Cash only makes up 10% of all money in use

if a 100 000 people take out all the money they own from a bank it will cripple it as it depended on your money to run

now a million people do the same you will have a bank collapse

a bank run can be a nuclear bomb for a nation economical system

Probably yes, but that's why banks have reserve ratios to stop this from happening, which is extremely rare. Other case that comes to mind was in Cyprus during their liquidity crisis where the ECB sent in containers of cash

a bank run was one of the main factor for Greece when it did face huge problems as people did loose faith in the banks.

banks do only work because we say they work and faith. if the faith part is gone people will stuff money in the pillows as they will feel that is much safer

https://twitter.com/sotiridi/status/1085129853509271552 a compilation of what the police are doing now "nsfw or the squeamish"

I mean true, yes. You can also go further and deconstruct cash and money as well, the value it has is one we agree upon, it's a completely artificial value since currency is no longer backed by gold, or contains gold at all. It's mostly copper, bronze and cotton

The trust we have given certain *things* is what makes them work as they do

If a 'mindless' mob can wreak war, havok and chaos in Iraq then they can in France.

^

A mindless mob in a stateless country where there is no rule of law mind you

there is no authority and great parts of it are completely autonomous and lawless

If you want to bring up a proper example you can recur to the Arab Spring, which curiously and tragically also failed

Except for Tunisia where it kinda worked

France have a history big mobs doing shit. like when ww2 ended and it was time to get everyone that did work with the Germans. it did end up wit that the Americans had to take over the power as the former resistance was shooting everyone they did not like

Everyone should should fight to die (potentially) I'd like to see the government work their way out of that one.
No people, no country.

I believe that the French resistance was disarmed or at least stopped being armed by the Allies precisely for that reason, because of the massive threat of a civil war with all the splinter groups that made up the resistance. I did get this largely from LindyBeige, *which perhaps isn't the most trustworthy person from whom get information regarding the French* But I did read elsewhere that the resistance itself was a large threat for post war peace and security

However the war was over it mostly up to the Allies to restore order, and this was the case for most of the liberated countries

they did stop giving them weapons as they did use sad weapons more on each other then the Germans

Should have fixed or at least mitigated the underlying problems that caused infighting, instead of taking away arms.

taking away their weapons was for the best really

Taking away weapons is never for the best

the underlying problems that caused the fighting were due to the political ideologies of the different resistant cells, some where hard line communists and these could also splinter into Marxists, Trotskyists, Leninists... then there were Democratic freedom fighters, members of the general population even ex soldiers of the Republican army in Spain

the only thing they had in common was that they wanted to liberate France from the Germans, the problem was what each group wanted to have as a system when they were free

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xli4cNj-uo This former spy also said this. I wouldn't be shocked by this, the FBI and many government agencies went out of their way to demonize the civil rights movement at that time.

I see where you're trying to go with this argument, but it's really not applicable to the situation

Why?

Being able to freely bare arms for the main purposes of self defence and fighting against government tyranny should be the core freedoms and principles of any western nation.

If the people in the nation want to destroy themselves so be it, they can be free to (risk) bringing their own demise.

Like I said, the FBI went out of their way to halt the civil rights movement, trying to equate them to communists. What makes you think they hired someone to kill him or Malcom X?

@BobbyE Sorry I wasn't referring to the clip you posted

Oh.

Okay.

Anyway boys, what do you guys think of the FBI and CIA possibly being linked to MLK's death? Or JFK's or Bobby Kennedy's?

i like to say that the FBI killed MLK whenever someone brings him up, but i don't really know

it's been a while since i looked into it

E. Howard Hunt killed JFK

"James Earl Ray
James Earl Ray (March 10, 1928 – April 23, 1998) was an American fugitive and felon convicted of assassinating Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee. Ray was convicted on his 41st birthday after entering a guilty plea to forgo a jury trial."

Why would he have entered a guilty plea.

Unless strongarmed