What would you do for money?

This is a classic article posted by QRSWAVE in September, 2006 - back when Wakeupfromyourslumber was hosted on Zionist Blogger.com (Google).

This is a very nice and intriging article. It is a little different in tone, but gets you thinking.

If you want to know how to effect positive change, first you need to know how people think. And yes, people do have similar motivations regardless of their various backgrounds.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What would you do for money?

Would you flip burgers?

Would you work overtime?

Would you cold-call to sell people products they don't need?

Would you evict a poor tenant?

Would you pollute a community?

Would you sell medicine to the sick and needy?

Would you build cluster bombs?

Would you sell out your nation?

Would you bring down the World Trade Center to kick off WWIII?

Many of these you wouldn't do, though others would (and did).

But, what about marrying someone you're not physically attracted to?

Women regard healthy finances as more important than good looks in a man, according to a survey[.]

Almost half (45 percent) said a healthy bank balance is more significant than physical attractiveness in a potential partner, according to National Savings & Investments' (NS&I) latest quarterly savings survey.

Just 22 percent of men, however, rate finances above looks in women.

Before you jump to stereotypical conclusions about men, women and money. Let's examine this carefully.

Who conducted this survey? And what do they want us to believe?

In 1861 the Palmerston Government set up the "Post Office Savings Bank" - a simple savings scheme aiming to encourage ordinary wage earners "to provide for themselves against adversity and ill health".

The scheme [emphasis mine] quickly became very popular, and the deposits found their way from the Post Office to the Exchequer, providing a fund which the then Chancellor, Gladstone, could borrow for putting towards public spending.

* * *

Significant expansion over the next century included the introduction of Savings Certificates during the First World War to help finance the war effort[.]

This of course is in England. But, the same sh*t happens here in America.

They tells us to 'work hard' and 'save' our money 'for a rainy day.' Meanwhile, they spend it on wars of conquest on behalf of corporations nurtured by the same political traitors who supposedly watch over our 'savings' in good faith.

Getting back to the subject of what you would do - or sacrifice - for money, it should be obvious that an entity like National Savings & Investments benefits when more and more people 'save their money' and subsequently 'invest it' with them. So, they have a vested interest in making people believe that money is more important to relationships than it really is.

That is not to say that the results of their survey are inaccurate - unfortunately, many find money very important - it merely indicates a conflict of interest and a reason to scrutinize the survey for bias. For example, notice that the report fails to mention the parameters of the survey - like how many people they interviewed and their socio-economic upbringing. Readers are supposed to simply accept that most people feel this way about relationships and money.

Nevertheless, probably most readers are not surprised at the results because, to some degree or another, money seems to be increasingly important in relationships these days. But, Why?

Is it because people think that 'money can buy happiness,' like the senior savings strategist at NS&I suggests?

Or, is it more likely because people think that money can buy security? Or at least give the false impression of security.

That would explain why women find 'financial security' more important in a relationship than men do, since historically women earn less money than men (perhaps because they are less willing to exploit others for money), and by nature women are more vulnerable than men in general, and during child-rearing years specifically.

Thus, the disparity between men's and women's attitudes toward money and relationships does not necessarily reflect a more materialistic outlook for women, or a more carnal outlook for men, but merely mirrors their natural state of vulnerability, hence women's increased willingness to trade some pleasures for the promise of security money offers.

Unfortunately, like the forbidden apple Adam and Eve fell for in the garden, having money 'in the bank' offers nothing but a false sense of security plus a whole host of other evils which accompany the concentration of large sums of money in the hands of a few greedy souls who would do ANYTHING to secure money and the power that accompanies it.

Indeed, by foolishly putting our faith in 'money' and in turn trusting bankers to 'invest it' we actually empower the same greedy bastards who make life less secure for us by consolidating our industries, outsourcing our jobs, and increasing our cost of living without regard for consequences on people and the environment.

So, who benefits from a trend that sees more and more people requiring their potential mates to have large amounts of money in the bank to qualify as a candidate for marriage? Not working women or working men - but bankers.

This kind of survey, and the feelings of disdain for relationships it engenders, serves only to exacerbate tensions between men and women (who tend to fear one another's motives) and increase our dependency on money and bankers.

To men it says, women love you for your money - so get more of it. To women it says, men love you for your looks, leaving them feeling insecure and making it more likely that they'll demand more money so that when men eventually leave them for a prettier woman, they have their money to rely on. In short, it's a vicious cycle - a self-fulfilling prophecy that only enriches bankers and insurers.

Wakeup people. We're being had on a grand scale. George Carlin was right on target - "They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Bankers sell us security - for everything from our homes, to our health, to our retirement, to our national defense - but they deliver only lies and corruption.

Don't trade your soul for a false sense of security. Put your faith in God and eachother - not in money - you neither know where it's going or where it's been.

Originally posted by qrswave @ Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Posted in

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What would YOU do for money?

What would YOU do for your 'tribe/clan'?

Apparently we know what 'some people' HAVE DONE. Wars, famine, exploitation, slavery, rape, murder, chopping heads off of Viet 'Congs', etc.

But are you a Zionist Khazar?!!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Let the Holocaust deniers speak out
Posted Dec 22, 2006 05:50 PM PST
Category: CURRENT EVENTS

Let the David Irvings and Ernst Zundels present their cases on public TV. Then simply refute them with the hard scientific facts.

Of course, this course of action is to be avoided if there is an absence of such facts. Then, like the church and Galileo, you just whup their asses until they agree to believe as they are told to believe.

The Great Revealer | Sat, 2006-12-23 14:23

Court frees David Irving
20/12/2006 12:56 - (SA)

Click here to find out more!
# 'I have the right to be wrong'
# Holocaust denier gets 3 years

Vienna - British historian David Irving was set to leave Austria after winning an appeal on Wednesday against a three-year prison sentence for denying the Holocaust, his lawyer said.

Following his conviction in February for denying the Nazis' organised the mass murder of six million Jews, Irving had appealed for a reduced sentence while the prosecutor wanted a longer one.

Irving has been in jail since his arrest in November 2005 on a visit to Austria, which was part of Germany's Third Reich from 1938 to 1945.

The Vienna court ruled his sentence should be changed from a jail term to probation and that Irving was free to leave.

"He is free, and he can leave, and he will leave," said his lawyer Herbert Schaller.

Austria had issued an arrest warrant for Irving in 1989 for denying the Holocaust in lectures and in a press interview he gave the same year.

Denying the Holocaust in Austria, which provided a significant number of top Nazi leaders including Adolf Hitler, is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The Great Revealer | Sat, 2006-12-23 14:46

Adolf Hitler & His top henchman, Joseph Shroeder were 'JEWISH'.

I guess the little fact that Hitler, Shroedder, and MANY TOP GENERALS, LEUTENANTS, etc were 'Jewish' is something that is conveniently ignored.

Gee, goly gosh.

I wonder why Lamestream media that has been pumping our brains with nonsense Nazi & Jewish persecution complex nonsense would leave out that fact?!!!

(Rhetorical question, both you and I know the reason.)

The Great Revealer | Sat, 2006-12-23 14:55

I've been meaning to transplant all my old posts to this site - but, I've been putting it off for various reasons.

I have to get started, though. And this one is a very good choice.

Thanks!

Laughing

qrswave | Sat, 2006-12-23 21:12

Please visit: www.uruknet.info

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ten years later the price is still worth it

Gabriele Zamparini

rabbia.jpeg

The Cat's Dream - December 23, 2006

2006

"There have been plenty of markers that show that this [Iraq] is a country that is worth the investment, because once it emerges as a country that is a stabilising factor, you will have a very different kind of Middle East." - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

FACTS: A study published a few months ago in the British medical journal the Lancet estimated the war of aggression against Iraq had slaughtered about 655,000 human beings. In these last few months the carnage got even worse

1996

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? "

US Ambassador at the United Nations (soon to become Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." CBS - "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996

FACTS: The UN embargo against Iraq wanted by the regimes of Washington and London slaughtered well over 1 million human beings.

Ten years later the price is still worth it

The Great Revealer | Sun, 2006-12-24 06:57

unclesam wakeup

Go, Rep. Kaptur!

Tell Wall Street to Go To Hell!!!

US Gross National Debt

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator