Who is Ed Griffin?
With the ascent of Ron Paul it has become very clear that the subversion of the Patriot movement through Austrian Economics and its Gold Standard is a far more serious threat than perhaps imagined. How did America’s Patriots lose its connection with their natural heritage from the Populists, calling for plentiful money?
It seems Ed Griffin might have more to do with it than we’d care to know.
It is no use introducing G. Edward Griffin. If you don’t know him, it’s highly unlikely you will be reading this. His influence on the ‘Truth/Patriot’ movement is hard to overestimate. He made a name for himself with his cancer analysis and Laetrile antidote. But his big break was ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994)’, an expose on the Federal Reserve System.
Now, I don’t think I’m the only one that associates this book with Eustace Mullins’ ‘The Secrets of the Federal Reserve’. Mullins himself certainly did. And Mullins of course, was inspired and basically educated by the great Ezra Pound himself, who was then incarcerated in a mental asylum in Washington D.C.
So in this way by association I basically assumed Griffin would understand the basics of money and the Money Power’s control over it. At least the suggestion is created that Griffin is part of a tradition that has a very specific and concrete analysis of these matters.
It was only the last few years that I started to realize that Griffin, however, plugs a Gold Standard as the solution to what he considers the problem: the Federal Reserve Bank and its ‘fiat’ money.
And this is simply astonishing.
Ezra Pound was probably the greatest political commentator of the 20th century. He profoundly studied and explained the Money Power’s origins, ‘ethics’, methods, economics, sociological effects and of course its control over money.
And he didn’t call the Money Power ‘Fiat’, nor ‘Inflator’. He called her Usura.
Pound was very astute in his observations of money as a means of exchange and not a store of value. He proposed Social Credit. He also supported Gesell’s work.
And Gold? “The present war dates at least from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony, A.D. 1750. This is not usually given prominence in the U.S. school histories. The 13 colonies rebelled, quite successfully, 26 years later, A.D. 1776.” According to Pound, it was the money issue (above all) that united the Allies during the second 20th-century war against Germany: “Gold. Nothing else uniting the three governments, England, Russia, United States of America. That is the interest–gold, usury, debt, monopoly, class interest, and possibly gross indifference and contempt for humanity.”
And elsewhere: “Gold is a coward. Gold is not the backbone of nations. It is their ruin. A coward, at the first breath of danger gold flows away, gold flows out of the country.”
That is the real face of Gold as Pound saw it and how right he was.
Pound, evidently, had no problems seeing the self evident: that the Gold Standards of the past and most certainly of modern history, beginning in Amsterdam, were banker operations.
Neither had Eustace Mullins, who left very little to guess in his book:
“The international gold dealings of the Federal Reserve System, and its active support in helping the League of Nations to force all the nations of Europe and South America back on the gold standard for the benefit of international gold merchants like Eugene Meyer, Jr. and Albert Strauss, is best demonstrated by a classic incident, the sterling credit of 1925.
J.E. Darling wrote, in the English periodical, “Spectator”, on January 10, 1925 that:
“Obviously, it is of the first importance to the United States to induce England to resume the gold standard as early as possible. An American controlled Gold Standard, which must inevitably result in the United States becoming the world’s supreme financial power, makes England a tributary and satellite, and New York the world’s financial centre.”
Mr. Darling fails to point out that the American people have as little to do with this as the British people, and that resumption of the gold standard by Britain would benefit only that small group of international gold merchants who own the world’s gold. No wonder that “Banker’s Magazine” gleefully remarked in July, 1925 that:
“The outstanding event of the past half year in the banking world was the restoration of the gold standard.””
So where the currently popular notion comes from that Gold is feared by the Bankers is really very hard to understand. It was certainly not the opinion of Mullins or Pound.
Of course, neither Mullins nor Pound are saints whose stories we should accept at face value. But it is strange that Griffin is associated with them. Because he clearly vehemently disagrees with both his forebears.
Griffin on Gold
On his website Griffin addresses a number of questions about his position on Gold. They are arranged in a Q & A. Let’s have a look at them.
We will not go into the stuff we already discussed with Gary North and the Daily Bell, but Griffin mentions a few more typical pro Gold arguments and we’ll deconstruct them here.
1. On Social Credit
Let’s first see how Griffin responds to the question whether Social Credit would be a better monetary system. And let’s keep in mind that Ezra Pound favored this system.
Here’s what Griffin replies:
“Fiat money remains fiat money regardless of the formulas used to determine its quantity and distribution. Social credit systems are designed by men according to formulas drafted by men and enforced by men – all of which means the system is not fixed by supply and demand but by edict – and that is not fundamentally different from the present system. Eventually, if the rules for money creation CAN be changed, they WILL be changed to the advantage of those with the power to change them and to the disadvantage of everyone else.”
Now this is the typically incredibly lame clincher that Austrian Economics is famous for. ‘It’s Fiat Money so it’s bad’. They’ll mess up the volume!
And how about 700 billion on debt service per year for the Government Mr. Griffin? How about paying 150.000 dollars in interest over a 100.000 mortgage over 30 years? Ring a bell?
Again: the blatant ignoring of Interest. Usura.
In this case damnable because Griffin MUST know about interest, when considering his predecessors.
2. On the wonders of Gold
The question he replies to is fair enough:
‘If the Banks own all the Gold, why would we want a Gold-Backed Money System?’
Now that is a very, very good question indeed. Here’s Griffin’s reply:
“The Rothschilds do not own all the gold or even close to it. Most of it is still in the ground, in the ocean, and in private hoards. Even if they did own all of it that presently is in the form of bars, that would just drive up the price and stimulate gold mining so that new supplies would quickly come into production – as now is happening around the world. When the price hits several thousands of dollars per ounce, it will be profitable to extract it from the oceans, and there is a limitless supply from that source. It’s just a question of the natural balance between supply and demand – without a committee of politicians and bankers drafting a magic formula and using coercion to redirect human resources.
Bankers may hoard gold (because they understand its value more than most people) but they have always done everything possible to prevent a gold-backed currency. If they wanted it, they could have had it long ago, but (as you may have noticed) they always have worked against it. Why is that? It’s because they can acquire far more wealth by expanding the money supply at will and collecting interest on money created out of nothing than they can by having limits on their money supply and collecting interest on a much smaller amount of gold-backed loans. Bankers love to possess gold but they hate a gold-backed currency because that limits their money supply and, thereby, limits the volume of loans.
Any system other than precious metals is dependent on human decree and manipulation. It must inevitably end up no different than any other fiat money. I am familiar with the social-credit scheme and find it lacking in merit. It is a social engineer’s fantasy. It does not line up with human nature.
Gold has always worked well as a monetary base throughout history. It can’t be improved upon. We must not fall for the line about gold being just a pretty metal, etc. It has intrinsic value even if not used for money, it does not deteriorate, it can be divided into small units and recombined again if necessary, it is scarce so it has great value in a small space, and, best of all, it can be precisely measured for purity and weight, which allows for units that are beyond human judgment and human manipulation. It is the perfect money.”
Let’s go through this point for point:
“The Rothschilds do not own all the gold or even close to it. Most of it is still in the ground, in the ocean, and in private hoards.”
Now this is a completely unprovable statement. It is just as unprovable as the idea that they DO own it all. However, since the Rothschilds CLEARLY owned the Gold Market during the 19th century, it is at least a very serious possibility that they still do today. And considering the all importance of the control of the money supply it should be completely self evident that we should not take the risk.
Even Bitcoin is better than Gold: at least we know where these Units are. We don’t know where the Gold is, so we don’t know what the Volume is, and whether someone could manipulate it.
Therefore the rationale for Gold, stable Volume, does not stand: we simply cannot know whether it can be inflated and/or deflated.
Griffin himself seems to understand his treading on quicksand, because he continues:
“Even if they did own all of it that presently is in the form of bars, that would just drive up the price and stimulate gold mining so that new supplies would quickly come into production – as now is happening around the world. When the price hits several thousands of dollars per ounce, it will be profitable to extract it from the oceans, and there is a limitless supply from that source. It’s just a question of the natural balance between supply and demand – without a committee of politicians and bankers drafting a magic formula and using coercion to redirect human resources.”
Suggesting we could break a Rothschild Monopoly if it were real.
But Ed: who do you think controls the Gold Mines?
Cooperative Unions of Sovereign Individuals? 6 Billion wide awake Citizens of the World? The White Brotherhood? Ben Fulford’s Friends?
Or perhaps the Usual Suspects?
And it’s even worse. We are supposed to go Gold because its volume cannot be increased. But if we need more we can dig it up?
Huh? What kind of logic is this?
And last: the notion that rising prices would force Gold out of hoarding. The Daily Bell is also known for spouting this ridiculous nonsense: a Monopolist doesn’t surrender his stash when the price is right! He just lets the market set the maximum price it can bear and then proceeds to rip us all off for ever at that price!
So no, there is no free market for Gold. Rothschild DOES own a decisive stake in the World’s reserves. And rising prices due to scarcity is his wet dream: he can continue his monopoly pricing operation.
It’s just incredibly upsetting and annoying that we even need to have this conversation.
Then this:
“Bankers may hoard gold (because they understand its value more than most people) but they have always done everything possible to prevent a gold-backed currency.”
This is such a blatant lie. Are we to believe that Ed Griffin did not read Eustace Mullins? Just read Mullins’ quote above. His entire book radiates an absolute disgust for a Gold Standard. Mullins time and again explains it’s a banker operation.
I can understand people reading Griffin and ignorantly touting this lie all over the Blogosphere.
But Griffin is responsible for this obfuscation of the Truth. For this clearly blatant and well considered try to extinguish Mullins’ and Pound’s message from the Truth Movement.
“If they wanted it, they could have had it long ago, but (as you may have noticed) they always have worked against it.”
Again lying. And adding another lie: they could have had it long ago.
They had it. The reason they lost it, is because the Great Depression was SO bad through artificially deflated volume WHILE ON A GOLD STANDARD, that populists in both Europe and America finally managed to force their elites to dump the Gold Standard. THAT’s what happened in the thirties.
However, they were compensated for their loss by a new monopoly, based on the printing press. In Europe, anyway, because the Dollar remained redeemable for Gold under Bretton Woods, although not for American Citizens and only in international trade.
“Bankers love to possess gold but they hate a gold-backed currency because that limits their money supply and, thereby, limits the volume of loans.“
Another example of idiotic ‘logic’. What does the size of the Money Supply matter?? Even if we would have only ONE ounce of Gold, it would suit them fine. For the reason that is always explained so beautifully by the Austrians themselves: We simply divide the Gold through all the money there is, and that’s what the one ounce will be worth. We then divide the Gold through trillion and use these small nuggets as backing for the notes that will circulate.
It is completely irrelevant how large the size of the money supply is. What matters is who owns and controls it. So he can slap interest on it.
Griffin also makes the point that bankers want to inflate the money supply because that will make them more money.
Nonsense! Bankers are interested in their share of the whole, not in nominal profits. They will prefer a billion which is half of the total over a trillion which is only a quarter of the total.
They are willing to let the total pie shrink, if they get a larger percentage of what remains.
That’s why Bankers love deflation: it shrinks the total because it destroys economic growth, leaving less for us and increasing their share of the total.
Griffin ends with a love song comprised of erroneous and or unprovable statements quite typical of Goldbugs:
“Gold has always worked well as a monetary base throughout history. It can’t be improved upon. We must not fall for the line about gold being just a pretty metal, etc. It has intrinsic value even if not used for money, it does not deteriorate, it can be divided into small units and recombined again if necessary, it is scarce so it has great value in a small space, and, best of all, it can be precisely measured for purity and weight, which allows for units that are beyond human judgment and human manipulation. It is the perfect money.”
Gold has not always worked well as money. That’s why there was almost revolution in the thirties and the elite dumped it to save their asses. That’s why the colonists went to war with Britain in 1776, because Britain’s Gold Standard was impoverishing the colonies, which had thrived under their own scrip.
That’s why Caesar ended fiat money that brought the Roman Republic to Hegemony, when he perpetrated his Plutocracy sponsored coup in 44 BC. He introduced a Gold Standard and the newly formed Empire started Rome’s decline.
That’s why millions upon millions of desperate Europeans allowed themselves to be forced from the land they inherited through generation upon generation and left for the sweatshops in the cities: because scarce Gold forced upon them by the emerging Central Banks destroyed their ancient fiat currency based economies.
That’s why Bryan so brilliantly exclaimed: “Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.“
Many Problems, One Source
The problem is that the enemy is everywhere. GMO ‘foods’, Pharmacide, Big Oil, Empire, Feminism, Global Warming, Environmental Destruction, Famine, DU weapons, left wing radicals, right wing radicals, Consumerism, the coming Iran War and WW3, Pornography, Television and other Mass Media.
Each of these represent a major threat. As a result everybody attacking one or more of these outrages is welcomed in the Alternative Media as a valiant knight fighting Power.
But we must understand that behind all these phenomenona there is one source: the Money Power.
And the Money Power rules through control over the Money Supply. It uses this control to enslave us with Interest first and foremost, but certainly also through the boom/bust cycle.
All issues must be addressed, but they cannot be addressed before we get it right concerning the money supply!
How are we going to finance green energy, healthy food and 21st century architecture? Do you really believe going to a bank for some interest bearing credit is going to work out?
No! We need Trillions of interest free capital to clear up this mess.
The Money Power rules through control of the money supply. It enslaves us with Interest and the boom/bust cycle. We cannot allow the Truth Movement to be hijacked by change agents who make moot points about cancer and like looking a hero by exposing chemtrailing in 2010 when even the UN is already admitting large scale terra forming and Geo Engineering.
We must not fall for the idea that ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’.
Not so! The Money Power is well known for organizing its own opposition.
Money is All Important!
People that hide behind credible information about cancer but in the mean time plug a Gold Standard, subverting the legacy of Pound and his pupil Mullins, should not be taken seriously!
Conclusion
We have cooperated with Austrian Economics because they hate the FED, abusive Government, Fractional Reserve Banking and inflation.
But in the final analysis these are ALL red herrings. The FED is not the problem but a symptom. The Money Power does not care about the FED. It is ready to dump this vehicle. As long as it controls its successor! And it will, because its successor will oversee a Gold Standard.
Inflation is way overrated and absolutely the lesser evil compared to Deflation. Deflation comes with economic stagnation and decline, inflation is associated with economic growth.
Deflation is good for creditors, inflation good for debtors.
Abusive Government is a result of it being subverted by the Money Power. But the Money Power fears Government, because it can be liberated by the Nation to which it belongs. That’s why they want their World Government, that will know no national affiliation and will be of their making only.
Considering the horrible damage done by the Austrian Economics Mind Control operation, as witnessed by Ron Paul’s ascent, it will no longer do to see them as allies against the Powers that Be.
Ed Griffin is a particularly nasty cookie, as he clearly purposefully tries to obscure the crucial messages of Pound and Mullins. Knowing the Money Power there is every reason to suggest that this is the main reason Ed Griffin exists and why we all know about him.
Related:
Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics
The Ron Paul Challenge: 10 Reasons the Alternative Media is Failing this Test
What Gary North is not telling you about Interest
Discussing Gold and Interest with the Daily Bell
Faux Economics
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Alex Jones now openly calling for Gold Standard « Real Currencies
- Top Ten Lies and Mistakes of Austrian Economics « Real Currencies
- Hate the State, Buy Gold and all will be well: an Alternative Media in crisis « Real Currencies
- How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics « Real Currencies
- Gary North’s Bluff: the Lie he’s been sitting on for 50 years « Real Currencies
- Hoe de Illuminati het Libertarisme en de Oostenrijkse School creëerden « voor God en Vaderland
- The Daily Bell Hoax? « Real Currencies
- Answering Tom Woods « Real Currencies
- Alex Jones, Disinformationist « Real Currencies
- Does Rothschild own all Central Banks? | Real Currencies
- Do The Rothschilds Own All Central Banks? | The American Resolution Newsblog
- Libertarianism is Dying! Truthers Unite! | Real Currencies
- Forbidden News » Libertarians Bite the Gold Dust
- Ed Griffin admits the Bankers own all the Gold and that Usury is the issue | Real Currencies
- Hoe de Illuminati het Libertarisme en de Oostenrijkse School creëerden | oogenhand
- Who is Ed Griffin? | Real Currencies | davidfulton3
- CIS – Does Rothschild own all Central Banks? | ronaldwederfoort
- Does Rothschild own all Central Banks? | THE INTERNET POST
- Henry Makow: Do the Rothschild’s Own all Central Banks? | isely
- In The Year 2000 There Were 7 Countries Without A Rothschild-Owned Central Bank: Now There Are More! | aladdinsmiraclelamp
- Who is Ed Griffin? | luispalacio0909's Blog
Seems that it is time to write some good book. Like Griffin did 🙂
Well……..we seem to disagree: I don’t like his book 🙂
I think it’s safe to say Ezra Pound was saying a lot of “crazy things” that led to his being committed that didn’t survive the passage of time. Even things a close friend like Mullins wouldn’t repeat if it didn’t make sense to him. Unfortunately Pound didn’t have the internet.
As for “Creature” – a book commissioned and largely written by the Austrian controlled John Birch Society.
Of course, like I said Pound was no saint. He fell for Hitler after all.
But he was right on the money, pun intended.
If Pound was right on the money issue it’s for aught I know at present that he was also right on this: (quote from your article:)
.” According to Pound, it was the money issue (above all) that united the Allies during the second 20th-century war against Germany: “Gold. Nothing else uniting the three governments, England, Russia, United States of America. That is the interest–gold, usury, debt, monopoly, class interest, and possibly gross indifference and contempt for humanity.”
(:end of quote)
If this is right it’s diametrically opposed to what’s school-, and university-learning, also to the injunctions of the Allies on present Germany…. What else need to be corrected in the histric narrative on WWII?
Has Pound ever mentioned the name Hitler ? How did he fall for him ? (isn’t your friend, book-peddler Brown, an admirer of Hitler?)
Pound was no expert or authority on money, or on the history of banking in the United States.
He moved into that asylum at the suggestion of Hemmingway, to avoid prison; the warden, Ms. Overholser, was an admirer of Pound. The book from which Pound learned most of what he new about bankers Willis A. Overholser.
Griffin from Jeckyl Island is a plagiarist, plain and simple; the conspiracy industry is made up of them. Read about an othe rparasite
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/mullins/media.html
who lived off Mullins’ work
Why would you expect a plagiarist to know about money ? or cancer ? or martians ?
Jennings Bryan — none of ye wants to mention that Mr. Bryan was practically the godfather of the fed res act; how could ye, none of ye knows anything about the fed res act (afraid of library, afraid of congressional record)
Ah, you were here before our little encounter re Lincoln, I didn’t notice.
I’ll submit anytime that your knowledge of US history is way beyond anything I ever hope to learn, I’m happy you find it worthwhile educating the ignorant masses (me in particular) here.
I was starting to get the idea that Bryan was way over rated. I just like that legendary quote so much.
I wouldn’t say Brown is a fan of A.H., she just favorably evaluated his monetary policy.
You don’t agree that ‘Pound fell for Hitler’? He was in Italy doing his radio shows, right? He was a little ‘anti semitic’ too, it seems?
Are you saying Pound did not mention Hitler anywhere in his writing?
I think you underrate Pound’s monetary expertise. The Populist american monetary tradition is quite different from Europe’s freethinker tradition. It’s probably true Pound was not too well versed when it comes to the American way, but he was well aware of Social Credit and Gesell’s work. His ‘what is money for’ is a good basic primer on monetary theory. Most economists today would benefit immensely from it, although that does mean very little indeed, of course.
How would you like me to address you?
I don’t like to go through the process of signing up; as we may see from the result, when i did sign up, on account of another blog, it did not turn out exactly as expected (it should have been “789” as is everywhere else)
http://www.dailypaul.com/123696/what-happens-when-your-money-is-based-on-gold-and-silver-but-there-is-no-gold
b) no; I was asking the question, where in his writings did Pound use the word “Hitler”? I searched for the word in the text i have….
He was for Mussolini all the way; and for the concept that the power of the government should be used for the whole nation, not just for the benefit of one class
c) Pound’s expertise:
If you read through Pound’s pamphlets and books, you notice that until he refers to Overholser’s pamphlet (30 pages), his knowledge reflects what he heard from british social creditors; then he swallows uncritically what he read in Overholser’s booklet.
2) it is simply not true what he complains of, that information is not available; if he had walked into the library of New York he could have read Van Buren’s, Benton’s, Wright’s, etc. speeches in Congress; a 4,500 pages Jefferson papers was published in 1861, an other one around 1900 — he could have read Jefferson until his eyes glaze over
the reason Pound himself fell for the mythological Lincoln of McGeer’s creation, because he did not avail himself the readily available resources
Pound’s book “Impact” i did not feel was worth my time scanning and uploading
w) this should be about the last remark (same old, same old, same old) on E. Brown’s Lincoln fetish: count the pages in “web of debt” how many for Lincoln and greenback, and count how much of the theory/picture presented in it is based on this false foundation
what was the true Lincoln monetary policy ?
I have 600+800 pages to back up my contention that legal tender notes were issued to pave the way
Is that what Brown is favourable of ? is that what Brown’s chinaman would want for China ? a national banking system built on legal tender US notes ?
Jennings Bryan:
Good guy, upstanding citizen; yet i still think he would have signed the Fed Res act –in fact, in 1913 his name was attached to the bill; if any of ye groupies dared to read the Record, we might just find out for-sure
Mr. Bryan was a good christian man, but as we know from his appearence in the Scopes monkey trial, he did not comprehend that if the very first chapter of the Bible is wide open to wide intepretation (or not even true) then the whole book is on sinking sand
similarly, i think he did not comprehend that banking is one, and cannot be regulated. One of his suggestion, the deposite insurance later became reality
Judging by the efforts and money expended to defeat him, he must have been substantial nuisance to goldites
“Judging by the efforts and money expended to defeat him, he must have been substantial nuisance to goldites”
I think he was: his powerful advocacy of a broader money supply with silver, instead of just gold, was anti scarce/deflationary money.
I think the same battle is going on today. Silver is undervalued by historical standards: 1:50 to Gold, where 1:15 seems to have been normal.
But Gold is expensive because the Money Power’s stooges are betting it will be money again. Silver not.
Especially in this day and age Silver is important in many industrial processes and there simply is not enough of it around to play a serious monetary role. Or at any rate, that is what I gather from the data, but correct me if I’m wrong.
However: who needs silver when there is paper? Ok, bits ‘n bytes nowadays.
“They say that we are opposing national bank currency; it is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find he said that, in searching history, he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson; that was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracy of Cataline and saved Rome. Benton said that Cicero only did for Rome what Jackson did for us when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America. We say in our platform we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe that it is a part of sovereignty, and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than we could afford to delegate to private individuals the power to make penal statutes or levy taxes. Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have differed in opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank, and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of government, and that the banks ought to go out of the governing business.”
No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply, that instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them : You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_Speech
notice how he names England; untill 1900 it was commonly known that England was enemy of the United States
yeah, that’s the quote: “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”
That’s the stuff of legends. I’ll quote him again and again.
Signing the FED act is bad though. It’s what made me turn away from him. But you give a better analysis: he just didn’t really see through it all.
Just shows how good men can be made to do the bidding of evil.
He was Secretary of State, technically he had nothing to do with the Act (or any act); the two houses passed it and President Woodrow signed it. What is saying the most is that Bryan was silent on the subject (Jefferson wrote an objection, even if he couldn’t do anything)
When the loan was extended to England, Bryan resigned in protest.
This is what I am harping on regarding these conspiracy industrialists: they don’t know anything; and the people do not want to learn from good history.
Mr. Bryan could have and should have learned from Benton, etc.
Senator Pettigrew’s opinion:–
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/pettigrew/petig_18.html
Senator Pettigrew’s opinion:–
That’s just about the most damning report on any man I’ve ever read. I hope I’m dead before anybody writes like this about me.
What did Jennings Bryan –Cross of Gold Jennings Bryan– do when the Federal reserve bill came up for discussion ?
It was not until August 29, 1913, that the currency bill was first introduced. This bill bore the name of the Glass-Owen bill, because in its final shape it was the result of conferences between Mr. Glass, President Wilson, Secretary of the Treasury McAdoo, Secretary of State Bryan and Senator Owen, chairman of the newly organized Banking and Currency Committee of the Senate.
On September 18 (3 weeks later) the House voted on, and passed, this bright reorganizational idea 286 to 85………
I am standing corrected: Pound did mention “Hitler”
“Now what were, and are the three planks of the Hitler program as set forth in the opening of La Mia Battaglia, Italian translation of second half of Mein Kampf?
“First, health, health of the race. Now every American (or Englander of my generation or of that before or after my generation) knew and knows that we were up against the problem of “be a slave or not breeding.” Any man not born rich in our time knew he had to mate late. Breed late, and breed few, or else go into slavery. Mr. Curtis Moffit said to me that he saw what would happen if he was a good boy, so he decided on badness. Said he would be a bad boy, and float on the top of the current. Waal, I landed in Europe, as my incipient biographers have stated, with justice, with 80 bucks, American dollars (pre-Morgenthau) in my clothin’ and that led me to a practical view of some problems. As to the Hitler program, it was (what we all knew, and did nothing about, namely) that the breedin’ of human beings deserves more care and attention than the breedin’ of horses and wiffetts, or even the breedin’ of sheep, goat, and the larger livestock. That is point one of the nazi program. Breed good, and preserve the race. Breed thorough, that is for thoroughbreds, conserve the best of the race. Conserve the best elements. That means eugenics: as opposed to race suicide. And it did not and does not please the Talmudic Jews who want to kill off all the other races whom they can not subjugate; and drive down what he thinks is doin’, his usf to his race or nation consists in seeing the object and writin’ down what he sees, and not falsifying his record.
“Secondly, what is the second point of the Hitler program? Personal responsibility. A political system in which you can’t pass the buck. Very unpleasant for hired M.P.’s debtors (Jews, butter-and-egg-men fakers like Wendell Willkie, and M.P. congressmen, etc.). Financed by Jews and put in the legislatures to defraud the people in usurer’s interests and kept there by bank money who can be on committees, and always, always avoid all responsibility for swindling laws. Such as was the demonetization of silver [in] 1873, the sale of the country in 1863. The Federal Reserve System, and its infamous workings, making the people pay two dollars for every one dollar spent by the government. Hitler, having seen the Jew puke in the German democracy, was out for responsibility, government officials etc. to be responsible for their acts. Most unpleasant for Monds, Warburgs, invisible de facto Jew governments.
“And the third point was a study of history. To look at the history. Waaal, now what program does this contradict? I ask you, if you are such low down and gol darn suckers, or such British blockheads, or such unfathomable and irredeemable ignorami, as not to know what program this contradicts, there is not a great deal of hope for your posterity. I may tell you someday where the opposing program is found, if you are too weak-kneed and puny to trace it. And when you, or if you do trace it, you may see why the stick screen was erected, and why people began to speak evil of Hitler. As to who spake and speaks evil of Hitler, we will someday go into that also.”
Mullins, it should be noted, became a critic of the Birch Society only AFTER they refused his request to sell his books through their American Opinion bookstore chain.
Another great article. I noticed a few months ago on the DB that Griffin was a Bircher – that comment was not particularly well received. But I read Mullins (but not Pound) and so I felt that, in comparison to Mullins, Griffin was not willing to go as far (he had simply rewritten Mullins to make it more palatable to Money Power). Notice how Griffin gets invited on Glenn Beck, etc…
But you really dug deep with this one – I’m impressed that you went back to Pound to truly understand the kind of distortions introduced by Griffin.
Just a side note: the yearly mining production is really a small percentage of the total amount of gold mined. So either way, it is dubious that mining can really be used to efficiently modulate the supply of gold. And why should we trust this method of control to be better than others (apart from the question of who controls the mines, as you pointed out)?
It’s just all so nonsensical a_reader, all these rationales.
Sometimes I think they’re in a panic. I mean: it must be difficult to keep the faith when there are so many inconsistencies in the story.
Now you hear them talk about ‘commodity’ money. We can supposedly also use other commodities, like wheat.
Really good for steady volume, he? Oh my, a good harvest, we’ll see inflation!
If we can have commodity money, why can’t I generate some money by offering my house or other assets I own as collateral?
Sounds like interest free credit?
I don’t care about ignorance, but the fact of the matter is: I think the above proves either bloated arrogance from a guy who thinks he knows, or sheer malice.
Good stuff Anthony Migchels.
The gold buggers place all that faith in gold as a currency, because they perceive the supply and demand value of that gold as representing real value. Bad news for the austerity, I mean, Austrian boys. When the U.S was on the gold standard the “free-market” didn’t determine the value of it, rather it was the many coinage acts passed by Congress, and signed into law by presidents. Thus, that beloved gold-standard becomes nothing more than “fiat” money with its value assigned by man.
You see, that’s the big problem. The gold buggers, who are simply Austrian austerity boys, believe in this fantastic myth about a “free-market.” The U.S has never had a “free-market,” and no where does it exist today. In order to have civilization you must have government. Wherever you find government you find a political economy.
You know what the Austrian School’s “free-market” really is? The conditions needed for global corporate governance.
The Austrian School is a farce, and the pay-to-riot movement.
Anthony, the answer to 1984, is $19.95 + tax.
Why don’t you boy first learn what are you talking about? Why not simply download and read “Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises and “Capitalism:..” by George Reisman? Both are free at capitalism.net and mises.org. Among the other, the later book has a very fine chapter specifically on gold vs. inflation but to understand it you may need first to learn about the quantitative theory of money from the previous chapters. Oh well, these are serious books that may intimidate someone complementing his twisted and poor education with hours spent in the leftist and antisemitic blog-sphere.
Your counter-argument is to promote Austrian material? Really? Weak, very weak. Look, you may get intellectually romanticized by Austrian non-sense born of the mind of Carl Menger, the personal tutor of fascist Rudolph Von Habsburg of the Austrian Empire, but I don’t. I’m not a monetarist, imperialist, or fascist.
Let’s keep things real simple here. Either we support the Constitution or we don’t. Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the authority to “coin Money, and regulate the value thereof.” That’s a political economy, and not this free-market non-sense promoted by the Austerity School.
Great idea. Let’s institute another damn gold-standard, the very thing used by the bankers to create their empire. Yeah, because somehow this time around things will be different.
Sorry, but your little Austerity School and gold-buggery wont solve anything. It will only create the needed conditions for global governance, AKA the new world order.
Here’s a real idea for you. Restore the Constitution and Republic of the U.S by re-instituting the American credit system, which will restore real national sovereignty again. Gold and silver coin is NOT for government, it’s for the people only. Stop being monetarists! We’re American, and our tradition is a credit system, not the monetary system of free-trade, or the Austrian Austerity School.
The Banksters ONLY TOUTED another gold standard to suck away hard money democrats from the Bryanites and NEVER had plans to NOT INFLATE, even though 100% redemption was still in effect. Hence, that bankster lackey FDR’s stealing of our gold.
Of course anyone with a lick of sense understands that 1907’s crash was mere ruse to get a FED to paper the costs of WW1 in planning before 1907 by the progressive imperialist corporate statists and bankster overlords.
ALSO – IYRCC – FDR then devalued the people’s new paper, promised to be redeemable AFTER the EMERGENCY, by almost 70%. A 70% windfall for govt’s war and power-mongering spendthrifts by the same general cabal in charge of WW1’s spending on WW2.
You blowhards kill me.
Have a single solitary one of you actually read Mises or Rothbard, both of whom NEVER supported statism of the legal tender inflationist war kind? Nor interest on fiat created from thin air? Human Action? Or Murray’s The History of Money and Banking?
I dare say NOT!!!
to “coin money” cannot mean to coin paper
>>>>Restore the Constitution and Republic of the U.S by re-instituting the American credit system
you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you ?
The originators of the United States were very much free-traders and hard money men (all those smugglers didn’t do it for paper, and couldn’t have been friends of tariff)
The credit system which you imagine to be your tradition was introduced into the United States by Baring, Brothers and Company; these purveyors of the credulity system were also the ones who gave ye the tariff system; which make Alex Hamilton and Daniel Webster and Henry Clay your hero and standard bearer (and, of course, the banker tool Lincoln)
“The originators of the United States were very much free-traders and hard money men”
Hah! Now I’ve got you! It’s a first, and that’s why I’m so happy, you’re human after all.
George Washington printed the Continental.
He was not a printer.
Have you seen one with his signature on it ?
Have you read his views on money ?
We have already discussed it in another topic that the people who composed and ratified the constitution considered gold/silver/copper coin the money of the united States
ye may disagree with these dead people as to their opinions, but that will not change the fact;
of course, it is also true, that a good half of those composers and ratifiers had every intention of breaking the constitution and to issue paper money through intermediaries, but also does not change the fact (these were the people who later established the credibility system, you may say that half of the founders were liars, but that doesn’t help you, either);
if ye want to restore the concept (that was written as constitution) of 1791 you have no room for anything other than free trade and coin money
It’s an important subject. I’m not really sure you’re right, but I’m most definitely not sure you’re wrong. But I’m only interested in it because so many people seem to believe the Constitution is some kind of Holy Scripture.
I’m more with Dubya on this one: it’s just another goddamn piece of paper.
Written by dead men, 250 years ago. Not much may have changed since then, but enough to reconsider some of their positions, most notably regarding Gold, a commodity that was already utterly controlled even in their day.
>>>>piece of paper
I am with you on that one; and no one should make a religion out of it
Just as Jefferson wrote, from time to time (or from generation to generation) it should be evaluated and adjusted; Jefferson also wrote that even within his own life time one or two modification should have been made, but it was impossible to overcome vested interests
But if someone wants to hold up this 250 year old paper, he has no choice but to adhere to its letters
>>>gold/silver
With the electronics age the situation got worse: now both metals became commodities (today even poor people own toys which contain silver and gold)
How laughably you are exposed. Just like all anti-semites, you are a light-weight annoyance to the true leaders of the world.
All this charismatic talk. All for nothing, getting your followers into an energy vortex of emotion that leads nowhere.
Conspiracy theorists are all about deceiving your fellow men. Look at how some love gold, others hate it. Some are fundamentalist Christians, others die-hard new-agers. Some are anti-semites, worshiping Hitler — for other Hitler is worth more hate than even Jews have for him.
Some are catholics, others consider the Church the anti-christ. Nothing unites them. No coherent theory on the inside as well. No common enemy. No common allies. No coherent logical arguments.
Only application of base emotion: fear, perhaps a bit of “good” inspiration for change but no substantial improvement.
No reason. It is all a mess, Ezra Pound had it right. All a big mess. For what? To appear to be a charismatic leader of a tiny sect, to worship power and in the end to come to the same conclusions as the Bush family? To become just as naive, petty, tiny-minded and ignorant as the supposed elite of the globe?
What you have learned is rhetoric to inspire and to trick the masses. What you haven’t studied is philosophy.
I’m sorry to say this comment gives me absolutely zero clues either about what has provoked this tirade, or how I could improve Truthhurts!
Anthony, I wouldn’t worry about truth- hurts tirade. I see you as digging deep for the truth, and that means stepping on long standing shibboleths. Man’s nature is not a pretty thing, but there are things we can do and core principles that should guide us. Discovering those things is not for the faint of heart, and is bound to rile some feathers. Don’t be discouraged.
For example_ Jewish Anti-semitism: We cannot even examine money history without running into Jewish mal-feasance. It’s pervasive and expected because it is a superiority cult merged with money power. Other’s have grabbed this money power, and have then exhibited the same bad behaviors. I’m sure this sounds anti-semitic, but so what? The truth hurts then so be it. We are at a place in time and space, where lying and maintaining smoke screens are being undone. Personally, I use my JewDar and look for Jewish names as a marker in history to help me find bad behaving money power elites. I’m seldom disappointed, and equally I feel genuinely sorry for the jewish sheeple as their co-religionist “wolves” consume their own flock.
Also, I don’t believe you are trying to ‘lead.” There are groups of us that have common interests, and we are congregating across vast geography via the internet. Together we are piecing together the puzzle, and we are becoming more in “agreement” day after day, especially as the truth wins out.
Thanks REN, I appreciate it. Yes, Jewish involvement in this is simply impossible to avoid, simple as that. And indeed: I don’t ‘try to lead’. I just want to get the job done and the people with that mindset gravitate towards each other. Let’s just help each other keeping the eye on the ball.
Senator James Fowler Simmons (1795-1864) of Rhode Island
in the Senate on Friday, December 18, 1857, during the debates of the Treasury notes bill
(I think he indicates well the mindset of the founders)
” I think anybody who has read the history of our country may know what the fathers of the Republic meant when they prohibited the States from issuing bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender for the payment of debts. We know that during the revolutionary war, and the period anterior to the formation of the Constitution, this country was cursed with an irredeemable paper currency, issued by the States and by Congress, called continental money, and made a tender for the payment of debts. Why did the framers of the Constitution mean in prevent this ? They did not mean that anything should circulate as money, the payment of which could not be enforced by the individual holding it in the legal tribunals of the country. Can you enforce the payment of one of these Treasury notes ? No more than you could enforce the payment of a bond from this Government. You cannot enforce the payment of a note issued by a State. You cannot sue a State. Rhode Island, which was one of the last States to adopt the Constitution, and one of the most lavish in paper money, because she used it to pay her soldiers, and had more soldiers, in proportion to territory, than any other State, adopted the Constitution in 1790 or 1791; and one of the first acts of the General Assembly, immediately afterwards, was to create a bank to issue paper money. That bank is in existence to-day. It is one of those “irresponsible” institutions of which the President speaks. Its first board of directors contained three or four men who spilled the first blood of the Revolution; for, say what you will, the beginning of the Revolution was the capture and burning of the Gaspee, and the contest in which Lieutenant Duddington was wounded.”
in the same speech Mr. Simmons suggested a network of savings institutions—
“I would make an institution into which I should allow the producing classes to put their small mites, and become mutual aiders and helpers of each, leaving your commercial men and traders to manage as they may. I would have what is now called in the States, a saving’s institution, connected with the Treasury of the United States, and let the business of the Government be kept in the channel of the business of the producers, widening and deepening them, and increasing your facilities, and I would let anybody who pleased, deposit fifty dollars, and make the permanent depositors retire from the institution when they had been in fifteen years. I was familiar with the origin of the last Bank of the United States, and it was the most popular institution in the world, while it was open to everybody to subscribe. But when you have let in the present generation to an institution whose benefits are large, and shut the door against their successors, it will become unpopular from that day, and by the time it has run twenty years it will have no sympathies with the public, and the public will have no feeling for it but hatred. You should have an institution into which you would let people come, as they grow into active business life, and make their deposits and share in the benefits of the institution. Then you will have no monopolies. When a man has been there the period of his common business life, let him retire; he has no further use for a bank; he may as well put his money in stocks, as a permanent investment. The advantages of such an institution should be for the active business men engaged in the transport of the products of the country, and should be for the benefit of the producers, to enable them to wait for the distant return of the rewards of their labor.”
General Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, a Founder, the one who introduced and started the “American System” reveals the attitude of many of the signers and ratifiers: governmnet-issued paper is bad, very dangerous; paper issued by a privately owned central bank is highly recommended –and they do not consider it violation of the constitution to do through surrogates that which is prohibited for them to do
“The emitting of paper money is wisely prohibited to the State Governments, and the spirit of the prohibition ought not to be disregarded by the United States’ Government. Though paper emissions under a general authority, might have some advantages not applicable, and be free from some disadvantages which are applicable, to the like emissions by the States, separately, yet they are of a nature so liable to abuse –and it may even be affirmed, so certain of being abused– that the wisdom of Government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient. In times of tranquillity it might have no ill-consequence; it might even perhaps be arranged in a way to be productive of good: but in great and trying emergencies, there is almost a moral certainty of its being mischievous.”
—And to this Hamiltonian “american system” wants your friend, in his ignorance, to return……
btw, are you saying the treasury notes that were printed in the days before Lincoln were ‘unconstitutional’?
No.
1. your friend has no idea of what he talks about; if he did, he would not want to return to the letter of the constitution
2. The Treasury notes were not paper money –of which your friend is wet dreaming; they were evidences of debt, circulating as currency; promising (just like Continentals) to pay silver, and promising to pay interest; there were strict constructionists who considered them un-constitutional as bills of credit read endNote at bottom—
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/benton/calhoun_370918.html
Thomas Jefferson –who did not sign or ratify the constitution– considered them perfectly fine, and recommended their use for war finance
my opinion is that until Nevada and California there was not enough gold/silver in the U.S., so provision to Treasury notes should have been considered and made
Quote from this article:
Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony, A.D. 1750. This is not usually given prominence in the U.S. school histories.
:End of quote
I’m just about reading Griffin, and having known the events as reported in this article, I was quite astonished about his report: He writes that the law enforced by the Bank of England in 1751 was due to the paper ‘colonial scrip’ needed to be corrected for having been inflated, abused by the colonial authorites (Pennsylvania). So what G. Edward Griffin has written here is wrong to follow his gold agenda….. It will be absolutely easy for the ‘Money masters’ to absolutely control a currency based world-wide on gold. This may well be the trap set up by the ‘Money masters’, propagated by the “gold-bugs” such as Ron Paul, Griffin, Alex Jones etc.etc.. This trap is then set up for the people world-wide! Cp. to this what Aaron Russo said on the plans for world-domination by the ‘Money masters’ ……
Thanks for this clarification!
That’s what it’s all about Franz, and I’m happy it has helped you.
In fact: You’re clarifying the article and I thank YOU!
Very interesting and actually quite damning.
🙂
This is really amusing; and the two of you can walk upright and chew gum ?…
Just about everything Franz, including the Holocaust.
I’d suggest you read up on http://www.henrymakow.com
He’s not a revisionist, in the sense that he supports the official holocaust narrative, but he turns upside down just about everything we think we know about the war.
It’s much larger than just the gold-standard. The Austrian School promotes this myth of free-market economies. However, according to our Constitution we have a political economy. Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the express authority to “coin Money, and regulate the Value thereof.” The fact is, this alone is the kernel of our national sovereignty. No nation is sovereign which does not create and regulate its own currency, and whoever does is the true sovereign power.
Government and civilization go hand and hand. One cannot exist without the other. Wherever there is government there is a political economy, not some free-market utopia guided by the loving hands of private international corporate interests.
The Austrians want to remove government from regulating or interfering with the economy. This means handing over the power to “coin Money, and regulate the Value thereof” to private financial interests. They’ll say, let the markets decide! Think credit rating agencies, Goldman Sucks, Morgan, Bank of America, etc, etc. You get the point. This is exactly what the monetary empire wants in order to allow private corporate control over the U.S economy in totality. This is better known as fascism, global governance, or the new world order.
It’s funny how many leading figures of the truth-movement are tied to groups like the Council for National Policy, the Mont Pelerin Society, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and on and on it goes. They love to cloak themselves in the conjured dead spirit of Thomas Jefferson, and preach to everyone how we must crucify ourselves upon a cross of gold, and turn over our government and economy to the hidden-hands of private finance, in desperate hope we may once again regain the blessings of God. They’ll tell you we need one trillion of austerity just to get started. The good Doctor will cure the disease by killing the patient!
You simply cannot have a “free-market” and government at the same time, and thus you cannot have civilization. But, depopulation has been the goal all along.
I have been suspicious of Ron Paul and Ed Griffin. You gave me some new insight. Thanks for the fine articles.
great! thanks!
I believe Ron Paul and G. Edward Griffin to BOTH be controlled opposition. They both smell of freemasonry and/or Jesuits.
1Tim 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
I cannot testify whether or not they’re Freemason or of the Jesuit Order. I can say they’re thinking is favorable to the international monetary empire lording over western nations. Thus, whether willingly or unwittingly, they’re indeed controlled opposition.
The Jesuits before Vatican II would have been opposed to Freemasonry. Freemasons actually came into positions in the Catholic Church (themselves not being Catholics) in order to take over the structures of the Church. This culminated at Vatican II when a false council took place. The Catholic Church was the strongest opponent to Freemasonry which is ultimately Satanism. The Catholic Church now resides in a remnant of faithful believers. See Vaticancatholic.com for all the proofs and information.
I am a HUGE fan of Bill Still and have spoken to him on the phone. Nice man and incredibly intelligent and very astute to monetary history. His seminal work the Money Masters was one of the docos that opened my eyes to the NWO all those years ago. The Secret of Oz is a fitting follow up doco for sure.
This was a great article and it’s also worth reading this:
http://www.peoplesmandate.iinet.net.au/debt_free_money_in_america.html
as it tells about how the founding fathers knew all too well the dangers of a Gold standard.
Be well.
PLEASE SEE http://www.still2012.com
I’m aware of Bill and his campaign John! Were you just pointing him out or do you have something specific in mind?
Are you kidding someone ?
You know full well that that indicates that the Lizzard of Oz has no principle (other than the principle of fortune & fame); neither do the Libertarian Party which nominated him.
Is there a Libertarian Party platform somewhere, to which the lizzard had to attach his name ? what does it say about free-trade, money, banking and currency ?
http://www.lp.org/platform
2.5 Money and Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
yep….this is the kind of nonsense that libertarianism is famous for……
But your mentor added his name to this platform
On a different note: in the Rothschild/Rockefeller article my post is awaiting your approval in moderation; when you find it, please correct the link in it
my mentor? Added his name?
Please elaborate a little name789!
Is this “kind of nonsense” not the platform of the Party which Bill, the Lizzard of Oz, joined as candidate ?
Lol 🙂
I like Bill. He made a great film (the Money Masters). That one really hit me big time back in 2003. Still also promotes a ‘greenback’ (a continental, really): debt free money. I don’t think he wants to back it with interest bearing bonds, like our man Lincoln did.
But to call him my ‘mentor’? Well, he did teach me a lot, like many others did.
You taught me a lot, but I don’t like your solutions!
Do you have (or plan) an article on the “competing currencies” concept ? I am itching to say a few rude things about the idea and its projectors
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/for-self-determination-we-need-free-currencies/
It’s rather primitive, I’ll have to do a better one at some stage, but the grist is clear!
Oh, (and by the way) do you have anything from Mullins in which he declares his views on money and currency ? what did he consider the constitutional money of the United States ?
In the passage you quote he voices his displeasure over what bankers do with gold, but what did he think the money and currency of the United States (and every other states) should have been ?
no, I don’t. But i’d be interested!
So, without knowing anything about Mullins’ views on money, you try to use him to support your contention against Griffin ?
not really name789: I quoted him on what did NOT want: Gold as currency.
His mentor Pound favored both Social Credit and demmurrage money
I don’t, either (that is why I am asking)
=============
According to this footnote if his, it seems Mr. Mullins considered coin the lawful money of the U.S.
“Crozier’s book exposed the financiers plan to substitute ‘corporation currency’ for the lawful money of the U.S. as guaranteed by Article I, Sec. 8 Para. 5, of the Constitution.” –chapter 3, ‘The Federal Reserve Act’
Mr. Crozier said in his testimony before the Senate Hearrings, referred to by Mr. Mullins, “Every dollar should be a real dollar, good to pay a dollar of debt or purchase, full legal tender, redeemable in and secured by an adequate reserve of actual gold.” (volume 3, page 2902)
This ‘quote’ used by Mullins, is a composite (below is what Crozier actually said, and how):
We do know that Representative Garfield was a spokeman for gold and bond interest, and vocally opposed greenback ideas; we also know that Thomas Jefferson considered gold/silver, alone, the constitutional money of the United States
Christian morality (in Bank we trust)
{
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church has, as appears from a report made to it on the 3rd of June last, the following amounts invested in stock.
2 shares Bank of North America, $ 800.00
20 do. Philadelphia Bank, 2,000.00
115 do. Mechanics Bank of Philadelphia, 4,828.00
1 do. Bank of Pennsylvania, 400.00
11 do. Bank of United States, 1,100.00
45 do. North American Insurance Co., 450.00
2 do. Pennsylvania Insurance Co., 800.00
100 do. Planners’ Bank of Mississippi, 11,077.62
200 do. Agricultural Bank of Mississippi, 23,701.76
10 do. Grand Gulf Bank of Mississippi, 992.00
150 do. Mer. & Mec. Bank of Wheeling, 15,025.00
250 do. Mer. & Man. Bank of Pittsburg, 14,302.00
200 do. Planters’ Bank of Tennessee, 22,106.25
150 do. Union Bank of Tennessee, 15,262.50
100 do. Bank of Mobile, 11,027.50
100 do. Bank of Louisville, 10,526.25
10 do. Chel. & Willow Gr. Turnp. Co., 1,000.00
1020 Phila. & Wilm. Railroad bonds, 940.00
$136,339.62
These stocks were estimated on the 27th May, 1842, by Charles Macalester, Thomas Wickereham, and Joseph Swift, brokers, to be worth, at that time, $46,705, showing an estimated loss of $9,634.62.
So much for the unholy connection of Bank and Church. If any one had proposed to invest the funds of the Church in lottery tickets, the whole body of clergy and laity would have been “horrified” at such a proposal. But those who had the management of the financial concerns of the General Assembly, chose to employ its funds in a far worse kind of gambling, to wit, in paper money banking, and no one ought to regret the loss that has consequently been sustained.
}
40 years later, the Golden Church
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/donnelly/goldchurch.html
>>>I quoted him on what he did NOT want: Gold as currency.
His mentor Pound favored both Social Credit and demmurrage money
Until you brought it up, I thought Mullins was a hard money man –still do. Looking through his two main books, it turns out, Mullins did not really come out and say what his views on money were: what and how should be money and currency; how banks should operate. This note of his hints at gold/silver standard:
“Crozier’s book exposed the financiers plan to substitute ‘corporation currency’ for the lawful money of the U.S. as guaranteed by Article I, Sec. 8 Para. 5, of the Constitution.”
In the quote you used, Mullins objects to the activities of the Fed, banks, and League of Nations; but doesn’t say anything against gold/silver coins circulating in daily business
=====
Ezra Pound, poet and fascist—
Based on “Jefferson and/or Mussolini” I think what Pound actually favoured was the fascist state spending money into circulation.
He does list different alternatives to bank currency.
It is too bad, that Pound purposely mis-interprets what Jefferson wrote to Eppes and Crawford. Jefferson was clearly talking about financing a war, and suggested that during war coins should disappear and Treasury notes –promising to pay coin– should circulate; after the war, notes should disappear and coin alone should circulate.
The full sentence, the second half of which Pound quotes and uses:
” The metallic medium of which we should be possessed at the commencement of a war, would be a sufficient fund for all the loans we should need through its continuance; and if the national bills issued be bottomed (as is indispensable) on pledges of specific taxes for their redemption within certain and moderate epochs, and be of proper denominations for circulation, no interest on them would be necessary or just, because they would answer to every one the purposes of the metallic money withdrawn and replaced by them.”
The full text of the two letters is here:
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/jefferson/eppes.html
Based on Jefferson’s letters, it is my opinion that Jafferson would have objected to Gessel’s notes with expiration date on them (and Jefferson wasn’t big on public works projects, either: “I very much fear the road system will be urged. The mines of Peru would not supply the moneys which would be wasted on this object, nor the patience of any people stand the abuses which would be incontrollably committed under it.”)
Jefferson did not like Napoleon and his government; it is likely that he would not have liked Mussolini and his corporate state.
Ezra Pound holds up President Van Buren to us; but President Van Buren was very much a hard-money man, he made a deal with Senator Calhoun to pass the Independent Treasury Act which stipulated that the Federal government may receive and pay out gold and silver coins, only.
Reblogged this on Recovering Austrians.
Everything you need to know about what Eustace Mullins believed can be discovered via the following:
(1) In a letter to the publisher of Women’s Voice (Lyrl Clark Van Hyning), Mullins wrote:
“I hope our citizens will awaken to the fact that the international Jewish conspiracy against the white race is our real danger. Communism is a threat to America because of the thousands of Jewish agents working for it in this country.”
(2) In a July/August 1955 Women’s Voice article by Mullins entitled “International Finance”, Mullins made the following observations:
Page 11:
“There is no ism or international organization which is not controlled directly or indirectly by international bankers. Communism is the most useful puppet of international finance today. Completely financed by the Rothschild bankers through the New York banking house of Kuhn Loeb of New York and Max Warburg Co of Germany, alien agents of international finance overthrew the legal government of Russia in 1917. Now international finance has divided the world into two parts, the democratic world and the Communist world, with the usual expectation of colliding the two forces in a highly profitable slaughter.” …
“Now international finance faces two alternatives:
1. to start the Third World War between ‘democratic’ and ‘Communist’ nations, a war which cannot help but use atomic weapons in such quantity as to destroy most of our civilization.
2. to declare an immediate world dictatorship and execute all opponents of international finance.
“The peoples of the earth have no alternative. They must execute the two hundred members of international finance or civilization will perish from the earth.”
[Note: That last sentence…i.e. “They must execute…” is in bold type in the original publication.]
(3) In October 1952, Mullins wrote an article for the National Renaissance Party (NRP) Bulletin entitled “Hitler: An Appreciation”.
The NRP was the first postwar neo-fascist group to be formed in the United States.
The January-February 1972 issue of the NRP Bulletin contained an article entitled “First Racial Government” which identifies the type of individuals they anticipated appealing to and, consequently, why someone with Mullins’ political or ideological convictions might be interested in associating himself with them. Quoting from that article:
“The NRP collaborated with its political allies, the Ku Klux Klan and White Action Movement, in celebrating the birthday of Adolf Hitler, founder of National Socialism and creator of the first historically-recorded government whose policies were based exclusively on RACIAL considerations.”
I really dont know what your point is here there is no doubt the oct revolution was a jewish controlled operation 19 of the 23 men council were jews many of whom couldnt speak russian, as for hitler operating a racial policy this is a oversimplification of his desire that germany should be run and controlled by germans. Im afraid due to the internet ( see justice for germans) the days of waving the hitler flag as the big bad bogeyman are over. So if your intent is to suggest mullins should be dismissed for his support of National Socialism im afraid its simply not enough.
Ernie’s comments must be deleted by the owner of this blog. Everywhere you go on the Web he tries to confuse people about Eustace Mullins. All you have to do is read Mullins for yourself. This is a brilliant analysis of the hogwash who claim to be experts.
Christian lawyer Constance Cumbey (USA, Michigan), top researcher on New Age operatives, dealt with Mullins and ultimately confronted him as an “Aquarian Warrior” (sic). Mullins bragged in reply over his success, she reports. Migchels, tread carefully hurling charges, as you so often do. Talk to Constance re Mullins.
I’m glad you confessed Pound and Mullins weren’t saints…so close though, eh?
That Mullins interview on YouTube shows a book cover, not citations. Any claim of plagiarism is easily proven with side-by-side citations. An author mouthing off is not the same thing, Migchels.
If you want to piss on Griffin, have enough decency to aim for him. Show citations proving the stated crime. Otherwise you’re just telling us how your third bowel feels and leaving its turds on the net for us to clean up.
Given his character, we must ask evidence of Mullins, not dish his poop raw. Maybe he was jealous that an author succeeded on his pet subject while he didn’t. Worse, maybe Mullins and Pound were on board with the general illuminist program to link criticism of banks with anti-semitism. You know, controlled opposition and all that, which you are always on about.
Now, the well known and persecuted scholar Antony C. Sutton wrote “The Federal Reserve Conspiracy” (1995). This title matches one by H.S. Kenan, which Mullins claims as plagiarism, putting the author’s name in quotes. I make nothing of the coincidence. Sutton was a first-class scholar (aka detective) who makes Mullins’ screeds seem like junior school essays. A reviewer highlights a real literary crime documented by Sutton. The PTB disappeared “The Science of Government, Founded on Natural Law” (1841).
personalliberty dot com/2010/02/18/the-federal-reserve-conspiracy-by-antony-c-sutton/
Sutton also wrote a less famous, but very powerful book called ‘the War on Gold’ with the typical Austrian take on specie and fractional reserve banking.
Griffin didn’t copy verbatim text from Mullins, that’s not what I am talking about here. The subtitle of Griffin’s book is ‘a second look at the Federal Reserve’. It was a clear hit at Mullins’ work and very typical: this is the way the ‘free market’ crowd has been poisoning the populist monetary reform movement for ever. It was already happening in the late 19 hundreds.
At the time of writing of this article I was not yet so aware of the dynamics of the Gold is real money mind control operation subverting the calls for abundant money by classical populists and I didn’t really realize Griffin is in a long line of traitors to the cause.
Not to forget Sutton’s other books, ‘the war on gold’ ‘gold verses paper’ ‘what is libertarianism?’
http://www.collativelearning.com/PICS%20FOR%20WEBSITE/sutton/anthony%20c%20sutton%20-%20the%20war%20on%20gold.jpg
Wasn’t Mr. Sutton a libertarian ? (Migchels considers them satanists)
Well, one thing is for certain: after I read his ‘war on Gold’, Sutton never meant the same to me anymore.
I have difficulty believing researchers of that kind of brainpower falling for Gold. As a young guy’s vice, ok, but decade after decade? He must have come across debt free paper money theory, as an American.
he was fully aware of the paper money concepts and literature; his views on gold were inspite of them, and because he did not know any better —something to ponder
Sutton was actually English, he took US citizenship ,regards PM
It would be great if somehow the time of each reply could also be displayed.
>>>> Talk to Constance re Mullins.
Hummm, and just what would she have to tell Migchels about his mentor, Ellen Brown, the new ager ? or Margrit Kennedy ?
Many years ago when I started reading this book I put it down almost as quickly when he failed to mention every name at the meeting was Jewish.
Another great article and so well written i was in some confusion over the gold business but now i have a much clearer understanding Thanks
Thanks Paul!
“The Rothschilds do not own all the gold or even close to it. Most of it is still in the ground, in the ocean, and in private hoards.“
Now this is a completely unprovable statement.
Ouch… I had to stop reading there. You really shouldn’t be writing anything if you’re that clueless. But hey, typical know it all American. Probably watch a lot of Jewtube videos.
Reblogged this on Jana Murray and commented:
Bankers are interested in their share of the whole, not in nominal profits. They will prefer a billion which is half of the total over a trillion which is only a quarter of the total. They are willing to let the total pie shrink, if they get a larger percentage of what remains.
That’s why Bankers love deflation: it shrinks the total because it destroys economic growth, leaving less for us and increasing their share of the total.
“Abusive Government is a result of it being subverted by the Money Power. But the Money Power fears Government, because it can be liberated by the Nation to which it belongs. That’s why they want their World Government, that will know no national affiliation and will be of their making only.”
The “Money Power” fears government? Wow, what a delusional idiot. Yeah, there is no way the power elite have their hands in manipulating government.
Ending the Federal Reserve doesn’t necessitate a gold standard. Even letting the U.S. Treasury just print money would be a big improvement over what we have.
Wow, I am new to all of this. I thought Ed Griffin’s book was great, but you make interesting points! Are there many people who share your position? I would like to learn more.
Those in the know, know, but they are in the minority, as always. You do have a few true populists still left in the US, though.
I also found it strange that a) Mr. Griffin does not acknowledge Eustace Mullins’ Secrets in Jekyl Island; and b) that Mr. Griffin was (or still is) pitching the Gold Standard along with former congressman Ron Paul.
I examined this issue of specious monetary reform where the reformers tend to miss the point entirely, here: Re-visiting Money as Debt and Monetary Reform: The Secret of Oz
print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/10/re-visiting-money-as-debt-and-oz.html
And the Gold Standard boondoggle is examined at the link cited therein, where the inexplicability of Mr. Griffin’s and Ron Paul’s position on the Gold Standard is systematically analyzed — and it can naturally lead one to sensibly conclude what you have concluded as well:
print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-gold-standard-boondoggle-revisited.html
However, I hope that I am mistaken. Mr. Griffin has otherwise made some revealing documentaries and interviews, and done much for public awareness. Your thesis that Griffin wrote Creature as damage control reaction to Mullins’ Secrets of the Federal Reserve, just as I have the thesis that Quigley’s monumental Tragedy and Hope was in damage-control reaction to Mullins’ Secrets of the Federal Reserve, needs more study on my part. I need to find the time to look at the differences between the emphasis and omissions in the two books side by side and I haven’t got around to doing that yet. Clearly though, Mullins and his mentor Ezra Pound never downplayed the contemporary power of the House of Rothschild, as Quigley has done in Tragedy and Hope. Has Mr. Griffin done that in his version? I have to study that. My study of the Invisible House of Rothschild is here:
sites.google.com/site/humanbeingsfirst/download-pdf/pamphlet-the-invisible-house-of-rothschild-by-zahirebrahim.pdf
I just wanted to leave you this little note for Who is Ed Griffin? I share this concusion of yours: “But in the final analysis these are ALL red herrings. The FED is not the problem but a symptom. The Money Power does not care about the FED. It is ready to dump this vehicle. As long as it controls its successor! And it will, because its successor will oversee a Gold Standard.”
The Gold Standard is the banksters’ own interest.
Thank you for your efforts.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
humanbeingsfirst@gmail.com
comment for: realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/who-is-ed-griffin/
Thanks.