brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight johnknight at
Sat Aug 3 02:20:52 EST 2002

"Parse Tree" <parsetree at> wrote in message
news:_Fd29.2384$sI2.1286077 at
> "Richard C. August" <raugust at> wrote in message
> news:o5a29.2422$Fl.214228 at
> > Dear Parse Tree,
> >
> > Really, even the most highly credit-worthy homeowners in the USA do NOT
> > entirely own their own property.
> That's their fault, not the a result of the cost of homes.  My parents own
> their house, and it's certainly higher than the median house listed in
> index.

parsetree, you and lojbab seem to have a REAL problem comprehending the word
"average".  One single anecdote doesn't and cannot invalidate the AVERAGE to
which Mr. August is referring.

If you need someone to explain this to you [again], just ask, but it's
counterproductive for you to dispute a statement about the *average* in this
country with one single possible outlier.

> > I am a loan application taker for a local Home Improvement Co. which
> > assists clients through mortgage refinancing and debt consolidation, in
> > order for them to "afford" more expensive but badly needed or highly
> desired
> > home improvements.  When I am taking the credit application, I ask, "Is
> your
> > name the only name on the deed?", many times the clients respond, "Mine
> and
> > the Bank's."  They answer this way because they KNOW that the Mortgage
> > Lenders have placed LIENS on their homes in case of "default" on the
> > mortgage.  Of course, "default" means FORECLOSURE on the home.
> >
> > Welcome to the United Kibbutzim of Amerika, Reb Parse Tree.  Your Goy
> > is OWNED by the very BANK that charges you INTEREST on the GDP of your
> anus.
> > Personal Property is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.  Your rights of owning
> > private property are only "covered" with a thinly veiled THREAT that if
> you
> > don't dance to the high interest rate tune that you're charged for every
> > purchase, then you have no right to YOUR property that YOU may have
> > purchased outright!
> I'm not charged interest for purchases.  You shouldn't be either.

If you're on this planet, you ARE being charged interest, every day.  If
you're in the US, your share of the debts is $77,000 per household AVERAGE,
which means that our putative 15% gross savings rate isn't even enough to
pay the interest on those debts (which is why we have a NEGATIVE personal
savings rate).
> > Here's why this condition exists.  Our DOLLAR used to be on the GOLD
> > STANDARD.  That meant that you could trade a dollar for an equivalent
> weight
> > in gold, and you could sell that gold back for that same dollar.  Now,
> > dollar is OFF the gold standard.  Gold prices fluctuate as a commodity,
> only
> > usable by the very wealthiest people.  Our dollar, meanwhile, isn't
> > the paper on which it's printed.
> Gold really isn't used outside of electronics and jewelery.

An infinitesimally small percentage of gold is used commercially.  The vast
majority of it is STILL used as national deposits.

The value of the dollar against an ounce of gold barely changed for the 141
years between 1792 and 1933, then all of a sudden it fell by 33% (not too
long after women began to vote and right when jews took charge of our
national bank).  The next year it fell another 10%.  But it stayed at that
level for 9 years, when it fell another 3% (in 1944).  It fluctuated around
$35 an ounce for the next 22 years, then suddenly dropped 14% in 1969, and
it's been on a downhill slide ever since.  In 1987 it was worth 1/25th as
much as it was worth for the entire 141 years right up to 1933.

You're DEAD WRONG to think this isn't a problem.  It wouldn't have happened
if women didn't vote, because men would never have permitted the jews to
take charge of our national bank.

> > Let me put it to you in layman's terms.  You own a store, and I come in
> > buy something from you.  I have two items in my hand which I can use to
> pay
> > you for your item.  One is an ingot of 99.9% pure gold.  The other is a
> > highly artistically decorated piece of paper with a dollar sign and a
> > denomination value written on it, with nothing more than a "written"
> > guarantee that it will buy the denomination's value of a good or
> > Knowing that you can use the gold for everything from trade value to
> costume
> > jewelry, and that that piece of paper can be consumed to light your
> > cigarette, which would you choose?
> I'd take the cash.  The value of gold is based on perceived value, since
> has no intrinsic use.  Since money has the confidence of a nation, and is
> fiat currency, it would be safer to go with it.
> Regardless, I can buy a can of pop for a dollar.  Evidently dollars are
> worthless, else that could not happen.

A can of pop was 5 cents for as long as many living Americans could
remember, which should be another clue to you that the vulcanized jewdaized
US dollar isn't worth anything near what it was worth before the jews became
our "bankers" and judges.

A thousand ounces of gold in 1932 was worth $20,670, but today it's
supposedly "worth" $271,000.

What changed about that 1,000 ounces of gold?  Nothing.  It's intrinsic
value is identical to what it was in 1932.  The difference is only  in the
13 fold decrease in the value of the dollar--nothing else.

> > Ding, dong, the bells are chiming...  Isn't this exactly why property
> values
> > are OVERINFLATED based on a WORTHLESS DOLLAR whose tax base is SUPPORTED
> by
> > FUNDS are plundered by the very CONGRESSMEN they elect, to be used for
> > pork-barrel projects ostensibly to employ people in THEIR districts
> > cause for them to be re-elected at $150,000/year salaries)?
> They only make $150,000?  That's not very much.

Considering what they've done to the country, and how many of them have
REFUSED to act to correct some EGREGIOUS conditions in this country, it's
WAY too much.

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list