QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

EUROPEAN ACTION publishers of European Socialist Action

^     All messages            875-890 of 890  859-874 >>
890
Ode to Joy
15-02-2020
17:55 GMT)
Finding Dominic Cummings to be a slightly odd figure, but a master strategist. His Blog (https://dominiccummings.com/) comes across as slightly pretentious. There seems to be method in his madness. Naturally, he is on the wrong side of history almost as if, for him, black is white and white is black. Perhaps, put another way, reaction is progress and progress is reaction. Anyone care to share thoughts on this man?
889
Bill Rogers
27-01-2020
22:45 GMT)
Brexit is a train which is going to derail or run out of track especially as it becomes clearer that US interests are an ocean apart from UK interests, even if on the same side of the fence, simply due to geography. Further, if the UK's Brexit remains on track it would eventually be derailed by the US which gains more by having the UK contributing to EU policy then having the UK isolated. A change in the US administration would almost certainly reverse position on Brexit. Trump will be forced to get closer to Germany or France now that the UK has hung up her boots. I suspect what will occur with UK's self-imposed exile from the EU table is moves by France and Germany for closer Union. This might not be a bad outcome because when the UK suddenly awakens to the self-imposed persona non grata status in EU negotiations, the move back into the EU will be in a much closer union. Many Europeans witnessed how a million plus people marched in London's capital for the EU. I doubt that has been witnessed in other EU capitals. Therefore, the door stays open for a UK return. The question is how fast can Europe move to get closer in Union before the UK rejoins. It's a great opportunity and experience will certainly teach the masses going forwards. The problem the UK faces is that becoming a tax haven impacts on the welfare state. You can't have an NHS with tax haven taxes.
888
Robert Edwards
27-01-2020
08:07 GMT)
You are correct in your analysis but it could still come about with all existing governments in Europe coming together at an appointed time and making these decisions to abandon the debt scam.
But you need the strength and power of a united Europe to bring it about. Small separate nations could not achieve it because they would be picked off one by one. That is why Brexit is such a tragedy.


On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:31 QT - Joy, <qtopic-41-Xbtn2ba7FPSj@quicktopic.com> wrote:
887
Joy
27-01-2020
00:31 GMT)
Government-led credit creation would work backed by very tight laws against interest on lending. A peoples' bank which is run by government could be created which monopolises the banking sector. All institution which have acquired assets through the practice of charging interest could have assets seized by the government and be taken over. The national debt could simply be abolished. Sovereign debt could simply not be paid back. Other governments could be encouraged to do the same. There would be an optimum moment for such a policy to be implemented. That moment should be when another banking crisis occurs. The banks today are running on ponzi-finance. Only a matter of time before they collapse. A regular house of cards.
886
Robert EdwardsPerson was signed in when posted
26-01-2020
14:16 GMT)
Usury was forbidden by the Church for centuries. Jews were permitted to practice usury by the Church but Jews could not charge interest on fellow Jews. Only upon Christians.
Usury is an evil practice whereby debt is created and today that debt is a permanent condition with little chance of being free of it. When nations default they must surrender their assets to the moneylender. It happened in Greece recently.
The moneylenders become richer while severe austerity is imposed upon the people, bringing ruin upon them.
This entire system of usurious banking is a racket and a scam. It should be replaced by government-led credit creation, money being a means of exchange created by need alone. It should be controlled by government and taken out of the hands of cartels of private banking.
It takes a revolution in economic thinking. We need to understand there is always an alternative to the current system.
885
Joy
26-01-2020
12:29 GMT)
It's an interesting plan. Wondering if there is any historical precedent. Rothschild started out through the restraints placed on usury from the time when religion was the dominant mode of production. Both Islam and early Christianity placed obstacles on usury. This left the Jewish community able to loan sums not only between Christians but also across the sectarian divides between Muslims and Christians. So, certain Jewish families became the go between bankers. The tradition of Monarchies using the Rothchilds is a very old one and that tradition continues with the British Royal family. Could it be that a form of lending money at interest is required to prosper an economy? If it is abolished how would money be redistributed to facilitate projects? You could tax and spend, or even print. Our economies are so tied down with debt that it would be a major disruption to reform. Then you have to assume that tax and spend or even print could be major disincentives. How far can an economy prosper on that basis.
884
Robert EdwardsPerson was signed in when posted
26-01-2020
10:00 GMT)
The Rothschilds are part of an extremely wealthy financial elite. That is the first thing to consider. They are part of a very small number of financial powers that maintain a grip on nations through a system of debt slavery. This system must be overthrown. We need a new system whereby banking serves the people instead of the people serving the bankers. This is not impossible. It could be done with current governments. First, we cancel all national debts, abolish private banking and create our own system of credit without the need of interest payments. We could make usury a criminal offence. But this could only be achieved on a large continental scale.
Abolish all elites and then we have social justice.
883
Joy
26-01-2020
09:48 GMT)
Not saying the family is not financially powerful. They are less so. It would be very difficult to contain the Rothschild. They are international. You would need to be more than a Putin to contain them. In many ways, the Rothschilds would be very happy to see the aristocracy reduced to rags and a more equality of opportunity state. It's what makes them flourish.
882
Robert EdwardsPerson was signed in when posted
26-01-2020
09:04 GMT)
I am familiar with the history of the Rothschilds. They increased their financial power through a partnership with the Rockefellars. Rothschilds own The Economists, have a controlling influence in Goldman-Sachs, which in turn influences the European Central Bank. They once decided on the value of gold on a daily basis. They own most of Israel, having been given Palestine by Arthur Balfour. The Bank of Internationak Settlements is a Rothschilds bank.
881
Joy
26-01-2020
08:40 GMT)
Rothschilds became privileged through ghettoization. Eventually, becoming the bankers to leading monarchs and aristocrats becoming a defacto world bank. As you know, they acquired wealth through Frankfurt's Jewish ghetto. They formed four branches, Frankfurt, Vienna, Naples, London. The Naples branch was the first to go through lack of an hier. Hitler eradicated the Frankfurt and Vienna branches. The London branch still exists and serves Elizabeth II's firm. They are not as big as they use to be.

My view is that real progress is measured through making the less well off better and improved rather than knocking down the wealthy. The wealthy tend to knock themselves down almost every third generation.
880
Robert EdwardsPerson was signed in when posted
26-01-2020
08:29 GMT)
Correction: The Rothschilds family wealth is estimated at nearer 900 trillion.
879
Robert EdwardsPerson was signed in when posted
26-01-2020
08:15 GMT)
An elite? But for what purpose? To keep the non-priveleged majority in check? We have an elite in Britain best described as the ruling class. The monarchy and aristocracy included. On a global level we have big families like the Rothschilds who are worth nearly a hundred trillion. Mind-blowing. Such wealth brings enormous power with it.
But how did they acquire this wealth? With the Rothschilds it was usury and blackmail.
Our monarchy sits on an enormous pile of wealth and still uses the taxpayer for topping up. No wonder the Queen refers to it as The Firm.
No, let us be rid of them and have a more fair society.
878
Joy
25-01-2020
23:57 GMT)
Do you think that every society regardless eventually forms an elite? It's quiet a small village at the top even in a democracy. So, privilege eventually occurs. Would it not be better to have a Monarchy rooted in an institution which has rules rather than open where it's undefined? The same could be said for an Aristocracy. You could still have opportunity for all where you make the poor richer without making the rich poorer. Surely, that makes for real progress.
877
Robert EdwardsPerson was signed in when posted
25-01-2020
23:15 GMT)
Personally, I regard the institution of monarchy as completely out of date and inappropriate in a country that preaches equality and democratic principles.
The monarchy, as with all aristocratic groups, is based on hereditory privilege.
We used to say "opportunity for all and privilege for none". To me, that clearly defines opposition to monarchy.
876
Joy
25-01-2020
23:06 GMT)
What are European Socialist Action views on Monarchy and Aristocracy?
875
Robert Edwards
19-01-2020
16:17 GMT)
My thinking is a matter of wait and see. I need to get involved at some stage.

Mark Francois is the ugly face of Brexit.
^     All messages            875-890 of 890  859-874 >>