Sutton, Quigly, Peter Dale Scott, G. Edward Griffin, Gabriel Kolko, James Weinstein, Rothbard, Harry Elmer Barnes, Carl Oglesby, Percy Greaves, C. Wright Mills, James burnham, James J. Martin, and the rest of the new left and old right John Birch Society revisionist historians and intellectuals are the conspiracy theorists we should emulate. Power elite analysis and fact based writing; not new age or christian right metaphysical illuminati fantasies and bullshit.

Quigly didn't "believe" in it. He was witness to it and believed in most of its objectives. He was given access to secret CFR documents to write his history on it. It was not meant for the average person to read.

I recall also that he suspected he was not shown everything.

Small plug: a friend of mine wrote a great, highly literate book on the history of conspiracy theory and its treatment by the establishment, centered around the events of 9/11. Would recommend anyone interested in a serious discussion of the subject to check it out . Looks like he lowered the price and the Kindle version is only $1.

I don't make any money off this or anything btw, not an advertisement.

Shills gonna shill.

Read: no different opinions allowed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_And_Hope

For anyone unfamiliar with his writings.

I read all 1300 pages of Tragedy and Hope. Only about 150 of them are really relevant to what is discussed here, but boy are they important. I've been meaning to read The Anglo-American Establishment. If you look hard enough on youtube etc., there is (was?) a multi-part interview with him in which he, among other things, discusses what the ultimate goal is, based on important people who proposed those goals. I think the one he was most inclined to believe was a tripartite world almost identical to the world of 1984. He goes into great depth about why it would be divided the way it was as he was what was then referred to as a 'macro-historian'. A great deal of Tragedy and hope was devoted to things like production capacity, production of pig-iron, political alliances, innovations in technology etc.;hence 'macro-historian.

There is a decent abridged version. I posted it here. It's in my recent submissions. On phone at moment so posring is a bit tricky.

Exactly and ultimately I think these goblins are led by a much darker force which the bible has warned us about.

This is why its crucial to expose the one world government and one world currency which will be electronic/internet currency and I believe bitcoin is the beta test for it.

Its private, its unknown who created/runs it, and surprisingly has been allowed to operate where all other currencies have been shut down and all people imprisoned.

Also I believe the current top of EU "officials" are serving their hell master to beta test the EU as a one world government.

I believe the beginning of the world government will start when a large war starts (Iran?, N. Korea?, bigger war?) for which they will make it as such so that the people beg for it. It will be sold as the solution to our problems, free money will be promised to everyone who gets the chip.

This will go alongside Agenda 21, smart growth, smart cities policies, all designed to destroy small businesses and human interaction so that no one has money or even jobs to be independent and uppity and the only solution would be government, in this case world government.

Also supposedly a fake leader will arrive, we don't know yet if to sell the world government or after promising to get rid of it?

I believe bitcoin is the beta test for it.

The BTC network is a P2P crypto-based currency and payment system which is driven and operated by its users. There is no central issuer of currency, there is no way to inflate the currency, there is no way to take control of the network, it is anonymous, it is everything the big banks do not want.

And every transaction is recorded in the ledger; every transaction is traceable.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yes, traceable between accounts. Any person any where can create an account in a multitude of ways. You can have as many accounts as you want. Accounts are not tied to people, they don't require any sort of personal verification.

Right, which allows a variety of graph theory based analysis techniques which may be used to correlate, profile and even predict behavior.

More importantly, to transfer bitcoins out, into fiat currency, you have to attach your name, which transitively attaches you to all of the behavior that proceeds your transfer out.

Why would you want to exchange it for fiat currency?

Oh, I don't know, to buy an airline ticket? To buy dinner for my wife?

You know, to buy stuff...

But even if it became more widespread for use in purchasing, the fact remains that this currency keeps all transactional history in the fabric of the P2P overlay network that the currency is formed from. If the goal of a currency such as bitcoin is to enter a new age free from financial tyranny, then it doesn't make much sense to bet on this one, given that is completely audit-able.

You may think that creating throw-away accounts anonymizes the use of bitcoin, but that is only true for one-off transactions. If you create any patterns of use, such as systematically receiving income from it and spending it at the same places, modern graph theory can correlate those patterns down to a probabilistic profile of you.

Still excited?

Oh, I don't know, to buy an airline ticket?

Do you know of any method to buy an airline ticket which couldn't be "traced" to you? Why then should this be required of Bitcoins?

To buy dinner for my wife?

You can buy food with Bitcoins.

You may think that creating throw-away accounts anonymizes the use of bitcoin, but that is only true for one-off transactions. If you create any patterns of use, such as systematically receiving income from it and spending it at the same places, modern graph theory can correlate those patterns down to a probabilistic profile of you.

Create a new wallet for every coin you receive. Use mixing pools. If anonymity is what you're after, there are ways of achieving this when it matters.

The "financial tyranny" that you mentioned is avoided by having no central issuer of the currency, and no possibility of inflation.

If you think the dollar is a better system, that's certainly your choice. Have fun losing 3% of it's worth every year. I'm happy with the 10% I'm up in the last month.

Do you know of any method to buy an airline ticket which couldn't be "traced" to you? Why then should this be required of Bitcoins?

Right, and the moment they trace bitcoin activity to you individually, those graph correlations that I wrote about have a name to go with their profile.

You can buy food with Bitcoins.

And I would need an airline ticket to do it.

Create a new wallet for every coin you receive. Use mixing pools. If anonymity is what you're after, there are ways of achieving this when it matters.

You must not have paid attention to me when I explained that this won't work.

The "financial tyranny" that you mentioned is avoided by having no central issuer of the currency, and no possibility of inflation.

No, it isn't. Certainly, the type of tyranny will be different, but no less significant.

If you think the dollar is a better system, that's certainly your choice. Have fun losing 3% of it's worth every year. I'm happy with the 10% I'm up in the last month.

A deflationary currency disproportionally enriches the "rich". Imagine your salary going down every year at the same rate that bitcoin increases in value. You may like how this has worked for you so far, but you aren't thinking ahead far enough.

It's also valueless, it's numbers and letters on a screen. It's even more worthless than the paper we are trading now.

Bitcoins used to be worth less than dollars, but right now they're worth about 140 times more. Bitcoin has a value, because like every other currency in the history of everything everywhere ever, people have decided it has a value and treat it as such. This is how currencies work. I could take some coins and do some trading and end up with gold, or a house, or real estate.

There are plenty of ways to take over the network.

No, there is no feasible way to do it, and the benefits wouldn't even come close to comparing to the cost it would take to even attempt to do so.

You would need to control the majority of computing power that makes up the network, and then all you would get out of it is the ability to "unwrite" transactions for the specific block chain that is currently being solved, provided it was one of your servers that solved the block first.

So you could spend a lot of money to essentially double the amount of computing power the BTC network is comprised of, which COULD then in theory be used to untransfer coins, however you do not gain any control over other portions of the network nor other people's coins.

The only value here is if you spend an immense amount of coins in a short period of time, receive whatever goods you were paying for, then unwrite the BTC transfer history, and then solve the block chain before the other half of the network does with the correct data. The time frame in which this all would need to take place is much shorter than it would take to transfer any item between buyer and seller.

When all is said and done, there is more value and earning potential in being part of the network than in trying to "take it over."

What you say may be true but how are you arriving at a value of hundreds of millions? What do you think about the weak point of the system i.e the exchanges? They can ne controlled?

Looking for the article I based that number off of and can't find it. I modified my wording... looking to get an accurate number now.

The 100 mill number was off by quite a bit... Here are some more numbers for thought:

According to this article: http://mineforeman.com/2013/02/13/800-giga-hash-per-second-user-just-started-mining-at-btcguild/

Two months ago there was roughly 16,000 GH/s of computing power available on the BTC network. The network is designed such that, currently, 3600 BTC per day are generated.

You can get specialized boxes for ~75 BTC (about $10k) which provide 63 GH/s of power. To double the amount of power the network had back in Feb at this price it would cost roughly $2,539,682. With half the computing power of the network you would earn about 1800 BTC a day, or $252,000 at current market value.

If you are at the point where you can earn a quarter million a day by doing literally nothing, would you continue doing that, or try to roll back some payments and possibly sabotage your multi-million dollar per week operation?

Thats some pretty impressive roi there. 10per cent per day.

Would it be the case that someone with 51 percent could make the network untrustworthy. I.e not profit but ruin the integrity of transactions?

I'm not entirely certain what they could do, here is the creator talking about it years ago when they were still fleshing some of this stuff out.

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09959.html Read the emails from Satoshi Nakamoto for a better understanding. It really is a remarkable system.

Exchanges are definitely the week point of the system, I'll agree with you there. Definitely something that needs to be addressed.

I'm surprised that all of the flack you're getting is for the bitcoin reference.

Nice read, though.

I'm sorry yahoo_bot, but bitcoin is simply a coder-created pump-and-dump seigniorage scheme. It is following the textbook pattern, down to its "anonymous" creation.

There's nothing to test here except the gullibility of people. People think it's a currency; it's just a digital commodity of no intrinsic value. No different from silver certificates, and no-less a scam.

No currency in the world has "intrinsic value."

I don't see on what basis you call it a scam though.

This front organization, called the Royal Institute for International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York, it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations,

er, No.

Yes, the two organizations have the same role. Yes, both tend to look after the interests of big business more than that of the average citizen.

But the British Institute of International Affairs is a strictly British organization serving strictly British interests. The CFR is a strictly American organization serving strictly American interests.

As the saying goes, "The difference between common-sense and paranoia is that common-sense is thinking everyone is out to get you. That's normal -- they are. Paranoia is thinking that they're conspiring."

That's what the guy was saying. Each country has its own organization that ostensibly looks out for said country but really acts in concert with international actors.

In other words the CFR is the "American version" of the British Institute for Affairs kind of thing.

From Wikipedia:

"The Council on Foreign Relations, a sister organization to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (commonly known as Chatham House), was formed in 1922 as a noncommercial, nonpolitical organization supporting American foreign relations."

I don't think this is anything except an undisputed historic fact.

I don't dispute this at all, not did my post. They are - as the same article also describes them - counterparts. They have the same role for each country. But they are not the same organization, and each looks after the interests of it's own country.

Fair enough, I felt your post was implying that the two organizations are strictly unrelated.

The facts show that they share a historical connection, at least. It is not unreasonable to assume that they therefore share common idealogical principles, and that they may have a history of informal collaboration at the highest levels.

I have a suspicion about the two organizations:

There's an old pre-EU complaint from an American President - I forget which one - that when he wanted Europe to do something there was no one person he could call.

It can be the same with an individual country: You can complain to the British Prime Minister, but British enterprise does its own thing.

The purpose of such organizations isn't just to get one country's government AND enterprise working on one page with regard to foreign policy, in that country's interests.... It's to another country someone to negotiate with / complain to. Some group that more or less represents that country's interests as a whole, both government and enterprise.

Of course, only large corporations would have the power to be at the table. And those same corporations would be the ones donating the most campaign funds to the government folks at the table. And they don't have YOUR best interests at heart.

As I noted above, "The difference between common-sense and paranoia is that common-sense is thinking everyone is out to get you. That's normal -- they are. Paranoia is thinking that they're conspiring."

You can write this comment, yet believe that Agenda 21 is a good idea . The CFR and RIIA are both working with the UN and the IMF as think tanks, and your Jesus, George Soros, is a member of the RIIA.

I believe bitcoin is the beta test for it.

The BTC network is a P2P crypto-based currency and payment system which is driven and operated by its users. There is no central issuer of currency, there is no way to inflate the currency, there is no way to take control of the network, it is anonymous, it is everything the big banks do not want.

I'm sorry yahoo_bot, but bitcoin is simply a coder-created pump-and-dump seigniorage scheme. It is following the textbook pattern, down to its "anonymous" creation.

There's nothing to test here except the gullibility of people. People think it's a currency; it's just a digital commodity of no intrinsic value. No different from silver certificates, and no-less a scam.

I'm surprised that all of the flack you're getting is for the bitcoin reference.

Nice read, though.