The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Soveriegnty of European Nations?

...Among the previously taboo ideas being mentioned today are: countries ceding fiscal sovereignty to a central authority; some sort of elite group of euro nations that would guarantee one another’s loans but require strong fiscal discipline from anyone seeking membership.

Won't happen without force of arms.

The Pen is mightier than the sword, and finance mightier than the pen.

Rynar wrote:

The Pen is mightier than the sword, and finance mightier than the pen.

This was true when France and the UK did not have the power to render any bank irrelevant on a half hour's notice.

No. Governments are only propped up by Central banking, and are populated by those bankers themselves and their sympathizers. Control over an economy and money supply is a far greater weapon than anything in the possession of our military.

Ah, but I control the people in power. I make wealthy those who defend me, and destroy those who oppose. If you were right, we wouldn't be working with a fractional reserve system, and wouldn't be starting profit driven wars in the interests of global muli-nations and banking interests, who generate more profit from those wars than from any other endeavor.

DE:

You're just plain wrong. First of all, our government is a multi-national corporation, run and managed by the global elite, and nothing more.

Second of all, you clearly don't have a very good understanding of how global finance works, what it's ownership stakes are, who the players are and what their involvement is.

Lastly, what "conspiracy" do you think I'm falling prey to?

What, in your mind, is the significance, of the changing of the name of the Constitution from "The Constitution for the united states of America" to "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in the Act of 1871?

I'd rather have a conversation than start a page of TR;DR, so I'm addressing this logically, from the beginning. The first valid argument you've raised is against my assertion that the United States is, in fact, a multi-national corporation. With respect for your counter arguments, I'm addressing this first. So, if you would be so kind:

Quote:

Rynar,

You made very bold assertions about the government being a multinational corporation being run by the global elite, and I think you need to defend why. Creating tangents with vague and seemingly unrelated questions just irritates people.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Soveriegnty of European Nations?
Oh, there you are, Global Banking Elites. I was wondering when you'd weigh in. Quote: ...Among the previously taboo ideas being mentioned today are: countries ceding fiscal sovereignty to a central authority; some sort of elite group of euro nations that would guarantee one another’s loans but require strong fiscal discipline from anyone seeking membership. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Euro-Finance-Ministers-wscheats-3060132077.html

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:
The E.U. is functionally becoming one country in my opinion, and pretty quickly.

Author:	Ladas [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Won't happen without force of arms.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Ladas wrote: Won't happen without force of arms. NATO?

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:
The Pen is mightier than the sword, and finance mightier than the pen.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Soveriegnty of European Nations? https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7764	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Dalantia [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soveriegnty of European Nations?
Someone in this thread has a penis mightier?

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: The Pen is mightier than the sword, and finance mightier than the pen. This was true when France and the UK did not have the power to render any bank irrelevant on a half hour's notice.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Diamondeye wrote: Rynar wrote: The Pen is mightier than the sword, and finance mightier than the pen. This was true when France and the UK did not have the power to render any bank irrelevant on a half hour's notice. Any bank but a Central Bank. Central Banks have more power than any government.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Soveriegnty of European Nations?
No, they really don't. Especially not a government that, if presented with national destruction, can utterly obliterate the central bank in question. "The pen is mightier than the sword" was penned when swords were still relevant weapons. It's wisdom has diluted considerably. The power of a central bank exists only as long as governments (or, for that matter, enough irate citizens) are willing to tolerate it. Replacing it would not be without severe consequences but it can be done, and those managing the central bank might take cold comfort in the fact that even if the central bank ultimately wins out in a conflict, they, personally, might suffer exceedingly severe consequences.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:
No. Governments are only propped up by Central banking, and are populated by those bankers themselves and their sympathizers. Control over an economy and money supply is a far greater weapon than anything in the possession of our military.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: No. Governments are only propped up by Central banking, and are populated by those bankers themselves and their sympathizers. Control over an economy and money supply is a far greater weapon than anything in the possession of our military. Except that it isn't. Those people can be removed, and new ones installed in their place essentially at the whim of the government in question. They have control at the sufferance of a government. That government can remove them from control at any time, far faster than any amount of control over money supply can cause any meaningful change. Those central bankers have to live in that society. No amount of threats to collapse an economy can stave off angry people with torches and pitchforks. If that government is truly pressed to the wall, Rynar, and happens to be France or England, they can trigger a conflict that will render the current economic situation entirely irrelevant. You are confusing soft power with hard power. Hard power has two enormous advantages over soft power - it's very, very, fast, and it's much more final. If you have control of the money supply, and I have a 9mm pistol, I guarantee I can shoot you and put someone else in your place a lot faster than you can do anything with that money control to stop me.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Ah, but I control the people in power. I make wealthy those who defend me, and destroy those who oppose. If you were right, we wouldn't be working with a fractional reserve system, and wouldn't be starting profit driven wars in the interests of global muli-nations and banking interests, who generate more profit from those wars than from any other endeavor.

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: Ah, but I control the people in power. I make wealthy those who defend me, and destroy those who oppose. If you were right, we wouldn't be working with a fractional reserve system, and wouldn't be starting profit driven wars in the interests of global muli-nations and banking interests, who generate more profit from those wars than from any other endeavor. That's the thing. You don't do this. It's a nice conspiracy theory fantasy, but you don't, and can't, do this, because mere control of the money supply doesn't give you control of the economy. More importantly, even if you could do this, you can only do so much of it. You don't control the other central banks. You cannot create more resources out of thin air, and you must make sure that economy stays nice and healthy to give you any control in the first place. If not, the angry mobs are going to be at your door with pitchforks, since anyone you **** over just a little too hard will be only too happy to demonize you in the press, which by the way, you can't control either. By the way, since we don't see wars being started in the interest of global multinationals and "they" do not "derive more profit from them than any other endeavor", you're wrong. This is nonspecific conspiracy theory nonsense. By the way, if you have time to argue about European central banks and play Skyrim, you have time to post in the game thread. Chop chop!

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:33 pm ]
Post subject:
DE: You're just plain wrong. First of all, our government is a multi-national corporation, run and managed by the global elite, and nothing more. Second of all, you clearly don't have a very good understanding of how global finance works, what it's ownership stakes are, who the players are and what their involvement is. Lastly, what "conspiracy" do you think I'm falling prey to?

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Central bank of Germany refused to loan Hitler any money at one point. He backed down. Bank > Leader of nation

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:58 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: DE: You're just plain wrong. First of all, our government is a multi-national corporation, run and managed by the global elite, and nothing more. First of all, you're not offering a single fact or argument to back this up. There is no "global elite". This is a fiction people tell themselves to absolve themselves of responsibility for the state of things. Second, by claiming the government is a multinational corporation right after claiming we're involved in "wars" to enrich "global multinationals" all you're doing is attempting to blur the distinction between governments, corporations, and multinationals to such a degree that you can never be wrong because all are so nebulous as to mean whatever you need them to. Essentially you've conceded that you can make no cogent argument and are simply trying to obfuscate the entire issue to the point that further discussion is nothing more than flailing about trying to grasp hold of something coherent to discuss. Quote: Second of all, you clearly don't have a very good understanding of how global finance works, what it's ownership stakes are, who the players are and what their involvement is. I've seen nothing more than nebulous claims so far, claims that defy physical reality, so this is hardly much of an argument. All you're really doing is saying "you don't understand things I'm simply implying I myself understand, but I can't give you a single damn reason to think I know my * from a hole in the ground in this regard." Quote:** Lastly, what "conspiracy" do you think I'm falling prey to? The idea that there is any sort of "elite". All of your arguments are based around the assumptions of the existence of some financial elite that cares about nothing but control of the economy for the sake of control of the economy. It's absolutely laughable; all it really is, is an attack on nameless, faceless financial demons.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:11 pm ]
Post subject:
Our government is run by elected American officials, who aren't Spanish, French, British, etc. Nothing too global about them, and there aren't strong enough class distinctions in the U.S. to call them elite. I also don't see how the government is a corporation.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:
What, in your mind, is the significance, of the changing of the name of the Constitution from "The Constitution for the united states of America" to "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in the Act of 1871?

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: What, in your mind, is the significance, of the changing of the name of the Constitution from "The Constitution for the united states of America" to "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in the Act of 1871? What, in your mind, makes it ok to make a whole bunch of vague assertions, and then when it's pointed out you have not provided a single hard fact or counterargument, to start asking equally vague questions?

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:05 pm ]
Post subject:
I'd rather have a conversation than start a page of TR;DR, so I'm addressing this logically, from the beginning. The first valid argument you've raised is against my assertion that the United States is, in fact, a multi-national corporation. With respect for your counter arguments, I'm addressing this first. So, if you would be so kind: Quote: What, in your mind, is the significance, of the changing of the name of the Constitution from "The Constitution for the united states of America" to "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in the Act of 1871?

Author:	Diamondeye [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rynar wrote: I'd rather have a conversation than start a page of TR;DR, so I'm addressing this logically, from the beginning. The first valid argument you've raised is against my assertion that the United States is, in fact, a multi-national corporation. With respect for your counter arguments, I'm addressing this first. So, if you would be so kind: Quote: What, in your mind, is the significance, of the changing of the name of the Constitution from "The Constitution for the united states of America" to "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in the Act of 1871? Umm.. you don't get to sit back and declare all the arguments you don't want to address "invalid" by claiming another one is "the only valid one". So, if you want to address it logically from the beginning, address it. That means make your own arguments. It does not mean you make a bunch of assertions, I point out problems with them, and then you get to sit back and ask questions to "lead" me to the correct conclusion as if they were never challenged. Either make your own argument or don't, but I don't do the "opponent asks questions in order to avoid stating and defending his own position" thing.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Rynar, You made very bold assertions about the government being a multinational corporation being run by the global elite, and I think you need to defend why. Creating tangents with vague and seemingly unrelated questions just irritates people.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:28 pm ]
Post subject:
DE: First, you've distorted everything I've just said. I never said you made "only one valid argument", I said it was the first, and that I'm content to address them all in order of relevance to my position. But, given that you'd rather have a TL;DR than a conversation, and have accused me of engaging in intellectual dishonesty, I have to believe that you aren't interested in a discussion, but instead are simply looking for another pulpit from which to scream. I won't give it to you. If you'd like to talk like a grown-up, I'll be right over here. If anyone else is interested, I'm more than happy to have the discussion with them instead.

Author:	Rynar [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Lex Luthor wrote: Rynar, You made very bold assertions about the government being a multinational corporation being run by the global elite, and I think you need to defend why. Creating tangents with vague and seemingly unrelated questions just irritates people. You have my word that it's relevant. It's actually the beginning of a long story, and like most stories, it's better understood when told from the beginning. Worst case scenario, indulging me hasn't cost you anything. So, are you interested in having a civil conversation?

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:07 am ]
Post subject:
A civil conversation is fine but I have no interest in reading up on that 19th century bill and am going to opt out of this conversation. Please don't take offense.