The Euro - Designed to fail?

Designed to bring more centralization yes... designed to fail, er no. Centralization would have continued happily with a successful Euro... definite conspiracy territory here

 

That is NOT what I am saying.

But you know that, don't you...

 

To be stupid has become not only socially acceptable, but made profitable.

Yes indeed everyone, in the natural yet revolting conclusion to a sick society, television and the media will now make a 'star' out of someone, even if they have zero talent, and are as thick as a village idiot.

We always had these people in our society, of course, it's just that we didn't reward them for being anti social clowns, on some reality show, that sadly, millions then watch.

True change is internal. You can have all the legislation on the planet, but true change, the best kind, comes from knowing yourself the difference between right and wrong, without needing to reaffirm it in law. If we do not know it, then we should be concerned. And you do not need to refer to some book written by dead men, in some backward culture, to act as a guide either. Really, no one NEEDS the Ten Commandments to surely know that it is not a good thing to kill someone, and usually, if you think it is, it's a sign that something may be up, esp if your target happens to be someone who is a total stranger to you, and who has done no wrong.

We need to make non stupid vogue, and stop rewarding stupid.

It only (understandably) encourages others to be stupid, in the hope that they can be made the next star for having no talents.

Only when we reward creative genius not stupidity, will we really move forward.

 

Tell me.

Is there some (unknown to me), definitive guide to when a true and plausible conspiracy, gets relegated to the rather negative associations that go with the term 'conspiracy theory'? And vice versa.

When does one become the other?

In a world of unknowns how can you be so certain of anything?

I am not suggesting certainty, but plausibility, and for the reasons cited, I believe it possible that in the next 20 yrs we will have a form of OWC, and that it is likely to be electronic.

For me, those things would appear a natural progression, to the way things are going.

Btw - since you admit that more centralisation was key to their goal, then simply take that on, they want even more 'centralisation', and that, for them, means a World Bank.

Again, I do not see anything esp controversial in making that statement, these days.

 

Lemme ask you something -- do you think the US would be better off with 50 currencies or one? The trouble with fluxuating currencies over small distance is that the value of any one currency compared to another cannot be easily predicted. So while your "Illinois Buck" might be worth .75 of a "Missouri Buck" today, the numbers could be very different tommarow. That would make it very difficult to compare prices on products and decide in real term whether it's more effective to buy products in one local economy or another. That's the appeal anyway.

 

But the choice is not about that, it is not about creating 50 same nation currencies, but a corporate and political will to gradually bring more and more nations into using one currency, at all times. Those that refuse to do so will be penalised, perhaps by having all trading links severed, or not being 'recognised', so pretty much, all will be either bribed or bullied into dragging nations into it.

The people won't be asked, and it won't happen in the next 72 hours, but I do see the way it is heading, indeed, let's be honest, any nation that dare propose a currency that even at the moment may be a danger to their plans of a OWC, they attack, and eliminate the man behind the idea.

Do you really believe that after 40 yrs 'we' just sort of woke up, and decided that Gadaffi was 'bad'?

Or do you think, among other things, that his desire to set up the Gold Diner, which would have had far reaching implications for the dollar, and positive one's for Africa, do you think that desire maybe led to the elites suddenly deciding, that after four decades, he needed to go?

A genuine person (not saying you are not!), only needs to spend an hour reading, that they will soon realise that A) Gadaffi was nothing like what they spoon feed you here, in the West B) The reasons for what they did were nothing to do with any BS care they had for so called 'rebels'.

If they cared about the Libyan people, why did NATO waste no time in bombing the Gadaffi financed project that was bringing fresh and clean water to his people?

Are those the actions of 'liberators'?

And is creating such a breath taking project, to benefit people, really in keeping with the image in the West, of Gadaffi being some sort of 'monster'.

We get routinely played, and the elites laugh at us, esp those that make the elites arguements for them.