Money Masters Part 1

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I asked for you to explain it to ME and Kmax, not for me to explain it to YOU.

Now you're just being disingenuous. You asked Palynka to lend his thoughts concerning how far removed from private interests the Fed is given the so-called connections in your chart. Yet, when Palynka asks for clarification on what sorts of connections are ac ...[text shortened]... he "connections" to us? Or else get some better source material for consideration?[/b]

not at 2am in the morning.

You don't need to understand the charts. Just look at the names. Look at where they work. Now then, if those people working at those locations are connectedf to the Fed, then how far removed from private interests are they?

Write down the names of the other banks in chart 1. They are connected to the fed according to the chart. If true, how independant do you think the fed is?

A simple audit of the feds books would clarify and potentially refute the claims of many people about the fed so-called indpendance, yet the fed refuses to become transparent, hiding behind FOI rules that are only supposed to apply to private companies, not ones created by the gov and not one anywhere near as important as one that controls the money supply.

Anyway, I asked for thoughts on the chart from palynka. He said he coulnd't figure it out. I said fine. How this makes me disingenuous is somewhat of a mystery.

Originally posted by uzless
not at 2am in the morning.

You don't need to understand the charts. Just look at the names. Look at where they work. Now then, if those people working at those locations are connectedf to the Fed, then how far removed from private interests are they?

Write down the names of the other banks in chart 1. They are connected to the fed according to the c ...[text shortened]... oulnd't figure it out. I said fine. How this makes me disingenuous is somewhat of a mystery.

You don't need to understand the charts.

Really? I thought the point of your challenge was for us to draw on the implications of the charts and see how they bear on the question of the Fed's independence from private interests. So isn't understanding the charts more or less foundational to this project? Gee, isn't it more or less at the very heart of the project?

They are connected to the fed according to the chart. If true, how independant do you think the fed is?

Even if true, that of course would depend materially on how they are connected. You just don't seem to get it: if I don't understand the manner of connection supposedly being established, then how am I supposed to know how these connections would bear on the question of the Fed's independence from private interests? As I already mentioned, I find the site itself to be explanatorily inadequate in its descriptions of the "connections". You yourself seem to be wholly ignorant in this regard as well.

I am all for understanding the degree to which the Fed is committed to or divorced from private interests. But it seems like we need better sources than the one you brought to the discussion. Otherwise, for the last time, can you explain exactly what connections the site is claiming? I still don't get it.

Originally posted by uzless
Anyway, I asked for thoughts on the chart from palynka. He said he coulnd't figure it out. I said fine. How this makes me disingenuous is somewhat of a mystery.

The point of my exercise was that, even though you don't understand the graph, you seem ready to believe it means something.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nathan Rothschild ran the Bank of England located in London.

While every conspiracy site claims this its very hard to actually connect NMR with the BOE. The closest connection is that in the mid 19th cent NMR's bank helped bail out the BOE by providing much needed coin. An interesting case of the purported bank of last resort needing a last resort. Does this bail out *prove* Rothschild control forever after in perpetuity?

Originally posted by Palynka
The point of my exercise was that, even though you don't understand the graph, you seem ready to believe it means something.

who said I didn't understand it? I said it was ungainly but not unintelligible.

Originally posted by uzless
who said I didn't understand it? I said it was ungainly but not unintelligible.

Don't worry, the exercise was successful.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You yourself seem to be wholly ignorant in this regard as well.

wrong. I just haven't explained it for you. Don't take the fact I haven't bothered to spoon feed it to you as proof I don't have a spoon.

I'm not wasting my time building the case presented in the charts just for you at the end to say you don't know if its true. (which IS what you would say) Because if you DID know something, you would know whether or not the names presented (Lehmans, Schiff, Morgan etc) were connected. You wouldn't need a picture painted for you. Even if i took the time to explain it all in perfect detail, i'd be wasting my time because you don't know. You just want the chart explained. you have nothing to offer. If you did, you would point out either the mistakes/innaccuracies/blatantly wrong aspects of the chart. You would know whether or not the names even belonged on the chart in the first place!

But you don't. So, again, why would I waste my time?

I offered the chart as a conversation piece. It didn't work.

Time to move on.

Originally posted by Palynka
Don't worry, the exercise was successful.

see above.


You know, New Order and Joy Division are connected. Can you comment on that or do you need me to draw you a chart showing you how the band members are connected first?

Same frickin thing.

Originally posted by uzless
see above.


You know, New Order and Joy Division are connected. Can you comment on that or do you need me to draw you a chart showing you how the band members are connected first?

Same frickin thing.

I like it that you feel the need to defend yourself. Ask yourself why.

Originally posted by Palynka
I like it that you feel the need to defend yourself. Ask yourself why.

Don't need to ask. Your post 4 posts up and the one from lemon jello demand a retort.

I like that you feel a need to attack me. Ask yourself why.

Originally posted by kmax87
. An interesting case of the purported bank of last resort needing a last resort. Does this bail out *prove* Rothschild control forever after in perpetuity?

Who knows. It would be nice if the Fed would open their books to disprove this claim. But with the Fed continually blocking all attempts to see the books, we will never know for sure.

At best, we can only say we don't "THINK" so. It amounts to faith. We choose to believe in the absence of evidence.

That type of belief will never fly with me. Show me the proof and let me decide. "Trust me" is never good enough. You have to demonstrate the trust first, but the Fed has always refused to be audited.

Originally posted by uzless
Who knows. It would be nice if the Fed would open their books to disprove this claim. But with the Fed continually blocking all attempts to see the books, we will never know for sure.

At best, we can only say we don't "THINK" so. It amounts to faith. We choose to believe in the absence of evidence.

That type of belief will never fly with me. Sho ...[text shortened]... gh. You have to demonstrate the trust first, but the Fed has always refused to be audited.

I don't see how Pal is believing in the absence of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and a piece of paper with some names on it and dashed lines really doesn't qualify as extraordinary in my mind.

I'm an "a-conspiracy-theorist" here.

Originally posted by telerion
I don't see how Pal is believing in the absence of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and a piece of paper with some names on it and dashed lines really doesn't qualify as extraordinary in my mind.

I'm an "a-conspiracy-theorist" here.

I was refering to kmax, not palynka. And I wasn't saying palynka believed anything. I just that if the fed says they don't have any nefarious links, then they should allow their books to be audited.

To say, "trust us, we don't have links to these people" but then won't let anyone look at the books that show who they deal with, is not a statement that holds any weight with me.

If the fed was strictly a private company with no government ties, then i'd say the fed doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. BUT, they are tied to the government, and shoulder an enourmous public responsibility, so to hide behind FOI rules in the face of accusation can only engender suspicion.

Originally posted by uzless
I was refering to kmax, not palynka. And I wasn't saying palynka believed anything. I just that if the fed says they don't have any nefarious links, then they should allow their books to be audited.

To say, "trust us, we don't have links to these people" but then won't let anyone look at the books that show who they deal with, is not a statement that h ...[text shortened]... lity, so to hide behind FOI rules in the face of accusation can only engender suspicion.

I guess the Fed isn't going to give up their rights under the FOIA just because a eccentric (I would even say "fringe."😉 Congressman like Ron Paul and some Austrian school types say, "Prove it." That's especially true when the allegations being made a pretty wild.

Originally posted by telerion
I guess the Fed isn't going to give up their rights under the FOIA just because a eccentric (I would even say "fringe."😉 Congressman like Ron Paul and some Austrian school types say, "Prove it." That's especially true when the allegations being made a pretty wild.

But the claim against them is not "are you sleeping with your mother" (an assertion which is almost impossible to disprove, given that most people at sometime have).

Why shouldn't the Fed have the same requirements as other corporations or Governmental departments in terms of disclosure? If they are saying trust us there's nothing to hide, then why hide?