read this if you ever wondered why we're at war

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm

 

I posted similar analyses in the "Loose Change" thread, james.

Nice to see someone else recognises the economic underpinnings of the current foreign policy fraud being pursued by Washington.

 

Good article. I agree with parts of it. Other parts I didn't so much agree with.

Interesting read, nevertheless.

I believe the ultimate agenda is to bankrupt America and bring this country (and the rest of the Western world) down to its knees... and yes, it is being done partly though the phony "War on Terror", along with the deliberate devaluation of the dollar and record deficit. This is why I don't support the claim that we are in Iraq to "preserve and extend the American Empire." I think this is what they would like people to believe. The reality is that America is being used to destroy America from within. The people in our govenment aren't sworn to defend the Constitution, they are sworn to the creation of a One World Government. In order for the New World Order to come into full fruition, there can be no superpowers, just a global body, such as the U.N., which was created out of the ashes of the League of Nations by members of the Council on Foreign Relations, to be the trojan horse for Global Government. That's right, the U.N. was created by members of the Global Elite for reasons other than helping to promote and ensure peace. (As it is, the words "peace" and "United Nations" totally contradict each other.)

If Bush and his handlers really cared so much about the economy and the "American empire," why have they done everything possible to bring about its destruction? The fact is, preserving the American empire is the last of these people's concerns. The so-called "American empire" is a mere fraction of a much bigger picture.

The government does not control the money system. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE CORPORATION consisting of no more than 13 banking families. It is in no way, I repeat, NO WAY, affiliated with the U.S. government, other than for the fact that it bares the word "federal" (which it's not) and has its chairman appointed by the President (which is really just a smoke screen). Since the FED's inception in 1913, there has not been a single government audit of the FED. Once you understand this, you understand that people like Bush and Cheney are merely low-level agents of the central bankers, and they are working for the central bankers. Not America. Bush and Cheney are puppets. It's the people who control the money that control the government, and the goal of the central bankers isn't to extend the American empire, but to bring about a World Government. It's all about the centralization of power. More power and control in the hands of fewer and fewer people is what they want. The same people who control the FED, control the monetary system behind the Euro as well.

I have long been saying that the war in Iraq was never meant to be won. Much of what we see as government incompetence is really stealthful manipulation. Invading Iran would be a nightmare, but I truly believe the globalists want World War III. And why wouldn't they? They won't be fighting in it. I believe there is a deliberate agenda to not only disillusion Americans, but the entire world, against the U.S.. Much of the anger currently being directed towards the U.S., by both Americans and people abroad, is indeed totally expected and fully warranted. But I believe that was also the intended reaction by the manipulators. The goal is to completely discredit America, causing the citizens of the world to look to the U.N. for protection against an increasingly overbearing, war-mongering America. See Empire In Descent: The Deliberate Destruction Of America.

The United States is completely expendable to those behind the scenes, since, to them, the U.S. is simply a temporary vehicle in achieving the New World Order.

Most people don't understand this, thus they misunderstand the true agenda, not only in terms of the war, but on so many other levels as well.

 

that is another article everyone in america has to read right now or else we're doomed...god damn my ideals, to think that all of america would unite and overthrow this deleberate act of terrorism the world gov't uses to make it look like a dreary facciast country when really only the elite are and they get all the access to the media and and the world.
i truley believe small time america if they would ever wake up would realize this threat but perhaps before it's too late, like after we have all turned on each other like they want...unfortanatly religion is heavily involved in this new war (as usual) and that will play strongly on this shift...yep things are looking grim, but i will never relenquish hope that americans have perhaps the strongest love for their land of anybody, that patriotic spirit will be used for good instead of all the evil so far...to protect the freedoms we all represent before this mierda happens

 

i read a book by someone called kenneth gilbraith i think it was. he charts the rise of the american monetary system. he says that americas original currency was sea shells white and black they were rare enough to be a form of currency. the settlers originally used these but the american indians were the central bankers and it was quickly realised that being under the yoke of the indians currency would mean they would have to negotiate with them over the future direction of america. the settlers got rid of the shells and eventually got rid of the american indians.

 

facinating
the settlers were so helpless they couldn't even figure out where to find seashells
i know the "indians" got a good few laughs over that one

 

me as well!! rotflmao!!!!

 

feckin prudes first they think they're in god damn india and then once they realize they are actually Not in india they can't even barter with intelligent people who consider value to be nature anyway...fuck! what the hell? they're lucky they didn't get their asses slaughtered! i know i probibly slaughtered a WHOLE lot of these stupid bastards when i was a child of the earth in a prevoius life...probibly why i was born american...remark: yeah show's how "savage" the "indians" were..they took pity on the shoe eattin really stinkin Gringos high steppin in like they couldn't "sin")and stilll given another chance and once emmersed in a world of anceint ritual and right they only polished their prizes and still given another chance and when these people of light dragged them into their homes and nursed them to health, ones themselves laiden with natural treasure most notably knoledge passed down by word and taught all about the amazing medicinal herbs, they stole it and sold it back to em...and still given another chance. so sure give em a chance what the hell eh? this is called constancy and reflects upon the Spirit of the Land which children of light remember, and know the law of karma is in the hands of human kind

 

ahh have no idea what to say about that, exept it was called at one time wampum could pic it any shore or river if you couldent get it were you lived it was valuable! hehe and yes i figure certain settlments would have perished without the help of the people they ultimitly destroyed!! so mutch for a thank you and democracy if im not mistaken was given to the invaders of this continent by its original inhabitants at least in the north! soooooo i have no idea what to do whith this info but stick it somewere until one person hears again!!!!!

 

Fascinating stuff Rat, of course none of it is true.

Anyone who wants to read a thorough debunking of the crackpot federal reserve conspiracy theory can do so right here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html

The question is: what are the conspiracy theorists trying to accomplish by duping Rat?

 

mabyto dupe you !!! in my mind there is no irepeat no question that there is a conspiricie going on is it as big as rat thinks? i would expect so!! i propose a test prove him wrong!!!! i dought you can !!! i try and take everything i hear or read with a grain that includes rat ,balbus ,lick and the rest of you crazy fuckers (pun intended) but i do see rats retoric as essential to the debate i see balbuses continual what should we do boring what is it that we do? i feel that the spread of info is intregal in in any change so i say to you balbus! what do you think would be the right thing to do!?? comence with the democratic prosesse (if you give me shit about my spelling ill go off)hehehe that is breaking down or virtualy non existant at this point and time? do you truly beleive that chang can occure within the frame work of our goverments as they are today? do you feel that your elected or appointed officials are acting in yours or mine best intrests? i see you dog rat. but if you didnt these threads would prob end. i still beleive we are never told the truth and yes the peeps with the cash control what goes on in the world what i would like to do is get everybody to gather thier provisions and strike!!!! wouldent that be something!! but i do beleive he has answerd your qeustion education!! and then things will take their natural course! revelution!!!!!! dont like the idea but its already happining i hope it can be done peacefuly ooopppss to late! peace!!!

 

I just love it how people like Pointbreak are so quick to label people as crackpots, simply for presenting information that goes against the status-quo, especially when they obviously haven't even researched the subject outside of what government institutions have dictated to them.

There is no better expert on the Federal Reserve conspiracy than G. Edward Griffin, who wrote the seminal The Creature From Jekyll Island, which is considered by some to be the definitive book regarding the truth behind the Federal Reserve.

Instead of taking the time to attempt to refute everything mentioned in Flaherty's "debunking" piece, here is G. Edward Griffin himself refuting claims against his book that were made by Flaherty in the hit piece.

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=meetflaherty&refpage=issues

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.

 

Here is a 7 minute audio clip featuring G. Edward Griffin, giving a brief explantion of the workings behind the FED during a radio interview. I encourage people (including Pointbreak) to take the few minutes it takes to listen to it:


Broadband

Dialup

 

If accumulating links to conspiracy theory websites and posting them in forums is "research", you have a phd. If actually understanding things is research, let me know when you get out of kindergarten.

Says who? Why do you think adding this sort of tribute proves anything?

Who says it is seminal?

Considered definitive by who?

Thanks for your sad article though. I have to get through a load of crap before he even gets to the subject, but I guess you like to watch conspiracy theorist preen their feathers and ramble on. Helpfully, he starts with a totally unsupported conclusion: "The essence of Flaherty's critique is that anyone who opposes the Federal Reserve must be some kind of a kook" and its all downhill from there. Hilariously, he points out that Flaherty tries to associate him with NWO conspiracies, which Griffin, our "expert" and writer of "seminal" and "definitive" books, points out are not merely theories but "demonstrable facts". What´s more, "very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies." So immediately after playing the victim and giving us the lie that Flaherty claims everyone who criticises the Fed is a kook, he tells us that anyone who doesn´t believe in the Illuminati is a kook.

Rat then makes a typically quick exit when debate comes around, leaving in a cloud of links and cut-pastes. But why not respond to what Rat himself said?

Conclusion presented as fact.

The Federal Reserve banks are privately owned but this has no bearing on how the Federal Reserve is run. The private banks do not have any means to influence monetary policy.

So it is no way, repeat NO WAY affiliated with the US government except that the US government appoints the only people at the Fed with any power (the Board of Governors, ALL of which are publicly appointed). And if the Fed were not privately owned, would Rat call that a smokescreen for the Illuminati anyway? Obviously yes. In fact since the Illuminati control everything, what possible way could we construct a monetary system which wouldn´t be a smokescreen for the illuminati? There is no way, so we can see how the argument is a red herring because no matter what sort of Fed we have, all you have to do is yell "smokescreen" and suddently you are a seminal writer.

Furthermore, just like when Rat says the only way the government is affiliated with the Fed is the fact that they have total control of it, he also says it is controlled by 13 families. But when he says this he doesn't actually mean 13 families, he means a whole slew of banks and individuals and corporations, but of course all of which are a smokescreen for the 13 families. Once again we have to ignore reality, which is a smokescreen for the conspiracy.

Once again, when Rat says there have been no audits, he means there have been lots of audits, but they are "smokescreens". Even Griffin acknowledges this, grudgingly.

Once we understand that the government doesn't control the Fed (except that it does), that the Fed is never audited (except that it is) and that it is controlled by 13 families (except that it isn't), we can go on to conclude that America is going to be destroyed by the globalists.

I have no intention of responding to Griffin's evasive non-answers, but I have to take issue with one part in particular "The current average [reserve] 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."

This is just idiotic. To call someone who doesn´t even understand how banks work an expert is just a joke. If you take ten dollars in deposits, you have to keep one dollar in reserves with the Fed, and you can lend the other nine. There were not created out of nothing, they represent the rest of the deposits! I can´t believe that someone would either misunderstand, or try to misrepresent, something so simple.

 

wow you guys need to get laid!!! as do i !! hehehe

 

Feeble-minded shills for the establishment, like Pointbreak, don't understand that those who print the money exercise control over literally everything. When you control the money, you control monetary policy. The people in government have been bought and paid off by the central banks, so this idea that the government appoints members is meaningless when you use the two brain cells it takes to see that it's all a big fucking sham. The people appointed to the Federal Reserve by the President are the people the bankers want appointed. The President is merely a puppet for the bankers and is completely expendable. When the president steps out of line and decides to work on behalf of the people and not the bankers, they see a fate similar to that of Kennedy, who wanted to abolish the FED.

So if everything Griffin says is wrong, why is he such a prominent and successful writer and documentary film producer? Is everyone that subscribes to similar ideas an idiot, compared to somebody who only subscribes to the mind-fodder that the system churns out? Here is Griffin's biography from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin

Unlike Pointbreak, Griffin has something called CREDENTIALS.

Hilarious. And I have some beachfront property on Mars I'd like to sell you.

What everyone needs to understand is that paper money is worthless. It's paper with ink on it, that's all. When you get a loan out from the bank, more money isn't printed. Digits are simply added to a computer database. These digits represent DEBT, since it's money the banks don't have. Paper money is fiat currency, and the people behind this sham have an enormous amount of power. Those who control the money system control the government. Don't fall for this crap that the government controls the FED, when it's clearly the FED that controls the government.

 

actually its coming to the point when you controll the food you control it all !!

 

actually thats how it all started my friend, globalization is rooted in agriculture.
as we know there is Good agriculture, and bad. ultimitley bad is when they forget where the food came from and enevitable "bite the hand that feeds", in their ravenous pursuit at controlling the people, cuz we are what we eat after all, and why wouldn't they want to be sure they poisened you and made you become addicted to "dumb you down" to make you think you need to diet all the time with is an even bigger scam...
what it all comes down to is there is a sickening plot at hand to desinsitize americnans to violence to do hideous things to their brothers and sisters and think hideous thoughts of paranoia of terrorists and everyone who might be different than their own rational little world of self delusion, and so to attain the sacred security of their serial code and exploit the world finally at will after all these hard years of butchery, and blame the people who actualy do coherintly think of being "conspiracy theorists" (where do you think that doublespeak phrase came from in the first place?)
and thus WEAKEN the american people and having already destroyed all the forests and destroying more everyday leaving the people no refuge but to be clustered into cities easily wiped off the map at the touch of a button, and thus finally bring their age old plan of world domination to frutition, for they have nothing to worry about, they are reptilians after all, and know more about things than many have ever dreamed.
so why do it?
well i ask you why did hitler do what he did?
and god damnit why are the Nazi's in the executive branch, legislative, and judicial brances of american govn't ? who are these people who clap for the Bush dynasty? where to they come from to fill the halls of applause while they destroy all of mankind this time?
why have there always been wars as long as we know, how could the world have gone to the pyramid builders to what it is today?
how could we have forgotten we are inhabitants of a sacred rheam intricatley linked with every aspect of those who are present, an blue misty oasis glowing in the darkness and that in of itself shoud be taken much further into consideration

 

don't try to say it wasn't any better...there has been much evil throughout the history of this World, and many past. there has also been much good. in fact there was a time that a few hombres from far away wandering out in the middle of the desert somewhere who just walked on into Gizah (which at that time was really just a primitive river dwelling settlement) with the things on their burros or whatever and turned a rather basic type of farming people into one of the most revered societies ever, far more mysterious and anceint than any "egyptologist" would tell ya today...
and Tesla, who was the greatest thinker of our time, turned him into an agent of espionage and wiped His name out of the country's mindset who he himself first electrically powered.
and henry ford, who introduced the hemp oil lubed automobile, who was "persuaded" to go petro.
and edward kunkel, who presented the american gov't with the technology (derived from the Great Pyramid of Gizah) to solve the worlds food problem through water pump technology, and nobody ever heard about that either...actually winston churchill sent him a letter admiring his work, which Kunkel adamantly reminded, was not his own. in fact got a patent for his pump which could shoot a jet of water 40 feet over his house with a single pull of the lungs (and a simple bonfire could run it for a day and pump enough water to drain new orleans in an hour with a coupla of em but weird thing is the patent office of this country of "freedom" made him lie and say it was a design of his own and not of an anceint civilization which he Proved was !!!! hmm
and when it was found that weed cured cancer in liquid injections in experiments in the 70's...that wouldn't be good for the second largest corporation in amerca next to petro...the american cancer society..

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
what the fuck do you think is going on? corporations run the world, . and they can't sell antennaes and hemp oil...gotta have wires and petro Mother fucker.
how do you spell antennna?lol

 

James thanks for stopping before mentioning your ''bodily fluids'' being taken from you.

Anthropolgy says that if you get two groups of apes .. sooner or later 'territory' and 'dominance' will raise there ugly heads... even if once they were one group .

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0395877431/202-6668610-6166246

I am afraid even the pyramid builders were once apes... or are you considering they were built by ''aliens'' ..