Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Oakwise

  1. Brilliant. I feel we're getting somewhere now. I find it interesting you would say that. Silver certificates had been in circulation since 1878 and were finally phased out in March, 1964, after Kennedy's assassination. So obviously the Kennedy killing had no bearing on that outcome. Also, did it harm the Federal Reserve? That policy's been in place for nearly sixty years and the Federal Reserve clearly survived and maintained its power. https://web.archive.org/web/20140403223347/http://moneyfactory.gov/silvercertificates.html https://libertycoinandcurrency.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-silver-certificates/
  2. But right now I'm not talking about 'whom is right'. I've moved away from Marrs Vs Corbett and am looking at your idea. You wrote: You said 'affects the bottom line of the FED'. In another post you also said it would 'negatively affect the Federal Reserve'. I was just double-checking - seeing if you were basically saying that removing the silver certificates would damage the Fed. That's all.
  3. Well, saying that both positions are harmful to the Fed is the same as saying the removal of silver certificates is harmful (negative effect) to the Fed since one of the positions involves the removal of silver certificates. And it's safe to say that the Fed would want to avoid being harmed - that's logical, isn't it? Generally speaking, no one wants to be harmed. You also say if the 'Corbett' position is true, then it probably (not definitely) played a role in the Kennedy killing. Based on what you've said, that is a correct summary of your position.
  4. I'm confused. You say that both positions were harmful to the Fed. Yes? And you specifically say that 'removal of silver certificates negatively affects the Federal Reserve's criminal activity (at the time)'. I'm literally quoting you! 'Playing a role' is the same as being a factor. Yes?
  5. Thank you for answering. So in effect you are agreeing to point #1 (removal of silver certificates negatively affects the Federal Reserve's criminal activity) and saying it was a factor but not main reason for point #2?
  6. Excellent. Thank you for writing up your thoughts. Before I respond, I just want to be clear. So you're saying that: The removal of silver certificates would damage the Federal Reserve in ways they would want to avoid The removal of silver certificates could be a reason for the Kennedy assassination Correct?
  7. But doesn't spreading false claims about the Kennedy assassination damage the cause thereby strengthening the Fed et al.? They can say, 'See, look at these silly truthers getting things wrong'. I am happy to hear your nuanced argument on why Kennedy's actions re. this matter were damaging to the Federal Reserve. And I'm sure you're happy to have that argument scrutinised since that's part of the truth seeking process, asking questions etc. I'll leave it to @JCP to defend the Marrs claim. I look forward to reviewing your original research, reasoning etc. (which is separate from the Marrs claim).
  8. Apologies, but I must be writing really badly because you don't seem to be comprehending. I'm saying that you accept that the claim might be false, not that you're making a claim. Is that clear now? You also added this after I had begun quoting you in the prev. post: '...although ironically it might to you as you appear to be overlooking why I am stating what I am stating in regards to either conclusion of either position.' With all due respect, you're the one who said you had watched the video but 'he didn't once mention the history of whom is behind the Federal Reserve' and 'I would say I haven't overlooked what he said, I discounted parts as its not in context to the wider picture with which his refutation was based upon'. But the refutation is exactly based on the Marrs claim so it's completely in context. The original question I raised was specifically based on that claim, not the history of the fed in general. That's why I brought up the relevance fallacy. Corbett is unequivocal in stating that the claim is mostly false. And if you check out the other vid with G. Edward Griffin, he states clearly that Kennedy was doing the opposite, that he was laying the ground to have silver backed currency phased out. Now I'm happy to hear counter-arguments to those specific points. But if we change the discussion to a general history of the fed, then we're moving away from the original points. That's all I'm saying. I still get the impression you haven't properly studied the arguments. So perhaps when you get time to do so, please take notes, marshal your reasons and we can pick up the discussion again. Many thanks.
  9. Apologies, from the article: Fair enough, so you accept that the claim 'Kennedy being assassinated because of Executive Order 11110' could be false. You seemed to be defending it, so I was just trying to stay on point. But now it's not about Kennedy but the Federal Reserve in general (I agree it's a very important topic). Thank you for clarifying. I do recommend watching Corbett's piece on the history of the Fed (if you haven't already). All the best.
  10. @TheConsultant Are you familiar with the concept of ignoratio elenchi? The discussion was not about the history of the fed, but about the specific claim made by Marrs. You may very well be correct about the history of the fed, but it has no bearing on the specific refutation. Like you, I'm happy to be wrong. Feel free to prove that the claim is indeed true. I will give it a fair hearing.
  11. In all fairness, I think it was G. Edward Griffin who first refuted the Marrs claim many years ago. So it's not new. Nothing wrong with double-checking things and then making modifications to your arguments and statements. After all, truth is the priority. As William Blake said, 'The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water and breeds reptiles of the mind'. All the best. Edited to add:
  12. Cheers, man. Though I kinda get the impression you didn't watch the video properly or study the argument. He lays it out quite plainly and provides verifiable references. Also, in another post you said that Corbett fails to see the larger picture re. the fed. I dunno about that mate. He seems pretty knowledgeable to me. He did the presentation, Century of Enslavement - The History of The Federal Reserve (2014), which has become a classic introductory reference for this subject: You can read the full transcript (with sources) here (plus in depth conversations in the comment section): https://www.corbettreport.com/federalreserve/ Also, if you type 'federal reserve' into his search bar, you'll find plenty of commentary and analysis: https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=federal+reserve I'm all for questioning the official narratives, but I'm also for quality reasoning, which in my opinion is a prerequisite for arriving a truthful conclusions (in most incidences). Just to reiterate: I'm not picking a fight or having ago at you. I'm sure you're very genuine in your pursuit of truth.
  13. I must be quite dim as I don't see how this is relevant to the specific claim made by Jim Marrs re. Executive Order 11110 etc. and the refutation thereof. Is it possible you could deal with Corbett's specific argument? Perhaps break it down point by point and explain to me exactly why it's wrong? Many thanks.
  14. Hi @JCP Check out this James Corbett presentation: Show notes can be found here: https://www.corbettreport.com/jfkfed/
  15. @TheConsultant Cool, man. It's also interesting that he apparently put the kibosh on Operations Northwoods, which is documented, 'gold standard' proof that false-flag stratagems are in the tactical mindset of the ruling establishment.
  16. Apologies for not being more specific. But I meant the whole 'Kennedy was assassinated because of taking power away from the fed res. and planning to issue a new silver backed currency'.
  17. Hi, It's not my intention to pick a fight here. But wasn't that debunked years ago?
  18. With their tongues firmly wedged between royal buttocks, the bum-lick bunting brigade are certainly out in full force this weekend. It's fucking gross.
  19. Call me old school, but I expect a certain level of professionalism from moderators. If you can't put aside personal grudges for the sake of impartiality and objectivity, then I'm afraid you're not cut out for a management role. Just saying.
  20. Self-hatred. Playing into the hands of those who would cull us.
  21. I know. You're so enlightened I'm half-dazzled by your brilliance lol
  22. You're obviously so clever, so enlightened. Please tell me, how you would install such a dictatorship? Please prove to me that you're not just another pseudo-intellectual Don Quixote with fantastic visions. Honestly, I'm sick of people like you with your half-baked ideas. You really think you're so intelligent, but really you're just another dim wit. Prove me wrong with your amazing eloquence.
  23. Look at you. Non-humans, so devoid of empathy. So easy to categorise other human beings thus. Oh, hark at me, being politically incorrect for some of you primitive consciousnesses.
  24. Spot on, mate. Party politics is wasteful and non-productive. We should be guided by our conscience, not party lines.
  25. Just some observations. This Ukraine situ is suspicious. Social media is good for something: charting public discourse. It's a kind of social geology. You can analyse all the rocks and all that stuff. And what I noticed was this: The freedom movement in Canada was causing waves around the world. It was highlighting the agenda, which is being aggressively pushed in Canada. It was inspiring people all over the place. It was also creating public discourse about the WEF. Then you had Maajid Nawaz on that Rogan show making a case against the WEF. Lots of chatter about the WEF. People were digging into it. I'm willing to bet that in the entire history of the WEF there has never been so much public chatter about the WEF. It was good to see. After all, there really is a small group of global power elites that have a grand vision for civilisation. The truth was always out in the open but more people than ever were aware of it. Then boom. Ukraine. Look over here. All the talking points vanished. And it's now all about this shiny new thing 'over there'. I find that highly suspicious. I know some will say the WEF is just the front for the secret societies, cult etc. But I say we can attack the secret societies via their appendages such as Schwab and the other cocks of the new world order. Let's keep hammering on this WEF thing. Could lead somewhere.
  • Create New...