Perhaps Rothschild Zionism is the culprit.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
This suggests it was about "money." I suggest it was never about money, it was always about control. Money is useful for control, but is not in and of itself meaningful. Control however, is very meaningful. If losing money, or losing anything (like a war) gains control, it is a win, not a loss, yet that is never explained in any history book, despite the obvious outcome.
We are taught, by rhetoric in the media and history, that people are motivated by money. This is especially true in the corporate world (which includes banks). This is a misdirection; propaganda put forth by the exact people committing the crimes. We believe it because we are slaves to money. We need money to survive (because of the system they created). This makes that motive very believable to us, but it is just a part of the scam.
This quote is from the World Bank report on fuckery in Trusts, Foundations and corporate chains (dummy corps, shell corps, fronts, etc.) from 2011. It is through the separation of ownership and control in Trust law that this control of everything is accomplished.
It's not about ownership, it's not about money, it's not about "who wins" in any conflict, it's about control, and it has been since day one.
You are missing the point. Money runs the world. Money is control.
Without money you control nothing, because sheer force will only take you so far before you are stopped by someone with the money to make you stop.
You said:
I am not disagreeing with these statements, but they imply the supreme importance of money.
And this corroborates my assessment. You believe that money is the key. I suggest it is the purposeful distraction.
It is not "money" that runs the world. People run the world. In some cases they use money to do it. In other cases they do not. In some cases they purposefully give away money, or lose money, or give away assets, or lives, or even in some cases they give up actual power, to make it appear that they have "lost" when in fact the very act of losing these things has actually increased their control.
The problem I had with what you are implying in the first post, and stating explicitly in the second, is not the idea that money plays an important part, but that it is the actual thing that is "the goal", or that it itself is exerting control, or that "profit" is important to them. When people think these things, they align their investigation with those thoughts, thus when someone "loses money," or "doesn't make a profit" they think, "the bankers lost that one." That is not what a deeper investigation suggests, rather it suggests:
The House Always Wins.
Looking into why people commonly believe in money and profit as supreme, suggests that all such ideas are promoted by the very people themselves who are exerting control. They created the trope of the "evil banker, sitting on his bags of gold" specifically to distract from who is doing what and why. We focus so much on money and "profit", we miss a ton of evidence that shows how the real currency, the real goal, control, is changing hands.
All of the greatest fuckery I've found has very little, or nothing, to do with profit, or money. Thinking of it as anything other than one useful tool keeps people from seeing this greatest fuckery, which is related to the question, "why do people believe what they believe?"