RUSSIA GOES FOR THE GOLD

by You Know 81 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  You Know

  To Metadrone:

  your psychotic ramblings are getting boring.

  Then why do you keep reading them?

  Take some of your own Scriptural advice from Ezekiel
  talking about Gog - "let him that is buckling on, not speak as one
  ungirding"

  LOL. I hope you are not trying to impress me with your Bible knowledge. Pathetically, you are referring to an account concerning what Ahab said at 1 Kings 20:11 not something that Gog supposedly says. The counsel, in fact, more aptly applies to the apostate in their arrogant boasts of bringing down the Watchtower.

  As for Russia, read Atlantic Monthly in detail - it is THEY who
  are finished, permanently, as a world power - who can't even
  beat backwoods Muslim rebels in a war.

  I am sure you have been told this before: You are a lunatic, but you are not alone. Any nation with an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons and various other weapons of mass destruction is a world power. That's why even though Russia's economy has been trashed by IMF imposed conditionalities, they are granted recognition as an 8th member of the G7, by virtue of the fact that the are a military world power. And when you get down to it, military might speaks the loudest in the Devil's system of things.

  in fact, if you study fiat money systems together with a fractional banking deposit system, it becomes OBVIOUS that it offers superior results and efficiency in comparison with gold backed currency.

  What is obvious to me is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. When the economy was taken off the gold standard back in 1972-3, it allowed the central banks to expand the money supply at will---creating money out of thin air. Gold of course has to be mined and refined and exists in a very finite supply. But, paper money works like magic. It creates the illusion of wealth creation, a very powerful illusion, but as we have seen in the recent NASDAQ crash, for example, paper wealth illusions can quickly vaporize. In the end every paper currency that has ever existed has eventually become worthless. Where's America's first paper currency---the Continental? Or how about the Confederacy's Civil War issue? It ain't worth nothing either, except to collectors. The dollar will become worthless too, much sooner and more rapidly than most people can conceive. The more they print the less it's worth, becoming worth less and less, until the point when it become worthless. The dollar has already lost approximately 90% of its purchase power since the Federal Reserve issued it back in 1913.

  It is the Russians who are dooming THEIR OWN country with corruption and backward thinking.

  You are just spouting the line that the Anglo-American propaganda machine has fed you. The West would have us believe that Russia has not enjoyed the fruits of wealth associated with capatilism because they just haven't gotten it right, somehow. The truth is that Russia has been deliberately strangled by the IMF and associated agencies. Russia is now in the process of preparing to survive the collapse of the IMF system of things.

  You will be 'left behind', intellectually abandoned by your
  Brooklyn Masters on the road to mainstreaming the organization.

  "Do not let the one girding on boast about himself like the one unfastening." / You Know
• 

  Englishman

  You Know,

  Well, for the first time ever, you have actually succeeded in taking me completely unawares.

  When I posted LaRouches stuff about Queen Liz and the rest of us Brits, I fully expected to hear snorts and guffaws from everyone. I mean, the statement is so outrageous that all that comes to mind is Hitler saying that the bigger the lie the more people will believe it.

  Amazing.

  Englishman.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
• 

  You Know

  Well, for the first time ever, you have actually succeeded in taking me completely unawares.

  I must have caught you inbetween inebriated states? LOL. Quick! While you are in a sober state of mind, click on the link below and read chapter 7 of "Against Oligarchy." Unfortunately the whole book isn't available on line, but if we can get a few spoonfuls down you it might serve as a start. >>> http://www.tarpley.net/29crash.htm
• 

  JanH

  UR,

  The British Empire has been the most parasitical, tyrranical, hypocritical, usury, exploitative and bigoted heirarchy ever operating on this planet.

  Your posting contains statements that are totally untrue. True, Britain (really, England) was the world's biggest empire. It exploited and did many terrible crimes. As did other colonian powers. But, contrary to what you assert, the British were the most benign of the colonial powers. The British, partly from their (racist) sense of superiority, also exported an educational system and built infrastructure that benefitted the populations enormously.

  The non-violent tactic used for liberating India would simply not have worked against the French, Germans or Belgians (or Americans for that matter: look at what happened in the Phillippines!). It worked precisely because the British were civilized and had a conscience (and Mahatma Gandhi knew this). Had it been an American colony, Gandhi would have been assassinated (he were later, but not by the British, but by his own!).

  The British did not run tail between legs from any colony. They negotiated the local takeover, and left behind a working administration that benefited many former colonies (and those it did not, ruined it themselves). Why do you think so many of these countries still want to stay in the Commonwealth?

  So, while certainly not minimizing the many sins of the British empire, what you say is utterly, totally wrong. If you compare Britain to other colonial powers, you will see it was the least exploitive major colonial power ever. Who were the first to ban the slave trade and then work actively with its military power to stop it in other countries?

  - Jan
  --
  Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello You Know,

  We have not 'conversed' before and at the outset I make it clear that I certainly do not want to engage in a fruitless game of war words with you. You are obviously totally convinced that your studies of the scriptures, coupled with your ‘spirit-begotten’ relationship with Christ has perhaps given you knowledge beyond the norm. Perhaps you are correct, your views though somewhat eccentric in my estimation, are certainly not harming me and seem not to be taken too seriously by your peers either and on that basis provided your responses dignify your readers you have as much right to express them as anybody else.

  You wrote:

  So far that hasn't happened and I have been writing some pretty radical stuff for years. I have been in several congregations during that time, and I have always asked the PO if they had ever heard anything from the Society about me. The answer has always been no. I even let one PO read a piece I had written that was not exactly inline with "present understanding." I think it shakes brothers up a bit

  As you know, You Know or at least I surmise that you know, the way these things are presented to the WTS is important. I suspect the SD probably has you marked as a bit ‘cooky’ but not dangerous. If you want a list of questions to add to your correspondences that will result in an internal investigation of your writings, let me know!

  Now, back to business.

  I asked some questions specifically directed to you in a post some weeks ago, perhaps you missed the them. I will repeat them and please be assured that I have no ulterior reason for asking them other than to help some on this Board to understand the WTS thinking on this matter. If you wish to take the discussion from the public domain my e mail address is unlocked and I will guarantee your privacy and anonymity and merely quote the results of our discussion on this board if you so wish. Here they are again :

  .
  1) What is the Bible’s definition of an apostate?
  2) What is the WTS definition of an apostate?
  3) What is your definition of an apostate?

  If the answers to these questions are convergent or divergent perhaps you might comment.

  My best to you - HS

  PS JanH is quite correct in his evaluation of the British Empire.

  A US perspective can often distort the historical facts. As John Buchan once said:

  ‘Half the misunderstandings between Britain and America are due to the fact that neither will regard the other as what it is - in an important sense of the word - a foreign country. Each thinks of the other as a part of itself which has somehow gone off the lines…’
• 

  Englishman

  Hmm. Our Mr. LaRouche is not exacty an Anglophile now, is he? Here's something else that he said:

  "It is the same in England, for example. Mussolini-lookalike Prime Minister Tony Blair, with his despicable "Third Way," represents, in England...."

  Ah, I see what you mean, very Il Duce.

  Englishman.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
• 

  You Know

  .
  1) What is the Bible’s definition of an apostate?
  2) What is the WTS definition of an apostate?
  3) What is your definition of an apostate?

  I answered your question previously. An apostate is someone who falls away from Jehovah God. That falling away may manifest itself in different ways, such as harshly criticizing the brothers, or rebelling against the authority of the faithful slave. Or it could manifest itself by simply drawing away from having an active faith in God. Ultimately the goal of our faith is to go beyond the Hillary Step-like obstacles, of which apostasy is only one, and reach the summit. / You Know
• 

  Englishman

  Hilary Step,

  Jumping in here, I have tackled YK about the FDS before. After really looking hard at this one I am convinced that the parable about the FDS is just that - a parable. True the WTBTS like to think that the FDS is also the 144000 -and by extension therefore the WTBTS - but to get to this conclusion one has to follow the most incredibly tortuous trail of linking and cross linking scripture after scripture so that the conclusion at which one arrives is ludicrous. One could arrive at any conclusion one wanted about anything using the same method.

  Englishman.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
• 

  You Know

  Hmm. Our Mr. LaRouche is not exacty an Anglophile now, is he?

  No. He's not. But I wouldn't take it personally. Why don't you post the link for the article that you excerpted so that a reader can see what the context says? I think you are probably smart enough to realize that LaRouche wasn't talking about Blair's physical characteristics resembling Mussolini's. Aren't you? / You Know
• 

  hillary_step

  Actually You Know,

  This is the first time we have conversed, you may have confused my persona with another poster. This is my original post:

  ; http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9456&site=3#112376

  You can understand why I am asking these questions. There seems to be a huge divergence of opinion on this issue as to what the Bible defines as an apostate and on the other hand what the WTS and other individuals view as apostacy.

  No doubt many within the WTS would view yourself as an apostate because of your divergent views, but obviously you do not view yourself as such. Some loyal Witnesses may even feel the need to shun you for your views, if you were to speak openly about them. What the WTS defines as an apostate is what bought this Board into existence and you have found a forum here where you can freely ( and vigorously! ) converse with others who have been classed, often against their will, as apostates.

  Do you concur with the WTS present definition of an apostate as being someone who’s theological views, even privately harbored, are divergent from the body of teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses at any given moment in time.

  Can you see an ethical dilemma in all of this? Where do you personally stand on this issue?

  My best regards - HS