Steven Gaal Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv2oCXbW4r0 Cartoon that talks about JFK and the FED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 So da Jooz have controlled Britain since Waterloo and are responsible for paper money, the Fed, income tax, the debt and the assassination of JFK. I saw it in a cartoon so I know it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) There are times Len, that reading your posts brighten my whole day... "Jooz", love it... (edit: btw - the history of the house of Rothschild paper has a number of anti-semetic passages...fyi) HOW THE FED CREATES MONEY We've been talking about how the privately owned Federal Reserve can produce money from thin air. Here's how it's done. 1. The purchase of bonds is approved by the Federal Open Market Committee. 2. The Fed buys the bonds which it pays for with electronic credits made to the sellers bank. These credits are based on nothing. 3. The receiving banks then use these credits as reserves from which they can loan out ten times the amount. To reduce the amount of money in the economy they simply reverse the process. The Fed sells bonds to the public and money is drawn from the purchasers bank to pay for them. Each million withdrawn lowers the banks ability to loan by 10 million. The Federal bank in this way has overall control of the US money supply, as each country's central bank does in the same way. The bankers, through the magic of fractional reserve banking have been delegated the right to create 90% of the money supply. This control makes a mockery of any elected government. It places so called leaders behind a toy steering wheel, like the plastic ones, set up to amuse small children. Or as Rep.Charles Lindbergh father of famous aviator Lucky Lindy puts it when commenting on the Federal Reserve Act: "This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalised. Studies show that most people learn more effectively with visual aids and thru the use of cartoons. http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHhc67GopM Seems most, if not all of this info comes from these sources. The Zeitgeist film has some far out ideas but is rather interesitng in fact... The two articles are for those who can't stand cartoons and really want to understand the FED. i.e. THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854) King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches. The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money. Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money. He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper. The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence? Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended). What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's. These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694. It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot. This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable. Here's how they did it. With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute. The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them. So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today. The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain. Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes. You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core. These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns. The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase. If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency. With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction. One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses. By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on. As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's. When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich. Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable. One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of: THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743) A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild". His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes. Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems. J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies. "There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild." 19th century French commentator 1 Edited January 6, 2011 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I haven’t paid very close attention to your posts so I have no idea where your sarcasm lets off and what you really believe begins. Are you citing these “histories” one from the overtly anti-Semitic Synagogue of Satan and the other from an obscure site which claims “a country could be run with: No Taxes, All Public Services Fully Funded” as reliable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 No Len, I am not saying the links I provided are gospel, just that much of the information contained in that cartoon is spelled out pretty well in these two articles and in zeitgeist the movie. All the peripheral crap about the jews, zion, and any other astro-theological info thrown at you is just interesting imo. But does not take away from the Money and Banking history, or the reality of the FED and Central Banking systems and the lengths those who run them go to insure their control, and the actual control over governments, people etal these banks enjoy. And just because a site chooses to be idealistic in its approach, I don't think we can conclude their information is inaccurate. It's a RESOURCE based approach rather than a monetary approach. thevenusproject.com is about as idealistic as it gets but if we don't go for it all how are we to get anything at all? 30 years ago, If i told you that in 2010 you could get a hold of anyone on the earth in an instance and talk to them as if they were right next to you, without wires.... you'd say I was nuts... This is no different. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic Any sufficiently advanced concepts about humanity, society or reality is usually met with your kind of response There were obscure sites a while back that used to say Oswald did not kill Kennedy... did any of those turn out to be reliable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 No Len, I am not saying the links I provided are gospel, just that much of the information contained in that cartoon is spelled out pretty well in these two articles and in zeitgeist the movie. So what? I could link to several LNT sources that “spell out” the same view as each other, ditto sources pushing creationism etc. But does not take away from the Money and Banking history, or the reality of the FED and Central Banking systems and the lengths those who run them go to insure their control, and the actual control over governments, people etal these banks enjoy. These are important topics but just like all other topics obscure sources that don’t back their claims are of little or no value except perhaps for entertainment. And just because a site chooses to be idealistic in its approach, I don't think we can conclude their information is inaccurate.It's a RESOURCE based approach rather than a monetary approach. thevenusproject.com is about as idealistic as it gets but if we don't go for it all how are we to get anything at all? Did you mean ‘ideological’? ‘Idealistic’ did not make sense in either instance. I don’t know anything about. thevenusproject.com but it seems to be the typical utopian clap trap and its association with ”zeitgeist the movie” is a bad sign. But at this point I’m guessing you’re a member of the 'cult'. 30 years ago, If i told you that in 2010 you could get a hold of anyone on the earth in an instance and talk to them as if they were right next to you, without wires.... you'd say I was nuts... True but irrelevant many predictions about the future did NOT come true. Can you point to anyone who was not a top computer scientist who proposed such a thing 30 years ago? Can you point to any economists who believe what you do? This is no different. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magicAny sufficiently advanced concepts about humanity, society or reality is usually met with your kind of response. True, but same applies to crackpot notions that went no where. The Shakers were scorned, by your "logic" we should assume they were right. There were obscure sites a while back that used to say Oswald did not kill Kennedy... did any of those turn out to be reliable? Some did, some did not. Presumably most if not all the former were very good at documenting their claims something these crackpots failed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 No Len, I am not saying the links I provided are gospel, just that much of the information contained in that cartoon is spelled out pretty well in these two articles and in zeitgeist the movie. So what? I could link to several LNT sources that “spell out” the same view as each other, ditto sources pushing creationism etc. just because a site is a LNT source doesn't mean that the factual events related to the creation of the CIA in 1947 (or any factual presentation) on that site are incorrect... at least not until proven so. In the Rothschild paper it says: 1920: Winston Churchill (whose mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish – meaning he is Jewish under Ashkenazi law as he was born of a Jewish mother) writes in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, dated February 8th, "From the days of Illuminati leader Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, this worldwide conspiracy has been steadily growing. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America, have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Now I looked thru the entire article that Churchill wrote for the Feb 8, 1920 issue - page 5. I could not find the word for word quote but did find this paragraph that pretty well spells it out. International Jews. In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. Looks pretty accurate to me.... Rather than keep going... if you are so suspect of the history, (not the anti-semitism as we both know how real that is)check it out yourself as I expect anyone reading anything onwhich they are going to base their opinions would do. But does not take away from the Money and Banking history, or the reality of the FED and Central Banking systems and the lengths those who run them go to insure their control, and the actual control over governments, people etal these banks enjoy. These are important topics but just like all other topics obscure sources that don’t back their claims are of little or no value except perhaps for entertainment. There are a number of JFK books without footnotes and sources that still serve as excellent source of information (I'd have to look again but aren't Manchester and Buchannan's books without sources and footnotes? If a book can expose an idea that requires further investigation which proves fruitful - that book, regardless of the lack of sources, can still be considered more than entertainment. And just because a site chooses to be idealistic in its approach, I don't think we can conclude their information is inaccurate.It's a RESOURCE based approach rather than a monetary approach. thevenusproject.com is about as idealistic as it gets but if we don't go for it all how are we to get anything at all? Did you mean ‘ideological’? ‘Idealistic’ did not make sense in either instance. I don’t know anything about. thevenusproject.com but it seems to be the typical utopian clap trap and its association with ”zeitgeist the movie” is a bad sign. But at this point I’m guessing you’re a member of the 'cult'. My bad, "idealistic" is not the correct word. Not sure what is... you calling one person's ideas on how to build a better world "typical utopian clap trap" is just as prejudicial as DVP calling refutiations of the SBT unfounded - no point in discussing "ideas" with you Len.... the fact is you fail to see how an intelligent person can pick and choose what makes sense and do the legwork to substantiate the info as opposed to the one of the bewildered herds who barely have time to look up from the trough. Guessing doesn't become you Len. If you are wondering if I would prefer that 1% of the population not control 50% of the wealth and that a better way be sought... or that I prefer the government stop lying to us about damn near everything - the i GUESS you can call me a cult member.... 30 years ago, If i told you that in 2010 you could get a hold of anyone on the earth in an instance and talk to them as if they were right next to you, without wires.... you'd say I was nuts... True but irrelevant many predictions about the future did NOT come true. Can you point to anyone who was not a top computer scientist who proposed such a thing 30 years ago? Can you point to any economists who believe what you do? Point to someone??, who cares? - I am pointing to people NOW who have ideas about ripping the control of the world from the bankers.... there are those who talk of Nationalizing the FED and printing our own money... not a bad idea.... of looking at RESOURCE based models this is not about predictions about the future Len.... this is about offering/discussing ideas that are in such conflict with the reality of the times (ending the Cold War for example) that they seem ridiculous on their face. what happened to Copernicus? About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." Fact is the earth was not the center of the universe - I am sure you'd have been one of nay sayers holding to the old beliefs.... This is no different. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magicAny sufficiently advanced concepts about humanity, society or reality is usually met with your kind of response. True, but same applies to crackpot notions that went no where. The Shakers were scorned, by your "logic" we should assume they were right. Sorry Len, I do not see the "logic" connection you've made. By my logic, any "crackpot notion" (Christianity comes to mind) can be looked at as you are.... brushed aside, not investigated, not considered.... but by those who do and actually find a better way to live with fellow humans and want to tell others... there is no right or wrong, there is... How do we want to live as a people? The Talmud and Torah are basically "crackpot notions" of how people should live together and is considered not entirely "right" by most the world. You going to stop living a Jewish life becuase of that? We can just as easily make the argument that if we all lived as Jews the world would be a far better place.... doesn't take away from the history of judaism and you'd have just as hard a time convincing the world to adopt that destiny as you would with the venus project.... so what? There were obscure sites a while back that used to say Oswald did not kill Kennedy... did any of those turn out to be reliable? Some did, some did not. Presumably most if not all the former were very good at documenting their claims something these crackpots failed to do. No doubt there is significant SLANT in the Satan sourced article and significant optimism in the others... but what "CLAIMS" are you talking about Len??? We all would like every piece of information sourced back to an unimpeachable source - how often does that happen for you in your travels? As we've seen in the JFK case, anything is possible with regards to sources, documentation and evidence... This is yet another piece of the Rothschild article... looks like a number of references and sources, and they are throughout the article... maybe one should read thru the linked articles and/or watch the entire zeitgeist movie before expressing one's opinions? 1995: Former atomic energy scientist, Dr Kitty Little claims the Rothschilds now control 80% of the world’s uranium supplies giving them a monopoly over nuclear power. (I found who she is/was yet was not able to substantiate this info... I would give it less weight than other info I have sourced.... would the article be better filled with references, of course, but Google makes finding things pretty swift these days...) The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that, "Israel aggressively collects (US) military and industrial technology." The report stated that Israel obtains information using, "ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties," of US citizens. 1996: A General Accounting Office report, "Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors," found that according to intelligence sources, "Country A," (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 22 February 1996), "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally." A pdf file of the report is here: www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96064.pdf An unformated text version is here: http://fas.org/man/gao/gao9664.htm The Jerusalem Post (30 August 1996) quoted the report, "“Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country." The report described, "An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for (Israel) paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents." The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was, "a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information." www.washington-report.org/backissues/0496/9604014.htm I'd prefer we don't get into a debate over what constitutes a worthwhile pursuit and what you consider "crackpot notions" - DVP believes that anything that points away from Oswald is a "crackpot notion" and you, me and every other member has gone round and round with that... I commented on this thread as I had seen and heard this info in a variety of forms, the cartoon above was very interesting and unique regardless of its slant, biases and what not... the message is still the same... FED = BAD and if it takes a hate of jews ridden article to get people to wake up - or an idea of what utopia could be like with a switch to RESOURCE based economies, so be it. When Dan Rather and Peter Jennings get on TV and tell us Oswald was innocent (as opposed to Jesse Ventura), only then we can begin to feel like we're making any headway. Until then I guess we keep reading the books, forums and articles and keep spreading the word. Kinda sounds like a religion, don't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Dear David, For the establishment media to report bad things about the FED is big bad TABOO. I think Mr. Colby and many others would benefit from this book. DEBT VIRUS. (go to Amazon.com books if link not working) Pg 170 has Exhibit 16 (putting in the == search inside this book section == the phrase "balanced money system" (with quotes) and get page 170) Page 170 is very,very,very,very ,very important. http://www.amazon.com/Debt-Virus-Compelling-Solution-Problems/dp/0944435130/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294438272&sr=1-1#_ Many a moon ago I sent a copy of this book to a national radio program and they wanted to interview Mr. Jaikaran. Mr. Jaikaran was on a multi-country tour to promote system shown on page 170. Jaikaran had set up a seperate office with a volunteer. The radio program told me there would be no interview because the volunteer said Mr. Jaikaran wanted 500$ to do the interview. When Jaikaran got back he said that he felt he was monitored when talking to various government officials and that said 'volunteer' was sabotaging his efforts === a plant so to speak. I havent contacted him in 17 years. He put me in contact with this young lady accountant near were I lived ,who was not wealthy ,but had bought 200 plus of his books and given them away. She soon got a DOD job and stopped promoting the ideas (pg 170) of his book. I stopped also ,but have posted about this book (page 170) numerous times. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE IF ANYONE CAN SCREEN SHOT PG 170 or scan it ==PLEASE DO SO !!!!!!!!!! and put it in this thread. THANKS Steve Gaal ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The banking elites prepare for the angry peasants with sticks ........what you read below is the aftermath IMHO of the ELM ST coup.... http://saladin-avoiceinthewilderness.blogspot.com/2011/01/pentagon-military-actively-war-gaming.html Edited January 7, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) My latest replies in this lovely color No Len, I am not saying the links I provided are gospel, just that much of the information contained in that cartoon is spelled out pretty well in these two articles and in zeitgeist the movie. So what? I could link to several LNT sources that “spell out” the same view as each other, ditto sources pushing creationism etc. just because a site is a LNT source doesn't mean that the factual events related to the creation of the CIA in 1947 (or any factual presentation) on that site are incorrect... at least not until proven so. Not surprisingly you missed my point, you tried to bolster the credibility of “the information contained in that cartoon” by pointing out its similarity to what “is spelled out pretty well in these two articles and in zeitgeist the movie”, but that was a logical fallacy because you failed to establish your other sources were credible. Almost any idea, no matter how ludicrous has multiple sources espousing it. And I never said LNT sources were inherently unreliable, but your approach was as legitimate as if an LNT would proclaim, “I am not saying the links I provided are gospel, just that much of the information contained in Reclaiming History is spelled out pretty well in Case Closed and the Peter Jennings special.” Actually LESS legitimate because Posner and the Bug provided numerous citations for their claims. In the Rothschild paper it says: 1920: Winston Churchill (whose mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish – meaning he is Jewish under Ashkenazi law as he was born of a Jewish mother) writes in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, dated February 8th, "From the days of Illuminati leader Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, this worldwide conspiracy has been steadily growing. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America, have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire." Now I looked thru the entire article that Churchill wrote for the Feb 8, 1920 issue - page 5. I could not find the word for word quote but did find this paragraph that pretty well spells it out. International Jews. In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. Looks pretty accurate to me.... Rather than keep going... if you are so suspect of the history, (not the anti-semitism as we both know how real that is)check it out yourself as I expect anyone reading anything onwhich they are going to base their opinions would do. Amazing the “paper” (actually a book chapter) included what purported to be an exact quote, not a paraphrasing, of the Churchill editorial but the “word for word quote” by your own admission did not appear in the original, yet you having found something similar proclaimed, “Looks pretty accurate to me”. It also misrepresented Churchill’s point being that: 1) Jews disproportionately backed Socialism because they “are persecuted on account of their race”; John (Simkin), among others have made similar points 2) there exists another option for them namely Zionism, indeed the title the essay was “Zionism versus Bolshevism”. But the author of the chapter you think is “pretty accurate” made it seems as if he were taking about a Jewish plot for world domination. And his claim that Churchill’s mother “was Jewish” is not true. “Pretty accurate”, my tuchas! Churchill essay - http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html His maternal ancestry: - http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/ftp.py%3Fpeople/c/churchill.jennie.j/churchill-mother-jewish+Jeanette+jerome+churchill+jewish&cd=4&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&gl=br - http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/churchills-jewish-ancestry-not_08.php - http://www.thepeerage.com/p14734.htm Here’s another excerpt from the “pretty accurate” chapter: 1909: Jacob Schiff founds the National Advancement for the Association of the Coloured [sic] People (NAACP). This was done to incite black people into roiting [sic], looting and other forms of disorder, in order to cause a rift between the black and white communities. Oh yes, there was absolutely no need for an organization to defend the civil rights of African-Americans in 1909, because race relations were pacific and Blacks enjoyed the same rights as other Americans; Jim Crow, lynchings and anti-Black race riots are myths created by those evil scheming Jews. Care to point out any cases of NAACP led or inspired “rioting, looting and other forms of disorder” or organized Black on White violence before the 1960s? As to the history of the NAACP, according to group’s website: “1909 - Inspired by the abolitionist movement, W.E.B. Du Bois, Mary White Ovington, Ida B. Wells, Henry Moskowitz and William English Walling, a multi-racial and multi-religious group of social and political activists, founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” http://www.naacphistory.org/#/detailmilestone/89/history “The NAACP was formed partly in response to the continuing horrific practice of lynching and the 1908 race riot in Springfield, the capital of Illinois and resting place of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, William English Walling and Dr. Henry Moscowitz issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, seven of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln's birth.” http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history Schiff was not mentioned on either page, in fact he is not mentioned anywhere on the website. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=Schiff+site%3Awww.naacp.org%2F&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=ca05a7bb65e82229 But does not take away from the Money and Banking history, or the reality of the FED and Central Banking systems and the lengths those who run them go to insure their control, and the actual control over governments, people etal these banks enjoy. It is a source with a definite agenda (Jews, especially the Rothchilds, are evil) and replete with errors & distortions, thus there is no reason to accepts its undocumented claims. Your “logic” is circular the chapter tells you what you already believe to be true about economics thus you believe it is credible source and it reinforces your beliefs. My mother-in-law believes any manner of ‘old wives tales’, she takes their acceptance by other poorly educated (in some case illiterate) old women as confirmation of their veracity. For hiccups she recommends “shocked” water, i.e. water tossed into a very hot empty pot so that it burst into a boil. These are important topics but just like all other topics obscure sources that don’t back their claims are of little or no value except perhaps for entertainment. There are a number of JFK books without footnotes and sources that still serve as excellent source of information (I'd have to look again but aren't Manchester and Buchannan's books without sources and footnotes? If a book can expose an idea that requires further investigation which proves fruitful - that book, regardless of the lack of sources, can still be considered more than entertainment. The Death of a President doesn’t have footnotes but it does have an extensive source list. That aside it is not comparable, Manchester was not an “obscure source” he was an eminent journalist and historian who had already written a book about JFK. He interviewed all the principle players (except Marina) and his book was vetted by various members of the Kennedy camp. I have no idea what the Buchannan book is. http://books.google.com/books?ei=YXgmTeiBLoW0lQfnoM2WAQ&ct=result&hl=pt-br&id=vyRCAAAAIAAJ&dq=Death+of+a+President&q=sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_a_President And just because a site chooses to be idealistic in its approach, I don't think we can conclude their information is inaccurate. It's a RESOURCE based approach rather than a monetary approach. thevenusproject.com is about as idealistic as it gets but if we don't go for it all how are we to get anything at all? Did you mean ‘ideological’? ‘Idealistic’ did not make sense in either instance. I don’t know anything about. thevenusproject.com but it seems to be the typical utopian clap trap and its association with ”zeitgeist the movie” is a bad sign. But at this point I’m guessing you’re a member of the 'cult'. My bad, "idealistic" is not the correct word. Not sure what is... you calling one person's ideas on how to build a better world "typical utopian clap trap" is just as prejudicial as DVP calling refutiations of the SBT unfounded - no point in discussing "ideas" with you Len.... the fact is you fail to see how an intelligent person can pick and choose what makes sense and do the legwork to substantiate the info as opposed to the one of the bewildered herds who barely have time to look up from the trough. Guessing doesn't become you Len. If you are wondering if I would prefer that 1% of the population not control 50% of the wealth and that a better way be sought... or that I prefer the government stop lying to us about damn near everything - the i GUESS you can call me a cult member.... Trying “to build a better world” and reduce the inequitable distribution of wealth are noble aims but I’ve seen no evidence the Venus Project is making any progress towards that goal, after over 35 years all it seems to consist of is a website, artist renditions (drawings) of buildings, a small compound in Florida (where seeming only the 2 founders {and perhaps a few follower} live) and a small number of followers scattered around the world. Similar schemes have come and gone. Unlike the VP several actually got round to setting up communities based on their ideals. 30 years ago, If i told you that in 2010 you could get a hold of anyone on the earth in an instance and talk to them as if they were right next to you, without wires.... you'd say I was nuts... True but irrelevant many predictions about the future did NOT come true. Can you point to anyone who was not a top computer scientist who proposed such a thing 30 years ago? Can you point to any economists who believe what you do? Point to someone??, who cares? - I am pointing to people NOW who have ideas about ripping the control of the world from the bankers.... there are those who talk of Nationalizing the FED and printing our own money... not a bad idea.... of looking at RESOURCE based models this is not about predictions about the future Len.... this is about offering/discussing ideas that are in such conflict with the reality of the times (ending the Cold War for example) that they seem ridiculous on their face. You pretty clearly are a true believer, so discussing this with you any further is likely to be as productive as discussing evolution with a diehard Evangelical Christian. I repeat my previous question to you “Can you point to any economists who believe what you do?” Maybe even a reputable social scientist of any stripe!? what happened to Copernicus? About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." Fact is the earth was not the center of the universe - I am sure you'd have been one of nay sayers holding to the old beliefs.... Citing Copernicus and Gallileo is a typical tactic of promoters of crackpottery, care to cite any examples since the scientific method became widely accepted? I’m surprised you have used the Schopenhauer quote yet. This is no different. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magicAny sufficiently advanced concepts about humanity, society or reality is usually met with your kind of response. True, but same applies to crackpot notions that went nowhere. The Shakers were scorned, by your "logic" we should assume they were right. Sorry Len, I do not see the "logic" connection you've made. By my logic, any "crackpot notion" (Christianity comes to mind) can be looked at as you are.... brushed aside, not investigated, not considered.... but by those who do and actually find a better way to live with fellow humans and want to tell others... there is no right or wrong, there is... How do we want to live as a people? The Talmud and Torah are basically "crackpot notions" of how people should live together and is considered not entirely "right" by most the world. You going to stop living a Jewish life becuase of that? We can just as easily make the argument that if we all lived as Jews the world would be a far better place.... doesn't take away from the history of judaism and you'd have just as hard a time convincing the world to adopt that destiny as you would with the venus project.... so what? Religion is a case apart it beliefs can’t be proven and in most can’t be disproven. However the theories of social and physical sciences can be tested. Thus proponents of novel theories should be able to produce evidence in support of their claims, Darwin, Copernicus and Galileo all did so, AFAIK members of the VP cult haven’t. Faith should be limited to the spiritual realm. As for my religion though I’m ethnically Jewish I don’t practice the religion I’m an atheist (though in moments of doubt turn to agnosticism). There were obscure sites a while back that used to say Oswald did not kill Kennedy... did any of those turn out to be reliable? Some did, some did not. Presumably most if not all the former were very good at documenting their claims something these crackpots failed to do. No doubt there is significant SLANT in the Satan sourced article and significant optimism in the others... but what "CLAIMS" are you talking about Len??? We all would like every piece of information sourced back to an unimpeachable source - how often does that happen for you in your travels? As we've seen in the JFK case, anything is possible with regards to sources, documentation and evidence... This is yet another piece of the Rothschild article... looks like a number of references and sources, and they are throughout the article... maybe one should read thru the linked articles and/or watch the entire zeitgeist movie before expressing one's opinions? What are rambling on about apart from a few direct quotes it only sourced a handful of claims but merely provided a source list at the end thus one would have to read numerous books/articles in their entirety to find what, if anything, the author based his claims on. As to the quotes, you demonstrated yourself that in at least one case they were not accurate. 1995: Former atomic energy scientist, Dr Kitty Little claims the Rothschilds now control 80% of the world’s uranium supplies giving them a monopoly over nuclear power. (I found who she is/was yet was not able to substantiate this info... I would give it less weight than other info I have sourced.... would the article be better filled with references, of course, but Google makes finding things pretty swift these days...) So you are citing an unsourced claim which you couldn’t substantiate as evidence the author backed his claims and is credible, that is simply bizarre. The woman is pretty obscure there are no hits for her on Google Scholar or Google Books as the author of anything physics related. Even IF she said this the claim is not credible, it would entail controlling production of an element “about 40 times as abundant as silver” in half a dozen countries http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0861723.html http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that, "Israel aggressively collects (US) military and industrial technology." The report stated that Israel obtains information using, "ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties," of US citizens. 1996: A General Accounting Office report, "Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors," found that according to intelligence sources, "Country A," (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 22 February 1996), "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally." A pdf file of the report is here: www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96064.pdf An unformated text version is here: http://fas.org/man/gao/gao9664.htm The Jerusalem Post (30 August 1996) quoted the report, "“Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country." The report described, "An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for (Israel) paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents." The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was, "a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information." www.washington-report.org/backissues/0496/9604014.htm I never said that everything in the chapter was complete fiction, some of it is true and half true but since the author is obviously biased, it includes various errors distortions and fails to document the vast majority of its claims it is useless as a reference. I'd prefer we don't get into a debate over what constitutes a worthwhile pursuit and what you consider "crackpot notions" - DVP believes that anything that points away from Oswald is a "crackpot notion" and you, me and every other member has gone round and round with that... I commented on this thread as I had seen and heard this info in a variety of forms, the cartoon above was very interesting and unique regardless of its slant, biases and what not... the message is still the same... FED = BAD A popular thesis among economic illiterates, can you cite any economists who back it? and if it takes a hate of jews ridden article to get people to wake up Ends justify the means eeh? People used similar rationalizations for back the Nazis. - or an idea of what utopia could be like with a switch to RESOURCE based economies, so be it. When Dan Rather and Peter Jennings get on TV and tell us Oswald was innocent (as opposed to Jesse Ventura), only then we can begin to feel like we're making any headway. Until then I guess we keep reading the books, forums and articles and keep spreading the word. Kinda sounds like a religion, don't it? As I noted above, "You pretty clearly are a true believer, so discussing this with you any further is likely to be as productive as discussing evolution with a diehard Evangelical Christian." thus don't expect any further replies on this topic, expect corrections of major factual errors. Edited January 8, 2011 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) misspost Edited January 8, 2011 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Alright Len, my mistake. I would appreciate it though if you explained what I was a TRUE BELIEVER in? The possibility of a better world? guilty as charged but I am not spouting off anything with religious zeal here. If you want to continue to believe that the Rothschilds, Morgan's, and Rockefellers in the world have YOUR best interest at heart as opposed to the way they are depicted in this history, so be it. Not so much a jewish issue as much a HUMAN one. Given the opportunity, most will steal you blind. The point was that the Federal Reserve System stinks to high hell and has made debtors of most of it's citizens as well as the rest of the world thru the IMF and World Bank. That the History of Money and the History of the Rothschilds articles have valuable information mixed in with crap... And Zeitgeist, like Loose Change, will hopefully open some eyes. I'm no true believer yet somehow I remain optomistic.... maybe pure folly, but I know of no other way to live. Thanks for taking the time to address these issues. I appreciate your candor and approach I don't mind being wrong, just ask my ex wife... and I am obviously wrong on a number of these issues or at least in the manner I went about presenting them. Live and Learn. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Dear David, For the establishment media to report bad things about the FED is big bad TABOO. I think Mr. Colby and many others would benefit from this book. DEBT VIRUS. (go to Amazon.com books if link not working) [...] Dr. Edward Flaherty, a professor of economics at the College of Charleston, thinks “Jaikaran's model contains two gaping holes which collapse his entire thesis” http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/antidote.htm Steven’s hero has been in the news (and prison): Adviser to separatists guilty in tax case Staff WED 07/22/1998 Houston Chronicle, Section A, Page 19, 3 STAR Edition A Kingwood plastic surgeon, a financial adviser for the Republic of Texas separatist group, was convicted Tuesday of failing to file federal income tax returns for 1992-94. Jacques Jaikaran faces up to three years in prison and $75,000 in fines. He denied he is a member of the Republic of Texas, saying he affiliated with a group called the Constitution Coalition of Texas. Jaikaran attracted federal agents' attention when he tried to arrange for the Republic of Texas to purchase a compound in northeast Harris County, said Internal Revenue Service spokesman Steve Yost. The four-story building features machine gun turrets, a bomb shelter and an operating room. "They were going to make it the Republic of Texas capital," Yost said. The Republic of Texas, which has links to right-wing, antigovernment militias, believes that Texas was illegally annexed by the United States in 1845 and should be a separate nation. Members have no allegiance to the United States, float their own currency and refuse to pay income taxes. The group's leader, Richard McLaren, was arrested last year after a hostage-taking resulted in an armed standoff with officers in rugged West Texas. McLaren was subsequently convicted on state and federal charges and sentenced to 111 years in prison. And earlier this month, three men linked to the group were arrested in a bizarre plot to kill President Clinton and other officials by injecting them with a cactus thorn coated with a deadly virus. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake will sentence Jaikaran in about 90 days. http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1998_3070779 Suspect says he won't `consent' to his sentence ED ASHER Staff SAT 10/24/1998 Houston Chronicle, Section A, Page 29MetFront, 3 STAR Edition In a bizarre hearing Friday, a plastic surgeon who authorities say is a financial adviser for the Republic of Texas separatist group told a judge he would not "consent" to being sentenced for failing to file income tax returns. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake sentenced Jacques Jaikaran of Kingwood to 18 months in prison. But Jaikaran said he did not recognize Lake's authority to sentence him. "I do not consent or assent to be sentenced," Jaikaran told Lake. "I also do not assent or consent to be jailed without being faced by an accuser." Jaikaran, representing himself, said his accuser was not present when he was convicted in July of failing to file federal tax returns for 1992-94. Lake said his accuser was the U.S. Attorney's Office represented by prosecutor Charles Escher, who was present. When Jaikaran said he was "presenting my reservations and exceptions," Lake said he didn't know what Jaikaran was talking about. Lake said later he admired Jaikaran for his accomplishments after being an impoverished son of a British Guiana sugar cane worker. But he told the defendant, "For some unknown reason, you have concluded, wrongfully, that you are not subject to the laws of this country." Jaikaran has denied being a member of the Republic of Texas, saying he is affiliated with a group called the Constitution Coalition of Texas. But Jaikaran attracted federal agents' attention when he tried to arrange for the Republic of Texas to purchase a compound in northeast Harris County, Internal Revenue Service spokesman Steve Yost has said. The four-story building featured machine gun turrets, a bomb shelter and an operating room. "They were going to make it the Republic of Texas capital," Yost said. http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1998_3092118 He has also been involved in an unusually large number of civil cases both as defendant and plaintiff and apparently was jailed again, for contempt, during one case: 1. Texas Case Law - JBJ DISTRIB., v. JAIKARAN, 744 SW2d 379... Pay-Per-View - Texas Case Law - Feb 1, 1988 JBJ DISTRIB v JAIKARAN 744 SW2d 379TexAppHous1 Dist 1988 744 SW2d 379 JBJ DISTRIBUTORS INC and Joel E Morrow Appellants v Jacques JAIKARAN Appellee No ... 2. ► 3. Texas Case Law - AMERICAN LEGAL SERV. v. JAIKARAN, 09-04... Pay-Per-View - Texas Case Law - Jul 22, 2004 AMERICAN LEGAL SERV v JAIKARAN 0904242 CVTexApp9th Dist 2004 AMERICAN LEGAL ...AND LYDIA BOUDREAU VALTCHANOV Appellants v JACQUES S JAIKARAN MD Appellee No ... 5. OpEdNews - Article: Gifted Surgeon now Prisoner in the... OpEdNews - Aug 8, 2009 Dr Jacques Jaikaran MD is a plastic surgeon who was born in Guyana land of sugar cane But this gifted surgeon is now in a prison cell with no end in sight a ... 7. Texas Case Law - JAIKARAN v. US BANK, 14-05-01282-CV... Pay-Per-View - Texas Case Law - Oct 12, 2006 JAIKARAN v US BANK 140501282CVTexApp14th Dist 10122006 JACQUES JAIKARAN AKA JACQUES SANCHARA JAIKARAN Appellant v US BANK NA AS TRUSTEE Appellee No ... 9. Texas Case Law - BOUDREAU v. JAIKARAN, 05-05-00544-CV... Pay-Per-View - Texas Case Law - Aug 8, 2005 BOUDREAU v JAIKARAN 050500544CVTexAppDallas5th Dist 2005 DANIEL A BOUDREAU Appellant v JACQUES S JAIKARAN AND SUHAILA JAIKARAN Appellees No 050500544CV ... … Federal District Court Opinions - JAIKARAN v. BOUDREAU... Pay-Per-View - Loislaw Federal District Court Opinions - Jul 8, 2005 2005) JACQUES S. JAIKARAN v. DANIEL A. BOUDREAU. No. 3-05-CV-1124-B. United States District Court, ND Texas, Dallas Division. July 8, 2005 JUDGMENT JANE J. ... He had his medical license revoked: http://www.tmb.state.tx.us/professionals/calendar/minutes/doc/2004/April04/Full%20Board.php Credible guy!! Edited January 8, 2011 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Since your post was quite reasonable I’ll reply: Alright Len, my mistake. I would appreciate it though if you explained what I was a TRUE BELIEVER in? The possibility of a better world? guilty as charged but I am not spouting off anything with religious zeal here. I think you are a ‘true believer’ because you seem to believe in the VP despite there not being any evidence the scheme would work. The facts that after over 35 years 1) they don’t seem to have made any progress towards that goal and 2) don’t seem to have the backing of any economists or even social scientists, indicates otherwise. If you want to continue to believe that the Rothschilds, Morgan's, and Rockefellers in the world have YOUR best interest at heart as opposed to the way they are depicted in this history, so be it. Not so much a jewish issue as much a HUMAN one. Given the opportunity, most will steal you blind. Strawman and false dichotomy, I never denied this and there is a large middle ground between rejecting the dumb cartoon, Synagogue of Satan etc and believing what you suggest. But you are about a century out of date “the Rothschilds, Morgan's, and Rockefellers” are no longer major players. The point was that the Federal Reserve System stinks to high hell and has made debtors of most of it's citizens as well as the rest of the world thru the IMF and World Bank. Point me to an economist who shares your view, for one who rejects it see the 1st link in my post above or the one below (from the same prof.) http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html That the History of Money and the History of the Rothschilds articles have valuable information mixed in with crap... And Zeitgeist, like Loose Change, will hopefully open some eyes. To me they are all 100% crap, the former may have some factual info but there is no way to distinguish it from the lies. If what you believe is true why can’t you point to a credible source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHhc67GopM Seems most, if not all of this info comes from these sources. The Zeitgeist film has some far out ideas but is rather interesitng in fact... The two articles are for those who can't stand cartoons and really want to understand the FED. According to one of his high school friends, “I think this Zeitgeist documentary had a profound impact on Jared Loughner's mindset”. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jared-laughners-friend-tells-gma-he-did-not-watch-tv-he-disliked-the-news/ Video clip - http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/01/loughner-radically-changed.html See more here - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17215&view=findpost&p=217458 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) COLBY WROTE Dr. Edward Flaherty, a professor of economics at the College of Charleston, thinks “Jaikaran's model contains two gaping holes which collapse his entire thesis” http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/antidote.htm END COLBY QUOTE #################*************************######################## Mr Flaherty is easily debunked. ++ see below Debunking in two parts. THANKS Steve Gaal ++++++++++ PART 1 Debunking the Debunker Flaherty *************** ########################### MEET EDWARD FLAHERTY, CONSPIRACY POO-POOIST A response to a critic of The Creature from Jekyll Island © 2004 by G. Edward Griffin Edward Flaherty is a Ph.D. of Economics who has been critical of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second look at the Federal Reserve. Periodically I receive inquiries from readers who have visited Flaherty's web site, and they want to know if I can rebut what he says. I put this off for a long time because, first, his critique is lengthy and loaded with minutia that requires considerable time to respond properly and, second, the number of inquiries has been so small as to place the importance of this task far down on my list of priorities. Nevertheless, whenever I get an inquiry, I dread that my reader may think that a lack of response is a sign of not being able to defend my work; so, at last, I decided to step up to the plate and swing at the ball that Flaherty has thrown in my direction. The essence of Flaherty's critique is that anyone who opposes the Federal Reserve must be some kind of a kook, totally lacking in scholarship. He lumps all Fed critics together, those who bring scholarship to the topic as well as those who do not, and the mixture tends to discredit everyone. It is an old tactic of dumping garbage into the grocery bag so that it all smells like garbage and is rejected in total. On September 5, 2004, I received an email from a reader who had compared comments made in my recorded lecture with what Flaherty's web site says and asked for clarification. What follows is his inquiry with my reply embedded at appropriate locations. My reader begins by quoting from my recorded lecture, followed by a quote from Eustace Mullins: My lecture: I came to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve needed to be abolished for seven reasons. I’d like to read them to you now just so that you get an idea of where I’m coming from, as they say. I put these into the most concise phrasing that I can to make them somewhat shocking so that, hopefully, you’ll remember them: 1. The Fed is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives. 2. It is a cartel operating against the public interest. 3. It is the supreme instrument of usury. 4. It generates our most unfair tax through inflation and bailouts. 5. It encourages war. 6. It destabilizes the economy. 7. It discourages private capital formation. Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve: “...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 BILLION dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks.” My reply: I stand firmly behind my seven points but I do not agree with Mullins on this. Please do not lump my work with other writers. Flaherty does this a lot. Guilt by association is a ploy that must be challenged and rejected. Flaherty: It would be a mistake to examine these conspiracy theories.... My reply: Stop right there. There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected. If I am to be called a conspiracy theorist, then Flaherty cannot object if I were to call him a conspiracy poo-pooist. The later group is a ridiculous bunch, indeed, in view of the fact that conspiracies are so common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us. Flaherty continued: ... outside the context in which they were written. My reply: I try hard not to present text outside its context. When searching through hundreds of documents and thousands of pages, it is inevitable that some subtleties of context may be missed, but so far I have not yet been advised of any instances of this. I welcome any corrections; but, until specifics are brought to my attention, I stand firm on everything I have written. Furthermore, I resent the implication that my work could not stand without taking text out of context. Flaherty: All the conspiracy authors whose work I study here profess a belief in the alleged ‘New World Order’ conspiracy, or some variant thereof. My reply: An informed reader would not waste time beyond this point. It is absurd to claim that a blueprint for a New World Order based on the model of collectivism is merely “alleged.” The evidence that this is a demonstrable fact of modern history abounds. Some of that evidence is presented in my work, The Future Is Calling, found in the Issues section of this web site. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is a privately owned corporation. Like any firm, their main objective is to maximize profits. They do so by lending the government money and charging interest. They manipulate monetary policy for their own gain, not for the public good. Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. My reply: Basically, Flaherty is correct as far as he goes. But, as we shall see in so many of his statements, he stops short of the entire truth. A half-truth is just as much of a deception as an outright lie. Flaherty says that the Board of Governors is politically appointed. This is true and it is supposed to make us feel safe in the thought that the President responds to the will of the people and that he selects only those who have the public interest at heart. The part of the story omitted by Flaherty is that the President does not select these people from his own personal address book, nor does he ask the public to submit nominations. With few exceptions, he makes appointments from lists given to him by the staffs of banking committees of Congress and from private sources that have been influential in his election campaign. The most powerful of all these groups are the financial institutions (including prominent members of the Fed itself) and the media corporations over which they have effective control. One does not have to be a so-called conspiracy theorist to recognize the tremendous influence that these institutions have over the outcome of presidential campaigns, and anyone with knowledge of how our current political system works will understand why the President makes exactly the appointments that the banks want him to make. All one has to do to see the accuracy of this appraisal is to examine the backgrounds and attitudes of the men who receive the appointments. While there is an occasional token individual who appears to come from the consumer sector of society, the majority are bankers deeply committed to the perpetuation of the system that sustains them. Anyone who would seriously challenge the power of the banking cartel would never be appointed. So, while Flaherty is correct in what he says, the implication of what he says (that the Fed is subject to control of the people through the political process) is entirely false. Flaherty: Nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed. My reply: Here is another half-truth that is a whopper deception. It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government. That is because the Fed’s charter requires any interest payments in excess of the Fed’s actual operating expenses to be refunded. However, before we jump to the conclusion that this is a wonderful benefit, we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses. After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book. Technically, there is no “profit” on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That’s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick. Distract attention with one hand while the coin is retrieved by the other. By focusing on the supposed generosity of the Fed by returning unused interest to the Treasury, we are supposed to overlook the much larger river of gold flowing into the member banks in the form of interest on nothing as a result of consumer and commercial loans. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation’s money supply. Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks. My reply: Here again we have a half-truth that functions as a deception. Plans for a return to central banking, indeed, were already known, but they were unpopular with the voters and large blocks of Congress. That was the very problem that led to the great secrecy. Frank Vanderlip, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting, later confirmed that, if the public had known that the bankers were the ones creating legislation to supposedly “break the grip of the money trust,” the bill would never have been passed into law. The facts presented in my book, and fully documented by references from original sources, show that my version is historical fact. Flaherty attempts to minimize these facts by implying that the original, secret meeting was not important because the first draft of the legislation was rejected. What he does not say is that the second draft that was passed into law was essentially the same as the first. The primary difference was that Senator Aldrich’s name was removed from the title of the bill and replaced by the names of Carter Glass and Robert Owen. This was to remove the stigma of Aldrich as an icon for “big-business Republicans” and replace it with the more popular image of Democrats, “defenders of the working man.” It was a strategy advocated by Paul Warburg, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting. The fact that Flaherty makes no mention of this suggests that he has not made an objective analysis but, instead, has presented a biased critique in the guise of scholarship. His statement that “the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks” cannot be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is not a public body in any meaningful sense of the phrase. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Through fractional reserve banking and double-entry accounting, banks are able to create new money with the stroke of a pen (or a computer keystroke). The money they lend costs them nothing to produce, yet they charge interest on it. Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank’s ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money. My reply: Flaherty presents facts that in no way contradict what I said in my book. I speak of rotten apples, and he speaks of sweet oranges. My book makes it clear that the bank’s ability to create money is tied to its reserves. The current average ratio (it varies depending on the bank) is about ten-to-one. In other words, for every one dollar on deposit and held in reserve, the bank can create up to an additional nine dollars out of nothing for the purpose of lending. The statement that the banks must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits is humorous when one considers the math. For example, let us assume for the sake of illustration that the bank pays 1.5% interest. Then it turns around and charges, let’s say 6.5% interest. That’s a spread of 5%. Although that’s a pretty good brokerage commission, it doesn’t sound exorbitant. But, here is another of those half-truths. Don’t forget that the bank uses each deposited dollar as a so-called reserve for creating up to an additional nine dollars in loans. It collects interest on these loans as well. Let us assume that the bank is not fully loaned up, as they call it, and has an average of only eight dollars in magic-money loans for every one dollar on deposit. In that case, it will collect 6.5% interest on all eight of those dollars. That means, based on each dollar placed on deposit, the bank will collect 52% in interest. After paying the original depositor the generous “competitive” amount of 1.5%, the bank actually receives a brokerage fee of approximately 50%. When Flaherty says that “This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money,” one can only wonder what banking system he is describing. It certainly is not the one in the United States. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Supporters of the Federal Reserve Act knew they did not have the votes to win, so they waited to vote until its opponents left for Christmas vacation. Since a majority of senators were not present to vote on the bill, its passage is not constitutionally valid. Facts: The voting record clearly shows that a majority of the senate did vote on the bill. Although some senators had left Washington for the holiday, the Congressional Record shows their respective positions on the legislation. Even if all opponents had all been present to vote, the Federal Reserve Act still would have passed easily. My reply: I agree with Flaherty on this issue and often have said so in the Q&A portions of my lectures. Please note that this is not contradictory to what I wrote in The Creature. What I said there is an accurate historical fact. There is little doubt in my mind that the vote would have passed eventually, but by slipping it through as they did, it circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate. I have never commented on the Constitutionality question, although I tend to think that a strict interpretation would have made this vote invalid. The problem here, however, has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Act but with the rules of Congress. Flaherty: Hypothesis: All money is created only when someone takes out a loan. Therefore, there can never be enough of this debt-money in circulation to repay all principal and interest. This imbalance causes inflation, financial crises, social maladies, and will eventually destroy the economy unless there is a massive injection of “debt-free” money. This idea is from Dr. Jacques Jaikaran’s book, The Debt Virus. Facts: The hypothesis shows an incomplete view of how the banking system interacts with the economy. The system necessarily creates an amount of “debt-free” money equal to the interest on its loans. It does this whenever it pays operating expenses, dividends, or purchases assets. As a result, there is more than enough money in circulation to retire all bank-related debt. My reply: I object to being lumped together with other analysts on this issue. I did not write The Debt Virus, I wrote The Creature from Jekyll Island. On page 191, I explained why I consider the claim that there is not enough money to pay off interest to be a myth Flaherty: Hypothesis: The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery. Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office. My reply: I never wrote or implied, as Flaherty says, that “any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery.” What I wrote is: (1) The Fed resists external audit; (2) If it were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found; (3) The problem is not that it steals from the American people illegally but that it does so legally; (4) Therefore, we do not need to audit the Fed, we need to abolish it. Flaherty: Hypothesis: Major European banks and investment houses own the Federal Reserve. From across the Atlantic they dictate monetary policy for their own benefit. Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank’s district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks. My reply: Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise. I do not appreciate being lumped together with those who claim foreign control over the Fed. The real danger in this line of reasoning is that it is often coupled with the argument that, if we could only get control away from foreigners and put it into the hands of Congress or the Treasury, then everything would be all right. In truth, even if the Fed were in the hands of foreigners, placing it into the hands of American bankers and politician would make little difference. The Fed does not need to be converted into a government agency. It needs to be abolished. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Creature from Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money. A dry and boring subject? Just wait! You'll be hooked in five minutes. Reads like a detective story — which it really is. But it's all true. This book is about the most blatant scam of all history. It's all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a "must read." Your world view will definitely change. You'll never trust a politician again — or a banker. The Creature from Jekyll Island An address by G. Edward Griffin This is Mr. Griffin's acclaimed lecture based on his book by the same title. Heard by over a million people around the world. Audio cassette or CD. 74 minutes. The Federal Reserve A discource by G. Edward Griffin Mr. Griffin, founder of Freedom Force International and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island addresses these issues. What is the Federal Reserve System? Who drafted the plan for the Fed When and where did it occur? How is money created? What impact has this on the American dollar? Should our currency be backed by gold or silver? Where does Congress get most of its funding? What is the solution to the problem of fiat money? Why do bankers get away with it? What might happen if we continue on our current path? What might come from a return to constitutional money? What can concerned citizens do to help? DVD. 42 minutes. ################################### PART 2 Debunking the Debunker Flaherty ************************************* ############################################################################################################################## FSK Saturday, June 14, 2008 The Compound Interest Paradox Revisited - Edward Flaherty is a xxxxx Table of Contents Overview The Federal Reserve Free Market Banking A List of Monetary Systems Examples Edward Flaherty is a xxxxx Summary I read SO MANY people citing Edward Flaherty that I feel obligated to write a specific post refuting his false arguments. This is the most frequently cited article by Edward Flaherty. Here is a shorter version of the same thing. Here is a point-by-point debunking of Edward Flaherty's false debunking. Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting. Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply. Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks. Based on the sources I read, there *WAS* a secret meeting regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve. It's impossible to go back in time and check, so there's no way to resolve this disagreement. Under the Federal Reserve, the New York City branch is firmly in control of the US monetary system. The regional banks are a decoy. The "open market operations" are performed by the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. This is where the real power of the Federal Reserve lies. On the "Open Market Committee", which sets the Fed Funds Rate target, there are 12 total members. There are the 7 members of the Board of Governors, appointed by the President for 14 year terms, and 5 presidents of the district banks, with the New York branch *ALWAYS GETTING A SEAT* (the other 4 positions rotate). The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. Executives must be approved by the Board of Governors, but the executives are always appointed by the private investors who own the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. However, the President *ALWAYS* chooses the nominee from a short list of candidates chosen by financial industry insiders. Someone who isn't part of the "in crowd" of the financial industry has NO CHANCE of being nominated. A President who disobeyed the financial industry would probably be unable to get his nominee confirmed by the Senate. Further, the Federal Reserve can cause recessions at will. A President that is hostile to the Federal Reserve will be unable to get reelected (or even survive long without being assassinated). Besides, the argument against the Federal Reserve is unrelated to the means by which it was created. It's obvious that the Federal Reserve is immoral. Whether it was created as part of a conspiracy or not is irrelevant. Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, therefore the Act is null and void. Hypothesis: Supporters of the Federal Reserve Act knew they did not have the votes to win, so they waited to vote until its opponents left for Christmas vacation. Since a majority of senators were not present to vote on the bill, its passage is not constitutionally valid. Facts: The voting record clearly shows that a majority of the senate did vote on the bill. Although some senators had left Washington for the holiday, the Congressional Record shows their respective positions on the legislation. Even if all opponents had all been present to vote, the Federal Reserve Act still would have passed easily. I don't recognize any government laws as having legitimacy. The legitimacy of the Federal Reserve is the same as all other aspects of the government: ZERO. If you want a full technical analysis of the Federal Reserve's legality, there are several aspects. First, the Federal Reserve Act was passed immediately before Christmas. Several influential Congressmen who were opposed to the Federal Reserve had already left for holiday. Congress had a tradition that says important legislation is not passed immediately before Christmas. Of course, government is arbitrary and can do whatever it chooses. Second, the Constitution grants control over money to Congress. Congress does not have the right to delegate this power to a private corporation, the Federal Reserve. Similarly, it would be just as unconstitutional to turn over control of the US military to a private corporation. (Has that happened also? Is Blackwater effectively the US military now?) Third, the Constitution says that states may only declare gold or silver as money. This ban does not extend to the Federal government. However, the intent is obvious. Further, states have been disallowed from issuing their own metal-based money that competes with the Federal Reserve. The false reasoning the Supreme Court used is that usurps Congress' money-printing authority. Arguing the legality or Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is pointless. At this point, the Supreme Court isn't going to declare that the government has been operating illegitimately for 100 years. Government has no legitimacy, so arguing the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve is pointless in comparison. The *MORAL* argument against the Federal Reserve is much more important than the legal argument. Myth #3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional. Hypothesis: The constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to create a central bank, therefore it cannot legally do so. The constitution also forbids paper money and requires all money to be either gold or silver coin. Therefore, both the Federal Reserve and its paper money currency are unconstitutional. Opinion: A central bank is a reasonable use of the constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause, according to many federal court and Supreme Court rulings. Although the constitution forbids States from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender, it places no such restriction on Congress. I addressed this point immediately above. The framers of the US Constitution forbade states from declaring anything other than gold or silver as money. They did not put this restriction on the Federal government, but I consider that to be a technicality. The intent is obviously that only gold or silver were to be money. Arguing the legality or Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is pointless. Remember: Just because the Supreme Court or a Federal appeals court says something is acceptable, doesn't automatically mean it's true. Just like Congress and the President were subverted, the court system was also subverted. The *MORAL* argument against the Federal Reserve is much more important than the legal argument. Myth #4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank out to make a profit at the taxpayers' expense. Hypothesis: Each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is a privately owned corporation. Like any firm, their main objective is to maximize profits. They do so by lending the government money and charging interest. They manipulate monetary policy for their own gain, not for the public good. Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed. This is entirely missing the point. The point of the Federal Reserve is not profits to the Federal Reserve banks themselves. The point is the massive subsidy to the financial industry and large corporations in the form of negative real interest rates. I address interest on the national debt it "The National Debt - Who is the Creditor?" Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners. Hypothesis: Major European banks and investment houses own the Federal Reserve. From across the Atlantic they dictate monetary policy for their own benefit. Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks. It is unknown who actually owns the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is probably mostly owned by US corporations. However, with anonymous corporate ownership, how could you tell who are the true owners of the Federal Reserve? For example, Citigroup could own shares in the Federal Reserve, and foreigners could own a controlling interest in Citigroup. Unless you provide a full list of which corporations own the Federal Reserve *AND* a full list of the shareholders of each such corporation, you DON'T KNOW who really owns the Federal Reserve. Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited. Hypothesis: The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed's treachery. Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office. The Federal Reserve's open market operations have never been audited. The full details are carefully kept secret. Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use. Hypothesis: Federal Reserve Notes, the currency we use in the United States, are evidence of the debt of the U.S. government to the Federal Reserve. The central bank charges the government interest for this currency, thereby diverting billions of dollars from the Treasury that could be used for other things. The government could print its own money and avoid the Fed's interest. Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain. This is entirely the whole point of the Compound Interest Paradox. Every dollar in circulation only exists due to a loan. The principal is created but not the interest. The interest the Federal Reserve receives on Treasuries it owns is only a small slice of the massive subsidy the financial industry receives. The Federal Reserve is not a check against abuse of the monetary system. The 12 people on the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee wield more economic power than the Politburo in the Soviet Union. Anyone who knows in advance what the Federal Reserve is going to do has the opportunity to profit immensely. In January 2008, the Federal Reserve announced a surprise 0.75% decrease in the Fed Funds Rate. People who knew in advance profited immensely. Similarly, government directly printing and spending its own money is also abusable. However, free-market interest rates would be far preferable to the Federal Reserve negative interest rate subsidy. The only fair monetary system is to completely remove all government regulation of money and banking. This would effectively mean a return to a gold standard or a gold/silver standard. Of course, this will not happen until the government collapses completely. Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt. Hypothesis: When the government runs a budget deficit, it borrows the money from the Fed at interest. If the Fed did not charge interest or if the government simply printed its own interest-free currency, then we would have a balanced budget and no national debt. Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt. I address this in "The National Debt - Who is the Creditor?" The national debt is a legal fiction. The US government is the issuer for dollars. You can have unlimited debt is the money you issue, without being forced into bankruptcy. Deficit spending by the Federal government is inflationary. However, more money is printed by the Federal Reserve and financial industry than is printed by Federal deficit spending. Most of the benefit of printing new money accrues to the financial industry, and not the Federal government. Without the Federal Reserve, the government could directly print and spend money into circulation. Whenever Congress wants to, it could pass a law allowing it to directly print and spend money to pay down the national debt. The only problem with this method is fractional reserve banking. If Congress directly printed and spent $10 trillion, this would lead to $100 trillion in new money after the effect of fractional reserve banking. The correct solution is a complete repeal of the Federal Reserve and all regulation of the banking industry. All the taxes and regulations that prevent people from using gold or silver as money also should be repealed. That is never going to happen. Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it. Hypothesis: In the months before Dallas, President Kennedy signed E.O. 11,110 which instructed the Treasury to issue about $4 billion of interest-free 'silver certificate' currency, thereby circumventing the Federal Reserve and the interest it charges. The Federal Reserve, fearful of further encroachments on its powers, had Kennedy killed. Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency. I have no idea why President Kennedy was killed. The people who organized it aren't going to come forward and admit it, now are they? The motivations for killing Kennedy are independent of whether or not the Federal Reserve is evil. E.O. 11,110 was an attempt to abolish/compete with the Federal Reserve. By issuing "United States Notes" directly into circulation, this runs contrary to the Federal Reserve's policy of negative real interest rates and economic debt enslavement. When President Kennedy issued extra money, that caused interest rates to fall. Fractional reserve banking multiplies this extra money by 10x. With surplus bank reserves, the Fed Funds Rate falls. Normally, when the Federal Reserve "monetizes the debt", it makes a guaranteed riskless profit and subsidizes negative real interest rates at the same time. With extra money in circulation, the Federal Reserve would have to do the opposite to raise interest rates. It would have to sell Treasuries it had in reserve, losing money. If the Federal government directly issues and spends money, without repealing or amending the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve could be bankrupted. The Federal Reserve would lose its ability to manipulate interest rates. Money directly printed and spent by the government prevents the Compound Interest Paradox from enslaving everyone. Myth #10: Congressman Louis T. McFadden exposed the Federal Reserve scam in the Congressional Record. Hypothesis: On the floor of the House in 1932, McFadden accused the Federal Reserve of costing the government enough money to repay the national debt several times over, of causing the Great Depression, and of many other terrible things. Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance? The Federal Reserve does cost the Federal government money. The profit gained by printing new money accrues primarily to the financial industry and large corporations, and not to the Federal government. Everyone pays the cost of inflation, but only a handful of people are the beneficiaries of inflation. I read that Congressman McFadden *DID WANT* to reform or abolish the Federal Reserve. As only one vote, he was powerless to do anything. That's like asking "Why doesn't Ron Paul abolish or reform the Federal Reserve? He's on the House Banking Committee!" There is evidence that insiders intentionally used the Federal Reserve to line their own pockets. A ton of people lost their homes and businesses during the Great Depression. A handful of insiders profited immensely. Insiders knew that interest rates would be jacked up in 1929, causing the Depression. Some large banks stopped issuing loans and converted their holdings to cash before the crash. Myth #11: The Antidote to the Debt Virus Hypothesis: All money is created only when someone takes out a loan. Therefore, there can never be enough of this debt-money in circulation to repay all principal and interest. This imbalance causes inflation, financial crises, social maladies, and will eventually destroy the economy unless there is a massive injection of "debt-free" money. This idea is from Dr. Jacques Jaikaran's book, The Debt Virus. Facts: The hypothesis shows an incomplete view of how the banking system interacts with the economy. The system necessarily creates an amount of "debt-free" money equal to the interest on its loans. It does this whenever it pays operating expenses, dividends, or purchases assets. As a result, there is more than enough money in circulation to retire all bank-related debt. This is entirely the Compound Interest Paradox. If you don't understand the Compound Interest Paradox, work out an example. Edward Flaherty says "The balance sheet of each individual bank balances. Therefore, there is no Compound Interest Paradox or Debt Virus." If you look at the books of society as a whole, the Paradox is obvious. Whenever someone cites Edward Flaherty saying there is no Debt Virus, show them my page of examples. I have not seen any evidence that my examples are incorrect. The reason the economy does not collapse immediately due the Compound Interest Paradox is that there is continuous inflation. There is always a shortfall of money to pay the interest, but new money is always being created. The people who get first dibs on this new money are the recipients of a massive government subsidy. Myth #12: Exposing the Debt Virus fallacies This article is a much more detailed critique of The Debt Virus than the previous article. The file is in PDF, so you will need to download your free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it. I didn't bother reading this article. Let me know if you're interested in a detailed analysis of this nonsense. Myth #13: Banks charge interest on money they costlessly create out of thin air. Hypothesis: Through fractional reserve banking and double-entry accounting, banks are able to create new money with the stroke of a pen (or a computer keystroke). The money they lend costs them nothing to produce, yet they charge interest on it. Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money. A bank's ability to create money is completely decoupled from customer deposits. Banks with surplus reserves lend them to other banks. Banks with a shortage of reserves can borrow from other banks. The rate large banks charge each other for reserves is called the "Fed Funds Rate". Practically every day, the Federal Reserve repurchases Treasury Notes to increase the supply of bank reserves. The Federal Reserve will always create enough new bank reserves so that the Fed Funds Rate equals its target rate. All a bank accomplishes by taking customer deposits is that it can lend them to other banks at the Fed Funds Rate, or it avoids having to borrow at the Fed Funds Rate. A bank is restricted by its "net capital requirement". Suppose a bank is allowed to use a leverage ratio of 20x. This means that for every $1M in book value a bank has, it is allowed to issue $20M in loans. Leverage ratios are typically in the range of 10x-100x, depending on the type of debt. Bank regulations determine how much leverage banks are allowed to use for each type of asset. Since money is ONLY created by banks, this means that a certain % of the economy's capital is GUARANTEED to be owned by banks; otherwise, that money could not be created. Myth #14: "Lawful money" is only gold or silver coin as prescribed by the constitution. Hypothesis: The constitution specifies that only gold or silver coin may be used as money, also known as 'lawful money.' All other forms of money, particularly paper money, are illegal. Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin. This is a legal technicality. I don't recognize the US Constitution as having legitimacy, so why should I care if it allows unbacked fiat money or not. The requirement that only gold and silver are money applies to states. The Constitution does not say what the Federal government is allowed to use as money. It's implied that the Federal government is also restricted to only allowing gold or silver as money, but a corrupt Congress, President, and Supreme Court think otherwise. A Constitution is useless when the people who make laws and sit in courts are corrupted. Arguing the Constitutionality of unbacked fiat debt-based money is missing the point. The current monetary system is immoral, which is sufficient reason to boycott Federal Reserve Points. When arguing against the Federal Reserve and the income tax, a "Constitutional" argument is missing the real point. The Federal Reserve and income tax are *IMMORAL*. The Constitutional argument is much less important than the morality argument. I've also seen this article by Edward Griffin frequently cited. Surprisingly, Edward Griffin says "There's no such thing as the Debt Virus." Edward Griffin is wrong. June 15, 2008 10:27 AM Contact Information FSK If you want to contact me, you can post a comment or E-Mail me fsk2006@gmail.com. Edited January 19, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now