how to do that exactly, but imo that's the general direction to move in.

It seems all we can do is wait for shit to get bad. No change will come until enough people realize they've been duped.

Yup. I think it's important not to work to artificially hasten that though by voting for Trump or stirring up shit. That also doesn't help, but a lot of people are trying to rush it.

What we really need to do is talk to people about what is coming and talk about how we're going to deal with it. We need to prepare a culture that is ready when that moment arrives. We need to teach people about how revolutions can have momentum that can be captured by agencies like the CIA to be used for their own benefit, as many revolutions in other countries have shown.

We just have to talk about it as much as we can before it gets here so everyone is aware what's up and knows how to react (or not-react) when it gets here.

All serious change in society is a result of change in culture, precipitated and proved in the moment by seriously dire events that naturally arise.

100% agree. And no way in hell I'm voting this election. Only way I'd consider if there was a third party but we both know they would flop immediately. Keep it real brother.

I'm voting 3rd party too. It will flop. But the point is to send a protest vote so that maybe next election it won't flop. Got to get that ball started rolling or it will never roll, imo

who's on the ticket? Stein?

Yes Stein for Green party and Gary Johnson for the Libertarians. I like both of them better than either Hillary or Trump.

There was the 1907 Panic

My understanding is that the big banks caused the 1907 panic in order to force congress into chartering the Fed. It was actually the third time (1791, 1816 & 1913) that was done with the first two not getting their charters renewed.

Yeah, that's probably true as well.

Problem -> Reaction -> Solution.

Stock market crash -> Panic of 1907 -> Federal Reserve

You are correct and I do mix up those dates commonly. I think it was enacted to cover war expenses initially not because of the Great Depression.

It was enacted after the 1907 panic, the great depression was far after. The idea it was for war expenses for WW1 would make sense as well as it was passed in 1913, I hadn't considered that

Federal reserve is a private company who prints money and loans it to the government with interest. Our tax dollars pay the interest. Why doesn't the gov print money itself?

Dude, no. I like the way this sub looks at things with an open mind, but there is nothing here. The Board of Governors, the part of it that actually creates money in Washington, DC is a part of the government. The Reserve Banks that don't print money are not even owned by their members. They're required to have a certain portion of reserves at the regional bank and to have stock, but that isn't even ownership stock like with a corporation.

Implying that its done nothing to reduce recessions is unfair. Here is a list of recessions in the US. Count the total time in the period 1814-1914 and then 1915-2015. The first period had 37 years, 2 months of recessions while the second had 21 years, 9 months. A clear improvement, even considering that the second period included the early era before the economic science was fully understood.

They just make the recessions more severe and longer-lasting when they do happen, but I will admit they do happen with less frequency. I don't know if having one huge crash every 30 years is any better than having a small one every 7.

The point stands that the Federal Reserve Open-window lending rate is what determines the rate of creation of new money, and this is set by unelected officials. It largely determines if we have a recession or not, especially as the economy relies on it more and more. Bailouts are money creation. There is plenty here.

Here is an article that has historical data on recessions in the 1800s. You don't even need to look at the numbers to see that recessions were much more severe in the 1800s. Actual sources for data in that period are scarce, so if you have your own I'm completely open.

Money growth and interest rates should be set by unelected officials. Its a completely technical position that shouldn't have ties to politics. Allowing the Board of Governors to be elected would give them an incentive to lower interest rates before elections to give them an advantage at great cost to the economy.

The last bailout created a lot of new money, but didn't cause inflation. Even if it did, inflation at a low level isn't really a big deal. A small amount of inflation can even be beneficial, and its certainly better to run a small amount of inflation than run an increased risk of deflation.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/in-plain-english/who-owns-the-federal-reserve-banks

"The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public. So is the Fed private or public?

The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends. Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank's board of directors. "

I've read it before. Is this post you agreeing with me?

I've read it before. Is this post you agreeing with me?

Correct. I believe the financial system is directly responsible for many of the world's woes.

I'm a proponent of cryptocurrencies and precious metals for that reason.

If you want to learn about bitcoin, the first and largest cryptocurrency, I recommend /r/btc. Don't read /r/bitcoin because it's heavily censored.

Different blockchains offer different advantages, but they all compete in an open and free market.

Here's a comment by /u/Capt_Roger_Murdock which explains Bitcoin nicely.

The reason it's so hard for most people to understand Bitcoin is that most people don't really understand money. Money isn't wealth. It's an accounting system to facilitate the exchange of wealth. (The paradox of money is that while everyone wants it, no one actually wants it - they want the stuff they can buy with it!) Many people are put off by the fact that bitcoins are "just data." But that's what ALL money is, information! More precisely, money is a means for credibly conveying information about value given but not yet received (or at least not yet received in a form in which it can directly satisfy a person's wants or needs).

To put it yet another way, money is a ledger. With fiat currencies like the dollar, that ledger is centralized. And that gives the central authority responsible for maintaining that ledger tremendous power, power that history has proven will inevitably be abused. With Bitcoin, the ledger is decentralized. And that means that no one individual or entity has the power to arbitrarily create new units (thereby causing inflation), freeze (or seize) your account, or block a particular payment from being processed. We've had decentralized money before. After all, no one can simply print new gold into existence. And the "ledger" of gold is distributed because the physical gold itself (the "accounting entries" in the metaphor) is distributed. But with gold, that decentralization comes at a heavy price (literally). The physical nature of gold makes it hugely inefficient from a transactional perspective.

Enter Bitcoin.

It is the first currency in the world that is both decentralized AND digital. It is more reliably scarce than gold, more transactionally efficient than "modern" digital banking, and enables greater financial privacy than cash. It could certainly still fail for one reason or another, but if it doesn't, it has the potential to be very, VERY disruptive.

So happy to see bitcoin being discussed in this context! It's definitely a very promising innovation.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Why doesn't the gov print money itself?

Exactly. 30% of our money is thrown away every year. Simply paying bankers for doing the things they shouldn't have the right to do.

Govt is forbidden to print money, but they use to be able to mint it. Like if you brought in an ounce of gold to be turned into a coin for circulation, so they would weight it and mint it. The govt was banned from printing their own money after numerous Fiat crashes in the colonies and the Fiat dollar of the civil war. They learned their lesson, Fiat = bad for the people. Although the damn federal reserve found a loop hole and had one too many friends in gov't.

And the government should not be in debt to the people who create money. It's so foolish. The government should create its own money, for free. Government debt is a meaningless concept that's used to control our government, and thus us.

This is what I've been saying for years. You can't pay back money you don't have. And debt is how they control us.

They do debt forgiveness to poor countries. They have to move the national debt back from 500% of GDP to 100%, so people don't lose interest in trying to pay off those never-ending loans. Debt is absolutely how they control people, even entire governments

this has to be true; i want money back with interest*. (but i won't hold my breath)

It's not so much that the Federal Reserve is a private company as it is that it is a state-sanctioned institution with more independence than the Treasury. They operate with a magic checkbook (this is literally how it's taught in college classes) and can alter the monetary base however they want.

The real thieves are the banks who, through their control of the money supply (which is different from the base), are able to charge interest, drawing money away from small businesses (whose owners can't just issue new shares) and individuals who take out loans or credit card debt. These people lower down the ranks are then forced to take more money from other countries, whose banks are doing the same exact thing, or by taking on more work than would be considered necessary in as strong an economy as the US's (should people really be working to death? This is already an issue in Japan).

And then, what happens when the gambles the banks take fail? Well, the Federal Reserve can pitch in a couple of trillion of dollars to prop up the banks (here you can see just how much banks have in excess reserves, which is more than they need to be able to give out loans). All of the essentially free money the Federal Reserve is giving away is caught up in the banks, which is a big reason we haven't seen hyperinflation. If the Fed moves too quickly in raising rates, however, banks may capitalize on that movement and raise their own rates, increasing the capital they've already built up. The other direction, negative interest rates, would either force banks to loan that money out to avoid a cost, or allow their money to depreciate. This is the direction other central banks have taken in order to force regular banks to contribute to the economy. This comes with a couple of potential negatives, however.

Growing up, my parents always told me I NEED a bank.. NEED credit.. etc. I believed them for a while, but then I saw that movie Zeitgeist and it changed the game for me. There's a part where they explain how the money system really works. That shit really pissed me off, even at the young age of 15, and it was then and there that I decided I wouldn't never fucking buy into that bullshit system. Ten years later, and I still don't fuck with banks. I probably never will.

It's hard to find solid information but I believe one of the fundamental disagreements between Arabic countries and the west is that they are against the charging of interest.

Anyone?

Sharia forbids loaning money for interest, but allows dividends to be paid from corporations. receiving money from other banks and businesses that have charged or received interest is apparently OK. Banks in these nations make money through dividends iirc.

It makes sense; corporations are not people, and protections in the Koran do not apply to them.

Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about Islamic theology. I only knew this because it was related to banking.

My neighbor is Shia, and confirms that is one of the points Sunni and Shia differ on in practice, though the Quran is explicit about it. That's why NWO is using Sunni extremism to destabilize Shia societies; to get the brand of Islam that is ready to serve their interests above all.

Which extremist groups are Shia? I'm not very well-read in this area.

All the ones NWO is portraying in the MSM as bad guys, except ISIS, which is entirely its own false-flag organization.

Thanks. Again, not my area of expertise.

Welcome!

this is one of the biggest "pieces of the puzzle" for sure...things get even more interesting when you start looking into the histories of the specific individuals involved and the ideologies they held

Bitcoin all the way

Yes, theyre robbing you.

I haven't had a bank account in 20 years and have never thought to myself "I really wish I had a bank account".

It's easier now more than anytime in the past to live without a bank account.

What do you do with your money, if you don't mind me asking?

I advise a Credit Union (non-profit bank).

Well, to pay bills you use online transactions or whatever... or you physically drive to the office. You can buy a prepaid visa card at any walmart in america in pretty much any amount.

If you are trying to save money, you buy physical assets. It's a good idea to buy things that can be easily resold. In the case of loans or debts, you pay them with more or less every spare penny until they are paid. The idea though is to not take any debts at all.

I was wondering the same. For most people not having a bank account just isn't practical.. In which case I would recommend a locally-owned credit union, one that doesn't take bailouts, wasn't involved with fraudulent mortgage backed securities and doesn't engage in fraudulent foreclosures (as the other banks do), for example.

Can I ask why having a bank account isn't practical? If you need it for credit for a car loan or mortgage that's one thing, but how about day to day living? Whats different?

With the prevalence of prepaid cards these days, it's very easy to live without a bank account. Plenty of places cash payroll checks for a small fee, and hell there's even a few prepaid cards that offer cash back on purchases. I have quite a few prepaid cards that I use for paying bills online, and I do keep a fair amount of cash at home. Not under my mattress, but it's in a secure location.

As another poster said, buying physical assets is another way. I buy quite a bit of physical gold and silver. It's easier and they fit nicely in my gun safe.

I buy my vehicles in cash. Naturally theyre not new right off the lot, but I generally go within 5 years old or less. There's paperwork involved when dealing with that amount of cash if you buy from a dealership, so I prefer to stick with private owners. I've never had a car payment in my life,(Mid 30's) and I don't drive pieces of junk

I guess I should mention that while I don't use banks for checking or savings, I do have a Roth IRA . Since that could be considered a relationship with a "bank" I should've said I'm 99.9% bank free in life.

I truly believe the u.s. economy cannot sustain itself for much longer, so I diversify the way I keep my "money".

Guns, metals, and a few other things that will always be liquid , no matter what the economy does. I'm not low income, but my job tends to be more cash than paycheck. I've seen the countless number of ways banks fuck people, and long ago I decided I didn't want any part of that .

If going bank free is something anyone might be considering, please feel free to message me any questions .

I was having a coversation with a new commer to the conspiracy world and came up with this:

The necessity of money is the plantation of modern day slavery. Debt is the chains.

Bingo. Debt is like the chains. Well said.

This is the Zeitgeist view of the game which isn't 100% accurate. Money is added to the economy without creating debt all the time. The fed just gives money to banks all the time for free (often when a bank gets bailed out by the FDIC, this is how it's resolved).

I know it's suggested here a lot but The Creature From Jekyl Island is a great great book on how the fed really works and what it does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM

My favorite video explaining the scam.

Spread it like wildfire OP.

Thank you for an island of clarity. In firefox, i went to top left, clicked print preview, so I saw i had the lead and the comments, and clicked print, which then went to my PDF file creator and saved to my pc, these things have a tendency to disappear.

Buy Bitcoin Gold and Silver. Opt out of the Fed System and hedge your bets against another recession.

Why doesn't the gov print money itself?

Because then the government would have control over it's monetary supply, and wouldn't be indebted to a private company, eternally.

Federal reserve is a private company who prints money and loans it to the government with interest.

The Federal Reserve system includes a federal agency and 12 regional banks, each of which is a separate corporation. There's a mixture of public and private control.

The Federal Reserve buys Treasury bonds, so it does indirectly lend money to the federal government, but it's pre-existing debt. It doesn't increase the amount that the government owes. Usually the Federal Reserve owns 10-15% of the federal debt. The rest is owned by other parties and individuals.

Since the Federal Reserve owns 10 to 15% of the debt, it gets about 10 to 15% of the interest on the debt. However, it gives almost all its profits to the federal government, so the Fed only received about 2% of net interest on the debt from 1947 to 2007. The other 98% went to the other owners of federal debt.

Since 2007, it has given the government far more than the interest it has received. These are profits from its emergency loan programs and the mortgage-backed securities.

Why doesn't the gov print money itself?

The main reason is as a guard against devaluation of the money. Independent central banks have a better track record on inflation. The strength of the dollar and the nation's excellent history in repaying debt has made the United States dollar the leading reserve currency and the US Treasury bond the safest investment in the world. As a result, the US can borrow money at the lowest interest rates.

We are paying billions in Interest per year to this company.

No, the Federal Reserve is paying the government tens of billions of dollars. There are billions paid in interest on the federal debt, but that goes overwhelmingly to the other owners of the debt.

Then, local banks store your money and then loans it back to the people for interest except that it can loan up to 10x the amount they hold.

This is not correct. Banks can loan out about 90% of their deposits. If an extra 100 dollars is added to the money supply, the banks can lend out $90. If that gets redeposited, they can loan up $81 of that. If that continues and you add up all the amounts, it comes to $1000, but that's not something that any bank sees. To every bank, they always only lend out less than their deposits.

Basically, these entities give you 10 dollars and take back 15 thereby removing money from the economic pipeline into tax free havens.

No, their profits are not that high and I don't know why you think any significant amount of money goes to tax free havens.

Well, of course this will eventually ruin the economy

No, that doesn't follow.

yes.

Do you have any proof for this?

For anyone interested in this, investigate what happened with Gaddafi and Libya

Yeah, that's probably true as well.

Problem -> Reaction -> Solution.

Stock market crash -> Panic of 1907 -> Federal Reserve

Cryptocurrencies and precious metals.

Sharia forbids loaning money for interest, but allows dividends to be paid from corporations. receiving money from other banks and businesses that have charged or received interest is apparently OK. Banks in these nations make money through dividends iirc.

Bitcoin is a fiat currency. It's not popular among laborers, it's popular, and pushed by, early adopter nerds who are hoping to become rich by virtue of their early adopter status. It's a pyramid scheme.

All currency is fiat currency, when you libertarians finally understand this simple concept, then maybe you'll be taken seriously by normal human beings. The question is WHO prints the money, NOT what sort of money is being printed.