The true terrorists of our world wear five thousand dollar suits and work in the highest positions of finance, government and business.

God is the true terrorist.

Wait a minute, I forgot that I shouldn't have included the word "G-d". Jewish people do have a good reason for not using the word "G-d" in conversation!

What reason is that? But yes, terrorist indeed.

The use of 'true' here implies that suicide bombers that kill innocent people aren't real terrorists. So here's hoping you never lose family members to one of those "fake" terroists.

That's true. I feel the same way.

destablising currencies is great fun for banks

Both are psychopaths. I think that's the word we're looking for here.

Mm. Five thousand dollar suit please.

tenebrus, I hope I didn't upset you or anyone else. I see what you are getting at. Though I'd be tempted to agree with the implication.

I might have to disagree with this claim too. To be a true terrorist maybe you need to have the actual motivation of spreading terror. It might be that the five-thousand-dollar-suit-wearing guys are just ignorant.

I just wanted folks to check out the video if they hadn't yet. I really enjoyed it. Maybe this wasn't the best of quotes to pull, but it's nice and sensationalist.

True Scotsman claim FTL!

Okay, Slartibartfast, good labeling. I'm going to try and come up with something better.

1. Peoploids working in the highest positions of finance and government (and likely wearing five thousand dollar suits) terrorize more than those whom their media labels terrorists.


2. Those who play an integral role in perpetuating the global monetary system are truer terrorists than those whom the media labels as such.


3. Those who work for the organizations forming the core of the global monetary system are involved in something worse than terrorism.

Third time might be the charm, but I'm going to think about this a bit more. Any help?

#1. What do you mean by "more"? How is that measured?
#2. What do you mean by "true" in this context? How is one true or false to terrorism, and implicitly, how do I measure how true or false someone is to terrorism?
#3. Okay. Care to elaborate on what it is you are describing that is worse than terrorism? So far all I have is "something".

You seem to be trying really hard to not say something specific. I'm not sure why, and my guesses are not complimentary.

Thanks Slartibartfast, I don't think I was trying to not say something specific. More like trying to find a way to say what I think the claim gets at that isn't so FTL. You can keep the non-complimentary guesses, I'm trying to to spend on unnecessary items.

Seriously though, I'm still working on this. Maybe it's flawed and I'm doomed to failure but I do think there's something to it.

s/"trying to to"/"trying not to"

I think answering the questions I posed would get you closer to an honest claim. Whether it conveys your intent or not is an entirely different question.

Well, I meant I was working on being able to answer your questions.

I don't understand what you are getting at with: "Whether it conveys your intent or not is an entirely different question." I don't want to wander off topic with this "entirely different question" but I can't help being a bit puzzled.

I'm not sure (yet) what your intent is, but this claim cast some doubt on your intent in my mind.

Did you read this preceding comment I wrote?:
"I just wanted folks to check out the video if they hadn't yet."

Maybe it doesn't matter what I state as my intent to you but I thought it was to share something I found interesting. I was hoping someone might share their thoughts (regarding the actual film or the ideas contained therein and not just the claimed excerpt).

I appreciate your concerns and still intend to offer some more reasoning to support the sentiment of this (poorly formed) claim. Though I'll probably prefer to do so in other more specific claims.

Those who seek to maintain or increase their power may dress up in expensive clothing and use acts of terror directly or indirectly to do so. They may also do it in the buff.

Fifteen minutes in, it's complete shit so far. They just displayed a graph of the money supply in absolute dollars, then a graph of the national debt in absolute dollars, as though the correlation is significant. I doubt I will watch much more after that.

Water you tolkien a boot Leopold II?

Leopold II, I do appreciate you taking the time to voice your criticism. You suggest the correlation is insignificant but you didn't help me understand why. Please expound. It's insignificant because it doesn't make sense to compare those two graphs or what?

Sorry, I should have explained. Since the first graph approximately tracks what a dollar is worth over time, nearly anything else you might want to track that is in dollars is going to follow basically the same curve. Certainly at the resolution the graphs were displayed you would not be able to tell the difference between a graph of the national debt, the cost of a sandwich, median income, or any other significant measure. The only thing it shows is that inflation happens. The movie's argument that inflation is bad does not remove the need to adjust for it.

Personally, I think that inflation should be linked to the number of employed workers, or the GDP. What are your thoughts on inflation?

Surely, if I buy anything on loan and can't afford to pay for it, because the money I borrowed for it was created from nothing by a bank, I couldn't really claim that the thing I began to buy in instalments could ever legitimately be called my own in part or in whole anyway.

But then again, it is late.

It has nice cheap shit moody bassy growly music, so it must be bona fide.

It's certainly more trendy than the other "Money os debt" one which explains the growth and development of FRB in a cheap National Film Board of Canada animation style.

It occurs to me that they should really get Anthony Hopkins to either illustratively star in it as the "Money Devil", or at least narrate it. That would certainly lend some kudos. N-Dubz could do the music.

I don't know. I think if people work to get the money that was created from out of nothing by a bank, then they should have the right to value it how they wish and exchange it for things that have more inherent value than pieces of paper.

http://jyte.com/cl/the-u.s.-government-with-the-aid-of-mass-media-terrorize-the-populace-more-than-any-other-group-or-organization-2 Also this is a better claim than this one.

Leading to my observation that the vast majority of this site is redundant and therefore noise, but some signal is still to be found occasionally, little glimmers of hope.

Leopold, I think that makes sense. That part seemed rather dull to me but I felt it was because minutes before they are stating quite simply that money is created through debt. Or money equals debt. If so, wouldn't the two graphs look just the same?

They don't just argue that inflation is bad but that the entire monetary system is.

Dewe said: "…I couldn't really claim that the thing I began to buy in instalments could ever legitimately be called my own in part or in whole anyway. "

They mention a case sort of like that in the film:
First National Bank of Montgomery vs Jerome Daly
Daly argued that the bank had thus not given him anything of value and was not entitled to the property that secured the loan.

I got the impression that the movie was made by someone who has the sense that something is wrong but can't quite figure out what it is, and so has turned to a rehash of blaming the international jewry. Of course there are structural problems, but his critique of the monetary system is like reading a copy of mein kampf and concluding that the real problems are ink and paper. In the period I watched, all of the problems he attributed to the monetary system were actually fundamental to capitalism.

I wrote some other stuff then got distracted and closed my browser. Will expand on what I said and explain it more later if it's useful.

That's what I was referring to, MMM; that was as far as I got before it was time for tea.