SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: roguedolphin who wrote (4724)1/14/2006 8:50:26 AM
From: loantech  Respond to of 78426
 
Rogue,

There may or may not be an element of truth to what you have printed and I don't mind but the ultimate thread masters at SI and other war drum beating lurkers do not like what they call partisan politics on a gold thread. So we have to fly a little lower under the radar. Thank you for not posting similar articles unless they are directly linked to a well know gold or silver site by a well known gold or silver advocate and the article must be primarily gold or silver based as was the article I posted by Douglas Casey.

We can't help it if Casey tells what he sees as truth while he points out the reasons gold may break 600 this year.

The apparent truth or lack there of about Bush and his family and their stature as a Patriots or just a plain idiots led by people of stronger will but even greater idiocy will need to be taken to a political thread. We are oppressive on occasion here just like the gumment when they use their "Patriot act".

Have a Good Weekend,
tom



To: roguedolphin who wrote (4724)1/14/2006 2:50:51 PM
From: E. Charters  Respond to of 78426
 
Interesting indeed, and it can also be shown that many US companies did not stop doing business with German companies throughout the war. Although IBM tries to deny it, their equipment and punch cards were standard fare for German industry til the end of the war. The feared chemical Zyklon B (cyanide on a porous carrier), which was used for a variety of things, which everyone readily admits, was used to fumigate grain ships for rats and lice in New York harbour as early as 1916. It was hardly anything new, and despite many allegations to the contrary, was never proven to take a human life. If this chemical were used for such, it was the military secret best-kept of any. Not that it wouldn't be, but you would wonder how and why 8,000 soldiers posted at Auschwitz never breathed a word for love or money in the 60 years since those awful events? Surely someone would have guaranteed their safety for pictures, or later testimony. Even a deathbed confession. None. The ones I talked to knew nothing about it, but given the atmosphere since the 1960's, confession was certainly not encouraged. Did all that is alleged happen in the way alleged? I don't see how one can be sure. Like a religion one has to take it one faith. To establish a margin of safety it appears that not to poison the discourse of reason by not killing dissent or reasonable discussion, one would avoid being on the way down the slippery slope leading to just such infamy. It seems that the nazii party did just the opposite. All would agree they could have "gotten away" with it. (but didn't) Do we dare trust to better instincts that there be no checks and balances on our religions no matter how obviously not needed, even given massive and silent acclamation?

The skulls are a real enough society that is common seen on some US university campuses and is even featured in a hollywood movie of the same name. By itself, ignoring the illustrious "connected" world leaders alleged to be members, it seems that of all human groups who agree on agendas of sorts, that its power and potential for evil is limited by its degree of power it can accrue within and to itself. All groups suffer from the same weakness and degree of trust. People from without can hardly influence them, but other more visible groups can be formed. Their power in turn is limited by their fear of political dissent.

EC<:-|