# Rome - Money - Land Enclosure



## Quiahuitl (Dec 20, 2022)

A lot of ideas came together in my mind recently.

No-one in medieval England used money. They lived in communities that had common land and everyone had a birthright to enough land to grow vegetables and graze their animals. Life was sweet!

Rome, above all, was the imposition of money, tax collection and tribute. All the coins have J-dates because they are all Julian calendar. Rome was only a thousand years ago. The Roman empire 'Occupied' England until i400. The conventional narrative says the Roman Catholic Church was the most powerful organisation in England up until the reformation of 1490. They were collecting a 10% tax - the Tithe. No-one had money, so they had to give 10% of everything they produced to the Church - which is one and the same thing as the Roman empire which was said to have occupied the country for 400 years a thousand years earlier.

Even in the early - mid 1700s / J700s 90% of the English still lived on their common land and had no need of money. It wasn't until the land enclosure act of 1773 that the people were forced off their land and into the slavery of factories where they would be paid in scrip currency or truck wages which they could only spend in the company store at prices fixed by the company. So everyone was forced to use money.

Edit I've known about and studied the land enclosure act for years and I always thought there was one defining moment when all the common land was stolen from the people (1773) but it then took more than 50 years for private armies to evict the 'Squatters' all over England and Scotland. I've now found this on wiki Inclosure Act 1773 - Wikipedia


I also read somewhere that the UK penal code in the early 1800s was the most harsh it had ever been in this country. There were 200 hanging offences and you could be executed for stealing just 10 shillings - which is probably only a thousand or two thousand pounds in today's money. The story I've heard is that summary execution was used a lot in the early days of the 'Norman' occupation (1066-c1200), but the law was a lot less harsh to ordinary people for centuries after that, up until the late 1700s / early 1800s.

I have native American friends who talk about how the invaders drove their ancestors off their land. I've explained to them exactly the same thing happened to the English, at the same time! George Washington in the 1770s was spending 80% of his federal budget prosecuting wars against the Indians. In the UK at this same time, the government simply passed a law claiming ownership of all common land and selling parcels of it ('Enclosures') off to robber barons, who would then raise private armies to evict the people living there, killing any that resisted.

There's a thread on this forum that talks about how the US war of independence was possibly a cover story for both sides to murder the native Americans and claim their land. Quite right! But what most people don't know is they were exterminating and enslaving the English at the same time!

And - we were still using the Roman money system in the UK until 1971! We used to use Pounds, Shillings and Pence, which were abbreviated L.S.D. - Libruum, Sesterces, Dinarii


----------



## dreamtime (Dec 20, 2022)

I don't have a lot of concrete facts to add, but I will share some general thoughts about this:

It's not state vs. state, but basically state vs. individual freedom. The Romans probably invented the concept of the nation state, at least I think so. Looking at the Ottoman Empire, it almost looks like the Ottomans simply copied the Roman concept of centralized power, but failed because they weren't as evil.

There is no point in taxes, armies, etc., except for centralized power and control. The driving force behind this is the desire to destroy the individual, and the human spirit. Power and control comes from evil, which tries to absorb human energy.

The end-result of a world where evil controls everything absolutely, is the end of life itself, channelling all energy to the top. I think we are transitioning to the last phase of evil - they will gain almost absolute power for a couple generations, but never completely, and then it will all crumble.

It's a never-ending process of contraction and expansion. The best stories happen in the darkest times ("Lux lucet in tenebris"), it's in those times that souls grow and make progress. These is reflected by the cycles of the ages, e.g. the yugas.

In the times of darkness, they way humans interact with each other degenerates, and collective structures have to form, by definition. They make up for the missing direct interactions between individuals. In an individual, they create the "super-ego" known from psychoanalysis. This ego is a reflection of the collectivist structure that exists outside an individual. It's a parasitic influence that comes from outside and is not human, it invades the psyche.

Collective structures are required for pyramidal control, which is the only way evil can absorb human energy. Via artificial conflicts and crisis, they slowly approach a single unified state - world government. And the control over the individual only grows and grows, until the individual doesn't exist anymore and is simply a robot and slave to the state. In the last phase, money and taxes disappear, because everthing the human does is already owned by the state. There is no freedom and value that need to be taxed (controlled). There are many dystopian novels that show this kind of world, and in the end it always breaks apart, because it's dead.

Many of those novels actually portray the enemies of the dystopia as Barbarians - who "primitively" live in nature and in freedom, but are always in danger of being persecuted.

Frostychud recommended this book recently, which looks fitting: Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States - Wikipedia

Chapter 7 seems to be interesting:



> Scott views "barbarian" raiders as having a symbiotic relationship with the early states. They raided the grain centers, but also traded many goods from more remote areas such as metals or animal parts. Scott thus theorizes that up until 400 or so years ago humanity was in the "Golden Age of the Barbarians." This was an era when the majority of the worlds population had never seen a tax collector. Part of this was due to the existence of "Barbarian Zones," i.e. great tracts of land where the state found it either impossible or prohibitively difficult to extend its rule. Places like "mountains and steppes," as well as "uncleared dense forest, swamps, marshes, river deltas, fens, moors, deserts, heath, arid wastes, and even the sea itself."[11] Not only did this place a great many people out of the reach of the state but also made them significant military threats to the state's power.
> 
> The traditional narrative is that some "barbarian" communities became sedentary and then developed into early states and civilization. Meanwhile, those who did not undergo this transition remained "barbarian." Scott argues that the history of "barbarians" and the state is much more fluid, that in fact some people "reverted" back to being barbarians precisely because of the failure and excesses of the state. This implies that civilization and state making was not the inexorable march of progress but rather a brutal project that people avoided when possible.



From chapter 5:



> Scott describes early states as population machines. Rulers were focused on the productivity and number of "domesticated" subjects. The early states had to collect people, settle them near the center of power, and force them to create a surplus in excess of their own needs. He also notes that since early states were full of disease, population tended to fall unless people could be replaced by new slaves.
> 
> In early states this population control often took the form of forcefully settling peoples on fertile land, and then preventing them from fleeing to avoid bondage and labour. One piece of evidence Scott cites is the earliest legal codes, stating that they were "filled with such injunctions" intended to "discourage and punish flight." One code that Scott cites specifically is the Code of Hammurabi. This contains six laws intended to discourage the flight and escape of slaves.[9]
> 
> The end product of this system was that the states with the most people were often the most powerful. This created compelling incentives for early states to try and increase their population and prevent the "leakage" of the population through bondage and war.



It makes sense that people were laughing at the concept of the state originally. But the big problem is that the state has a big attraction. It promises a life greater than the individual life, and it attracted criminals who were evicted from small communities. These communities created a natural protection against psychopaths and other degenerated humans. In a community of 150 people, it's easy to spot those who only cause trouble, especially when there is a group of wise elders connected to the ancestors and tradition.

In a state, they can hide behind written laws, institutions, etc.

So these state attracted two kinds of people - psychopaths who wanted to exert control, and failed individuals, who were happy to merge into a collective they could identify with. So the state is simply a collective death drive towards suicide, suicide of the true self, connected to god.

I remember in a book by Michael Ende, I think in the Neverending story, the main character meets a group of small beings - I don't remember the details but they all think and act alike, they don't have any individuality left. There are several examples in the book about this metaphor - that there is a black hole of nothingness that for some creates a strange attraction - they want to jump in and disappear. It makes sense because the state is a consequence of evil, and evil is one of the two sides of creation, and evil wants to undo life and being alive.

Only during the last 400 years did the state-like structures gain enough power to dominate people's lifes. So the state really isn't thousands of years old. All of those antique authors like Plato who talked about the ideal state were really only invented recently. Right before the church-states gained a lot of power.

This also gives us an idea when the majority of people stopped living a healthy and fulfilling life - only 200-300 years ago or so.

The question is - how was it possible for the PTB to gain control in the first place? Probably because people just wanted to live their lifes (no technology after the last reset), and underestimated what hungry-power psychopaths can achieve when they work together to enslave the majority. There was no practical knowledge of evil and how to counter it. So these collectivist structures, using money, tax and soldiers, were able to penetrate all countries, one after another. The big temptation for normal people in relation to the state is that it allows people to transcend their own life. Being part of a greater structure makes it possible to completely annihilate the individual personality. It's like a black hole, and during the last 400 years, this black hole has grown to a point where in western nations, it has affected every single individuals one way or another.

The opposite of the state (defined by parasitic tax collection, i.e. stealing the fruits of productive work) is people living in self-sustainable communities, where they have their own law and rules.

And those locally ruled communities were a threat to the system, and it seems during the last couple hundred years they got destroyed everywhere at roughly the same time.

It's the nature of those communities that they are completely powerless towards a big collectivist state. They are remnants of another way of life, they show us where we come from and how we lived. It was only a matter of time, until most of those islands of freedom disappeared.

People are shocked when they here about "strange" laws in some small tribe in Papua-Newguinea and consider it uncivilized, but the fascinating aspect about this is not judging whether this one tribe is good or bad (many modern ones have pretty destructive behaviors and rules), but realizing that life on earth was always like this, structurally.

There were probably hundreds of thousands small communities and cities - and while there were some common aspects, each community had it's own perception of the world, unique rules, history, and interactions. Now mabye in the old world 1000 or so years ago, people had another way to organize communities, that spanned hundreds of thousands of people. But I think if this existed, it was not control, but being united by awareness and spirituality.

The world was so diverse, I believe that traveling the world originally was probably almost a psychedelic experience. And going back to previous ages, being alive meant something completely different. You could probably get drunk from too much life energy, it was pure ecstasy. Some people sometimes experience this magical flow, where life just flows and you meet just the right people and circumstances. It feels like a dream, because we aren't used to being connected to everyone and to life anymore. This kind of experience is probably a small remnant of our original state of being. Normal modern life with repetition, constraints and the feeling of isolation (often people can't even connect with their partner) is a sign of suppressed life energy going to our overlords. The life energy is there, though, waiting to be freed.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Dec 20, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> A lot of ideas came together in my mind recently.
> 
> No-one in medieval England used money. They lived in communities that had common land and everyone had a birthright to enough land to grow vegetables and graze their animals. Life was sweet!
> 
> ...


The land enclosures in England began about the year 1600 as I recall from my first history lesson at "big" school. Looking back that teacher didn't elaborate much , maybe he changed the curriculum a touch - planting the seed perhaps  .Does that tally in with Stolen History theories? Many "changes " to society in all walks of life seem to begin around this time . Nice thread. Have to dash.


----------



## Goddo.F (Dec 20, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> I don't have a lot of concrete facts to add, but I will share some general thoughts about this:
> 
> It's not state vs. state, but basically state vs. individual freedom. The Romans probably invented the concept of the nation state, at least I think so. Looking at the Ottoman Empire, it almost looks like the Ottomans simply copied the Roman concept of centralized power, but failed because they weren't as evil.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the analysis and perspective.  The relationship between the emerging 'state' and the ecclesiastical/priestly class (what we now regard as 'church') is another aspect of the dialectic which is worth exploring.  When it comes to humanity and power, the church as a political platform seems always to have a finger in the pie.  regards Goddo


----------



## AllLuckNoSkill (Dec 20, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> The end-result of a world where evil controls everything absolutely, is the end of life itself, channelling all energy to the top. I think we are transitioning to the last phase of evil - they will gain almost absolute power for a couple generations, but never completely, and then it will all crumble.


I think that we are living through the end of their ''power cycle'' as we speak. Their evil agenda simply won't succeed, there are enough people who have woken up and are ready to fight. I managed to get through to some normies I know the other day about a very (((controversial topic))) - and they actually asked questions and were very, very interested in what I had to say. This is seriously unprecedented, because I got chewed out for way less BEFORE the virus hoax. And this is just one of experiences I had recently that point to the fact that the tables have already turned.
So I'm actually optimistic.
And don't forget, that despair is the enemies greatest weapon. So I don't think we will have to endure this shit for much longer, especially not for a ''few more generations''.


----------



## Jef Demolder (Dec 20, 2022)

The Incas developed an international economy without money. My late father-in-law, who was a professor in social geography at the Universidad Andina in Cusco, told me that their system was based on the ayllu (the local commmunity), regional levels and the commonwealth. In the ayllu everything was common. Their surplus production was redistributed through the commonwealth and was considered as their contribution to the commonwealth. That granted them a drawing right on a part of the sum of the goods producted in the whole of the commonwealth and that were equally redistributed. If a region was confronted with crop failure, their past contribution gave them a continued drawing right on food produced elsewhere, and in this way famine was overcome. Scale was an advantage, therefore the dimensions of Tahuantinsuyo. But it was an economic-religious commonwealth, not an empire in the western sense. It was a system based on the value of generosity, very unlike the stingy states we have now.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 20, 2022)

The most alarming fact about this forum and the people populating it is that something which has to be proved is taken as granted without proof and new narratives are built upon it without any kind of consideration towards sources of any kind.

I'll call it the *Tartarian-Mudflood complex*, the kind of cancel culture grown out of Youtube and now everywhere on this forum, ready to be taken by some new Luther to create a new J-narrative for minus habens.

Good luck with it.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Dec 20, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> The most alarming fact about this forum and the people populating it is that something which has to be proved is taken as granted without proof and new narratives are built upon it without any kind of consideration towards sources of any kind.
> 
> I'll call it the *Tartarian-Mudflood complex*, the kind of cancel culture grown out of Youtube and now everywhere on this forum, ready to be taken by some new Luther to create a new J-narrative for minus habens.
> 
> Good luck with it.


Trustworthy sources are hidden or censored in these days of obedience to the authorities. Still there but you really have to dig to find them. It's an occult thing. Now I'll have to research the meaning of "cancel culture" and "minus habens" . Sounds German that last one.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 20, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> The most alarming fact about this forum and the people populating it is that something which has to be proved is taken as granted without proof and new narratives are built upon it without any kind of consideration towards sources of any kind.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  There's very little proof for most of the official narrative, yet apparently proof is required to overturn it.  There are threads on this forum talking about how much of our official history was created in the 1400s by 'Discovered' documents which could well have been forged.  As far as I know, most of the history of Rome comes from Pliny.  The official narrative is sustained by huge amounts of money, all the professors of history have to go along with it or they don't keep their jobs.  

It's worth mentioning that the official narrative states that most people couldn't read or write for most of history - not even Kings.  That job was given to the scribes who were in the pay of the Church most of the time.  So nothing got written down unless it served an agenda.

Proof is very hard to achieve, it takes a lot of effort.  First you need to have a good idea before it's worth investing that effort.  I am putting a lot of effort into the Copernican model and the atmospheric energy, I hope to share that at some point.

There are a lot of lies being told, and I think all the smaller lies are to cover up a much bigger lie.  Things I think of as candidates for the bigger picture are the Millenial Reign; and the capability to build buildings up until a few hundred years ago which are impossible by today's standards.  I also wonder if the very technology that allowed for the construction of the buildings had a destructive application as well, so there was a world war fought with weapons of extraordinary power which is being hidden from us.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 20, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Trustworthy sources are hidden or censored in these days of obedience to the authorities. Still there but you really have to dig to find them. It's an occult thing. Now I'll have to research the meaning of "cancel culture" and "minus habens" . Sounds German that last one.


Trustworthy according to whom? There's plenty of sources unaccounted for but nobody here talks about them. How come? Instead there's an endless talk about litterally nothing.



Quiahuitl said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  There's very little proof for most of the official narrative, yet apparently proof is required to overturn it.  There are threads on this forum talking about how much of our official history was created in the 1400s by 'Discovered' documents which could well have been forged.  As far as I know, most of the history of Rome comes from Pliny.  The official narrative is sustained by huge amounts of money, all the professors of history have to go along with it or they don't keep their jobs.


Most threads on this forum are garbage without a chance to build up a coherent alternative to the narrative. Most of the arguments to disprove the narrative are blindlessly taken from alt-authors such as Fomenko, Heinsohn, Velikovsky and many more, but what is actually perplexing is that most of people talking about these themes have not actually read those books.

So in conclusion we have threads talking about theories without having read the authors and lack of citations from sources which are considered false without even having read them. You talk about Pliny and venture to say that most history of Rome comes from Pliny... Is it a joke? For certain the academia is run by them, but books actually contain different stories and/or details from those told in the academia.



Quiahuitl said:


> It's worth mentioning that the official narrative states that most people couldn't read or write for most of history - not even Kings. That job was given to the scribes who were in the pay of the Church most of the time. So nothing got written down unless it served an agenda.


This is a great example of what's going on here. We believe books are false because it's the academia who tells us and we also believe Kings couldn't read because the academia tells us. Why do you speak of scribes as if they are a thing of the past? Nothing has changed and still what I see is a manipulation of history, not an outright invention of it.



Quiahuitl said:


> Proof is very hard to achieve, it takes a lot of effort. First you need to have a good idea before it's worth investing that effort. I am putting a lot of effort into the Copernican model and the atmospheric energy, I hope to share that at some point.


I am mainly interested in history, to be fair. I'll gladly read your thread on Copernicus when it's ready. In the meantime I'll just say that 4.283 threads are already a library but unfortunatly most of them don't add nothing to what is already told by the authors I mentioned and most of the time are useless, imo. It's not possible to have thousands of opinions without a filter to be all true, and the story of how "the people knows how to distinguish good from bad" is just a legend, imo.



Quiahuitl said:


> There are a lot of lies being told, and I think all the smaller lies are to cover up a much bigger lie. Things I think of as candidates for the bigger picture are the Millenial Reign; and the capability to build buildings up until a few hundred years ago which are impossible by today's standards. I also wonder if the very technology that allowed for the construction of the buildings had a destructive application as well, so there was a world war fought with weapons of extraordinary power which is being hidden from us.


Millenial Reign aside, I agree with you. I simply ask to be specific when addressing those issues. I'm not talking to you specifically and I really hope you are going to discover many hidden clues.


----------



## dreamtime (Dec 20, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> Trustworthy according to whom? There's plenty of sources unaccounted for but nobody here talks about them. How come? Instead there's an endless talk about litterally nothing.



Which ones? Have you created a thread about them? I agree there tends to be a lack of specifics and concrete facts here often. But that's the nature of this forum. People focus on the bigger picture, and details can quickly be disregarded.

But there are several expert forums dedicated to specific topics of chronology criticism, and what they all have in common that most of the time they focus on specific facts and details, and ignore the bigger picture. That's a scientific approach by adademics who focus on one topic for years, but this forum is not like that.

Their books and articles are written for scholars, and most of the discussions I think are pretty dry. These chronology critics often can't agree on detaills. Maybe it's sufficient for most here to know that the timeline is not objective, and that many stories from official history are made up. Which ones? Who knows, sometimes there are patterns and guiding threads. Maybe sharing ideas is just as important as facts, to reconnect with the past. No matter how much research, the chronology criticism scholars will never be able to overcome the simple fact that beyond 1700, the past is opaque and dark. 

At the end of my post is a quote by someone who shares my perspective - chronology critic Christoph Pfister, wo summarizes my own view on history, and I think many here would agree. This means that sharing general concepts and ideas is priotized over detailled facts, which probably annoys you.

Christoph Pfister is not only an historian, but also an artist, and this kind of creativity coming from that is often missing with rational thinking scholars. The problem is that they get lost in details. The artist-type personality without any focus on rationality on the other hand will get lost in general ideas and fantasy concepts. The difficult thing is finding the middle between intuition and rationality.

What remains is that there are no reliable documents, and no reliable stories of our ancestors. So the bottom line is that we have lost the connection to our past. Analyzing all available documents like Fomenko does won't change that fact. In fact, the danger is that he just creates a new story. But while his story has a lot of data, another story with less data is just as important and plausible. Maybe even more plausible, because it doesn't hide behind thousands of pages and data points.

This thread I see as an invitation to look into the history of tax, money, land and governments. The OP for me is just an invitation to think about this topic, and if someone questions @Quiahuitl on the data/facts presented, I am sure that will be appreciated. So maybe add your thoughts on the specific claims in the OP or on the topic in general?

Those in power create narratives or myths to reach a certain goal. Creating counter-myths with the right intention is a good way to challenge their power. There are facts to support the official history myths, but that doesn't change the simple truth that those myths are poisoned by the intention of control. I don't see anything wrong in starting with the mental image of a past rooted in harmony and dignity, which is essentially the opposite of the official narrative.

Pfister writes: "The task of historical and chronological criticism is to expose the long-established historical hubris and to trim history down to a justifiable level. Criticism of history and chronology means logically also shortening of time: The history of mankind and also the history of the earth are to be seen in much shorter periods of time than commonly assumed." And not much is left in the end, giving room for ideas and speculation.

Two facts aready justify broad speculation:

1. Our timeline is short - closer to biblical time.
2. Something happened that allowed a group of people to invent and falsify history on a grand scheme.

Data and facts are important, but the situation in this forum is as it is, just like Youtube will never come close to a book by Fomenko. But maybe the videos by Conspiracy-R-Us, JonLevi or NewEarth (Sylvie) have done as much for bringing us closer to the truth as a lot of dry scholary articles. Simply by inspiring people to not take history for granted.

The human imagination needs to be activated just like the ability to think critical.



> The English supposedly discovered Australia in 1770.
> 
> The discovery of this continent by English sailors is a fact. - However, the date is to be questioned: Around this time - "1770" - there were probably already written records and today's time calculation with four-digit Arabic numbers. But dates are not reliable at that time.
> 
> ...



The very idea of "history" in its modern form is only 200 years old, and came from the enlightenment and the scientific approach forced onto people.

Instead, people had stories and myths that gave meaning. People were religious and spiritual and believed in the stories of their ancestors, which were often transmitted orally. This is exactly what's missing today, so I am not surprised that the desire to find meaning is so pronounced here.

Interestingly, the PTB tried to ridicule those meanings and the stories, abandoning spirituality and religion for scientism and materialism.

The fascinating thing about stories and myth is that there is no objectivity. But there is also no desire for objectivity. Does this make the stories false? If they transported a true essence, maybe they were truer than scientific books. Sadly, we have lost many of those stories, so what can we do to find truth and meaning?


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 20, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> Which ones? Have you created a thread about them?


 Have you ever read one of my threads?



dreamtime said:


> I agree there tends to be a lack of specifics and concrete facts here often. But that's the nature of this forum. People focus on the bigger picture, and details can quickly be disregarded.


There's no big picture without details, unless some people have already got the final answer, thing that I suspect it's very common on this forum. It's called 'putting cart before the horses'.



dreamtime said:


> But there are several expert forums dedicated to specific topics of chronology criticism, and what they all have in common that most of the time they focus on specific facts and details, and ignore the bigger picture. That's a scientific approach by adademics who focus on one topic for years, but this forum is not like that.


You are right, nobody questions that. But creating a different picture requires knowing the elements from which the old picture was created, thing that here on the forum is not done very well since the now prevailing attitude is that 'all sources are false'. There's no future with this attitude and no chance to have a new 'big picture' unless, as I said, one already have it beforhand... the cart before horses thing.



dreamtime said:


> This means that sharing general concepts and ideas is priotized over detailled facts, which probably annoys you.


What annoys me is that no tree can grow without roots, so there cannot be any bigger picture if not grounded in something concrete. Sources are one of those roots and I know for a fact, after having read multiple threads, that there's a huge number of people who are going to remain in their ignorance out of their convintion that all sources are false. So a driving idea is quintessencial to build something new, but sharing that idea without a deep research and creating a fanbase which approves that idea without contributing to it is misleading and after some time... annoying.



dreamtime said:


> Data and facts are important, but the situation in this forum is as it is, just like Youtube will never come close to a book by Fomenko. But maybe the videos by Conspiracy-R-Us, JonLevi or NewEarth (Sylvie) have done as much for bringing us closer to the truth as a lot of dry scholary articles. Simply by inspiring people to not take history for granted.


As I said, I have nothing against inspiration, and I agree with you that Youtube is what it is and cannot do what a book does. That's why I'm disappointed at how this forum is progressing, at a general level without pointing my finger at anybody. What's the purpose of having thousands of written threads when their quality is in fact inferior to that provided by Youtube videos?
And yes, I'm annoyed by this!



dreamtime said:


> The very idea of "history" in its modern form is only 200 years old, and came from the enlightenment and the scientific approach forced onto people.


I disagree, the last 200 years saw a different approach to history emerging and the diffusion of it through schools, but history as we know it was launched at the time of Scaliger.



dreamtime said:


> Instead, people had stories and myths that gave meaning. People were religious and spiritual and believed in the stories of their ancestors, which were often transmitted orally. This is exactly what's missing today, so I am not surprised that the desire to find meaning is so pronounced here.


I've never questioned that, but it must lead to something and must be based on something concrete, otherwise it's just air.


----------



## feralimal (Dec 20, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> It's not state vs. state, but basically state vs. individual freedom.


I agree about this.  And I think it also talks to the question about proof.  @Quiahuitl mentions how nothing was written down without the king's say so - this is to say it was propaganda from the beginning.

My view is that history itself is an exercise in creating the historical stories that are useful to control the present.  The whole thing might as well be a narrative based on nothing real at all - its impossible to ever get to the truth of the matter.  What the stories mean, changes according to who is interpreting the data, such data as there is.  The value though, is that it is genuinely useful to the managers that the masses believe certain ideas and traditions in order to enable them to be better managed.  For me, history is whatever is expedient for us to believe, from the perspective of the governance system. 

And history is only one area that is managed towards this aim.  Science too is a managed area, as are entertainment, education, religion, conventions, law - anything and everything is bent towards whatever is expedient to exert greater control over the masses.  Anything that has some collectivising value, will eventually be subverted and incorporated into the collective.  I can even imagine that someone like Jesus was once a genuine challenge to the control mechanism - and look at the church now!  Given enough time, whatever collectivises people is subverted and converted to the cause.  And, it seems most people genuinely want the management they have been trained to want - they do choose it!

So, to me, the battlefield is the individual, their mind and who they have as their authority.  Is it themselves, based on sound, considered principles?  Or is it their boss, priest, father, wife, government, laws, the perceived 'consensus' - anyone except themselves?



Quiahuitl said:


> I have native American friends who talk about how the invaders drove their ancestors off their land. I've explained to them exactly the same thing happened to the English, at the same time!



I know this is a somewhat speculative thread - but I wonder whether this is what happened to the Tartarians too.  From what I understand, I think the tartarians were a type of nomadic people.  They also had some villages interspersed amongst other groups, eg Turks, Russians, I think even Chinese.  My speculation, is that they were quite like the Native Americans - the roamed about, and that was fine.  Like the Arabs used to.  I also wonder whether some of the things that were ascribed to Native Americans - cowboys etc, actually happened to the Tartarians.

Perhaps, the governance structure, requires (or is better able to deal with) people who are static.  Perhaps our natural state is nomadic - we would simply leave a place once it was no good.  However, if this is prevented, by the creation of borders, taxes, property ownership - all foundational elements of the state - then you can work at your leisure on a static population.


----------



## ky11z (Dec 20, 2022)

AllLuckNoSkill said:


> I think that we are living through the end of their ''power cycle'' as we speak. Their evil agenda simply won't succeed, there are enough people who have woken up and are ready to fight. I managed to get through to some normies I know the other day about a very (((controversial topic))) - and they actually asked questions and were very, very interested in what I had to say. This is seriously unprecedented, because I got chewed out for way less BEFORE the virus hoax. And this is just one of experiences I had recently that point to the fact that the tables have already turned.
> So I'm actually optimistic.
> And don't forget, that despair is the enemies greatest weapon. So I don't think we will have to endure this shit for much longer, especially not for a ''few more generations''.


I hope you're right. I have two little kids I'd love them to have a good life and have their own kids have a good life.


----------



## Goddo.F (Dec 21, 2022)

AllLuckNoSkill said:


> I think that we are living through the end of their ''power cycle'' as we speak. Their evil agenda simply won't succeed, there are enough people who have woken up and are ready to fight. I managed to get through to some normies I know the other day about a very (((controversial topic))) - and they actually asked questions and were very, very interested in what I had to say. This is seriously unprecedented, because I got chewed out for way less BEFORE the virus hoax. And this is just one of experiences I had recently that point to the fact that the tables have already turned.
> So I'm actually optimistic.
> And don't forget, that despair is the enemies greatest weapon. So I don't think we will have to endure this shit for much longer, especially not for a ''few more generations''.


Timeframe for breakdown of the power cycle of 'The Cabal' 2023 - 2032.  All indications incl historical precendence indicates that the next decade will see the elites 'throwing all effort into a final push' towards totalitarianism.  Ref: 
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...ons-poreapring-to-their-one-world-government/


----------



## Gladius (Dec 21, 2022)

feralimal said:


> My speculation, is that they were quite like the Native Americans - the roamed about, and that was fine.  Like the Arabs used to.  I also wonder whether some of the things that were ascribed to Native Americans - cowboys etc, actually happened to the Tartarians.
> 
> Perhaps, the governance structure, requires (or is better able to deal with) people who are static.  Perhaps our natural state is nomadic - we would simply leave a place once it was no good.  However, if this is prevented, by the creation of borders, taxes, property ownership - all foundational elements of the state - then you can work at your leisure on a static population.



Define "fine"?
The nomadic state of the Arabs, and Central Asians, was/is due to the terrain unable to support static life unless modern tech and heavy trade is involved. If you live in a fertile land where you can herd your cattle most of the year, there is no reason to move far.
Moving around creates clashes between groups, and leads to bloodshed. The Bedouins (Arab nomads) have historically defined roaming borders between their tribes. If one tribe herds sheep on the other's land, be certain that heads will fly, and they fly to this very day.
Nomadic tribes are highly hostile to each other and rarely cooperate on anything. Perhaps that's why Genghis Khan was so respected for uniting the tribes into one network, at least in the common story.

The Arab nomads used to live mainly in the Arabian peninsula. The other Arabs who lived from Egypt to Syria aren't known to be nomadic in the known history. In the period of 1550-1750, due to a vaguely explained process, Bedouin tribes left the Arabian desert and raided the Levant and Egypt, expelling the 'static dwellers' and establishing their nomad life in their place. They brought a culture of raiding and extortion to every place and make most of their income from organized crime, which remained even after they became static themselves. If you lived "free of government tax" then you'd pay tax to the armed Bedouin who live free of government. I'm sure that was no different in any part of the world.

People are overwhelmed by the wealth of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Emirates. Little do people remember that the rulers of those countries are Bedouin, who made centuries of living from piracy in the seas between Africa, Europe and India. Did they develop their oil industry? No, the Europeans did. Their immense wealth is the result of an old BRIBE paid to make them give up piracy and watch over the precious oil instead.

In northern Persia, people lived under the wrath of nomadic Turkmens casually raiding their lands.
Europe has plenty of stories about the Tatar horde. Regardless of revisionism that inspects who in fact employed those, we're still talking about nomadic horsemen warriors.

I don't see anything natural or optimal about being nomads. It only works if you have no competition, perhaps in the freezing tundra. Otherwise, you must be cunning and violent to survive. Is that the optimal state of being?
"Playing house" and "base building" is a natural thing even for little boys and girls, which they do intuitively. Building something that stays and serves you for years, is one of the most satisfying things for a human.

It is more sensible to think that the concept of government and tax succeeded because they simply took over something which already works, they didn't need to force anyone to become static, unless it was a tribe of raiders.
There are many tribes who went static because the world around them did, so they ran out of options to make a living.

What does seem optomal is to have a static base from which you can travel, enjoy the outside, explore, trade, learn and etc., but have your secured home.


----------



## dreamtime (Dec 21, 2022)

I agree, humans are meant to be rooted somewhere. The nomads (in North America or Tartary for example) I think are the result of cataclysmic events, as those can be found most of the time in the barren northern hemisphere, which was more affected than the south where you can easily live off the land. Then there are pirates who are parasites living off the riches of people who invest into living somewhere stable.


----------



## feralimal (Dec 21, 2022)

Gladius said:


> Define "fine"?


Fine for them, but not fine for those who want to control them and make a parasitic living out of managing large populations.  But perhaps even those who were nomadic have chosen the non-nomadic lifestyle freely.

In general, we don't know what a 'natural' way of life is.  Do we know that a nomadic way of life means that we would be ransacked, or is this just another story?  Could a nomadic be peaceable?  It is certainly a more independent way to live.  Is being farmed (for around 40% of our work) in high density urban areas a better way to live?

I think I'm making the observation that we can see that nomadic people (gypsies, arabs, native Americans, native Australians, etc) do not do well if they try to keep their nomadic lifestyle - they are required to become static.  This is not really a viable option in the modern world that requires addresses to a bank account, have a job, etc.  That prevention or restriction of nomadism, is artificial.

Digital nomadism is perhaps the nearest comparable we have to a nomadic lifestyle - but it is a singular activity, not something 'your tribe' does.

Anyway, I think there is something to what I say - that history, science, religion, etc all areas of our life are the story/propaganda of the governance structure managing the humanity as a collective/herd.  Or, in reverse, it is not the story of the individual living life on their own terms.


----------



## Goddo.F (Dec 21, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> I agree, humans are meant to be rooted somewhere. The nomads (in North America or Tartary for example) I think are the result of cataclysmic events, as those can be found most of the time in the barren northern hemisphere, which was more affected than the south where you can easily live off the land. Then there are pirates who are parasites living off the riches of people who invest into living somewhere stable.


Wouldn't it be important to factor in the domestication process, animal husbandry and successful crop production ?  These wouldn't have taken place overnight, especially considering the range and volume of plants and animals needed to sustain fast growing, static communities.  A further consideration is the technology required to bring water and other services to these statc sites.  My point would be that for the years BEFORE domestication of plants and animals, and the development of the basic technologies, a transhumanic existence would have been key to the success of early human populations, or am i missing something?  Even today, many communities of the Great Rift Valley live along transhumanic lines, and if the 'Out of Africa Hypothesis' still holds water, then perhaps the early descendants of these early African emigrants would have continued the nomadic tradition.  I look forward to your critique and thoughts.  goddo f


----------



## Gladius (Dec 22, 2022)

feralimal said:


> Fine for them, but not fine for those who want to control them and make a parasitic living out of managing large populations.  But perhaps even those who were nomadic have chosen the non-nomadic lifestyle freely.


 Virtually all nomadic societies have chosen the lifestyle due to the climate and terrain of their region being unable to support static agricultural life.
Some have chosen it due to a marauder-raider lifestyle in which they parasite off the static societies, or even other nomads.

You're presenting it as if a large army marched through every nomad tribe and forced them to settle down, which imo, is far from reality. The contact with imperial forces also presents opportunities for nomads, especially trade, which makes them choose to be static or semi-nomad at least, like the Bedouin. The Ottoman army with their muskets tried to make the Bedouin static for centuries and failed. Even the British failed in 1920s with their machine guns. Why are there still nomads in far east Russia? Shouldn't the Soviets have forced them to settle down with guns to their heads? They can't even resist them. I can't fathom a reality in which heavy armor fighters march through the rough terrain or dense woods and subjugate the nomad woodsmen. Makes sense only in films.



feralimal said:


> In general, we don't know what a 'natural' way of life is.  Do we know that a nomadic way of life means that we would be ransacked, or is this just another story?  Could a nomadic be peaceable?  It is certainly a more independent way to live.


Yes and no, it depends on many local factors which I mentioned already. 
If you live in a less fertile area, you'd have less competition from other nomads or empires seeking resources, so you'd be left alone. But that also makes you very vulnerable - one serious drought and you will need to raid others to survive.

Independence is sacrificed for comfort, and there are various degrees to it.
At certain times even nomad societies had to pay tax to an empire to allow them to roam their own land.
If you're static and free of government, you will pay tax to the bandits. If you're nomad and free, you'd eventually raid others, which will make you a threat, which means a larger foe will come against you. There's no escaping this loop, unless you restructure the way Earth and humans function. If you believe it's "just a story", then present another mechanism that works by observation.

Nomadism can indeed be peaceful and harmonical, but only within a period of time. Eventually an adversary, a competition or a disaster comes and you're forced to break the peace, or flee to a less hospitable region, such as the mountains, the tundra, the steppe or the jungle.



feralimal said:


> Is being farmed (for around 40% of our work) in high density urban areas a better way to live?


Is it better to have a pre-agreed tax or rather have bandits take your wife and children as tax? Why do you think people agreed to be taxed, if not out of lesser of two evils? If you're not the strongest, you end up paying someone for protection and sponsorship.
We think of it often in the concept of crime world, but it's in all aspects. The small store gets bought off by the retail chain. The small company gets merged into the big conglomerate, who otherwise makes it impossible to compete. Many even base their business model on the idea of getting bought by others.


feralimal said:


> I think I'm making the observation that we can see that nomadic people (gypsies, arabs, native Americans, native Australians, etc) do not do well if they try to keep their nomadic lifestyle - they are required to become static.  This is not really a viable option in the modern world that requires addresses to a bank account, have a job, etc.  That prevention or restriction of nomadism, is artificial.



It is mostly born out of necessity.
As a nomad you also rely on trade, and you cannot compete with the static societies unless you have a unique product. The Bedouins retain the semi-nomadic life by trading sheep wool and guns that they steal from the military. Even in the African jungle the nomads go once a year, dozens of miles to the static villagers in order to trade, and it's essential to their survival(!), not some bonus. Are they all forced to do this by someone?



feralimal said:


> Anyway, I think there is something to what I say - that history, science, religion, etc all areas of our life are the story/propaganda of the governance structure managing the humanity as a collective/herd.  Or, in reverse, it is not the story of the individual living life on their own terms.


Obviously the system will encourage people to view its ways favorably. 
That does not mean the opposite is the correct way of life.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 22, 2022)

My understanding is that Celtic and Viking societies had no rulers except in times of crisis (famine, being raided by bandits etc) in which case they would appoint a leader who would guide them through the crisis then resign afterwards.

There was no government unless everybody agreed they need one.

Edit - traditional American society had an annual Pow-Wow in which the entire tribe would come together and party for days. Eventually the chief would ask if anyone had any issues they wanted to raise, in which case somebody might say 'So-and-so stole my pig' or whatever. The entire tribe would participate in the discussions.  Sometimes the aggrieved parties would fail to resolve their differences and might decide to fight over it. In this case, the two parties might agree to fight to the death in front of the entire tribe.  My understanding is most traditional societies worked this way, in America and in Europe.

Wars were settled the same way.  Two armies would come face to face and the chieftains would shout abuse/arguments at each other and sometimes, everyone would agree to just go home and forget about it.  Sometimes each side would appoint a champion and the two champions would fight to the death and the entire war would be settled with the death of one man.  This is what 'Champion' originally meant.

Only modern 'Civilised' societies actually organise to make sure millions of people die in these kind of disputes.


----------



## feralimal (Dec 22, 2022)

Gladius said:


> You're presenting it as if a large army marched through every nomad tribe and forced them to settle down, which imo, is far from reality.


To call my comment a "presentation" is to overstate it substantially.  It is far more of a "musing".

And if the impression I gave is of a large army taking over by force, let me correct that now.  I would see it far more as a gradual encroachment and lots of natural rights being replaced by provided ones - the threat of force would surely be present though.  I could see how initially these sorts of changes could seem entirely natural.  Indeed, I think we have just been through another period of governance expansion - most people seem to think it entirely natural to be pricked and filled with 'medicine'.



Gladius said:


> Is it better to have a pre-agreed tax or rather have bandits take your wife and children as tax? Why do you think people agreed to be taxed, if not out of lesser of two evils?


My gosh, did you agree?

I have never agreed, will never agree, cannot conceive of agreeing.  I only pay what taxes I have to - under threat of force.  I would even say that it is a moral duty *not* to pay into the system - I do not support a system that assumes my consent and agreement, steals from me, and then uses the money to indoctrinate the next generation, as well as many other unconscionable acts.



Gladius said:


> There's no escaping this loop, unless you restructure the way Earth and humans function. If you believe it's "just a story", then present another mechanism that works by observation.


I could ask you the reverse - when have you ever seen bandits taking things from you?  Show me from your experience how the idea of bandits is not a story.  I personally only have one example - government force (police, military).  *And this is the case in point.*



Gladius said:


> It is mostly born out of necessity.


We agree here.  Most people love the appearance sense of safety and security that the governance structure claims it provides from bandits and terrorists and what have you.  I argue that it also causes the violence, or the appearance of violence in order to secure its position.  But, no doubt people want their governing (perhaps because they are indoctrinated into it), so the governance system is here to stay, and inflicted on all of us.



Gladius said:


> Obviously the system will encourage people to view its ways favorably.
> That does not mean the opposite is the correct way of life.


Well, I can't get past the idea that I don't consent to another's authority over my life - and this is what government (govern minds) is.  I don't accept governance.  So if you are saying the opposite to being governed, ie independence or freedom is _not_ the correct way of life, I disagree.


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 22, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> My understanding is that Celtic and Viking societies had no rulers except in times of crisis (famine, being raided by bandits etc) in which case they would appoint a leader who would guide them through the crisis then resign afterwards.
> 
> There was no government unless everybody agreed they need one.



I looked into the Viking (specifically Icelandic) method of governance back in my mainstream education days.  It was, in many ways, an "anarcho-capitalist" structure in which power was completely decentralized.  Once a year, villages would "elect" someone to represent them  and they would travel to a centralized event called a "Thing".  The Thing is where villagers would air their grievances, criminals would be punished, and land disputes would be settled.  In viking law - criminals would be exiled from their particular village, meaning that they were fair game to be robbed, assaulted, or worse in the wilderness outside of local civilization.  These Things even established "rules of engagement" around sacking villages.  After deciding on which village to sack - Viking bandits were required to announce their intention to the local leader of the village ahead of time, allowing them the option to clear the village and relinquish their resources before violence occurred.  Once the raid was completed, it was against viking law to leave even a single loaf of bread behind, as it was considered cruel to leave miniscule resources in the village for the women and children to fight over.  Mainstream history has always tried to paint barbarians as lawless, but when you actually look into it you'll find that even without an "Archon" ruling over them they still respected a code of laws in their daily activities.

This style of government seemed to work for hundreds of years* (always an asterisk here, as who knows what the real timelines actually were) - until the influence of the Church began influencing the election of these "Cheiftans" to represent villages, paving the way to an eventual collapse of the system and the installation of a traditional monarchy.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 23, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> No-one in medieval England used money.


How did you establish this statement to be true?


----------



## Frostychud (Dec 23, 2022)

I have a suspicion that the history of money is the thread that, when pulled upon, will unravel a lot of other mysteries.

Michael Hudson is a mainstream economic historian who has written a series of books about money in the ancient world. The conspiracy researcher Joseph P. Farrell writes about money. I also learned a lot from reading the extensive commentary of an anonymous monetary historian who goes by the name Mefobills at Unz.com. His comment history is well worth reading in its entirety. The Unz Review He describes how barley was the first money and that credit and debt precede what we think of as "money". Ancient city-states each issued their own sovereign currency in the following way. Citizens deposited grain at the temple. In return credit was extended to them using various stand-ins for the value of the grain, bronze disks or wooden tally sticks for example. These stand-ins for value were then exchanged among the population as currency. It was a closed system and the temple was able to both introduce credit exceeding the quantity of grain when necessary as well as forgive debt when it threatened the proper functioning of society. 

Metal coins came much later and disrupted everything. My understanding is the following. Metal coins had no "home" the way sovereign currencies did. They were freely circulating and could not be "redeemed" anywhere. Both Mefobills and Joseph Farrell underline the way that stateless merchants (Jews for Mefobills, Venetians for Farrell) cleverly used freely-circulating metal currency, falsely seen as possessing value "in itself", to speculatively pit one city-state's sovereign currency against another's. Gold and silver were alternately made artificially scarce (by hoarding) and artificially abundant in order to raise and lower the exchange rate on the real sovereign currencies issued by city-states and convertible into real wealth, allowing coin owners to subvert and capture previously self-contained economies. The crucial "problem" with metal coinage was that debts enumerated in precious metal _could not be released by an act of the Temple or king_ since such money was intrinsically extraterritorial. This is the origin of the situation in which we find ourselves today, in which the black magick of compound interest has created an absurd predicament in which the total amount of debt on the books is far greater than the total amount of "money" on Earth, yet there is no mechanism by which the impossible, unpayable debts can be forgiven. In ancient Mesopotamia, kings would simply jubilee such debt and start over. The bankers know this of course and they know it is a problem. I suspect this is one of the reasons they are so desperate to set up a world government RIGHT NOW. Only a world government would have the power to jubilee debt in any significant way. Now, to be clear, I do not think these people have good intentions just because debt forgiveness is one of their platforms. I think that their fantasy is to put all the old debt in a pile, light it on fire, and start fresh with a new sovereign currency based on the old city-state model. Only this time, since the sovereign currency they introduce (a CBDC) will be global and "outsideless", there will be no threat of a freely circulating stateless currency undermining it. I believe they intend for this currency to be the Final Form of Money and once it is rolled out, credit for regular people will become a historical artifact. The world will be locked once and for all in a fixed caste system. It is tempting to see sovereign currency as "good" and freely-circulating currency as "bad", since the current economic pickle we are in has been caused by the unchecked proliferation of the latter, but I think we need to be careful here. There are at least two kinds of totalitarianisms out there. There is the old-fashioned tyranny of the Annunaki who ruled the city-states and issued sovereign currency, and the more "sophisticated" and less visible tyranny of the hidden money manipulators. The former ("Enlil") will always be interested in controlling and micromanaging the lives of their citizens. They may imagine themselves to be "benevolent tyrants", but freedom is impossible under such a system. The latter ("Enki") will on the contrary encourage freedom and license, knowing that social atomization only accelerates the invisible mechanism that will sooner or later transfer all of the real resources into their pockets, at which point they can move on to the next country. The former is Gentile Totalitarianism, also known as Fascism, and the latter is Jewish Totalitarianism, which always has a new name. A lot of people who are aware of the destructive power of the second form of totalitarianism, today in the ascendant, are nostalgic for the first system. I think this is a terrible error. Yes, Hitler broke the usury mechanism, but his goal was not to liberate Germans, it was to recreate the old sovereign money system in which the Party functioned as the God-King who decided what the common good was. The so-called MEFO bills issued by the National Socialist government were a return to sovereign money. The new money worked. However...you couldn't quit your job in Nazi Germany. Trade unions were abolished. The state told you what job they wanted you to do and you had to obey. The role of the citizen was to work for the common good. This sounds maybe nice in theory, but in practice it always means that someone else gets to decide what is good for the collective. In the case of Nazi Germany, for example, it meant that the state might come by in a Gaswagen and kill your handicapped kids while you're at work. It meant that the freak Albert Speer got to decide what Berlin would look like. Had the Nazis won the war, the entire city would have been razed and rebuilt to look like this:






Le Corbusier, also a Fascist obsessed with (delusional) fantasies of the "common good", wanted to raze the Right Bank of Paris and replace it with this:





I have lived in Germany. When I first arrived I was enthusiastic about the sense of collective responsibility that is still present there, especially concerning money. With time, however, I came to loathe it. The collective moral conscience has a shadow side. People police each other. If you break the rules, people feel justified in letting you know. This becomes dangerous when the rules themselves become immoral. The problem is that the "healthy" desire to be moral and responsible is weaker than the perverse desire to masochistically submit to rules and sadistically enforce them on others. The latter will always win. In France, the corona rules were enforced by sick, sadistic cops and bureaucrats and followed by citizens out of fear and base conformity, mostly. In Germany, there was no need for cops. The citizens were overjoyed at this exciting new opportunity to shame each other and masochistically prove their subservience to the Common Good. If the French were simple bourgeois cowards, the Germans were enthusiastic snitches who self-brainwashed into Believing that they were saving the world. I do not trust individuals or organizations who claim to work for the common good, because perverts will always target and subvert such institutions. 

These are the dangers of Gentile Totalitarianism, or to be more precise, Territorial Totalitarianism (as opposed to Deterritorialized Totalitarianism). There is a funny throwaway line in Orwell's "Down and Out in London in Paris" in which a colorful White Russian emigre working in a restaurant tells Orwell to "Trust a snake before a Jew, and a Jew before a Greek, but never trust an Armenian". At the time, Jews, Greeks, and Armenians all functioned as more or less stateless merchant mafias. Today Jews appear to have run the table and largely cornered the niche, but the niche is not "Jewish" in essence. It is an immanent consequence of the existence of multiple territorial states. In a world in which there are multiple states, it is a simple logical inevitability, from a purely game theory point of view, that a non-territorial financial entity will sooner or later arise and "rediscover" the same old tricks for undermining and subverting territorial power. Some group functioning as "Jews" will always arise because the existence of competing territorial states demands the existence of a kind of "financial aether" or rather a financial pseudo-ether that articulates the isolated territories via some form of nomadic money. 

We see it happening still today. Russia and China are Territorial Totalitarianisms. They fancy themselves as eternal. In these countries no criticism of power is permitted. The State is pompous. The leaders are always in danger of floating off into the narcissistic delusion that their fantasy of what is good for the people is what is actually good for the people. Some of the time, of course, they really do help the people. They favor religions and social structures that are stable and conservative. The role of the citizen in these nations is to serve as a pseudopod of the state and make children who will also be pseudopods of the state.

The United States, NATO, etc., on the other hand, are Deterritorialized Totalitarianisms. Under such a system the individual has much more freedom but the end result always seems to be a breakdown of civilization and a descent into perversion and chaos. Highly intelligent people often chafe under the rigid social structures that average citizens need. They desire freedom, independence, forbidden knowledge, and sexual liberty and they imagine themselves capable of dealing with the dangerous consequences in a way that average people are not. Hence the spontaneous "Judeophilia" of intellectuals throughout history. Joseph Farrell remarks that it is only _after _freely circulating coins began to "invade" the previously self-contained city-states of Greece in the "6th century BC" that what we call philosophy emerged. The metal money that had no home and could be exchanged for anything was the first avatar for a primordial substance supporting visible reality. It must have been an exciting time. Descartes is the modern philosopher who is credited with inventing the "transcendental subject" which might be described as a free-floating universal subjectivity independent of any territorial markers. I think it is no coincidence that he lived in Amsterdam, the city in which Jews invented modern capitalism (they took it to England after that, more below) with its promise of limitless pleasure and the escape from rigid social and class structures that so many brilliant people desire. Here is what Descartes wrote to his friend Balzac (not the writer) in 1631:  

_You must excuse my enthusiasm if I invite you to choose Amsterdam for your retreat, and to prefer it not only to the monasteries of the Franciscans and the Carthusians that many good folk retire to, but also to the finest houses in France and Italy, and even to the famous Hermitage where you spent the past year. No matter how polished a country house may be, it always lacks countless conveniences that are found only in towns, and even the solitude one hopes to find there turns out never to be quite perfect. There, I agree, you’ll find a stream that would make the greatest talkers start day-dreaming, and a valley so secluded that it could make them ecstatic; but it can easily happen that you also have neighbours who will bother you at times, and their visits will be even more of a nuisance than the ones you receive in Paris. In this large town where I live [Amsterdam], by contrast, everyone but myself is engaged in trade, and thus is so focused on his own profit that I could live here all my life without ever being noticed by anyone. I take a walk each day amid the bustle of the crowd, with as much freedom and repose as you could get in your avenues, and I don’t attend to the people I see, any more than I would to the trees in your woods or the animals grazing there._

Descartes can perhaps be forgiven for not understanding that the prosperity he saw around him was the result of a speculative bubble, and that all bubbles pop sooner or later. My guess is that the smarter people in the deterritorialized camp see that the current debt scam, which is the first global debt scam, must therefore also be the _last_ debt scam, since there is no longer anywhere else to flee. There is no more "elsewhere" and a deterritorialized state needs a constant supply of untapped elsewheres to parasitize if it wishes to continue functioning. I believe this is the key to understanding the Covid and Ukraine charades. The stateless mafia wants to go territorial. They want to go "legit". They see that their only hope for survival is jumping horses. They are running the United States, or more precisely the dollar, into the ground one final time, in one final debt binge, to impoverish everyone on Earth once and for all, at which point all debt will be jubileed and the global control grid will be rolled out. It will be an old-school territorial control grid. Consumerism will disappear. Russia and China are scripted to "win" this staged conflict. The BIS is fully on-board with the transition. I guess that the problem is that there are just too many people with too much money and power out there who want the deterritorial debt system to continue just a while longer.      

The commenter Mefobills regularly brings up the Tally Stick accounting system that was used in England from the moment the "Jewes" with their "metal money" were expelled in 1290 until the Bank of England was chartered in 1694. He describes this as the Big Bang event of modern finance. What is a tally stick?

What tally sticks tell us about how money works

_Tallies were a way of recording debts with a system that was sublimely simple and effective. The stick would contain a record of the debt, for example: "£9 4s 4d from Fulk Basset for the farm of Wycombe". Fulk Basset was a Bishop of London in the 13th Century. He owed his debt to King Henry III. Now comes the elegant part. The stick would be split in half, down its length from one end to the other. The debtor would retain half, called the "foil". The creditor would retain the other half, called the "stock" - even today, British bankers use the word "stocks" to refer to debts of the British government. Because willow has a natural and distinctive grain, the two halves would match only each other. Of course, the Treasury could simply have kept a record of these transactions in a ledger somewhere. But the tally stick system enabled something radical to occur. If you had a tally stock showing that Bishop Basset owed you £5, then unless you worried that he wasn't good for the money, the tally stock itself was worth close to £5 in its own right.
If you wanted to buy something, you might well find that the seller would be pleased to accept the tally stock as a safe and convenient form of payment. So the tally sticks themselves became a kind of money, a particular sort of debt that could be traded freely, circulating from person to person until it utterly separated from Bishop Basset and a farm in Wycombe._





The second part of the article, however, is where it gets interesting for us here. Look what happened in 1834:

_Those tally sticks, by the way, met an unfortunate end. The system was finally abolished and replaced by paper ledgers in 1834 after decades of attempts to modernise. To celebrate, it was decided to burn the sticks - six centuries of irreplaceable monetary records - in a coal-fired stove in the House of Lords, rather than letting parliamentary staff take them home for firewood. Burning a cartload or two of tally sticks in a coal-fired stove is a wonderful way to start a raging chimney fire. So it was that the House of Lords, then the House of Commons, and almost the entire Palace of Westminster - a building as old as the tally stick system itself - was burned to the ground._

So we have another one of these mysterious fires. This one conveniently wipes out six hundred years of "irreplaceable monetary records", making sure that no one knows how money worked in the past.

If you go to the Wikipedia article for the fire, it gets even better. We have an architectural competition:

_In 1836 a competition for designs for a new palace was won by Charles Barry. Barry's plans, developed in collaboration with Augustus Pugin, incorporated the surviving buildings into the new complex.  _

And we also have a lunatic asylum:

_In 1852 the Commons was finished, and both Houses sat in their new chambers for the first time; Queen Victoria first used the newly completed royal entrance. In the same year, while Barry was appointed a Knight Bachelor, Pugin suffered a mental breakdown and, following incarceration at Bethlehem Pauper Hospital for the Insane, died at the age of 40._

We have predictive programming:

_In the late eighteenth century a committee of MPs predicted that there would be a disaster if the palace caught fire. This was followed by a 1789 report from fourteen architects warning against the possibility of fire in the palace; signatories included Soane and Robert Adam. Soane again warned of the dangers in 1828, when he wrote that "the want of security from fire, the narrow, gloomy and unhealthy passages, and the insufficiency of the accommodations in this building are important objections which call loudly for revision and speedy amendment." His report was again ignored._

On Soane's Wikipedia page we read this: _On 16 October 1788 he succeeded Sir Robert Taylor as architect and surveyor to the Bank of England. He would work at the bank for the next 45 years, resigning in 1833._

So he was working for the Bank of England.

We also read this: _Soane, who was a UGLE Freemason, was employed to extend Freemasons' Hall, London in 1821 by building a new gallery._

We have lost documents:

_The British standard measurements, the yard and pound, were both lost in the blaze; the measurements had been created in 1496. Also lost were most of the procedural records for the House of Commons, which dated back as far as the late 15th century. The original Acts of Parliament from 1497 survived, as did the Lords' Journals, all of which were stored in the Jewel Tower at the time of the fire. _

I suppose the "surviving" documents were forged after the fact.

We have celebrities selling the narrative:

_The novelist Charles Dickens, in a speech to the Administrative Reform Association, described the retention of the tallies for so long as an "obstinate adherence to an obsolete custom"; he also mocked the bureaucratic steps needed to implement change from wood to paper.  _

Why on Earth was Charles Dickens railing in public against a few cartloads of old sticks being stored in the basement?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 23, 2022)

Frostychud said:


> He describes how barley was the first money and that credit and debt precede what we think of as "money". The story as I understand it is the following. Ancient city-states each issued their own sovereign currency.


What have you done to verify or disprove this story?


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 23, 2022)

Frostychud said:


> I have a suspicion that the history of money is the thread that, when pulled upon, will unravel a lot of other mysteries.
> 
> Michael Hudson is a mainstream economic historian who has written a series of books about money in the ancient world. The conspiracy researcher Joseph P. Farrell writes about money. I also learned a lot from reading the extensive commentary of an anonymous monetary historian who goes by the name Mefobills at Unz.com. His comment history is well worth reading in its entirety. The Unz Review He describes how barley was the first money and that credit and debt precede what we think of as "money". Ancient city-states each issued their own sovereign currency in the following way. Citizens deposited grain at the temple. In return credit was extended to them using various stand-ins for the value of the grain, bronze disks or wooden tally sticks for example. These stand-ins for value were then exchanged among the population as currency. It was a closed system and the temple was able to both introduce credit exceeding the quantity of grain when necessary as well as forgive debt when it threatened the proper functioning of society.
> 
> ...


Loads of crap (the fasceeees-nazeeeees part) mixed with some few good intuitions.

In any case, regarding the more historical part, sources are what is lacking in this supposedly well researched theory. I'm not going to buy books, expecially if all the crappy part is also part of them, so I would like to know what books (sources) are these deductions based upon. To be more specific: what ancient sources were studied to deduct all these theories.


----------



## Frostychud (Dec 23, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> Loads of crap mixed with some few good intuitions.
> 
> In any case, regarding the more historical part, sources are what is lacking in this supposedly well researched theory. I'm not going to buy books, expecially if all the crappy part is also part of them, so I would like to know what books (sources) are these deductions based upon.


Silveryou, I will now attempt to do a little historical research, on very recent history this time, namely the history of this thread. First, you come in and in your typical aggressive, misanthropic manner, you criticize and derail the discussion. After your tantrum, you disappear, but now the mystery user Jd755 (whose profile is locked so that I cannot even see his other contributions) appears and does a quick drive-by trolling on another comment. I publish my post. Not five minutes later, Jd755 trolls me this time with a petty, throwaway demand for better proof, which also happens to be your obsession. Five minutes after that, you "like" Jd755's post and then sulk and pout again because my post is not good enough for you. How interesting that both of you are online at the same time and watching each other's back.

Silveryou, following your impeccable research standards, do I have enough documentation yet to advance the hypothesis that Jd755 is a sock puppet that you have created to derail this thread the way you derail so many other threads?


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 23, 2022)

Frostychud said:


> Silveryou, I will now attempt to do a little historical research, on very recent history this time, namely the history of this thread. First, you come in and in your typical aggressive, misanthropic manner, you criticize and derail the discussion. After your tantrum, you disappear, but now the mystery user Jd755 (whose profile is locked so that I cannot even see his other contributions) appears and does a quick drive-by trolling on another comment. I publish my post. Not five minutes later, Jd755 trolls me this time with a petty, throwaway demand for better proof, which also happens to be your obsession. Five minutes after that, you "like" Jd755's post and then sulk and pout again because my post is not good enough for you. How interesting that both of you are online at the same time and watching each other's back.
> 
> Silveryou, following your impeccable research standards, do I have enough documentation yet to advance the hypothesis that Jd755 is a sock puppet that you have created to derail this thread the way you derail so many other threads?


Yes I'm Jd755, well spotted!

My take about your 'impeccable' research is that you are a perfect example of the new kind of 'researchers' populating this forum. Lots of assumptions based on someone else's research (the Unz part) without any doubt and/or curiosity about the sources used to achieve such great accomplishments. Show what your great theories are based upon, such as was asked and done when this forum (and the one preceeding this) was started. I ask sources, not infinite blabbering without a foundation.

Thank you


----------



## trismegistus (Dec 23, 2022)

Frostychud said:


> Silveryou, I will now attempt to do a little historical research, on very recent history this time, namely the history of this thread. First, you come in and in your typical aggressive, misanthropic manner, you criticize and derail the discussion. After your tantrum, you disappear, but now the mystery user Jd755 (whose profile is locked so that I cannot even see his other contributions) appears and does a quick drive-by trolling on another comment. I publish my post. Not five minutes later, Jd755 trolls me this time with a petty, throwaway demand for better proof, which also happens to be your obsession. Five minutes after that, you "like" Jd755's post and then sulk and pout again because my post is not good enough for you. How interesting that both of you are online at the same time and watching each other's back.
> 
> Silveryou, following your impeccable research standards, do I have enough documentation yet to advance the hypothesis that Jd755 is a sock puppet that you have created to derail this thread the way you derail so many other threads?



JD755, JD55, and KD755 are all most likely the same account, and if so has been in and out of SH since the original site (I haven’t personally verified this myself but this is a best guess based off general behavior and shared username). My guess he deleted his old account and started a new one, seeing as his old handle on this version of SH is not registered anymore.

Having had multiple DM conversations with both JD and Silveryou I can assure you that they are not the same person, or working together in some capacity.

Not everyone on this site who participates agrees on overall theories, much less the specific details of any particular theory. Not everyone on this site who asks for sources is a shill or a provocateur. In some cases there are those who want to learn more about information provided on the site, and a reading list, or a source is a great way to provide that for them. In other circumstances it could be seen as “how much do you actually know that is verifiable, versus what is potentially secondhand or shoddy information?” There are no golden calves on this site, anything and everything has a right to be questioned. Whether or not someone who is asked to provide such information chooses to, is a different story.

Let’s try and limit the offtopic back and forth in this thread moving forward and stick to the nature of the OP.


----------



## Frostychud (Dec 23, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> Yes I'm Jd755, well spotted!
> 
> My take about your 'impeccable' research is that you are a perfect example of the new kind of 'researchers' populating this forum. Lots of assumptions based on someone else's research (the Unz part) without any doubt and/or curiosity about the sources used to achieve such great accomplishments. Show what your great theories are based upon, such as was asked and done when this forum (and the one preceeding this) was started. I ask sources, not infinite blabbering without a foundation.
> 
> Thank you


You're a tiresome individual but I will respond to you as you have impugned my honor ("no doubt or curiosity", "loads of crap"). First of all, regarding the commenter Mefobills on Unz, if you read all of his posts, totaling almost a million words, or several books' worth, as I have, you will understand that he is a highly insightful and knowledgeable character who has no choice but to write pseudonymously because much of what he says would get him lynched professionally, to wit, the fact that he is a National Socialist. You may choose to disregard this source because it is a random guy commenting on a website, but you would be doing yourself a disservice. Since my goal here is to synthesize information in the service of a more general argument, I provided a link after touching upon a few of his arguments so that anyone curious might be able to go deeper. You will find lots of details there.

Regarding monetary history, I also gave credit to the authors Michael Hudson and Joseph P. Farrell. I have been made to understand that more precise sources are demanded, so you or Jd755 might want to read Hudson's _And Forgive them their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from the Bronze Age to the Jubilee Year _or Farrell's _Babylon's Banksters _or _Financial Vipers of Venice_. I am not a historian. I don't always remember exact references. That is why I am participating on an open forum rather than attempting to deliver papers at conferences. Most of my intellectual effort goes towards constructing a big picture and sometimes details get lost in the process. You correctly argue that a big picture without details is just speculation. Ideally there is a dialectic between the two and each has its place. I attempted to include both in my contribution. What you call "infinite blabbering" might also be considered the natural associative process. You might also recognize that this is how conversations work. The original post is about money and land enclosure. I stayed within that theme and introduced a few new leads (tally sticks, the role of metal coinage in ancient Greece) along with my own reflections. I also speculated on a possible philosophical relationship between different monetary systems and the concept of territoriality, which are the two themes of the thread, and provided a citation from Descartes to that end. I also encountered some surprising information regarding the burning of the Parliament Buildings, which I included in case someone more knowledgeable than I might see a connection that I am incapable of seeing.

This was my contribution. Your contribution is constant criticism over form and method. You have not introduced a single argument or piece of information that advances the speculation in this thread.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 23, 2022)

Frostychud said:


> You're a tiresome individual but I will respond to you as you have impugned my honor ("no doubt or curiosity" "loads of crap"). First of all, regarding the commenter Mefobills on Unz, if you read all of his posts, totaling almost a million words, or several books' worth, as I have, you will understand that he is a highly insightful and knowledgeable character who has no choice but to write pseudonymously because much of what he says would get him lynched professionally, to wit, the fact that he is a National Socialist. You may choose to disregard this source because it is a random guy commenting on a website, but you would be doing yourself a disservice. In any case, I provided a link after touching upon a few of his arguments. You will find lots of details there.


You are overstating your accountability. You are on a forum where it was the norm to give primary sources. I'm not discussing the political views of Mefobills and I'm sure he is an accountable author. The problem is just your questionable opinions nonchalantly spread throughout your post as if the most normal thing to do, and also smelling of propaganda to be fair.



Frostychud said:


> Regarding monetary history, I also gave credit to the authors Michael Hudson and Joseph P. Farrell. I have been made to understand that more precise sources are demanded, so you or Jd755 might want to read Hudson's _And Forgive them their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from the Bronze Age to the Jubilee Year _or Farrell's _Babylon's Banksters _or _Financial Vipers of Venice_. I am not a historian. I don't always remember exact references. That is why I am participating on an open forum rather than attempting to deliver papers at conferences. Most of my intellectual effort goes towards constructing a big picture and sometimes details get lost in the process. What you call "infinite blabbering" might also be considered the natural associative process. You might also recognize that this is how conversations work. The original post is about money and land enclosure. I stayed within that theme and introduced a few new leads (tally sticks, the role of metal coinage in ancient Greece) along with my own reflections. I also speculated on a possible philosophical relationship between different monetary systems and the concept of territoriality, which are the two themes of the thread, and provided a citation from Descartes to that end. I also encountered some surprising information regarding the burning of the Parliament Buildings, which I included in case someone more knowledgeable than I might see a connection that I am incapable of seeing.


This is exactly the point I'm making when I say that you are a perfect example of this new kind of contributors. You are demanding us to believe in "million words" as you say and to read entire books by Hudson and Farrell (I wonder if you read it, aside recommending them). Not only that but you are totally unaware of the eventual original sources used by those authors, which is what I'm interested the most and *common practice to share in the old days of this forum*. That said I'm not a historian but I stick to the original purpose of the forum which was not building castles in the air as you do (cause you are unaware of the sources, and build upon authors simply because you like them), but trying to discuss the sources searching for clues of a manipulation and/or a different history to be told. ALL KD's threads were set this way. Who was KD?



Frostychud said:


> This was my contribution. Your contribution is constant criticism over form and method. You have not introduced a single argument or piece of information that advances the speculation in this thread.


This thread is about speculation and only that. I respect the author of this thread but I oppose the form, method and scope of creating new stories out of thin air based on the presumed authority of authors and without mentioning a single original source. You are taking things for granted and I will criticize your methodology of creating narratives without a firm ground (and obviously your blatant propaganda sold as opinions).

So once again, dear psychologist, if you read all those million words what I'm asking should be pretty simple. What sources are your opinions based upon?
Little example for the hard-headed: you say _"The crucial "problem" with metal coinage was that debts enumerated in precious metal could not be released by an act of the Temple or king since such money was intrinsically extraterritorial."_
Where these informations were taken from? I'm not talking about some book written in 1975 by your psycho collegue. I'm talking about the ancient sources from which this narrative was created.

If you think what I'm asking is not in line with the thread you are far off. I'm not opposing the existence of the thread, but the way it is carried on with its thousand suppositions without a source.

Thank you again


----------



## Frostychud (Dec 23, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> You are demanding us to believe in "million words" as you say and to read entire books by Hudson and Farrell (I wonder if you read it, aside recommending them). Not only that but you are totally unaware of the eventual original sources used by those authors, which is what I'm interested the most and *common practice to share in the old days of this forum*.


I read the books. It is impossible to construct synthetic arguments while obsessively going back to primary sources. At some point you just trust the secondary source and use it to build a higher-level argument. This is a speculative history forum, not an Oxford colloquium. You baselessly accuse me, a complete stranger, of being "totally unaware" of the sources rather than simply asking me for them in a POLITE way. How am I supposed to see you as an interlocutor of good faith when you cannot stop yourself from denigrating others in this way? You do it constantly, I have noticed it before on other threads. Say I am reading a Michael Hudson book. Having satisfied myself that he is an author of good faith, I relax my hermeneutic paranoia and allow myself to enter into his argument. On page 75 or whatever there's the photo of the cuneiform tablet with the legend "Tablet A.45.BX, debt release". I don't read cuneiform, so I take his word that the tablet says what he claims. You seem to be suggesting that the only valid form of research on this website is the examination of original sources. You're right, that IS fascinating, but in this case it is beyond the scope of anyone who does not read Akkadian and have access to the British Museum archives, which is to say, anyone posting on this website, including you. And I am not asking you to read a million words, I am simply pointing you to a million words in case you find my thirty words based on those million words interesting.   


Silveryou said:


> ALL KD's threads were set this way. Who was KD?


Since when is this website nothing but an homage to KD? Yes, I learned a lot from his posts, some of which were extremely speculative. Who was KD? That's a good question. Wildheretic, a former contributor to the original Stolen History website, claimed the original KD stole content from him as well as from Google-translated Russian blogs. Jef Demolder speculates that KD might have been some kind of AI project. Miles Mathis also sees something fishy in the original KD. Personally I have no idea who KD was, nor do I necessarily adhere to any of these theories, but I have no intention of copying his methodology just because Silveryou wants me to.


Silveryou said:


> Little example for the hard-headed: you say _"The crucial "problem" with metal coinage was that debts enumerated in precious metal could not be released by an act of the Temple or king since such money was intrinsically extraterritorial."_
> Where these informations were taken from? I'm not talking about some book written in 1975 by your psycho collegue. I'm talking about the ancient sources from which this narrative was created.


This is simple logic. The Canadian government cannot get out of debts monetized in US dollars. It can only unilaterally modify debts monetized in Canadian dollars. A city-state can do whatever it wants with debts that are monetized in the currency it creates. Metal money of the type that began to circulate among the Greek city-states is by its very nature accountable to no one. It "is" value. It cannot be changed by fiat as the value of sovereign currency can. My language was perhaps imprecise but the internal logic of the idea is easy enough to grasp. My source for this claim is the Farrell book I mentioned earlier, _Financial Vipers of Venice_. I don't have the book with me and don't remember the original texts. All I remember is Farrell's argumentation and documentation being satisfactory when I was reading the book. I am not going to stop myself from making an argument that may interest others or stimulate reflection because I left the book at home while I am traveling. And I note the dismissive way you refer to "some book written in 1975 by your psycho colleague".


Silveryou said:


> The problem is just your questionable opinions nonchalantly spread throughout your post as if the most normal thing to do, and also smelling of propaganda to be fair.


Yes, I include my opinions, is that against the rules? And the fact that you include a softening rhetorical "to be fair" does not make your accusation that I am spreading propaganda any less slanderous or dishonorable. The irony here is that the posts I often find myself skipping when reading through threads on this website are YOURS, because you are unfailingly abrasive, aggressive, obnoxious, demanding, and unfriendly to others. I guess in your mind you are upholding rigorous standards but to my mind something is wrong with this picture. People who are honestly trying to figure things out ought to be generous and friendly until their interlocutors demonstrate themselves to be bad faith actors. Especially on a speculative history forum. There are polite ways to ask for sources or challenge sloppy thinking. "That's an interesting idea, I would be curious to get a more precise source." But you always jump straight to in-your-face accusations and that is not the way that honest people help each other towards the truth. I cannot be the first person who has noticed this.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 23, 2022)

Frostychud said:


> I read the books. It is impossible to construct synthetic arguments while obsessively going back to primary sources. At some point you just trust the secondary source and use it to build a higher-level argument. You baselessly accuse me of being "totally unaware" of the sources. How am I supposed to see you as an interlocutor of good faith when you cannot stop yourself from denigrating others in this way? You do it constantly, I have noticed it before on other threads. Say I am reading a Michael Hudson book. Having satisfied myself that he is an author of good faith, I relax my hermeneutic paranoia and allow myself to enter into his argument. On page 75 or whatever there's the photo of the cuneiform tablet with the legend "Tablet A.45.BX, debt release". I don't read cuneiform, so I take his word that the tablet says what he claims. You seem to be suggesting that the only valid form of research on this website is the examination of original sources. You're right, that IS fascinating, but in this case it is beyond the scope of anyone who does not read Akkadian and have access to the British Museum archives, which is to say, anyone posting on this website, including you. And I am not asking you to read a million words, I am simply pointing you to a million words in case you find my thirty words based on those million words interesting.


First of all you have a prejudice towards me and you are explicitely saying here.

Second, it was you calling me misanthrope who went personal, while I only criticized what you were saying and not your peson, and that says much of your person at this point.

Third, I'm criticizing the TOTAL LACK of sources and not the impossible task to provide tablets from Mesopotamia or something like that, so even in this case you are just doing an exibition of rethoric and nothing more.

You are saying it right though. You have no interest in criticizing the historical narratives but are just building on top of them because they seem right to you. And you cannot accept the fact that someone points that to you, which is typical.



Frostychud said:


> Since when is this website nothing but an homage to KD? Yes, I learned a lot from his posts, some of which were extremely speculative. Who was KD? That's a good question. Wildheretic, a former contributor to the original Stolen History website, claimed the original KD stole content from him as well as from Google-translated Russian blogs. Jef Demolder speculates that KD might have been some kind of AI project. Miles Mathis also sees something fishy in the original KD. Personally I have no idea who KD was, nor do I necessarily adhere to any of these theories, but I have no intention of copying his methodology just because Silveryou wants me to.


Miles Mathis? The Freemason? Ok.
I'm not asking you to follow my orders. I also doubt you are capable of producing something coherent historically wise.
I'm just asking for sources and criticising your blatant propaganda.
As for the second I see it's not something you appreciate, which is comprehensible.
As for the first... am I allowed to ask you for sources in order to verify if your castles in the air have somewhat grounded in reality?



Frostychud said:


> This is simple logic. The Canadian government cannot get out of debts monetized in US dollars. It can only unilaterally modify debts monetized in Canadian dollars. A city-state can do whatever it wants with debts that are monetized in the currency it creates. Metal money of the type that began to circulate among the Greek city-states is by its very nature accountable to no one. It "is" value, it does not represent value. Its value therefore cannot be changed by fiat as the value of sovereign currency can. My language was perhaps imprecise but the internal logic of the idea is easy enough to grasp. My source for this claim is the Farrell book I mentioned earlier, _Financial Vipers of Venice_. I don't have the book with me and don't remember the original texts. All I remember is Farrell's argumentation and documentation being satisfactory when I was reading the book. I am not going to stop myself from making an argument that may interest others or stimulate reflection because I left the book at home while I am traveling. And I note the dismissive way you refer to "some book written in 1975 by your psycho colleague".


You noted the less important part and still miss the most important. If you can't understand what an original source is then there's some problem with you. I'll try to ask again but at this point it's obvious that you simply have no answer because you don't have the book with you (and probably never had an interest in verfying sources, btw).
I'm talking about the *ancient sources* from which this narrative was created.
I've underlined it for you so that you can see it better.



Frostychud said:


> Yes, I include my opinions, is that against the rules? And the fact that you include a softening rhetorical "to be fair" does not make your accusation that I am spreading propaganda any less slanderous or dishonorable. The irony here is that the posts I often find myself skipping when reading through threads on this website are YOURS, because you are unfailingly abrasive, aggressive, obnoxious, demanding, and unfriendly to others. I guess in your mind you are upholding rigorous standards but to my mind something is wrong with this picture. People who are honestly trying to figure things out ought to be generous and friendly until it has been proven that they are bad faith actors. Especially on a speculative history forum. There are polite ways to ask for sources or challenge sloppy thinking. "That's an interesting idea, I would be curious to get a more precise source." But you always jump straight to in-your-face accusations and that is not the way that honest people help each other towards the truth. I cannot be the first person who has noticed this.


You already proved, and now confirming, that you have some kind of malevolence and prejudice towards me. I criticize your method and your blatant propaganda because it is _"unfailingly abrasive, aggressive, obnoxious, demanding, and unfriendly to others",_ and worst thing you don't even realize it. In any case I attacked the message, not the person, which is your specialty since you started with your 'misanthrope' label.

And it's ok. I don't care to be liked, expecially when I have to pass post #10000 with speculations based on absolutely nothing or other people's speculations, in an endless circles of castles in the air. I don't understand what knowledge you guys are thinking to achieve when it's all built on shaky grounds. But that is you, so be it. You are what you are.


----------



## scofield.htm (Dec 24, 2022)

*“You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy. What you want you’ll rent”*

The name Ranters reappears 150 years later, in the 1820s, when the term was applied to a certain group of Methodists. From their midst came the first organizers of the English trade union movement, men who had acquired the skills of popular orators in the sect. 

The movement whose members became known as Diggers had sharply defined socialist characteristics. Externally, it expressed itself (beginning in 1649) in the seizure of communal land by small groups of people for joint tillage. This attempt at organizing communes, however, was a mere gesture, which led to no practical consequences, and it was the Diggers’ literary activity that proved to have lasting significance.

Gerrard Winstanley was the most important figure among them. In several pamphlets he proclaimed his basic idea–the illegitimacy of private ownership of land. He reported that he had had a vision, “a voice and a revelation,” and was preaching what had been revealed to him: "And so long as we or any other maintain this civil property, we consent still to hold the creation down under that bondage it groans under, and so we should hinder the work of restoration and sin against light that is given unto us, and so through the fear of the Resh (man) lose our peace. And that this civil property is the curse is manifest thus: those that buy and sell land, and are landlords, have got it either by oppression or murder or theft; and all landlords live in the breach of the seventh and eighth commandments, _"Thou shalt not steal nor kill._ "(“The True Levellers’ Standard Advanced: or, The State of Community opened, and Presented to the Sons of Men.”) 

Winstanley viewed trade and money in equally negative terms: “For buying and selling is the great cheat that robs and steals the earth one from another. …We hope,” he says, “that people shall live freely in the enjoyment of the earth, without bringing the mark of the Beast in their hands or in their promise; and that they shall buy wine and milk without money or without price, as Isaiah speaks.” 

Gerrard Winstanley - Wikipedia


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

Frostychud said:


> Silveryou, I will now attempt to do a little historical research, on very recent history this time, namely the history of this thread. First, you come in and in your typical aggressive, misanthropic manner, you criticize and derail the discussion. After your tantrum, you disappear, but now the mystery user Jd755 (whose profile is locked so that I cannot even see his other contributions) appears and does a quick drive-by trolling on another comment. I publish my post. Not five minutes later, Jd755 trolls me this time with a petty, throwaway demand for better proof, which also happens to be your obsession. Five minutes after that, you "like" Jd755's post and then sulk and pout again because my post is not good enough for you. How interesting that both of you are online at the same time and watching each other's back.
> 
> Silveryou, following your impeccable research standards, do I have enough documentation yet to advance the hypothesis that Jd755 is a sock puppet that you have created to derail this thread the way you derail so many other threads?


Search results for query: Jd755
Search results for query: Jd755


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 24, 2022)

Maybe you could start a different thread about original source documents and standards of proof? My _opinion_ is that the Indian Vedas are probably the closest thing We have to original source documents of the kind Silveryou requires.  I haven't read them, but I've spoken to people who have. 

To Jd755 - are you aware of the fundamental law of logic which states that no proof (of any kind, of anything) is possible without an initial act of faith?  You always have to start by believing something before you can attempt to prove it. On another thread you state that there's no proof that Atoms exits, which is true - however that doesn't change the fact that there are trillions of dollars worth of industry and technology based on the assumption that matter is made from atoms. Have you read the work of Karl Popper?

Frostychuds statement 'I have a suspicion that the history of money is the thread that, when pulled upon, will unravel a lot of other mysteries' sounds right to me. Also his statements about how there are two types of money, and one can be used to manipulate the other is valuable information to me. I had not seen this explained so simply before.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> To Jd755 - are you aware of the fundamental law of logic which states that no proof (of any kind, of anything) is possible without an initial act of faith? You always have to start by believing something before you can attempt to prove it. On another thread you state that there's no proof that Atoms exits, which is true - however that doesn't change the fact that there are trillions of dollars worth of industry and technology based on the assumption that matter is made from atoms. Have you read the work of Karl Popper?


Here we go again.
Assumptions are not reality. Its fine to hold an assumption whilst its veracity can ascertained or dismissed and sharing of such a process would be of immense value in establishing a demonstrable, repeatable methodology, however its blindingly obvious that few put assumptions made by others to such rigour so we drown in a mire of speculation and subjectivity.

Never heard of the Popper bloke until now. Lo and behold he made his name as a psychologist scientist or a philosopher of science the definition of his work is fluid.


Jd755 said:


> How did you establish this statement to be true?


So am I right in saying you haven't done anything to establish the truth of this statement?


----------



## Gladius (Dec 24, 2022)

feralimal said:


> To call my comment a "presentation" is to overstate it substantially.  It is far more of a "musing".
> 
> And if the impression I gave is of a large army taking over by force, let me correct that now.  I would see it far more as a gradual encroachment and lots of natural rights being replaced by provided ones - the threat of force would surely be present though.  I could see how initially these sorts of changes could seem entirely natural.  Indeed, I think we have just been through another period of governance expansion - most people seem to think it entirely natural to be pricked and filled with 'medicine'.


Well , looking back, neither did I present it correctly with the large army thing, but meant the same thing - a superior brute force gradually bashing every group into static submission. The question is was it done in a unified form due to a globalist agenda, or as a consequence of the direction humans developed.



feralimal said:


> My gosh, did you agree?
> 
> I have never agreed, will never agree, cannot conceive of agreeing.  I only pay what taxes I have to - under threat of force.  I would even say that it is a moral duty *not* to pay into the system - I do not support a system that assumes my consent and agreement, steals from me, and then uses the money to indoctrinate the next generation, as well as many other unconscionable acts.



Correct if I'm wrong, but you're not against the idea of tax, you're against the things it is used for. Were you to live in a perhaps smaller community where you can transparently see your tax money being used for things that benefit you, you wouldn't be against it. There are still such cases in the world, but it is fringe, of course.
The Amish for example pay their taxes, but retain control over their values as a group, so it's harder for government to force medicine or indoctrinate their children. The masses however are divided and do not subscribe to a 'clan', so they're just 'sheep to the slaughter' for the government. And no, being right or left wing is not a 'clan'. 

To understand, you'd have to go back further in time, to a perhaps more speculative past, where it was indeed in the interest of people to pay tax to a local warlord or to a stronger tribe, for sponsorship. (aka tribute system)

And now this beast has already over developed itself. It doesn't necessarily mean it was bad when it started. Many things were embraced at first out of good will and benefit to the masses.
Internet gave you certain freedoms at first, now it is used to monitor and surveil you. Imagine in several centuries people would say that internet was forced on the people to control them, without knowing that everyone gladly benefitted from embracing it, at first. I speculate there was a similar case with tax, but organized government tax is different. Perhaps it was easy to sell it because people already paid tax in a different form.



feralimal said:


> I could ask you the reverse - when have you ever seen bandits taking things from you?  Show me from your experience how the idea of bandits is not a story.  I personally only have one example - government force (police, military).  *And this is the case in point.*


Perhaps that's the view from where you live. But it's not like that at all.
Bandits developed over the years, none calls them bandits anymore, but they still are.
In my home city, which is now quite a developed place, every single business pays tribute to the mob. Anyone who doesn't pay, gets a hand grenade into his shop. Happens a few times a year. Strolling around, you won't even believe things are like that.
There are many regions in the world where criminal groups rule de facto, and citizens pay them tribute. It is a fact that in our world, any place with loose government rule is ruled by organized crime or violent militias. The only exceptions might be very remote places in Tibet or Siberia and the likes.




feralimal said:


> We agree here.  Most people love the appearance sense of safety and security that the governance structure claims it provides from bandits and terrorists and what have you.  I argue that it also causes the violence, or the appearance of violence in order to secure its position.  But, no doubt people want their governing (perhaps because they are indoctrinated into it), so the governance system is here to stay, and inflicted on all of us.
> 
> 
> Well, I can't get past the idea that I don't consent to another's authority over my life - and this is what government (govern minds) is.  I don't accept governance.  So if you are saying the opposite to being governed, ie independence or freedom is _not_ the correct way of life, I disagree.



We all aspire to be free, I did not say it is incorrect way of life, I'm saying that's how things work by observation.
The only place where they would leave you alone is if you keep away from civilization, that's the truth.
In the far east and in India, there are groups of westerners who made "free of authority" communities. When you look into it, you find they all pay the local mob for 'protection".

You don't have to be happy about being taxed, but only to realize there is a game and competition going on. The rich are playing by smart, legal and illegal tax evasion. The criminals play by evading tax and taxing others instead. Both they and you don't like the idea of being governed, so they play the cards they got. Of course, some play both cards, being both the rich guy and the crime lord. (And the politician too, in some countries)


----------



## feralimal (Dec 24, 2022)

Gladius said:


> Correct if I'm wrong, but you're not against the idea of tax, you're against the things it is used for. Were you to live in a perhaps smaller community where you can transparently see your tax money being used for things that benefit you, you wouldn't be against it. There are still such cases in the world, but it is fringe, of course


I won't go on and on about this, but no - *I really am against forcible extraction of wealth from another*. And it is pretty amazing to me that most people are not, and will even call it "good"!!

You distinguish between 'bandits' and 'government'.  For me in essence they are the same thing.  The difference to me is that government is _*worse*_ - it attempts to train its citizens to believe that it is a force for good (with great success), where in reality it is just the biggest, worst bandit.  The very _worst_ people govern us and placidly most seem to accept it and even want more! Government is happy to take those who can play the game - the more duplicitous they are, the more they draw people in, the better they can lie to your face, the better they do.

Anyway, if you have to choose between bandits and government, I think bandits are preferable. There is no illusion that they are moral - if you are brave enough, you can choose to arm yourself and take action against them without much hesitation. You stand little chance of freedom once the banditry has grown to governmental proportions.



Gladius said:


> You don't have to be happy about being taxed, but only to realize there is a game and competition going on. The rich are playing by smart, legal and illegal tax evasion. The criminals play by evading tax and taxing others instead. Both they and you don't like the idea of being governed, so they play the cards they got. Of course, some play both cards, being both the rich guy and the crime lord. (And the politician too, in some countries)


Taxes are immoral.  But you are trying to tell me its ok to force people to give their money to an entity that will then use the money to exert even more force and control.  How can that ever be right?  It is not a free choice.  In most places, we are told there did not used to be any income tax - well, that's changed - we _all_ pay now. And right now, afaik, we are building a technocratic governance control grid, that will micromanage resources to individuals.

We can see the direction of travel.  And - in principle, from what you say - you're cheering this on.  The legal system, as well as the religious, education, entertainment, etc, systems, - all are in service to the governance agenda.  If you are happy to play the provided game that's fine - you go get yours, why not?  But really all that's going on is that you are supporting the growth of a system that seeks yours and everyone's enslavement.  It sounds like you would be happy if you pay less taxes by some tax wheeze, ie being clever/doing well within the rat run that is created for you, but I think you fail to realise that you are 'within', and helping the system, its laws, its money, its authority.


----------



## Gladius (Dec 24, 2022)

feralimal said:


> I won't go on and on about this, but no - *I really am against forcible extraction of wealth from another*. And it is pretty amazing to me that most people are not, and will even call it "good"!!


Nothing wrong with your view.
But if you live in any community, you're expected to make a contribution.
Let's imagine a village where there's no tax. Obviously to make things work, you'd need to work together with the citizens on mutual projects for the common good. Either by providing your muscle, or helping to raise funds.
Imagine one guy doesn't contribute and caters to his own. Obviously, he won't get help on a rainy day. Also, if he uses services which he refused to contribute for, he might be expelled from that village.

The difference today is like I said, no transparency, and your contribution goes to things irrelevant to your well being.


feralimal said:


> You distinguish between 'bandits' and 'government'.  For me in essence they are the same thing.


Of course they are the same.
The distinguishing is in the manner of execution,  not essence.



feralimal said:


> The difference to me is that government is _*worse*_ - it attempts to train its citizens to believe that it is a force for good (with great success), where in reality it is just the biggest, worst bandit.  The very _worst_ people govern us and placidly most seem to accept it and even want more! Government is happy to take those who can play the game - the more duplicitous they are, the more they draw people in, the better they can lie to your face, the better they do.


You'd be surprised that bandits do the very same when they get comfortable in their territory. Known example is Pablo Escobar.
Bandits thrive in government "vacccums" and begin to provide their 'subjects' with forms of social service, education and financial aid. The locals do not care they're sponsored by drug money. They worship the local crime boss for saving them and filling in the role of government.


feralimal said:


> Anyway, if you have to choose between bandits and government, I think bandits are preferable. There is no illusion that they are moral - if you are brave enough, you can choose to arm yourself and take action against them without much hesitation. You stand little chance of freedom once the banditry has grown to governmental proportions.


Bandits very much try to sustain a moral image, and convince their subjects of it.
They also tend to be more religious and attend religious services. They often play this card, showing the government as godless bastards while they are the godloving, down to earth people loving leaders.



feralimal said:


> Taxes are immoral.  But you are trying to tell me its ok to force people to give their money to an entity that will then use the money to exert even more force and control.  How can that ever be right?  It is not a free choice.  In most places, we are told there did not used to be any income tax - well, that's changed - we _all_ pay now. And right now, afaik, we are building a technocratic governance control grid, that will micromanage resources to individuals.


I didn't say it's ok.
I feel you're looking it narrowly from where you live, and what you're getting for your taxation. The circumstances can be different around the world.
Tax is not good or evil. It is a mechanism that exists. Whether it's good or bad is up to the people who are supposed to benefit from it.

By the way, many ordinary people in many countries do not pay tax.
You will find these for example in India, East Europe, Southeast Asia.
Most Arab towns in Israel do not pay taxes and the government does not even try to make them. Are they poor? Far from it.
Go visit there, enjoy the sewers running in the street, the unevacuated trash and broken roads. Food is great though. 
They as a community do not know how to use their money for common good, so that's what you get. I'm sure there are others, elsewhere, who could pull it off without taxation, but here's my point, most communities would rather have their tax sorting out these things for them.

In India there's no proper tax collection in many provinces. They remain the poorest ones and the government has no interest to invest resources there.
In Ukraine, a modern country, anyone can easily avoid taxation. But I saw there many people choosing to pay tax, definitely not out of brainwash, but because they wanted certain perks that derive from it. 




feralimal said:


> We can see the direction of travel.  And - in principle, from what you say - you're cheering this on.  The legal system, as well as the religious, education, entertainment, etc, systems, - all are in service to the governance agenda.  If you are happy to play the provided game that's fine - you go get yours, why not?  But really all that's going on is that you are supporting the growth of a system that seeks yours and everyone's enslavement.  It sounds like you would be happy if you pay less taxes by some tax wheeze, ie being clever/doing well within the rat run that is created for you, but I think you fail to realise that you are 'within', and helping the system, its laws, its money, its authority.



I know exactly where I am, and I'm past the phase of labeling it good and evil to cope with it. Understanding the system does not mean supporting it, so don't put me in such boxes.
Unfortunately in this world many people become rich by smartly maneuvering this system, its laws and taxes. They understand this is a dog eat dog world, and you're under the control of those institutions as long as you live in their lands. I will not experience peak happiness by doing that. I'm just saying what is happening, not what is right and wrong. If you want magical solutions to the world order grip over your life, I'm not the address


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 24, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> How did you establish this statement to be true?



The statement 'Nobody in medieval England used money' is obviously false, because you would only have to establish that one single individual in medieval England used money and that falsifies the statement.  I'm surprised I need to point that out to an Olympic-level pedant like yourself 

Karl Popper - often described as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Most of his life's work was devoted to establishing what could and could not be defined using words.  He made the primary distinction between faith-based statements such as 'God exists' or 'God does not exist,' both of which cannot be proven and the choice is entirely subjective to believe or not; and statements like 'If I heat water to 100 degrees celsius, it will start to boil,' which can be demonstrated and repeated.

Your problem is you are unable to distinguish between these two classes of statement.

I assert that there is no such thing as an objective reality.  The 'Objective reality' beloved of Science is in fact entirely a creation of the human mind, just like Atoms. 

Go ahead and prove that there exists an objective, measurable reality.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> The statement 'Nobody in medieval England used money' is obviously false, because you would only have to establish that one single individual in medieval England used money and that falsifies the statement.  I'm surprised I need to point that out to an Olympic-level pedant like yourself
> 
> Karl Popper - often described as the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Most of his life's work was devoted to establishing what could and could not be defined using words.  He made the primary distinction between faith-based statements such as 'God exists' or 'God does not exist,' both of which cannot be proven and the choice is entirely subjective to believe or not; and statements like 'If I heat water to 100 degrees celsius, it will start to boil,' which can be demonstrated and repeated.
> 
> ...


So yet again I ask someone a question and they act all offended.
Quite quite sad.

So the statement you made by your own admission is false but nevertheless you speculate on and on on top of the falsehood.

In Poppers world nothing exists and everything we think is experience is actually just the subjective nature of the mind of the observer. Objective is reduced to mere fantasy an imagining of the subjective mind.

I have no idea how anyone can prove what went on twenty minutes ago let alone hundreds of years ago.
No methodology has ever been crafted by the mind of man and the majority of people are happy to speculate within the speculation of others who write books or papers on their speculation.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Dec 24, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> So yet again I ask someone a question and they act all offended.
> Quite quite sad.
> 
> So the statement you made by your own admission is false but nevertheless you speculate on and on on top of the falsehood.
> ...



I'm not offended.  

You are making statements about Popper's world on the basis of never having read any of his books.  Is that ok to do that?

Apparently you are now agreeing that everything is speculation, having spent all day attacking people for doing exactly that.

The statement I made is logically false, however everyone else on this thread has successfully understood what I meant by it in context with the rest of what I wrote.

This thread is about how the indigenous people of the UK and North America were systematically dispossessed of their lands at the same time, and how money was used to achieve this.  Do you have anything constructive to add?


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 24, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> I'm not offended.
> 
> You are making statements about Popper's world on the basis of never having read any of his books.  Is that ok to do that?
> 
> ...


Attacking?
Since when was asking for evidence of method or process or what the claimant has done to question the veracity of someone else's theory turn into an attack?

You answered my question perfectly. You haven't tested the theory. I get it.


----------



## push4more (Dec 24, 2022)

dreamtime said:


> "I don't have a lot of concrete facts to add, but I will share some general thoughts about this:
> 
> It's not state vs. state, but basically state vs. individual freedom. The Romans probably invented the concept of the nation state, at least I think so. Looking at the Ottoman Empire, it almost looks like the Ottomans simply copied the Roman concept of centralized power, but failed because they weren't as evil.
> 
> ...



Worldviews before Roman times or Mesopotamia were highly coerced just like these two and others. It wasn't until say the 1700's with the Enlightenment, true explanation (physics, chemistry etc.), probably due to less religion coercion and perhaps more money in the scientific class and science patronage.  Maybe there is a connection with land enclosure and the Enlightenment.


----------



## feralimal (Dec 24, 2022)

Frostychud said:


> Michael Hudson is a mainstream economic historian who has written a series of books about money in the ancient world. The conspiracy researcher Joseph P. Farrell writes about money. I also learned a lot from reading the extensive commentary of an anonymous monetary historian who goes by the name Mefobills at Unz.com. His comment history is well worth reading in its entirety. The Unz Review He describes how barley was the first money and that credit and debt precede what we think of as "money". Ancient city-states each issued their own sovereign currency in the following way. Citizens deposited grain at the temple. In return credit was extended to them using various stand-ins for the value of the grain, bronze disks or wooden tally sticks for example. These stand-ins for value were then exchanged among the population as currency. It was a closed system and the temple was able to both introduce credit exceeding the quantity of grain when necessary as well as forgive debt when it threatened the proper functioning of society.


Firstly, let me say that I really enjoy your contributions @Frostychud .  Secondly, I'm not attacking your views but I am skeptical about this story/these stories that you touch on in your post.

Hudson (whom I remember seeing on the Keiser Report on RT, years ago) and mefobills (who is new to me, but I have read a few of his recent comments) are both interesting characters.  They really do seem to be addressing and evaluating the geopolitics of our time.  I think you could add James Corbett, Jay Dyer to that group too - they too look into the geopolitical situation and provide interesting alternative analysis, that seems closer to the truth.  The issue I have nowadays, is that I don't, or rather can't, accept the geopolitics we are shown as real, whether it is curated for me by the mainstream or the alternative media. 

Eg, if it is true (as Professor Anthony Sutton has said) that the Germans were given the ability to create synthetic oil from coal, that their tank engines were made by Ford, etc - was World War 2 what we were told?  The geopolitic realists above, take the wars as true, and perhaps see conspiracy between this and that actor, but that broadly speaking they agree that there was a real war.  However could it be that these were actually choreographed events?  Yes soldiers were moving about, and yes there were horrific and vivid films after the event, but could it be that the actual 'war' was not as portrayed?

What about nuclear bombs, are these real?  Why in Hiroshima were the wooden telegraph poles not razed to the ground by the mighty explosion?  Is the Ukraine war real, and are we prodding the grouchy Russian bear there?  And what about 911 - was that a real event?  Was it terrorists, or special agents?  Or were the towers a huge prop prepared 28+ years and theatrical made-for-television movie?  And covid...  are viruses real?  And space?  What exactly is actually real around here?  How can we "know"?  Do we know what 'knowing' means?

The thing is, that I now think it is all theatre of the mind.  It is not actually necessary to go to war, have terrorists or viruses or any of it.  In fact, you will find you have very little personal evidence of any of these and many other claims - only what you are shown on TV.  You know and said elsewhere that in your experience that what the unconscious is shown, it believes.  So, is it that you and I are too far away from the real action - and that its perfectly understandable that we would not get the opportunity to verify these stories?  Or is it, as I think, as outrageous as it might seem, the reason these stories are impossible to personally verify is because there is no truth to them - they are just narrative arcs, presented on TV, cartoons, books, etc.  Its all just narrative arcs, designed to capture the mind.

Here is an older thread of mine that hints at how some of the trickery could be done:
Real architecture but an old stage?
and another:
Meta history - Who provides the data?

Here is a great show on the BBC apparently from 1968:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYAke_z3RVU_

And this is an excellent movie that also illustrates what may be going on:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAdOi1Vo5s_


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 25, 2022)

It just came to mind that the English word 'fortune' supposedly derived from Latin 'fortuna' has its own meaning indicating wealth, contrary to Italian 'fortuna' which has that meaning only in sentences like 'fare fortuna', making wealth, and always just meaning 'luck' when on its own.
Is it possible that the native British population immediately associated this new foreign word with money? All of this presuming the linguistic theories are correct and this word was not part of the English vocabulary from the start.


----------



## Jd755 (Dec 25, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> It just came to mind that the English word 'fortune' supposedly derived from Latin 'fortuna' has its own meaning indicating wealth, contrary to Italian 'fortuna' which has that meaning only in sentences like 'fare fortuna', making wealth, and always just meaning 'luck' when on its own.
> Is it possible that the native British population immediately associated this new foreign word with money? All of this presuming the linguistic theories are correct and this word was not part of the English vocabulary from the start.


When i get my head round an English Welsh dictionary specifically how the word breaks down, I'll post the results here.
Could be For or fort and tune or une is what comes immediately to mind.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 25, 2022)

Jd755 said:


> When i get my head round an English Welsh dictionary specificall how the word breaks down, i'llpost the results here.
> Could be For or fort and tune or une is what comes immediately to mind.


Btw, assuming the original inhabitants were 'Gauls-Britons-Trojans-WHATEVER' (not going to discuss that here cause I fear retaliations, lol), then the English/Angles came after those guys and the Romans, but then this means that the word 'fortuna' was taken by the Brits and inherited by the Angles, otherwise the only other explanation (my fav) is that they took the word from the Normans.
I remember having read in one of Kd's old threads, where he posted an English book from the 17th or 18th century, that the Normans actually introduced various Latin words in Britain, which is the usual Roman/Norman paradox that I like so much.


----------



## InchoateTulpa (Jan 1, 2023)

Silveryou said:


> First of all you have a prejudice towards me and you are explicitely saying here.
> 
> Second, it was you calling me misanthrope who went personal, while I only criticized what you were saying and not your peson, and that says much of your person at this point.
> 
> ...


As an avid reader of Miles Mathis, can you point me to evidence he is a Freemason?


----------



## trismegistus (Jan 1, 2023)

InchoateTulpa said:


> As an avid reader of Miles Mathis, can you point me to evidence he is a Freemason?



Is Miles Mathis Real?  Is the "Phoenician Navy" behind everything?

further discussion on this topic could be held here, but not on this thread.


----------



## UncleVito (Jan 2, 2023)

History is written by the winners of collectivism, and can't be trusted.

"Fixing" history only changes the narrative, and changes the collectivists in charge. 

The only real and lasting solution is to break free from collectivism all together, and to become inner directed instead.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 2, 2023)

UncleVito said:


> History is written by the winners of collectivism, and can't be trusted.
> 
> "Fixing" history only changes the narrative, and changes the collectivists in charge.
> 
> The only real and lasting solution is to break free from collectivism all together, and to become inner directed instead.


Why are you posting on a forum called 'stolenhistory' if all history is false and nothing can be trusted?

Here to propose some cancel history judeo-american thingy?


----------



## Frostychud (Saturday at 10:21 AM)

Frostychud said:


> I have a suspicion that the history of money is the thread that, when pulled upon, will unravel a lot of other mysteries.
> 
> Michael Hudson is a mainstream economic historian who has written a series of books about money in the ancient world. The conspiracy researcher Joseph P. Farrell writes about money. I also learned a lot from reading the extensive commentary of an anonymous monetary historian who goes by the name Mefobills at Unz.com. His comment history is well worth reading in its entirety. The Unz Review He describes how barley was the first money and that credit and debt precede what we think of as "money". Ancient city-states each issued their own sovereign currency in the following way. Citizens deposited grain at the temple. In return credit was extended to them using various stand-ins for the value of the grain, bronze disks or wooden tally sticks for example. These stand-ins for value were then exchanged among the population as currency. It was a closed system and the temple was able to both introduce credit exceeding the quantity of grain when necessary as well as forgive debt when it threatened the proper functioning of society.
> 
> ...


I was recently re-reading the Protocols and I found a few extracts that confirm some of the arguments I presented earlier.

From Chapter 21:

_To what I reported to you at the last meeting I shall now add a detailed explanation of internal loans. Of foreign loans I shall say nothing more, because they have fed us with the *national moneys* of the goyim, but* for our State there will be no foreigners, that is, nothing external.*_

This is in line with my contention that the fundamental dynamic here is dialectical. A territorial currency is attacked by a deterritorialized currency. The ultimate synthesis of the two is an outsideless global system.

_By good luck the subjects of the goy governments, knowing nothing about financial affairs, have always preferred losses on exchange and diminution of interest to the risk of new investments of their moneys, and have thereby many a time *enabled these governments to throw off their shoulders a debit of several millions*. Nowadays, with *external* loans, these tricks cannot be played by the goyim for they know that we shall demand all our moneys back._

This is a little vague, but illustrates the basic principle.

In other words, when the currency is limited to a circumscribed territory, debt can be forgiven by the issuing sovereign when it threatens the common good. But when the money is borrowed in an outside currency, the sovereign is powerless and beholden to those who control the value of that money.

_Industrial papers will be bought also by the government which from being as now a payer of tribute by loan operations will be transformed into a lender of money at a profit. This measure will stop the stagnation of money, parasitic profits and idleness, *all of which were useful for us among the goyim so long as they were independent but are not desirable under our rule.*_

and

_Our accounts, which we shall present when the time comes, in the light of centuries of experience gained by experiments made by us on the goy States, will be distinguished by clearness and definiteness and will show at a glance to all men the advantage of our innovations. *They will put an end to those abuses to which we owe our mastery over the goyim, but which cannot be allowed in our kingdom.*_

The Protocols, therefore, describe a two-step process. Step one, attack the local kingdoms with a deterritorial currency (metal money, for example). This money acts for all intents and purposes as a form of self-directed, algorithmic AI which has been programmed to hollow out any economic ecosystem into which it has been introduced with very little supervision needed. Step two, once all independent kingdoms have been enslaved in this way, go back to a sovereign currency. Only this time it cannot be attacked from the outside, since there IS no more outside. Hence the absolute necessity to "enclose the globe", which is exactly what we are seeing today with the technological control grid. This grid is being set up in order to erase once and for all anything resembling an "outside". Once the grid is finished, I suspect a CBDC will be introduced that will resemble the original sovereign currencies. We will then have the worst of both worlds. In any case, this is explicitly what the _Protocols_ suggests. When the new system is rolled out, I believe it will be fronted by people who present themselves as being opposed to "International Finance". They will preach a return to "old values". They may even be openly anti-semitic. I believe Russia and China occupy this function today and are being groomed to lead the scripted turn towards a new territorial currency. This will be a big fat deception and a trap to lure in those who naively assume that the money wizards desire to continue their current style of predation indefinitely. They do not as they explicitly state. They want to consolidate their power. The usury strategy was never anything but a means to an end, the final enclosure of all of humanity. It is my opinion that the 20th century's attempts to artificially recreate organic, self-contained territorial systems, from Nazism to Zionism, were destined to fail as the original organic communities these movements attempted to emulate did not originally have to contend with deterritorial money pouring in from the outside. As a consequence, these artificial movements had to be equipped with "defense systems" in the form of internal totalitarian control mechanisms. But these very internal control mechanisms defeated the purpose of the return to territorialism, which was to recapture something of the original freedom and beauty of life in an organic community.

To return to the original theme, seen from this light, the gradual enclosure of the commons in England (for example) could be seen rather as a re-enclosure, a different kind of enclosure, a more micromanaged enclosure. I once worked in a private firm that was bought out by an international hedge fund. The first thing they did was replace the original management style (in which the head of the company allowed his employees a large degree of autonomy) with a finer-grained micromanagement style complete with digital surveillance. In other words, where the original "open enclosure" allowed a certain degree of internal circulation based on trust, the new system of smaller enclosures found a way to redirect all productivity outside of the original circle and to an extraterritorial entity.

ADDED: Perhaps logic can help us reconstruct history where documentation fails, or at least orient us a little. The idea occurs to me that the idyllic organic communities of the 17th and 18th centuries here evoked by Quiahuitl and Dreamtime are in themselves evidence of a reset or cataclysm just prior. It would appear to me that systems inherently tend towards enclosure and centralization. The process is not purely linear, of course, but as the population increases and technology advances, it would seem to be a logical necessity. I argued above that movements like Zionism or National Socialism were doomed to failure because the original organic communities they were attempting to copy existed in a different universe, namely, one in which the outside was still natural, wild, and uncolonized. This suggests that the communities of the period discussed here, in which a man only had to work fifteen hours a week to support a family, in which there were no nomadic Jewish, Roman, or Phoenician raiders pushing metal money and legal systems, were not the result of centuries and millennia of civilization, but on the contrary the happy consequence of a recent wipeout of civilization with its inherent drive towards centralization and exploitation. Following this logic, such communities would be as fragile as freshly bloomed flowers. It is only a matter of time before they are invaded and corrupted, at which point there is no going back. Perhaps one could even argue that there is only a brief "sweet spot" after humanity has pulled itself together enough to escape post-cataclysmic subsistence living but before it has once again grown sophisticated enough to tend towards centralization. This is a depressing idea because it would seem that the only way to get back to this state would be (1) another cataclysm and (2) a long slog through the immediate recovery period, at which point the flower would already begin fading. I will add an anecdote. I was in New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina. There was a brief period following the disaster where nothing worked and no one had any idea what was happening, where things were going, or who was in charge. The electricity was out in most of the city. The level of destruction was staggering. The city was almost entirely empty. I rode my bicycle through previously no-go ghetto areas for hours without seeing more than a few people. Doors were left wide open. Boats were stranded in the streets. There weren't even any birds. It was dead quiet. I could have just walked into any house I wanted to and taken anything I found. Wooden houses had been picked up and floated by the water, then dropped back down on top of cars. Everything was covered in dried mud. I think this was the happiest I have ever been in my life. I know that many people, including personal acquaintances, lost everything, including their lives. Still, I cannot forget the incredible feeling of freedom that dominated in those few weeks. It was as if some invisible control system had truly been deactivated for a short time. It would have been indecent to mention it in public, of course, out of respect for others who did not have the luxury of enjoying the cataclysm as an aesthetic experience. But I wonder how many people felt the same way I did. It helped that in those years I was a young man with no property and no attachments. I cannot adequately put into words how exhilarating it was.


----------



## RedNeckGoober (Saturday at 10:06 PM)

Silveryou said:


> Why are you posting on a forum called 'stolenhistory' if all history is false and nothing can be trusted?


It seems to me that he's posting on a forum called 'stolen history' because because he realizes that the minute you examine the metadata of history, the 'official narrative' totally and completely falls apart. Just about every single time.


----------



## Tureco (Monday at 12:46 AM)

Silveryou said:


> Loads of crap (the fasceeees-nazeeeees part) mixed with some few good intuitions.
> 
> In any case, regarding the more historical part, sources are what is lacking in this supposedly well researched theory. I'm not going to buy books, expecially if all the crappy part is also part of them, so I would like to know what books (sources) are these deductions based upon. To be more specific: what ancient sources were studied to deduct all these theories.




the amount of propaganda flying as facts in today's information warfare is saturating all attempts at honest communication. 
the fact that propagandists love to use whole ethnic groups as scapegoats is a good way to spot them; most of them do not even know they are acting as propaganda-spreaders, since they have been so well trained to hate.

speaking of money, how come the supposed looser of ww2, dictates economic policy to the whole of europe?
how did they keep their territory anyways?
how can the looser of a war the looser started, has the capacity to dictate terms of contract for other nations?

and yet, we have people going on and on and on about the juice LOL!!!!!!!!


RedNeckGoober said:


> It seems to me that he's posting on a forum called 'stolen history' because because he realizes that the minute you examine the metadata of history, the 'official narrative' totally and completely falls apart. Just about every single time.



english is not my mother tongue, but the question flew over your head.
if nothing can be trusted as historical fact, there cannot be a stolen history, there would be no history at all.


----------



## RedNeckGoober (Tuesday at 2:59 AM)

Tureco said:


> english is not my mother tongue, but the question flew over your head.
> if nothing can be trusted as historical fact, there cannot be a stolen history, there would be no history at all.


There was no question, there was a statement. And I replied to the statement - Nothing *that is written in the history books can be trusted". That does not mean that there is nothing that can be trusted as historical fact. There is information available outside the 'traditional historical narrative', and a large portion of it does not support that narrative.


----------

