TecZ:
> Is it really about money?

No, it is what is done with the store of value... The debt and the
nature of the effort which is related to that debt and how any
resultant conflict is directed in a way is turned into business which
helps those who generally are charged with managing investments and
large scale business holdings.

I have lived abroad for a few years and seen some ugly things. In
that regard I am no different than a lot of people. Here then I will
keep it short...

I am trying to keep this very short because of my back and it is
eaarly in the AM here where I am at. I think the best way to sum it
up is from the International. What's interesting is how so on point
they made it in this movie.... so I'll just focus on what the actor
said to the lady who was inquiring of him right before he was
assassinated. Interestingly, the assassin was himself supposed to be
assassinated, by a police officer. In The International, all the
lower level players were intended to be disposable ~ there was
supposed to be some sort of sick, disposable system, which actually
was more or less true to how it usually works out....

Anyway, here is how the line was described in the movie:

" [In explaining the "true" nature of banking in the world]
The IBBC is a bank. Their objective isn't to control the conflict,
it's to control the debt that the conflict produces.

You see, the real value of a conflict, the true value, is in the
debt that it creates. You control the debt, you control everything.
You find this upsetting, yes? But this is the very essence of the
banking industry, to make us all, whether we be nations or
individuals, slaves to debt.
~ Umberto Calvini"

It struck me after watching that film some while back, that either a
long-term mercenary or a very experienced politician (and perhaps a
banker) may have been given a few moments with the pen for those
lines. But who can say such things, really?

On the other hand, this line, as it was written, from the perspective
of the character Umberto Calvini, was quite true in 2009 when The
International was made. Today, with hundreds of d-cent currency-ish
systems in use around the world today, and with 2015 marking the
inflection point of the release (and further development of) anonymity
tech the likes of which we have not yet seen, it is safe to say that
the notion of "slaves to debt" as a line in a film must be
reinterpreted. Indeed, what that means, and what is a store of value,
and whether we wish to be a slave to it at all, need not be
ceaselessly in someone else's hands, but should be much more in our
own and further, we should be closer to being each able to enabling
others to snap their own shackles. The notion of slavery need not
merely be tied to "isms," but we may as one example conclude that the
old and traditional notion of slavery is the result of a lack of
compassion, and sharing. and that it is more pervasive than we'd like
to admit ~ while at the same time examining that the new and multiple
meanings of slavery also imply that we have the ability to break them all.

Today, the debt is in our minds.

Respect,

- -O

>
> Serious question...
>
> If the central bankers can create trillions at will then is money
> really their motivation ? Or just a tool they use to motivate the
> greed of corporations, middle management and survival instinct of
> the peseantry?
>
> If the central bankers don't value money then why do they do what
> they do? Fear? Greed? Greed for what? Why do they want so much
> control? To calm their fear???
>
> Then we are just back at the beginning of their psycho mind trip.
> If they are making plans over the course of 100 years then they are
> motivated by far deeper things...
>
> Those of us that keep babbling on about money and corporations have
> zero hope of ever getting to the bottom of the problem here. We
> need to acknowledge that this is a spiritual battle...
>
> Lets all go and do some REAL research about history and keep the
> 180 degree rule in mind, else we will fritter away the chance
> bitcoin is giving us to affect real change. Hoping this reaches at
> least ONE person who can read between the lines....
>
> Peace
>
>
>
>
>> On Dec 21, 2014, at 11:26 PM, snakecharmr
>> <snakecharmr1024@???> wrote:
>>
>> Everybody wants freedom for themselves. Tyrants aren't willing to
>> give freedom to others, usually because they are terrified of
>> everyone (thinking of Stalin's paranoia).
>>
>> I think turning up the resolution beyond "rich vs poor" will
>> demonstrate more complex strategies at work here. When
>> governments propose "taxing the rich", it's usually the 0.0001%
>> who actually write the laws (not necessarily gov) asking the
>> bottom 80% to support putting obstacles up to block the top 10%
>> (the controller's competitors) from actually overtaking them. So
>> "taxing the rich" doesn't tax all the rich, because the people
>> who write the laws always put loopholes in for them and their
>> friends.
>>
>> If the money supply is fair, not rigged, then the only way the
>> super wealthy can cash in on their wealth is by giving it to
>> others in exchange for goods. Then they have less wealth and the
>> only way for them to get it back is to do things for other
>> people. If they never do things for other people, then they go
>> bankrupt after a while.
>>
>> Money is just supposed to encode how much you've contributed to
>> the economy minus how much you've taken. It's not perfect, and
>> the fiat system skews it beyond recognition, but that's the idea
>> of money. It's just memory.
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 2014, at 6:16 AM, lalu <lalu@???> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think the number of rules is the problem, more so the
>>> common belief that the pile of $ they sit on is worth something
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Once this change, we can start building a world in which we
>>> measure success not only by reading GDP charts.
>>>
>>> Long road ahead though !
>>>
>>>> On 20. 12. 14 20:45, ben wrote: Are we to think that lower
>>>> taxes on the rich is going to make them give to the poor of
>>>> their free will now? I just dont think that giving have ever
>>>> been a strong tendency for the rich, and I dont see how that
>>>> will make the wealthgap shrink?
>>>>
>>>> Im for less regulations by all means, but can somebody
>>>> enlighten me on how giving the people that already are
>>>> fucking up the world with corporations running amok less
>>>> rules is going to fix this?
>>>>
>>>> 2014-12-19 18:52 GMT+01.00, Amir Taaki <genjix@???>:
>>>>> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/rise-new-libertarians-meet-britains-next-political-generation-1469233
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
- --
>>> - It's all about the ride, not the destination - This is my
>>> BitMessage address: BM-2cV6CrSfgRYMqXGbutWp3G8aRz2NgTkHhM
>>>
>>> This Is my Bitcoin address: 1FmNTaAX6vGbQEtGbi5Z5EqDvbi3C7coCP
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>
>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>

- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn