Can a worker owned and managed economy work?

[Craig B]

I hear the Asians are good with numbers.

Ah, who am I kidding, its the Jews.

That would seem to be Tippit's message, given that Rothschild appears in these notions. But the CT is an odd one. The crimes - and they are of astounding scope - appear to be committed simply by evil individuals, like Goldfinger in James Bond, rather than by any coherent group definable in socio-economic or ethnic terms.

What do US conspiracists have against central banks, by the way? The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street gets more than her fair share of abuse, but she has survived since 1694, and has never been abolished like the Banks of the United States, or condemned as a swindler who brought about the communist revolutions of the twentieth century, no less, as a mere cover for some nefarious personal activities.

 

[Spindrift]

For a group that has been controlling the world for a long time, the Jews have done a piss poor job of controlling the world.

 

[Craig B]

For a group that has been controlling the world for a long time, the Jews have done a piss poor job of controlling the world.

Maybe that piss poor job

is just a popular scapegoat for the ignorant.

and they're really doing a grand job, but they're not telling anyone cos they're keeping it a secret.

 

[Tippit]

That would seem to be Tippit's message, given that Rothschild appears in these notions. But the CT is an odd one. The crimes - and they are of astounding scope - appear to be committed simply by evil individuals, like Goldfinger in James Bond, rather than by any coherent group definable in socio-economic or ethnic terms.

Why when the Rothschilds are mentioned, is the charge of anti-semitism always invoked? I hold the Rothschilds accountable for what the Rothschilds have done, I don't blame my neighbor who may or may not be jewish. In fact, there are some who claim the Rothschilds aren't even jewish at all, but Khazarian/Turkish.

What do US conspiracists have against central banks, by the way? The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street gets more than her fair share of abuse, but she has survived since 1694, and has never been abolished like the Banks of the United States, or condemned as a swindler who brought about the communist revolutions of the twentieth century, no less, as a mere cover for some nefarious personal activities.

What gave you the impression that the BoE is any less culpable in what is a global cartel of glorified counterfeiters? In fact, the Rothschild's are alleged to have seized control of the BoE after Wellington's victory at Waterloo over Napoleon (it's in the documentary I linked).

Can you address specifically the idea that anyone or any entity with the power to create money can set a floor on any price and acquire/control any asset? And then there is the fact that central banks aren't really transparent, and, that they could be fabricating/doctoring their balance sheets. Who would really know? We do know that central banks can and do make private loans and swaps, and acquire private assets from private sellers. I submit that the burden of proof shouldn't be on "conspiracists", but on those who apologize for a system that is obviously rife with world-dominating corruption.

We know that asset prices are sky high, we know that the largest banks cannot fail, they will be bailed out with unfathomable amounts of fiat money, and we know that wealth condensation is real and that the super-rich are getting vastly richer while the poor and middle class are being destroyed. It seems to me that we should lay blame where blame is due - the money system - as opposed to the ideal of capitalism, which I would submit does not even exist in reality anymore.

 

[psionl0]

What gave you the impression that the BoE is any less culpable in what is a global cartel of glorified counterfeiters? In fact, the Rothschild's are alleged to have seized control of the BoE after Wellington's victory at Waterloo over Napoleon (it's in the documentary I linked).

The BoE was nationalized in 1945.

And then there is the fact that central banks aren't really transparent, and, that they could be fabricating/doctoring their balance sheets. Who would really know?

Apart from Federal Reserve Notes (each one which is fully accounted for) the rest of the base money is balance sheet money (mostly reserves). How can you fabricate balance sheet money without it appearing on the balance sheet?

We do know that central banks can and do make private loans and swaps, and acquire private assets from private sellers. I submit that the burden of proof shouldn't be on "conspiracists", but on those who apologize for a system that is obviously rife with world-dominating corruption.

We know that asset prices are sky high, we know that the largest banks cannot fail, they will be bailed out with unfathomable amounts of fiat money, and we know that wealth condensation is real and that the super-rich are getting vastly richer while the poor and middle class are being destroyed. It seems to me that we should lay blame where blame is due - the money system - as opposed to the ideal of capitalism, which I would submit does not even exist in reality anymore.

Yes, the Fed is complicit in all of that. It is better to blame the system than look for faceless individuals who are siphoning money from the Fed "off the books".

 

[Craig B]

... there are some who claim the Rothschilds aren't even jewish at all, but Khazarian/Turkish.

Who claims that? On what grounds? What if the Rothschild were of Khazar ancestry anyway? Would that make then not Jewish? Wiki

Meyer Amschel Rothschild was born in 1744 in the Judengasse, the Jewish ghetto of Frankfurt am Main, Holy Roman Empire, one of eight children of Amschel Moses Rothschild (d. 1755) and his wife Schönche Rothschild (née Lechnich, d. 1756). The ancestry of the Rothschilds can be traced back to 1577 to Izaak Elchanan Rothschild (Isaac (Isaak) Elchanan Bacharach, zum Hahn), whose name is derived from the German zum rothen Schild (with the old spelling "th"), meaning "with the red sign", in reference to the house where the family lived for many generations.​

This "Khazar" stuff tends to be an extremist Christian idea. These Christians have taken over the Jewish scriptures as holy books, but they hate Jews, so they have to find a way if detaching Jews from the Bible. That's not easy to do, so how do they go about it? By identifying Jews as Turks, and by claiming that these Jews are people not of the Torah, but of the Talmud.

What gave you the impression that the BoE is any less culpable in what is a global cartel of glorified counterfeiters? In fact, the Rothschild's are alleged to have seized control of the BoE after Wellington's victory at Waterloo over Napoleon (it's in the documentary I linked).

Who alleges this? Note: I never look at linked video documentaries. If you have evidence of anything, put it in your post, with sources of data. Who stated that Rothschild took over the B of E, and who alleges that the B of E counterfeited its own paper money? That's a strange accusation!

Can you address specifically the idea that anyone or any entity with the power to create money can set a floor on any price and acquire/control any asset?And then there is the fact that central banks aren't really transparent, and, that they could be fabricating/doctoring their balance sheets. Who would really know?

Why are you spouting such gibberish? Ah, I know. Because the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street doesn't in fact own all the assets bought with pounds sterling, as your CT requires. How do you get round that difficulty? Well, maybe she's doctoring her balance sheet. Evidence? Well, she could be, couldn't she? How do you know she isn't? Not terribly convincing. And finally

We do know that central banks can and do make private loans and swaps, and acquire private assets from private sellers. I submit that the burden of proof shouldn't be on "conspiracists", but on those who apologize for a system that is obviously rife with world-dominating corruption.

No. The burden of proof of your antisemitic CTs is on you. You can't pass it on to your opponents.

 

[Tippit]

The BoE was nationalized in 1945.

That means nothing. Do they make private loans and buy private assets?

Apart from Federal Reserve Notes (each one which is fully accounted for) the rest of the base money is balance sheet money (mostly reserves). How can you fabricate balance sheet money without it appearing on the balance sheet?

How do you know Federal Reserve Notes are fully accounted for? And you can fabricate electronic money with the press of a keystroke. Are you suggesting that it would be impossible for the Federal Reserve to create money off the books, setting aside the fact that they already do create money on the books used to benefit *private* sellers of assets, and *private* borrowers? Isn't that problematic enough? The fact that the Fed's open market operations are not transparent means that there is essentially no limit to what they can do.

Yes, the Fed is complicit in all of that. It is better to blame the system than look for faceless individuals who are siphoning money from the Fed "off the books".

I disagree. I think it's important to arrest criminals, no matter how powerful or influential they may be, and shut down their institutions. If you do the former without the later, someone else will assume control of the institutions. If you do the latter without the former, then the same people will eventually reinstate the institutions.

 

[Tippit]

Who claims that? On what grounds? What if the Rothschild were of Khazar ancestry anyway? Would that make then not Jewish?

What difference does it make what ethnicity or religion they are? Do you think it's problematic that extraordinarily powerful, influential, and obscenely wealthy people should be able to avoid criticism or oversight by hiding behind the "anti-semite" card?

This "Khazar" stuff tends to be an extremist Christian idea. These Christians have taken over the Jewish scriptures as holy books, but they hate Jews, so they have to find a way if detaching Jews from the Bible. That's not easy to do, so how do they go about it? By identifying Jews as Turks, and by claiming that these Jews are people not of the Torah, but of the Talmud. Who alleges this?

So you're claiming that the best way to engage in anti-semitism, is to disavow the idea that they're semites? Seems legit. I don't hate jews. I really don't. I was talking about a very specific subject, and you asked for some names. Now, instead of discussing the merits of the original argument, you would rather paint me as an irrational bigot. Why?

Note: I never look at linked video documentaries. If you have evidence of anything, put it in your post, with sources of data.

Is there a reason why you willfully ignore video evidence? The documentary has a well-researched bibliography. It's also interesting, I recommend watching it. If you were earnest you wouldn't have accused me of being an anti-semite for referring to the legendary Rothschild banking dynasty when you asked for names of elites (while ignoring the fact that I listed the Rockefellers, who are apparently anglo-saxon). By your "logic" I am an anglo-saxon bigot! Case dismissed, I guess.

Who stated that Rothschild took over the B of E, and who alleges that the B of E counterfeited its own paper money?

The biographer Morton documented how Nathan Rothschild assumed control of the British consol market, when after receiving news of Wellington's victory he began to publicly sell consols, while having his agents privately buy them up at a discount over the resultant panic. The public believed that Napoleon had won the battle. It is then that they are alleged to have gained control over the BoE.

Just as murder in war is legal, when I refer to "counterfeiting", I'm referring to what central banks legally do when they create money, because the results are the same, legal or not.

That's a strange accusation! Why are you spouting such gibberish? Ah, I know. Because the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street doesn't in fact own all the assets bought with pounds sterling, as your CT requires. How do you get round that difficulty? Well, maybe she's doctoring her balance sheet. Evidence? Well, she could be, couldn't she? How do you know she isn't? Not terribly convincing. And finally No. The burden of proof of your antisemitic CTs is on you. You can't pass it on to your opponents.

Did you ignore my question about the ability to fix any price through setting a floor with unlimited fiat money, as well as the ability to acquire any assets? It's a philosophical question that requires you to think independently, and has nothing to do with the BoE specifically. In fact, all of this could be done ON the balance sheet and it wouldn't change the consequences at all. The fact is that central banks don't make their open market transactions public, though.

The point is that the ability to create money/credit ex nihilo is so powerful, and the fact that the institutions that have been tasked for doing this are opaque and not-transparent, that the burden of proof should be on YOU for why they should be allowed to exist.

 

[psionl0]

That means nothing. Do they make private loans and buy private assets?

It means that the era of the great short by Nathan Rothschild ended a long time ago.

Yes, government owned central banks do the bidding (to some extent) of the banks just as much as the Fed does but that is a long way from claiming that they are controlled by a secret cartel.

How do you know Federal Reserve Notes are fully accounted for?

Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Treasury, loaned to the Fed who sells them to the banks in exchange for reserve credits. The process whereby new notes are exchanged for old (which are then destroyed) is also designed to ensure that the old for new is exactly equal.

For the Fed (or some secret entity) to be able to circulate large quantities of Federal Reserve notes off the books they would have to be able to get their hands on large quantities of Treasury notes undetected or have a massive printing press capable of duplicating Treasury notes that are indistinguishable from the real thing.

This would be news of the century stuff that, if true, would be uncoverable by a junior reporting cadet - let alone experienced teams of reporting journalists. Of course, CT has it that the same cartel that controls the central banks also controls every aspect of the media (including the posts that appear in this forum).

And you can fabricate electronic money with the press of a keystroke. Are you suggesting that it would be impossible for the Federal Reserve to create money off the books, setting aside the fact that they already do create money on the books used to benefit *private* sellers of assets, and *private* borrowers? Isn't that problematic enough? The fact that the Fed's open market operations are not transparent means that there is essentially no limit to what they can do.

That was a quick sleight of hand you performed there. You mentioned "off the books" once but dedicated the rest of your paragraph to on book activities.

Yes I am suggesting that it is near impossible for the Fed to create money off the books. Accounting is such that every single transaction is zero sum (ie credits equally matched with debits). An asset or a liability can not appear out of nowhere. It has to be accounted for somehow. It is sometimes suggested that you should "look in the footnotes" of an accounting book if you want to discover accounting irregularities.

I disagree. I think it's important to arrest criminals, no matter how powerful or influential they may be, and shut down their institutions. If you do the former without the later, someone else will assume control of the institutions. If you do the latter without the former, then the same people will eventually reinstate the institutions.

If we can't convince people that the financial system is flawed then I fail to see how you are going to convince anybody to join you on your witch hunt.

 

[Craig B]

you would rather paint me as an irrational bigot. Why?

An antisemite, by which I mean that you have an aversion to Jews. I don't care about your theories as to the ethnic origin of the Jewish people, Semite or Ural-Altaic, I don't give a toss.

The biographer Morton documented how Nathan Rothschild assumed control of the British consol market

Well here's something from Frederic Morton^WP's biography,

Frederic Morton (October 5, 1924 – April 20, 2015) was an Austrian-born American writer. Born Fritz Mandelbaum in Vienna, Morton was the son of a blacksmith who specialized in forging (manufacturing) imperial medals. In the wake of the Anschluss of 1938, his father was arrested, but later released. The family fled to Britain in 1939 and migrated to New York City next year, when the senior Mandelbaum also changed the family name in order to be able to join an anti-Semitic labor union.​

Be careful of such a source when examining the activities of the Rothschilds.

when after receiving news of Wellington's victory he began to publicly sell consols, while having his agents privately buy them up at a discount over the resultant panic. The public believed that Napoleon had won the battle. It is then that they are alleged to have gained control over the BoE.

He made a killing in consols (government debt certificates) because he bought them before the UK victory in 1815 and sold them after. Who alleged he took over the B of E?

Just as murder in war is legal, when I refer to "counterfeiting", I'm referring to what central banks legally do when they create money, because the results are the same, legal or not.

Utter nonsense.

The point is that the ability to create money/credit ex nihilo is so powerful, and the fact that the institutions that have been tasked for doing this are opaque and not-transparent, that the burden of proof should be on YOU for why they should be allowed to exist.

I have already explained why the burden of justifying your CTs remains with you.

 

[Tippit]

It means that the era of the great short by Nathan Rothschild ended a long time ago.

Can you answer my question? Do they make private loans, and buy private assets? The fact that they were "nationalized" means absolutely nothing, given the scope of the power involved. If you give me the power to create money, I will buy as many or all of the national politicians I need to run the institution to my benefit, period.

In fact, the Rothschilds were worth some $6 billion in 1850. If you use even a modest discount rate, the family is worth trillions today, beside the fact that they are capable of creating money out of thin air. Please prove that the "nationalization" of the Bank of England affected their fortune one iota, and/or cite the cause of their allegedly lost fortune to the likes of Jeff Bezos, an online retailer.

While you're at it, prove that the sherman anti-trust act, which "splintered" the Rockefeller's petroleum dynasty into pieces, actually dissolved the Rockefeller fortune as well.

Yes, government owned central banks do the bidding (to some extent) of the banks just as much as the Fed does but that is a long way from claiming that they are controlled by a secret cartel.

The Fed is by *definition* a cartel. It's a group of regional banks that has the exclusive power to create money and credit ex nihilo. How is this not obvious. It doesn't need to be run by a secret cartel to be against the public interest given the facts that we already know. The fact that even just part of it is not fully transparent, should be enough to signal a problem to any reasonable human being.

Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Treasury, loaned to the Fed who sells them to the banks in exchange for reserve credits. The process whereby new notes are exchanged for old (which are then destroyed) is also designed to ensure that the old for new is exactly equal.

For the Fed (or some secret entity) to be able to circulate large quantities of Federal Reserve notes off the books they would have to be able to get their hands on large quantities of Treasury notes undetected or have a massive printing press capable of duplicating Treasury notes that are indistinguishable from the real thing.

You mean, like a "restricted" intaglio printing press, used to create supernotes? Lol.

https://news.vice.com/article/north-koreas-counterfeit-benjamins-have-vanished

This would be news of the century stuff that, if true, would be uncoverable by a junior reporting cadet - let alone experienced teams of reporting journalists. Of course, CT has it that the same cartel that controls the central banks also controls every aspect of the media (including the posts that appear in this forum).

Are you accusing me of believing that the bankers are censoring this forum? Are you suggesting that this forum is an "aspect" of the media? Really?

I'm not advancing a CT though I am positive it exists as I've described it. I'm making an a priori argument for why fiat money, whether paper or electronic, should not exist, and claiming that it's impossible for you or anyone else to guarantee the sanctity of such money.

You prove to me that such a system isn't being abused, instead of asking me for evidence. The evidence is that a *********** hamburger here costs twice as much as it did a couple years ago, yet the minimum wage hasn't budged.

That was a quick sleight of hand you performed there. You mentioned "off the books" once but dedicated the rest of your paragraph to on book activities.

Yes I am suggesting that it is near impossible for the Fed to create money off the books. Accounting is such that every single transaction is zero sum (ie credits equally matched with debits). An asset or a liability can not appear out of nowhere. It has to be accounted for somehow. It is sometimes suggested that you should "look in the footnotes" of an accounting book if you want to discover accounting irregularities.

I made it clear that it doesn't matter whether monetary debasement occurs on the books, off the books, legally, or illegally. The consequences are the same, which are, at best, a highly regressive form of taxation, and at worst, abject theft from the poor on a monumental scale. How is this not clear to you by now?

If we can't convince people that the financial system is flawed then I fail to see how you are going to convince anybody to join you on your witch hunt.

Who is "we", and why does it go from "we" to "I"? In fact, I'm using a priori reasoning and human nature to point out the flaws that I believe guarantee the conspiracy. I don't want a "witch hunt", I want the money scam to end, and the criminals brought to justice.

 

[Tippit]

An antisemite, by which I mean that you have an aversion to Jews. I don't care about your theories as to the ethnic origin of the Jewish people, Semite or Ural-Altaic, I don't give a toss.

You are a sad combination of logic impaired, and dishonest. Prove that by linking the name Rothschild that I have an "aversion" to Jews. I also linked the Rockfellers, who are not Jewish. What does that mean, in your little mind?

Also, i don't own any theories as to the ethnic origin of Jewish people. I don't care.

Well here's something from Frederic Morton^WP's biography,

Frederic Morton (October 5, 1924 – April 20, 2015) was an Austrian-born American writer. Born Fritz Mandelbaum in Vienna, Morton was the son of a blacksmith who specialized in forging (manufacturing) imperial medals. In the wake of the Anschluss of 1938, his father was arrested, but later released. The family fled to Britain in 1939 and migrated to New York City next year, when the senior Mandelbaum also changed the family name in order to be able to join an anti-Semitic labor union.​

Be careful of such a source when examining the activities of the Rothschilds.

Who wrote that about Morton? What does Morton's father have to do with Morton? Should we accuse you of the crimes and misdeeds of your father? And so what if they were both anti-semitic? Maybe they became anti-semitic after doing all of this research on the Rothschilds. If so, it would have been far more productive (and fair) to simply blame the Rothschild's rather than all jews, for fear of lunatics in the future summarily dismissing the facts in their biography with the horrible taint of anti-semitism!

He made a killing in consols (government debt certificates) because he bought them before the UK victory in 1815 and sold them after. Who alleged he took over the B of E? Utter nonsense. I have already explained why the burden of justifying your CTs remains with you.

Not quite. His courier arrived even before the official British courier, giving him advanced notice of Wellington's victory. Using inside information, he publicly sold bonds to signal the public that Wellington had lost, while using agents to privately buy them at a huge discount - manipulating the consol market. He was perhaps one of the first insider traders in the world.

I'm not clear on how he obtained control of the Bank of England as a result, or if that is even true. It was mentioned in the documentary as an allegation. Certainly being able to manipulate and control the entire British bond market is extremely influential in and of itself.

No, I'm not an anti-semite. It really is about the money.

 

[Craig B]

@Tippit

Your insider trading consols story is dismissed here

A fantastic tale… and a complete myth.

As with many myths, it may have its roots in a real event. In 1814, a year before the battle of Waterloo, a group of men led by Lord Cochrane conspired to spread the rumour that Napoleon was dead. The men traded on this information, leading to some great profits… though not the legendary amounts that Nathan Rothschild was alleged to amass from a similar gambit. This became known as the Great Stock Exchange Fraud of 1814, and ended in the conviction of Lord Cochrane for fraud.​

That 1814 incident can be checked, and I will in due course.

ETA I've started checking. Here's the report on the Cochrane 1814 incident.

 

[Tippit]

@Tippit

Your insider trading consols story is dismissed here

A fantastic tale… and a complete myth.

​

Lol. Let's examine that chart linked in the article. The author claims that there was no precipitous drop after the battle on June 18th, 1815, which is true. However, note the quite precipitous drop from early 1814 through mid-to-late 1815, which documents a decline from about 70 to about 55, a 21.4% selloff. The British Empire was the equivalent then of the US Empire today. A decline of 21.4% in the US treasury market over slightly more than a year would be financial armageddon, resulting in the loss of trillions. The "Rothschild formula", which describes the financing of all sides of war for profit is, of course, attributed to the Rothschilds. Thus, they would presumably be capable of not only predicting outcomes but deciding them, even well in advance. I think that chart is entirely consistent with the alleged Rothschild manipulation of the British consol market, if not in the immediate aftermath of the battle of Waterloo, but in the months preceding and following. Case not dismissed. History, of course, is replete with liars, but that applies to all historians, including the ones that you are sympathetic with. Who knows what the actual truth is. One thing can be certain, the Rothschild wealth is legendary and unparalled in the world.

Since you take that mises.ca article to be the absolute truth on the matter, does that also mean you agree with the author's sentiment when he states this?

It is unfortunate that a fictional story created by Nazis lives on until this day. The existential threat to the fabric of civilization presented by central banks is very real.(emphasis from *your* article, mine) Stories such as these only serve to distract from that. As the great H.L. Mencken warned us:

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

I will assume based on the fact that you linked this article that you do agree, and have just been playing Devil's advocate this whole time. That is certainly as reasonable an assumption as you assuming me to be an anti-semite because I name-dropped the Rothschilds is. Glad to have you on board!​

 

[psionl0]

Can you answer my question?
..........

The Fed is by *definition* a cartel.

I did answer the question. Your claim that the BoE has been seized and run by the Rothchilds since the 19th century does not stack up.

Your rants are all over the place. Are you claiming that soulless global corporations are taking advantage of existing systems to extract as much wealth from the world as they can or is it your claim that a small bunch of uber-powerful individuals are doing it all?

 

[Craig B]

@Tippit

You're admitting that the Rothschild Waterloo insider dealing story isn't true, aren't you?

There was a decline in values of UK government bonds in 1814 to 1815 I imagine because war broke out again that year after a French capitulation the previous year. Nothing remarkable about that. But the insider story about the consols coup simply isn't true. Neither then is it true that Nathan Rothschild used the proceeds of this imaginary transaction to buy over the Bank of England. It's all complete nonsense, and can easily be shown to be such.

 

[Tippit]

I did answer the question. Your claim that the BoE has been seized and run by the Rothchilds since the 19th century does not stack up.

You didn't answer the question, as far as I could see. Does the BoE issue private loans and buy assets from private sellers? I think that's the third time.

Your rants are all over the place. Are you claiming that soulless global corporations are taking advantage of existing systems to extract as much wealth from the world as they can or is it your claim that a small bunch of uber-powerful individuals are doing it all?

Lol. In what universe are these things mutually-exclusive? The bankers own and control all the equity through proxies like trusts and foundations. Ever seen this?

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world

Of course, again, using endless fiat money to buy up all of the assets doesn't have anything to do with capitalism. We can forgive the New Scientist for that error.

 

[Tippit]

@Tippit

You're admitting that the Rothschild Waterloo insider dealing story isn't true, aren't you?

If the historical data used to generate that chart of British consol prices is correct, then yes, I agree that the specific story that claims that Rothschild shorted the consol market directly after Wellington's victory must be false. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't involved in the manipulation from early 1914 onward, which resulted in a 21% decline in bond prices for over a year and a half, until he decided to buy!

Do you agree with the author of the article that you submitted that, and I quote:

The existential threat to the fabric of civilization presented by central banks is very real.

Since you posted the article, that would make you a "conspiracist", wouldn't it? That allegation holds as much water as the idea that because I linked the name Rothschild that I'm an "anti-semite".

There was a decline in values of UK government bonds in 1814 to 1815 I imagine because war broke out again that year after a French capitulation the previous year. Nothing remarkable about that. But the insider story about the consols coup simply isn't true. Neither then is it true that Nathan Rothschild used the proceeds of this imaginary transaction to buy over the Bank of England. It's all complete nonsense, and can easily be shown to be such.

I'm pretty sure the Rothschild's legendary wealth, power, and influence, and the financing of all sides of modern wars is still intact, despite the fact that they would prefer myth to be their public relations.

By all means though, continue to apologize for them, and brand anyone who disagrees a bigot.

 

[Craig B]

Of course, again, using endless fiat money to buy up all of the assets doesn't have anything to do with capitalism. We can forgive the New Scientist for that error.

The article says nothing about fiat money being used to buy up the world. What it does say is

One thing won’t chime with some of the protesters’ claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. “Such structures are common in nature,” says Sugihara.​

 

[Tippit]

The article says nothing about fiat money being used to buy up the world. What it does say is

One thing won’t chime with some of the protesters’ claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. “Such structures are common in nature,” says Sugihara.​

The group wasn't attempting to analyze how the network came to own the assets, it was attempting to confirm the existence of the network itself, which it did successfully. The speculation of the likelihood of conspiracy by Sugihara of how it arose and it's intent, is just that, pure speculation.