PDA

View Full Version : The Road to World War III



~Zaria~
04-25-2013, 07:32 PM
:salam:


Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
~Zaria~
09-14-2013, 10:06 AM
Greetings,

Understanding how deeply the US government, media and many other influential role-players in society, are puppets to a zionist agenda:



Reply

~Zaria~
09-14-2013, 10:08 AM
#MUST WATCH#:

The Syrian War: What You're Not Being Told:



Reply

Independent
09-15-2013, 11:13 PM
Greetings Zaria, I have now watched your videos. I can see the attraction of this financial conspiracy theory, but there are many questions I would like to ask of it. Does it explain events that are otherwise inexplicable? is it consistent with other events not necessarily directly related? Could it have been implemented in a plausible manner - both in terms of personnel and practicality of execution? Sorry if this post is so long as a result, but you asked me to take it seriously, so I have.

1 Finance is complicated
The first thing to say is that international finance is fantastically complicated. The information given in these videos is in no way sufficient to prove the very strong claims made, without more detail. The lack of corroboration by experts is striking, since there are tens of thousands of high level financiers who are very well placed to notice irregularities. Instead, criticism has come from peripheral figures, who make a career from holding such views. Some of them are downright eccentric and that includes the author of one of your videos, David Icke. Icke became a figure of ridicule many years ago (he once claimed on tv that he was the 'son of the godhead').

3. The Fed
The main engine of Jewish financial control is said to be through the Fed. But there is nothing about the Fed that doesn't make sense with its role as a legitimate financial institution. The Fed was set up in 1913 after a long period in which the US had no central bank, to its great detriment. Like most other central banks, the Fed is a quasi public/private institution. And although it is in some sense 'owned' by 12 regional banks, this is not ownership in the commonly understood sense. The controlling Board of Governors at the Fed including the Chairman are appointed by the President. The Fed is firmly under US government control and exercises policy according to government instructions. The Fed has performed the role it was created for reasonably effectively and was essential for the growth of the US economy in the 20th century.

Qui bono - Contrary to popular folklore the Fed does not significantly profit from its role. The interest it charges on lending money is repaid to the Treasury, after running costs have been deducted. For instance, in 2010 it made a profit of €82 billion of which €79 was transferred to the Treasury, not to the supporting banks. If the Fed is going to be a key part of this conspiracy, these videos do not explain how.

4. Gold as money
There is a naive view that gold represents 'real' money where other instruments such as paper money are not. But gold has value only because society agrees to give it value, the same as paper money. We could have agreed to used cowry shells (as in Papua New Guinea) or anything else. Some countries can mine more gold and others can't, which is a drawback for its role as a world currency. And the price of gold can vary just as paper money. Therefore, the option of being on the gold standard should be seen for what it is - an economic strategy, with pros and cons, not some kind of moral statement.

5. The gold standard
America's decision to leave the gold standard in 1971 was not a conspiracy strategy - it was inevitable. In effect the dollar was in a fixed price exchange rate with the dollar (pegged at €35 an ounce). Like all attempts at fixed exchange rates, in the end internal pressures became overwhelming,. When the commodity price of gold began to rise towards and over €35, it became profitable for countries to convert their dollars back into gold and sell it for a higher price as a commodity. Obviously this would be unsustainable. In the end it was not possible for a single country (America) to indefinitely underwrite an international gold standard, no more than it had been for the UK before them.

6. Bretton Woods
Towards the end of WW2 the Great Powers met at Bretton Woods in America to thrash out a new financial system. The main mission was to secure worldwide open markets, because it was considered that protectionism and separate currency zones had been a major cause of the Great Depression in the 30s. The only country that was in a fit financial state to underwrite the system was America. They therefore constructed the system in their own interests at the expense of Great Britain (the whole period can be seen as an economic war by America against the UK, which ended in complete victory for the US). All of this is entirely comprehensible without recourse to conspiracy theories. This is a good link:

http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/c...s/bretton.html

7. The value to the US of the dollar being a world currency.
To what extent did the US benefit from the dollar becoming the world currency after Bretton Woods? It did reduce their cost of trade and it did enable deficit spending. For the first 10 years this was used to fuel Marshall Aid and other loans to struggling economies in Europe and Japan. In the 60s this turned into funding welfare programmes and the Vietnam War (which has neither an oil or Muslim connection). Longer term, it could be argued that the deficit spending enabled by Bretton Woods has been actively detrimental to the US in the long term because it got the country hooked on easy credit (in the same way that New World silver wrecked the Spanish economy) eg:
http://business.time.com/2011/04/15/...d-for-america/

8. The Petrodollar conspiracy
How important are petrodollars to the US? The first thing to notice is that the US rose to economic domination long before the petrodollar existed - so the petrodollar is not the cause of that success.

Iran
Is the US planning to invade Iran because of the petrodollar? The first thing to notice is that the chronology is all the wrong way round. iran only declared its intention to move its oil sales out of the dollar in 2005. That's many, many years after the US/Iran conflict began. The point at which Iran/US relations fell apart was the Teheran US embassy siege in 1981. This move is explicitly a consequence of that conflict, not a cause of it. In fact, if you look at many of the countries who began the move away from the petrodollar (Iran, Libya, N. Korea, Syria, Venezuela) the notable thing about them is that they all had bad relations with the US before they made this move. in the absence of other evidence, it looks as if the issue of denominating oil sales in other currencies is not the cause of any of these conflicts, but a consequence of them.

Iraq
Only one of the oil producers has actually been invaded by the US - Iraq. But even here, the petrodollar is not the origin of the argument. When Saddam switched to denominating oil sales in euros rather than dollars, it had a limited effect because iraq's oil production was so much lower as a result of war and sanctions. As a reason for Gulf War 2 it's just not strong enough, particularly when there were so many other much stronger reasons. The primary cause of the second Gulf war was the first one. And the primary cause of Gulf War 1 was the occupation of Kuwait by Saddam. Any attempt to explain the cause of either Gulf War without even mentioning Kuwait (as this video does) is not being serious.

11. The Opec oil crisis
The biggest event relating to oil in the 70s was not the beginning of the petrodollar system, but the 1973 Opec oil crisis. Led by King Faisal and the Shah (who are supposed to be western puppets), Opec used its cartel status to quadruple the price of oil in less than a year and reduce supply to some nations - all in reaction to their perceived level of support to israel. (This is an interesting early example of economic sanctions by the Arab oil producing states against the west, rather than the other way round.) This flung the west into economic crisis (and eventually did Opec as much damage as the west, especially countries like Venezuela and Nigeria)It is bizarre to find these supposed US allies acting so destructively. Of all the events surrounding oil states, this was the biggest and had the greatest economic impact. Yet the US made no attempt to invade anybody. Today, China's impact on oil prices and availability is more significant than that of any oil state.

12. Who is responsible - Icke's theory
The most striking thing about Icke's list of 'Rothschild Zionists' in the US administration as well as the banking, media and entertainment industries, is that it is simply a list of all Jews. He offers no direct evidence for their alleged role - none. In Icke's account, if they are Jewish and they are in a senior position, they must be a 'Rothschild Zionist'. Icke has simply substituted the words 'Rothschild Zionist' for 'Jew'.

Some of his candidates plainly don't fit the role he has given them. For instance, Alan Greenspan himself was in favour of returning to the gold standard - and he would be a key recruit to any financial conspiracy theory.

13. Icke's Jewish controller network
The 'minders' who Icke suggests are controlling Obama etc are simply listed by name and illustrated with made-up photoshop pictures to make them look sinister. He also plays around with audio here and there to make them sound sinister. He does not present any evidence at all for their alleged role (apart from being Jewish).

In conclusion - there is simply not enough information in these videos to make such bold and extensive claims. Zaria, you have probably read much more extensively around this, please tell me if these issues are covered elsewhere.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
~Zaria~
09-16-2013, 10:36 AM
Greetings,

Due to limitations on time, each point will be taken individually:

Originally Posted by Independent
3. The Fed
The main engine of Jewish financial control is said to be through the Fed. But there is nothing about the Fed that doesn't make sense with its role as a legitimate financial institution. The Fed was set up in 1913 after a long period in which the US had no central bank, to its great detriment. Like most other central banks, the Fed is a quasi public/private institution. And although it is in some sense 'owned' by 12 regional banks, this is not ownership in the commonly understood sense. The controlling Board of Governors at the Fed including the Chairman are appointed by the President. The Fed is firmly under US government control and exercises policy according to government instructions. The Fed has performed the role it was created for reasonably effectively and was essential for the growth of the US economy in the 20th century.

Qui bono - Contrary to popular folklore the Fed does not significantly profit from its role. The interest it charges on lending money is repaid to the Treasury, after running costs have been deducted. For instance, in 2010 it made a profit of €82 billion of which €79 was transferred to the Treasury, not to the supporting banks. If the Fed is going to be a key part of this conspiracy, these videos do not explain how.

Please watch the following short video:




^ If you do not wish to believe him directly, you may also read here:

The History of the Federal Reserve System: Wikipedia



More reading:

The Federal Reserve -Zionist Jewish Private Bankers

Secrets of the Federal Reserve

If you can get hold of the hard-copies of these books, I hear that they are also worth-while reads (if you are still not convinced):

End the Fed by Ron Paul

The Creature from Jekyll Island






Reply

M.I.A.
09-16-2013, 12:49 PM
its funny because you all think like your passengers in a runaway train.

going downhill.


...and then say lets look at history.


there is no conspiracy, only the need to join in.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-16-2013, 01:25 PM
Just in case you need more information, this website is a gold-mine:

The Federal Reserve Bank
Reply

Ahmad H
09-17-2013, 02:00 AM
Assalaam alaikum warahmathulahi wabarakathahu,

I have to agree with Independent that there are no simple ways to knowing what will cause a further economic crisis. However, the world is down a destructive path. The reason why I say this is because when the US and North Korea were in a back-and-forth squabble about the North's threat to launch strikes against the US, things were heating up with Japan as well against the North. That could have involved more than one country. But what was not the only thing that scared me...

When recently the US's rhetoric against Syria heated up that they would strike them, that scared me even more. Iran could have been involved in that as well. I don't doubt that after that Russia would have gotten involved somehow if things got out of control again. That may seem like an assumption, but it is a fair one.

Why does it seem like the world is on edge? Because the superpowers in this world play unfair games with the weaker nations. Justice and order do not exist as of late. it seems as if invading the weaker countries, when necessary, should always occur with the superpowers. Rather than fully rely on diplomatic measures, countries like the US seem to think attacking is the best intervention in someone else's war.

Point being, the world is constantly on edge, and if economic problems keep increasing and God forbid, another recession or depression occurs, then social behavior will change and people will become restless. The only thing keeping materialistic people from acting like animals themselves, is their material comfort. Once this is gone, then Freud's analysis will be seen in full view - people's animalistic tendencies will show.

If you don't believe me, then consider how people behave when a crisis hits them and how crimes increase rapidly. The last two world wars occurred after depressions. It may well be a pattern, one which we should ask God to keep us from repeating.

So as much as these videos try to scare us, they don't necessarily tell the whole truth. The simple fact is that trading by interest ruins countries' economies and nothing increases. Nothing but loss is occurring on a large scale. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening, both in Canada and the US. This is what I hear constantly in the news. If that is the case, then obviously the current economy is unjust.

Injustice leads to further injustice. When the rich and powerful start showing justice towards the weak, then things will get better. But we are definitely down the path to World War III, simply because injustice prevails in the world. When man only listens to his lower nature, then he will fight like angry wild animals do for his survival. I don't know for what reasons or how it will break out, but if it does, it is without a doubt, due to all of these injustices. People who only worry about their lower self, their Nafs Al-Ammarah, will be the cause of this. Only those who give to the poor, do social justice in society and care for the weak can help alleviate this at the lowest level.

But be warned, if too much evil prevails, then destruction will occur on a large scale. Hopefully nuclear arms will all be destroyed before then, along with all chemical and biological weapons. If these cease to exist and laws are firmly against their very existence, we may be able to see peace. But my fear is that may happen only when these are used on a wide scale, since there are people who think using these or having them is a source of security. Who is secure from nuclear fallout, or the effects of chemical and biological weapons? No one who comes across these are safe.

Dear Muslim brothers and sisters, all we can do is pray for the safety of the Syrian people. Pray Allah does not let the world go through a Third World War. If it happens neither one of us is safe, unless Allah wills. He would definitely save the righteous believers.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-17-2013, 03:58 AM
Originally Posted by Ahmad H
Assalaam alaikum warahmathulahi wabarakathahu,

I have to agree with Independent that there are no simple ways to knowing what will cause a further economic crisis.....

:salam:

:jz: for your input.


Im not sure if you have had the chance to watch the video in the OP as yet - which is simply trying to elude to some of the motives behind our current world affairs (theres actually no fear factor aspect to it).

The Fed Reserve being just one aspect that is worth discussing.
Knowing who controls most of US policies being just another.

There are indeed many other parts to this story, that are not mentioned in the above posts/ videos.
Complete knowledge of which, lies with Allah (subhanawataála) alone.

However, it is our duty to try to understand the world that we live in - based on facts, not conspiracies (this word rears its head too many times unfortunately).
And to use this knowledge to turn towards our Creator even more - as He is in ultimate control over all things.


(I will await Independants response to the above in shaa Allah, before discussing the further points.
I am on leave from tomorrow (my first for the year! :exhausted), so apologies if Im not able to respond immediately).


:wa:
Reply

Independent
09-17-2013, 09:35 AM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
(I will await Independants response to the above in shaa Allah, before discussing the further points.
I am on leave from tomorrow (my first for the year! ), so apologies if Im not able to respond immediately).
Hi there - the last link you have posted has a tremendous amount of material in it including many other links by multiple authors. There are very significant disagreements and contradictions between them that make it hard to answer, as it depends which version I take. However, I really have to concentrate on work today so I won't get to it till later.

Have a great break and enjoy your holiday!
Reply

Independent
09-17-2013, 09:43 AM
Originally Posted by Ahmad H
The simple fact is that trading by interest ruins countries' economies and nothing increases. Nothing but loss is occurring on a large scale. The gap between rich and poor is ever widening, both in Canada and the US. This is what I hear constantly in the news. If that is the case, then obviously the current economy is unjust.
The world is indeed a very complicated place and there is much suffering and injustice. But overall I don't share your pessimism, and I also don't think the present is necessarily worse than the past in most respects - not even in terms of poverty, income distribution, war, personal safety and justice. You can pick both good and bad examples. Personally, i believe we have every chance of a better future.

But this is a huge topic and Zaria has already set me more homework than I can cope with, so I won't say any more than that here...
Reply

Independent
09-19-2013, 10:35 AM
Greetings Zaria

Looking through your links I'm finding it difficult to reply briefly. Partly because of the sheer territory they cover, but also because the two authors you give prominence to (Icke and Griffin) do not agree either with each other, or with the other leading conspiracy theorists. This is important because each author tells us that his view is factual and logical. The fact that they agree in general that there 'is some kind of conspiracy' should not be allowed to hide the fact that in specifics they contradict each other as absolutely as they what they term 'mainstream' history. What they term 'fact' is therefore not as obviously factual as they say, even within their own fraternity.

Both Icke and Griffin have the kind of CVs that would make you run a mile from trusting them. But of the two, Icke is the more ridiculous (shape shifting aliens etc) so I've spent more time on Griffin as he seems the more credible. In the process I've ended up reading a fair chunk of Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island, one of the most popular works in this genre.

Griffin's overview

I am very surprised to find that Griffin's version of the conspiracy is that the US is being destroyed and the world taken over by international socialism - which is not what I thought you believed. For instance he says that the objective of Bretton Woods was: 'the elimination of the gold exchange standard as the basis of currency valuation and the establishment of world socialism. The method by which gold was to be eliminated in international trade was to replace it with a world currency which the IMF, acting as a world central bank, would create out of nothing. The method by which world socialism would be established was to use the World Bank to transfer money - disguised as loans - to the governments of the underdeveloped countries and to do so in such a way as to insure the demise of free enterprise. (the World Bank)...has become the engine for transferring wealth from the industrialised nations to the undeveloped countries.'

Griffin seems to be a right wing, US isolationist, free-marketeer with a belief in minimal government (a defensible point of view if you take away the conspiracy elements). Although you might like him when he sees the war on terror as a deception, Griffin tells us that America and the West are the key victims - which I doubt you agree with? But unwisely, Griffin also strays into making predictions which can be tested by events:

"Now that Latin America and Africa have been 'purchased' into the New World Order, this isn't the final frontier. In a relatively short time span China, Russia and the Eastern bloc countries have now become the biggest borrowers and already they are in arrears on payments. This is where the action will lie in the months ahead.'

China in debt to the US??????! Needless to say he's updated this point of view more recently.

Here's another comment about IMF austerity programmes that looks pretty stupid since the financial crisis.: 'These austerity measures are merely rhetoric. The borrowing nations usually ignore the conditions with impunity, and the World Bank keeps the money flowing anyway. It's all part of the game.' Tell that one to the Greeks.

Why do mainstream historians ignored Griffin?


Sometimes I've thought what a pity it is that genuine historians don't seem to bother answering Griffin et al. But when I read his book, i can see why. Unlike a proper, peer reviewed work with proper citations and sources, Griffin just throws the wildest stuff around without any support. And for a man who bridles at being called a conspiracy theorist, his work is like an encyclopaedia of conspiracies.

I''ll take just one as an example - the sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania with US citizens on board by a German U-boat in 1915. He rehashes the theory that this was deliberately engineered in order to bring the US into WW1 and preserve the value of JP Morgan bonds. The truth is that the Lusitania made little or no difference to the US entry in the war and this is obvious from events.

The Lusitania was sunk 7th May 1915, yet America did not declare war till 4th April 1917, fully 2 years later (in a war that by then only had 18 moths left to run). The decision was finally provoked by the Zimmerman letter (revealing Germany's attempt to get Mexico to attack the US) and the commencement of unrestricted U boat attacks on neutral shipping, which the the Germans themselves fully understood would provoke the US to declare war. Astonishingly, Griffin doesn't even mention these events.

just to add to the confusion, Griffin also thinks that the Bolshevik Revolution was part of the conspiracy - although of course this had the effect of taking Russia out of the war and very nearly led to a German victory in early 1918. This completely contradicts the idea that the conspirators are trying to win the war with the US. But that's in another chapter, and Griffin doesn't feel the need for logical consistency.

No serious historian is going to touch this stuff with a bargepole.


Griffin and the Federal Reserve

Griffin is at his best and most convincing when talking about the Fed. That's partly because high finance is difficult to understand so he make claims that people find hard to refute. Also, bankers are not angels and they certainly tend to behave in unattractive ways if left to their own devices. There are schools of thought which favour an end to fractional reserve banking and some form of return to the Gold Standard (although they are in a minority). Where Griffin goes off the rails is in taking this to the level of New World Order conspiracy.

Whodunnit?

The part which I am still struggling to find detail on is the 'whodunnit' - evidence of against the various individuals named as conspirators. In your video links they are simply lists of names of people in positions of influence. They have been identified according to one criteria only - their ethnic identity. Jewish. At this level this is a purely racist observation, but I feel there must be more supporting evidence elsewhere. Do you know where Icke or Griffin go beyond listing Jewish names to giving actual evidence?
Reply

جوري
09-19-2013, 12:04 PM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Please watch the following short video
your preaching someone who lives in his own bubble.. he's an army of one or at least represents his own kind!- it is what we'd call a futile cycle- although I disagree with many things on the Syrian video.

:w:
Reply

~Zaria~
09-22-2013, 06:34 PM
Hi Independant,

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I agree that Icke, Griffins (Alex Jones and others) may have some questionable viewpoints (which I myself do not agree with) - but when looking at the Fed Reserve in particular, they are on page with many others - including Wikipedia (unless you now consider Wikipedia to be a conspiracy site as well...).

Which is why I had provided you with information drawn on many sources (not just 2 so-called 'conspiracy-theorists'), that all provide the same historical data on the Fed.

The bottom line being that the Fed Reserve is nothing more than a (mostly) privately owned banking cartel, run by zionists.

This discussion however, is not about Griffins or Icke or their other theories, so I would prefer not to digress on these.

You have provided the following quote by Griifins:

For instance he says that the objective of Bretton Woods was:

'the elimination of the gold exchange standard as the basis of currency valuation and the establishment of world socialism. The method by which gold was to be eliminated in international trade was to replace it with a world currency which the IMF, acting as a world central bank, would create out of nothing. The method by which world socialism would be established was to use the World Bank to transfer money - disguised as loans - to the governments of the underdeveloped countries and to do so in such a way as to insure the demise of free enterprise. (the World Bank)...has become the engine for transferring wealth from the industrialised nations to the undeveloped countries.'
^ Couldn't agree more.
If you have read the book: Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, you may be able to appreciate this further.


Originally Posted by Independent
Where Griffin goes off the rails is in taking this to the level of New World Order conspiracy.
^ This is your opinion (that the 'New World Order' is a conspiracy).

Originally Posted by Independent
The part which I am still struggling to find detail on is the 'whodunnit' - evidence of against the various individuals named as conspirators. In your video links they are simply lists of names of people in positions of influence. They have been identified according to one criteria only - their ethnic identity. Jewish. At this level this is a purely racist observation, but I feel there must be more supporting evidence elsewhere. Do you know where Icke or Griffin go beyond listing Jewish names to giving actual evidence?
I have looked into just about every name that is mentioned in the video and confirmed for myself, that these individuals are not just regarded as jews, but are indeed zionists (by definition).
You are welcome to research this for yourself.
(Very often you will find that they describe themselves in this light as well. So I don't think there's much debate here tbh).


I don't think there would be much point in continuing this discussion further if, after all the information provided, you are still holding onto the statements made in your initial post:

Originally Posted by Independent

3. The Fed
The main engine of Jewish financial control is said to be through the Fed. But there is nothing about the Fed that doesn't make sense with its role as a legitimate financial institution. The Fed was set up in 1913 after a long period in which the US had no central bank, to its great detriment. Like most other central banks, the Fed is a quasi public/private institution. And although it is in some sense 'owned' by 12 regional banks, this is not ownership in the commonly understood sense. The controlling Board of Governors at the Fed including the Chairman are appointed by the President. The Fed is firmly under US government control and exercises policy according to government instructions. The Fed has performed the role it was created for reasonably effectively and was essential for the growth of the US economy in the 20th century.

Qui bono - Contrary to popular folklore the Fed does not significantly profit from its role. The interest it charges on lending money is repaid to the Treasury, after running costs have been deducted. For instance, in 2010 it made a profit of €82 billion of which €79 was transferred to the Treasury, not to the supporting banks. If the Fed is going to be a key part of this conspiracy, these videos do not explain how.
Or has some of these changed?


Peace
Reply

MustafaMc
09-23-2013, 04:02 AM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
(the World Bank)...has become the engine for transferring wealth from the industrialised nations to the undeveloped countries.'
I am not sure I agree with this as I rather think it is the other way around. The book you quoted by John Perkins makes the case that these loans by the IMF are a means of perpetual debt and of transferring wealth from the undeveloped world back to the banking elite. The modern concept of debt as money is a gigantic Ponzi scheme that is bound to fail at some point in time.
Reply

Independent
09-23-2013, 09:30 AM
Hi Zaria, thanks for your reply. I have tried to get down to the detail, because the detail is often factual in a way that the big picture stuff is not. The detail shows that Griffin et al are not reliable witnesses to say the least. If there really is a big conspiracy, it’s certainly has little to do with anything they’re talking about. However, I recognise that I am no more likely to persuade you of my view than the reverse.

I still have a couple of questions I would appreciate your help with, based on your far-greater reading in this area.

1. Lack of factual basis

You can understand a great deal about a writer by analyzing stretches of text in detail. In the case of Griffin’s ‘Creature’, the poor quality of research is striking. If you take almost any page you can find statements which are either highly conjectural, or plain false. A large part of his evidence is simply recycled from previous conspiracy writers – there is no origin at all in primary sources. Again and again he gives quotes to support his case, which are taken grossly out of context, sometimes to the extent of meaning the exact opposite of what he claims. I’d be willing to accept that some of them could be accidents or sloppy scholarship, but the pattern is overwhelming – he is distorting evidence to fit his case. I have never, never read a ‘history’ book with such a poor standard of scholarship (and I’ve read a lot of history books.)

I invite you to research behind his work yourself – but don’t take a recent issue you’re emotionally involved with – look at the Russian Revolution for instance. As the decades go by it’s also interesting to see how the same conspiracy ‘evidence’ is reworked for entirely different targets. Conspiracists are lousy predictors of events.

The good thing about examining this side of his scholarship is that most of it can be assessed on a genuinely factual, objective basis. A source document either exists, or it does not. A quote has been correctly assigned, or it has not. It becomes meaningless to talk about 'sheeple' or 'mainstream propaganda'. It's hard, primary source evidence.

You will see for yourself that he has fabricated and distorted evidence wholesale. After awhile, you will reach the point when you feel unable to trust anything at all he has to say. Every time I look in detail at a conspiracy writer, it’s the same pattern. They are not authentic historians, they are demagogues who make a living directly from discovering conspiracies.

2. Rothschild Zionism

When is a Jew a Jew? I rather like Woody Allen’s take on this: “I'm not a real Jew,” he said, “I'm Jew-ish”.

You say you have researched all the names as listed and found them to be Zionists. That’s more research than I have time for (NB If that evidence is in one place, please post me a link). I did do research into Rupert Murdoch in the past and found such claims were unsafe, to say the least (see this link http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html ). If he has Jewish ancestry, it’s a long way back (great grandmother at least). If that makes him suspect, then so are tens of millions of others who wouldn’t even know their own ancestry. Like as not, you me and Griffin would also be Jewish by the same criteria. In fact, it would mean that such a high percentage of the population are ‘Jewish’, then finding them represented in senior positions would cease to be remarkable.

In any case, what does it prove if these guys really are Zionist Jews? Proving someone is a Zionist does not make them party to a huge conspiracy as described by Griffin et al. The gap in evidence that I can’t fill is to link most of these individuals with actual evidence of this conspiracy. Given the scale of the crime they are charged with, that is an unforgivable oversight.

On the whole they seem to have been listed purely because they are of Jewish extraction – whether or not they are practicing. Possibly they are Zionist too, I wouldn’t know – but since the list includes all Jews in senior positions going back through history, it’s a distinction that doesn’t seem to make any difference. Are there any Jews in senior position who are considered not to be conspiracists? If the answer is 'no', then it tells you that the term 'Rothschild Zionist' is just a way for people like Icke to re-hash the old anti semitic material without being called anti semitic. It has been very successful because it has enabled him to draw in people who are not themselves anti semites (and I stress in the strongest possible terms, i don't think you are anti semitic personally) into sharing many of the same views and suspicions of actual anti semites - ie those relating to ideas of Jewish world domination. He has made such views 'hygenic'. It's also the reason why you see such a weird mix of supporters of conspiracy theories - including right wingers, socialists, anti capitalists and both Muslim and Christian groups. Although they are totally opposed to each other, and they draw different conclusions from the same evidence, they are able to share the general view that 'something's up'.

To get back to the point and my main question. Evidence of being Jewish, or evidence of being a Zionist, is not the same as evidence of an NWO grand conspiracy. Is there direct evidence linking these individuals to such a conspiracy? You have read so much more of this area than me so you may know the answer. I can’t find anything that moves beyond listing their ethnic identity. Does this evidence actually exist? It would seem not.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-23-2013, 10:56 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am not sure I agree with this as I rather think it is the other way around. The book you quoted by John Perkins makes the case that these loans by the IMF are a means of perpetual debt and of transferring wealth from the undeveloped world back to the banking elite. The modern concept of debt as money is a gigantic Ponzi scheme that is bound to fail at some point in time.

:salam: brother Mustafa,

I think this line:
(the World Bank)...has become the engine for transferring wealth from the industrialised nations to the undeveloped countries.'

needs to be taken in context with the lines that preceded it:

The method by which gold was to be eliminated in international trade was to replace it with a world currency which the IMF, acting as a world central bank, would create out of nothing.
^ True

The method by which world socialism would be established was to use the World Bank to transfer money - disguised as loans - to the governments of the underdeveloped countries and to do so in such a way as to insure the demise of free enterprise.
^ This is exactly what John Perkins describes in his book - whereby poor, developing nations are crippled by huge debts that have no prospect of ever being re-payed. In this way, that country is held 'hostage' to those who they are indebted to, and the interest and other 'profits' earned in this way enables the "the World Bank....to become the engine for transferring wealth from the industrialised nations to the undeveloped countries."

This is the context that I have understood the above quote (which is actually in agreement to what you have said above).

And Allah knows best.


:wa:
Reply

tearose
09-23-2013, 11:17 AM
As-salaamu 3laikum, I just wanted to point out that I really don't think we should be using the terms like 'created out of nothing' in this context.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-23-2013, 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
Hi Zaria, thanks for your reply. I have tried to get down to the detail, because the detail is often factual in a way that the big picture stuff is not. The detail shows that Griffin et al are not reliable witnesses to say the least. If there really is a big conspiracy, it’s certainly has little to do with anything they’re talking about. However, I recognise that I am no more likely to persuade you of my view than the reverse.

I still have a couple of questions I would appreciate your help with, based on your far-greater reading in this area.

1. Lack of factual basis.....

Hi,

I think again, the problem is that you are focusing on just one author (Griffin) and for some reason, ignoring everyone else who are echoing similar sentiments.

What about Ron Paul? I have not read his book 'End the Fed', but from its abstracts, appears to have the same theme.

What about Eustace Mullins - veteran of the US Air Force? (As linked in my previous post: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Doc/RESERVE.doc


A short quote from his book:

Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system at all, but rather, a criminal syndicate. From November, 1910, when the conspirators met on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to the present time, the machinations of the Federal Reserve bankers have been shrouded in secrecy.

Today, that secrecy has cost the American people a three trillion dollar debt, with annual interest payments to these bankers amounting to some three hundred billion dollars per year, sums which stagger the imagination, and which in themselves are ultimately unpayable. Officials of the Federal Reserve System routinely issue remonstrances to the public, much as the Hindu fakir pipes an insistent tune to the dazed cobra which sways its head before him, not to resolve the situation, but to prevent it from striking him.

Such was the soothing letter written by Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors in response to an inquiry by a Congressman, the Honorable Norman D. Shumway, on March 10, 1983. Mr. Winn states that "The Federal Reserve System was established by an act of Congress in 1913 and is not a ‘private corporation’." On the next page, Mr. Winn continues, "The stock of the Federal Reserve Banks is held entirely by commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System." He offers no explanation as to why the government has never owned a single share of stock in any Federal Reserve Bank, or why the Federal Reserve System is not a "private corporation" when all of its stock is owned by "private corporations".....


I do agree that there are some issues with some of the theories held by Griffin, Iyke (and possibly many other authors).


And I understand that you wish to establish credibility in their testimonts.......which in this case is easily achieved because of the overwhelming historical evidence with regards to the inception of the Fed Reserve.

Im not sure which part of the following you may disagree with?:

In 1910, Aldrich and executives representing the banks of J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., secluded themselves for ten days at Jekyll Island, Georgia.[5]

The executives included Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York, associated with the Rockefellers; Henry Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan Company; Charles D. Norton, president of the First National Bank of New York; and Col. Edward House, who would later become President Woodrow Wilson's closest adviser and founder of the Council on Foreign Relations.[6] There, Paul Warburg of Kuhn, Loeb, & Co. directed the proceedings and wrote the primary features of what would be called the Aldrich Plan. Warburg would later write that

"The matter of a uniform discount rate (interest rate) was discussed and settled at Jekyll Island." Vanderlip wrote in his 1935 autobiography From Farmboy to Financier:[7]
Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive, indeed, as furtive as any conspirator. None of us who participated felt that we were conspirators; on the contrary we felt we were engaged in a patriotic work. We were trying to plan a mechanism that would correct the weaknesses of our banking system as revealed under the strains and pressures of the panic of 1907.

I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyl Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress. Yet, who was there in Congress who might have drafted a sound piece of legislation dealing with the purely banking problem with which we were concerned?
Despite meeting in secret, from both the public and the government, the importance of the Jekyll Island meeting was revealed three years after the Federal Reserve Act was passed, when journalist Bertie Charles Forbes in 1916 wrote an article about the "hunting trip".[8]



The 1911–12 Republican plan was proposed by Aldrich to solve the banking dilemma, a goal which was supported by the American Bankers’ Association. The plan provided for one great central bank, the National Reserve Association, with a capital of at least $100 million and with 15 branches in various sections. The branches were to be controlled by the member banks on a basis of their capitalization. The National Reserve Association would issue currency, based on gold and commercial paper, that would be the liability of the bank and not of the government. The Association would also carry a portion of member banks’ reserves, determine discount reserves, buy and sell on the open market, and hold the deposits of the federal government. The branches and businessmen of each of the 15 districts would elect thirty out of the 39 members of the board of directors of the National Reserve Association.[9]


Aldrich fought for a private monopoly with little government influence, but conceded that the government should be represented on the board of directors.

Aldrich then presented what was commonly called the "Aldrich Plan"—which called for establishment of a "National Reserve Association"—to the National Monetary Commission.[5] Most Republicans and Wall Street bankers favored the Aldrich Plan,[6] but it lacked enough support in the bipartisan Congress to pass.[10]

Because the bill was introduced by Aldrich, who was considered the epitome of the "Eastern establishment", the bill received little support. It was derided by southerners and westerners who believed that wealthy families and large corporations ran the country and would thus run the proposed National Reserve Association.[10] The National Board of Trade appointed Warburg as head of a committee to persuade Americans to support the plan. The committee set up offices in the then-45 states and distributed printed materials about the proposed central bank.[5] The Nebraskan populist and frequent Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan said of the plan: "Big financiers are back of the Aldrich currency scheme." He asserted that if it passed, big bankers would "then be in complete control of everything through the control of our national finances."[11]


There was also Republican opposition to the Aldrich Plan. Republican Sen. Robert M. LaFollette and Rep. Charles Lindbergh Sr. both spoke out against the favoritism that they contended the bill granted to Wall Street.

"The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan…I have alleged that there is a 'Money Trust'", said Lindbergh. "The Aldrich plan is a scheme plainly in the interest of the Trust". In response, Rep. Arsène Pujo, a Democrat from Louisiana, obtained congressional authorization to form and chair a subcommittee (the Pujo Committee) within the House Committee Banking Committee, to conduct investigative hearings on the alleged "Money Trust".

The hearings continued for a full year and were led by the subcommittee's counsel, Democratic lawyer Samuel Untermyer, who later also assisted in drafting the Federal Reserve Act. The "Pujo hearings"[12] convinced much of the populace that America's money largely rested in the hands of a select few on Wall Street. The Subcommittee issued a report saying:[13]
"If by a 'money trust' is meant an established and well-defined identity and community of interest between a few leaders of finance…which has resulted in a vast and growing concentration of control of money and credit in the hands of a comparatively few men…the condition thus described exists in this country today...To us the peril is manifest...When we find...the same man a director in a half dozen or more banks and trust companies all located in the same section of the same city, doing the same class of business and with a like set of associates similarly situated all belonging to the same group and representing the same class of interests, all further pretense of competition is useless.... "[11]
.........As noted in a paper by the American Institute of Economic Research:
In its final form, the Federal Reserve Act represented a compromise among three political groups.

Most Republicans (and the Wall Street bankers) favored the Aldrich Plan that came out of Jekyll Island. Progressive Democrats demanded a reserve system and currency supply owned and controlled by the Government in order to counter the "money trust" and destroy the existing concentration of credit resources in Wall Street. Conservative Democrats proposed a decentralized reserve system, owned and controlled privately but free of Wall Street domination. No group got exactly what it wanted. But the Aldrich plan more nearly represented the compromise position between the two Democrat extremes, and it was closest to the final legislation passed.[6]
Frank Vanderlip, one of the Jekyll Island attendees and the president of National City Bank, wrote in his autobiography:[7]
Although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was defeated when it bore the name Aldrich, nevertheless its essential points were all contained in the plan that was finally adopted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...Reserve_System

^ The inception of the Fed Reserve is not conspiracy. This is history, and it can be verified from any number of sources.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-23-2013, 11:51 AM
Originally Posted by tearose
As-salaamu 3laikum, I just wanted to point out that I really don't think we should be using the terms like 'created out of nothing' in this context.
:jz: sister,


The above is a quote by Griffin.

It refers to our monetary system that is not real, that can be printed whenever there is a need - and so it actually has no value.
Versus using gold as a currency.

(As muslims we believe that Allah is the Creator of all things, and that everything is due to Him.
The above phrase is referencing a quote made by a non-muslim.)


:wa:
Reply

tearose
09-23-2013, 12:25 PM
wa iyyaki sister, I know it was not your statement. Using statements by non-Muslims can be very useful in certain arguments, I was just thinking that in some cases it would be better to introduce a clarification/qualification along with their statements.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-24-2013, 04:34 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
2. Rothschild Zionism

When is a Jew a Jew? I rather like Woody Allen’s take on this: “I'm not a real Jew,” he said, “I'm Jew-ish”.....
Greetings,

Definition of zionism (by Oxford dictionary):
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.


So, a zionist is one (usually of jewish descent, but can be of any other background) who is seeking to establish a jewish 'homeland' in Palestine.

A true jew does not seek the displacement of an entire nation for these reasons:

WHY ORTHODOX JEWS ARE OPPOSED TO A ZIONIST STATE

First some introductions:



1) What is "The People of Israel" ?



  • The People of Israel have existed for thousands of years.
  • They have their own particular, essential nature.
  • The Torah is the source of their essential nature.
  • Without Torah and Faith there is no People of Israel.
  • Whoever denies the Torah and the Faith is no longer part of the People of Israel.
  • The purpose of the People of Israel in this world is Divine Service.
  • Their salvation is occupation in Divine Service.

2) What is Zionism?

  • Zionism is a relatively new thing.
  • It has only existed for a century.
  • Zionism redefines the true essential nature of the People of Israel, and substitutes for it a completely contradictory and opposite character - a materialistic worldly nation.
  • Their misfortune is lack of what other nations possess, i.e. a state and army.
  • Their salvation is possession of a state and army etc.
  • This is clearly spelled out in the circles of Zionist thought, and among the leaders of the Zionist State, that through changing the nature and character of the People of Israel and by changing their way of thinking they can set before the People of Israel "their salvation" -- a state and an army.

The People of Israel oppose the so-called "State of Israel" for four reasons:




FIRST -- The so-called "State of Israel" is diametrically opposed and completely contradictory to the true essence and foundation of the People of Israel, as is explained above. The only time that the People of Israel were permitted to have a state was two thousand years ago when the glory of the creator was upon us, and likewise in the future when the glory of the creator will once more be revealed, and the whole world will serve Him, then He Himself (without any human effort or force of arms) will grant us a kingdom founded on Divine Service. However, a worldly state, like those possessed by other peoples, is contradictory to the true essence of the People of Israel. Whoever calls this the salvation of Israel shows that he denies the essence of the People of Israel, and substitutes another nature, a worldly materialistic nature, and therefore sets before them, a worldly materialistic "salvation," and the means of achieving this "salvation" is also worldly and materialistic i.e. to organize a land and army. However, the true salvation of the People of Israel is to draw close to the Creator. This is not done by organization and force of arms. Rather it is done by occupation to Torah and good deeds.



SECOND
-- Because of all of this and other reasons the Torah forbids us to end the exile and establish a state and army until the Holy One, blessed He, in His Glory and Essence will redeem us. This is forbidden even if the state is conducted according to the law of the Torah because arising from the exile itself is forbidden, and we are required to remain under the rule of the nations of the world, as is explained in the book VAYOEL MOSHE. If we transgress this injunction, He will bring upon us (may we be spared) terrible punishment.



THIRD
-- Aside from arising from exile, all the deeds of the Zionists are diametrically opposed to the Faith and the Torah. Because the foundation of the Faith and Torah of Israel is that the Torah was revealed from heaven, and there is reward for those who obey it and punishment for those who transgress it. The entire People of Israel is required to obey the Torah, and whoever doesn't want to, ceases to be part of the congregation of Israel.



FOURTH
-- Aside from the fact that they themselves do not obey the Torah they do everything they can to prevent anyone they get under their power from fulfilling the commands of the Torah, the claims to freedom of religion are lies. They fight with all of their strength to destroy the Faith of Israel.



The Zionists claim that they are the saviors of Israel, but this is refuted by twelve things:




FIRST
-- If one contemplates the two thousand years of our exile, take any hundred years even the hardest, one will not find as much suffering, bloodshed, and catastrophes for the People of Israel in the period of the Zionists, and it is known that most of the suffering of this century was caused by the Zionists, as our Rabbis warned us would be the case.

SECOND -- It is openly stated in books written by the founders of Zionism that the means by which they planned to establish a state was by instigating anti-Semitism, and undermining the security of the Jews in all the lands of the world, until they would be forced to flee to their state. And thus they did - They intentionally infuriated the German people and fanned the flames of Nazi hatred, and they helped the Nazis, with trickery and deceit, to take whole Jewish communities off to the concentration camps, and the Zionists themselves admit this. (See the books Perfidy, Min Hameitzor, etc.). The Zionists continue to practice this strategy today. They incite anti-Semitism and then they present themselves as the "saviors". Here are two replies given by Leaders of the Zionists during World War II, when they were asked for money to help ransom Jews from the Nazis. Greenbaum said "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland." (G-d forbid).
Weitzman said, "The most important part of the Jewish people is already in the land (of Israel) and those who are left, are unimportant" (May we be spared).

THIRD -- We see that most of world Jewry lives in security and under good physical conditions, and have no desire to go live in the Zionist State. Whereas many people have left the Zionist State to live under better conditions in other lands.

FOURTH -- The Zionists make a great deal of propaganda to induce people to immigrate to their state. If their state is so beneficial why do they have to make so much propaganda.

FIFTH -- Because nobody wants the Zionists to "save" them. The only way they can get immigrants is by promising poor people material benefits, and even then very few people respond.

SIXTH -- The Zionist State is always threatened by the dangers of war. Whereas the rest of world Jewry live in peace and security, (Except in a few places where the Zionists have undermined their security and fanned the flames of hatred)

SEVENTH -- The Zionist State could not continue to exist without economic support from Jews living outside of the Zionist State.

EIGHTH -- The Zionist State is on the verge of economic collapse, and their money is nearly worthless.

NINTH -- The Zionist State persecute all Jews who are loyal to their Faith.

TENTH -- They start wars that endanger the Jewish People, for the sake of their own political interests.

ELEVENTH - According to the Torah the path of safety is following ways of peace not starting fights with other nations, as the Zionists do.

TWELFTH -- Even if the Zionists could and would provide physical security it would be at the expense of our Faith and Our Torah the true People of Israel prefer death rather than life at such a cost.

It is therefore clear that Zionism is not the savior of the people of Israel. Rather it is their greatest misfortune.


Even though there are some observant Jews and rabbis, who approve of the Zionists, this is not the opinion of the Torah.


The Zionists have enough control over the American news media to make sure that only their side of the story is heard.


They make it look like all Jewry and their rabbis are Zionists, but this is false propaganda.


The most important Rabbis and the majority of religious Jewry are opposed to Zionism, but their voice is not heard because of Zionist control of American news media.


The Zionists terrorize everyone who speaks out against them.


That part of the Jewish masses which is fooled by Zionist propaganda puts pressure on their Rabbis not to speak out.


Between the terror and the pressure of the masses most of the Rabbis are prevented from speaking out.



We bring three testimonies of the true opinion of the Torah.


1) In the past two thousand years of the dangers and sufferings of exile not once did any of the Sages of Israel suggest that we make a state to protect ourselves. In every generation we had thousands of Sages well versed in the Torah.

2) We have thousands of legal work of Torah law that have been handed down to us by the Sages of all generations. Not once do we see a word suggesting the establishment of a state. What we do find is warnings against it.

3) The founders of Zionism were all atheists who denied the Torah. All the Torah Sages of that time opposed them and opposed Zionism, saying that Zionism would lead only to destruction.


However the true People of Israel will never change their nature or give up their Faith because of the strength the Creator gives them.


Zionism is a foreign growth in the body of the Jewish People. The end will be that it will rid itself of this foreign growth and remain pure.


Zionism has overcome the Jewish people by force, fraud and terror, but none of this will help them because the truth will always remain with the help of the Creator.


Zionism will not replace the Jewish People. The Jewish People will remain strong in their faith and the Zionist State will cease to exist.


It is therefore, our demand that the State that calls itself ISRAEL, should cease to exist. Since this won't be done, we demand that they cease to call themselves "Israel", because their entire being is in complete opposition to the true People of Israel. The true People of Israel deny them permission to call themselves by that name. The Zionist leaders have no right to set themselves up as the representatives and spokesmen of the true People of ISRAEL.


Since we know they will not fulfill this demand either we feel that at least we cry out the truth. The truth will always remain the truth. By no means or force can the truth be changed. Even if all the world would say that one and one is three, the truth will remain that one and one is two.


Let the truth be declared. The use of the Name "ISRAEL" by that State is a complete falsification. The People of Israel have nothing to do with that State. Zionism and its State have no share and no part in the true ISRAEL.





http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm

Based on this definition, it is relatively easy to seperate jews from zionists in senate and other key positions.


Originally Posted by Independent
You say you have researched all the names as listed and found them to be Zionists.
Not all :exhausted, but a number of the mentioned names.

Here are a few:

Rahm Emaneul:
"Emanuel was born on November 29, 1959 in Chicago, Illinois. His father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, is a Jerusalem-born[2] pediatrician who was once a member of the Irgun, a Jewish paramilitary organization that operated in Mandate Palestine.[3]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel)

Irgun:
"The Irgun policy was based on what was then called Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. According to Howard Sachar, "The policy of the new organization was based squarely on Jabotinsky's teachings: every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Rahm Emanuel himself was a civilian volunteer assisting the Israel Defense Forces. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel)


George Soros

Founder/ supporter of J-Street:
"In 2011, J-Street opposed recognizing Palestine as an independent state at the United Nations.[12]
According to its website, J Street "recognizes and supports Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people"[13] and Israel's "desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own."[4]
…..
The initial support of J Street came from multi-billionaire George Soros, who for a brief time was associated with the organization. Soros pulled out before the initial launch, so as not to negatively affect the group.[25] In September 2010 it was revealed that despite the organization's denials, Soros secretly funded the group.[26]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Street

Lewis Eisenberg

Board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition and member of the Planning Board of the United Jewish Appeal/United Jewish Federation


Larry Silverstein

Has served as chairman of the United Jewish Appeal.


Richard Perle

"Author of ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean...ring_the_Realm

And the list goes on.....

I think (I hope) you are getting the picture now.


Peace
Reply

al-qannash
09-24-2013, 06:51 AM
go watch this video on youtube

watch?v=Sp-PkLlGoAE
Reply

Independent
09-24-2013, 10:21 AM
Greetings Zaria - another very long answer from me:

1. Ron Paul’s economics
I am not averse to Austrian School economics (which Ron Paul favours) in principle. It represents an interesting critique of modern economics. I am also attracted to the idea of minimalist government as an argument – but in extreme forms it’s unproven and has many dangers. If Ron Paul were ever to look like gaining power, I think the first result would be a financial crisis of the first order – simply because the changes are so radical and unpredictable. It would be unbelievably risky. For me, the Austrian School need to win the intellectual argument before they start trying to implement anything in real life. BUT none of this has any necessary link with NWOs or any other conspiracy theory.

2. Ron Paul general views
I do have a problem with some of Ron Paul’s other views. You may be familiar with these Ron Paul quotes from a series of newsletters he published 20 years ago:
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” (1992)
“We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.” (in response to Reagan naming a national holiday after Martin Luther King).

3. Ron Paul and the NWO
Is Ron Paul a conspiracy theorist himself? He has certainly tried to attract support here and his comments can be enigmatic. However, this is definitive in regard to 9/11:
"About the conspiracy of Bush -- of Bush knowing about this? No, no, come on. Come on. Let's be reasonable. That's just off-the-wall." See also this video where he unequivocally rejects 9/11 conspiracies:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8e_1198029301
He says he can see government ineptitude in the run up to 9/11 but not collusion – and in that I wholeheartedly agree. He rejects US foreign affairs policy and international intervention because he’s an old fashioned US isolationist (you can find similar guys in the UK, mostly on the right).

4. Edward Mullins
I haven’t read of his work directly but looking at summaries, I don’t think he’ll be any more impressive than Griffin. They share many of the same views about history (Russian Revolution, French Revolution, reasons for wars etc) which are subjects about which I have read extensively, and where I strongly disagree on factual grounds (as I described before). I’ll have a look when I get a chance but I can see already he’s using the same poor quality sources as Griffin.

5. Wikipaedia
Wikipaedia articles vary in quality because of their individual contributors – however, I don’t disagree with anything you quoted here.

This article does not support your views! It tells us the meeting was secret – that’s not in dispute by anyone – but secrecy doesn’t have to mean an NWO conspiracy. As industry experts, Aldrich and the others knew the system was broken and needed reforming. But they also knew that, as bankers, they were sufficiently unpopular as to make it hard for them to sell any idea, simply because it came from their mouths. Hence the secrecy. Crucially, their proposal was in any case rejected in favour of the current structure, whereby the government controls the Fed Chairman and Board. It’s a massive difference. Wikipaedia describes these political manoeverings, no more than that.

It’s important to understand, the concepts of a central bank and fractional reserve banking are not inherently linked to an NWO or any other conspiracy. They are economic management systems with pros and cons like any other. Ron Paul objects to the Fed as an economic system and this is a legitimate criticism – although it remains a minority viewpoint. For instance, it’s very bad at explaining why countries who had adopted such sophisticated financial systems have outperformed those that did not.

As you say – the inception of the Federal Reserve is not a conspiracy. It’s an economic strategy. You can argue about how successful it’s been, but it has no necessary association with an NWO or any other political plan. You may disagree with the straightforward explanation for the Fed as a financial instrument, but there is nothing inherently odd about it.

6. Zionism
It seems to me that individuals can mean very different things by Zionism. For instance, it doesn’t necessarily mean a commitment to the current state of Israel and Israel’s wars, although it may do.

But in any case, whether or not someone is a Zionist does not prove a thing about an NWO. Does an NWO supporter even have to be a Zionist? Running through lists of Jews in high office and trying to prove they are Zionists, without any qualification about the nature of that individual Zionism, gets us nowhere.

Where is the evidence linking each of these individuals to an NWO? Forget about whether they are Zionists or not, that's a distraction. The whole NWO could be more or less as you describe, but for a purpose other than Zionism. So identifying Zionists gets us nowhere, one way or the other.

This is the gap in evidence. There is an astonishing lack of primary evidence for an NWO, as well as the participation of so many individuals, or any plausible explanation for the practicalities of ongoing recruitment of leaders in non-dynastic governments. The NWO is too high level, too conjectural – which is why people are able to hold such dramatically different views about the objectives in any given situation (Syria etc).
Reply

Independent
09-24-2013, 10:27 AM
Originally Posted by al-qannash
go watch this video on youtube

watch?v=Sp-PkLlGoAE
When I pasted this in my browser it took me to a page with many videos, not one. I started playing the first (3rd world war) but it talked for some time about the need to start shooting people and I'd had enough. Does it give evidence linking individuals to an NWO later? I suspect not.
Reply

al-qannash
09-24-2013, 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
When I pasted this in my browser it took me to a page with many videos, not one. I started playing the first (3rd world war) but it talked for some time about the need to start shooting people and I'd had enough. Does it give evidence linking individuals to an NWO later? I suspect not.
sorry, you are out of luck, try again later
Reply

~Zaria~
09-24-2013, 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
Greetings Zaria - another very long answer from me:
Hi,

Im not sure why you are trying to confuse things so much.....the first 3 paragraphs seem to be attempts to get lost in this topic.

Lets keep it simple.
I have not (and neither have the posted videos) discussed NWO - so lets leave that aside (thats higher grade stuff....and we are a long way away from here at the moment :P At this rate, Im not sure if we going to get there at all, lol. jk)

For now, lets focus on the Federal Reserve Bank and what you had initially mentioned.
I will post your comments here individually, and lets see if we have managed to change any of these thoughts thus far:


3. The Fed
The main engine of Jewish financial control is said to be through the Fed. But there is nothing about the Fed that doesn't make sense with its role as a legitimate financial institution.
^ I think we have shown without a shadow of a doubt that the Fed indeed is a privately owned cartel, controlled by majority jews (more specifically zionists).
And I hope, from its historical background (inception on a private island, in secrecy from the rest of the world and US senate) that its origins are really not as legitimate as many think they are.
Your theory of the bankers being unpopular (and therefore the need for secrecy) is really clutching at straws.


Like most other central banks, the Fed is a quasi public/private institution.
I hope you can now appreciate that the Fed is actually almost completely (if not entirely) privately run.
^ No differences of opinion here, I hope.


And although it is in some sense 'owned' by 12 regional banks, this is not ownership in the commonly understood sense. The controlling Board of Governors at the Fed including the Chairman are appointed by the President. The Fed is firmly under US government control and exercises policy according to government instructions.
If nothing else, I hope that you can appreciate that the Fed is actually an authority onto itself.
That actually refuses any internal or external audits.....even members of the congress dont know what is going on behind its closed doors.
Do you know of any other public system that operates in this way?







Reflect on the following words by Napoleon, made way back in 1815:
When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes… Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
– Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815



The Fed has performed the role it was created for reasonably effectively and was essential for the growth of the US economy in the 20th century.
Hence the ++trillion dollar debt?
Hence the fact that the dollar has lost over 90% of its value since the inception of the Fed?


Qui bono - Contrary to popular folklore the Fed does not significantly profit from its role.
I hope you can now understand that this certainly is no 'folklore'.
The ones to gain, are the ones who are in financial 'control'.


Originally Posted by Independent
6. Zionism
Originally Posted by Independent
It seems to me that individuals can mean very different things by Zionism. For instance, it doesn’t necessarily mean a commitment to the current state of Israel and Israel’s wars, although it may do.

The definition of zionism provided above is the most commonly understood/ agreed upon (I actually dont know of any other definition besides this).
I dont think we need to redefine/ challenge commonly accepted definitions.

Originally Posted by Independent
Forget about whether they are Zionists or not, that's a distraction.
You had asked for proof that the individuals mentioned in the second vid are indeed zionists.....and now you have it.
But now you say that we should "forget about whether or not they are zionists, thats a distraction"??
How so?
Knowing who is in 'control' of US policies, the fed reserve bank, the media, etc. is of utmost importance.


For now, the above points should be clear as day - and I hope, at the very least, we are on the same page by now, before bringing any other discussion into this topic.

If not, then Im happy to say that I have provided you with the relevant information (that I am aware of; theres lots more out there), and so my duty is done.
If you still do not wish to appreciate these facts , then unfortunately, there's not much more that I can do, and we can agree to disagree on this.


Peace
Reply

Independent
09-24-2013, 05:11 PM
Hi Zaria

No, I don't take any of these points as given, not least because Griffin himself doesn't claim any of them either. At least, that's what he says. Let me explain.
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
I hope you can now appreciate that the Fed is actually almost completely (if not entirely) privately run.
I can understand why you think Griffin is making these arguments. That was my first impression too. But in response to a very good criticism from an economist called Edward Flaherty, who challenged him with a range of factual criticism regarding Creature, he presents an entirely different picture. Griffin disowns all of these basic tenets about the Fed that he himself has made popular.

I quote Flaherty's challenge together with Griffin's response on the key issues:ownership, profits, management, and auditing.

Ownership:
Flaherty: ‘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.’
Griffin:Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise.’

Profits
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.’
Griffin: ‘It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government.’

Auditing
Flaherty: ‘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.’
Griffin: ‘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.
(If you read Griffin’s reply here carefully, you will see that he does not deny that the Fed is audited – which is a matter of public record - but for some reason he doesn’t give he claims it ‘resists’ it)

Given his hostile view of the Fed, if Griffin accepts it is publicly managed, audited and gives its profits to the government, why shouldn't I?
Reply

~Zaria~
09-24-2013, 06:02 PM
I think it would be best to provide Griffin's complete response to Flaherty's critic:


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.

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

Originally Posted by Independent
Given his hostile view of the Fed, if Griffin accepts it is publicly managed, audited and gives its profits to the government, why shouldn't I?
^ You are twisting his words here: he did not accept that the Fed is 'publicly managed' (see (1));

with regards to the auditing - it is a widely known fact that the Fed resists external audits (and even internal ones - refer to vid above). Which is one of the reasons why it took us so long to discover the mess we really were in: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsro.../the-fed-audit

and he does not agree that 'profits are given to the government' (see (2)).


Is there a particular reason why you wish to 'protect' the Fed so to speak - when there are multiple investigators who confirm the same story?....

[On another note:
Does 'Other' in your profile refer to:
a) Banker
b) Jew
c) Zionist
(Its multiple choice - you can chose one....) Thanks]
Reply

Independent
09-24-2013, 06:59 PM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
^ You are twisting his words here: he did not accept that the Fed is 'publicly managed' (see (1));
Yes he does, as he is obliged to when faced with the facts. However he now says that it doesn't matter if the Fed has a publicly appointed Board and Chairman or not - because the Government is corrupted too. This is a different claim. It also makes the first claim irrelevant. If the government is also under conspiracy control, what does it matter if the Fed is public or private? He has changed the subject because the first claim is demonstrably untrue.

It's also not the claim he made in his book, which he has been obliged to retreat from.

Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
with regards to the auditing - it is a widely known fact that the Fed resists external audits
Whether or not the Fed 'resists' audits is not the big issue - the fact is that it is fallacious to claim that it is 'unaudited', which is the original claim. Because it is regularly audited. The original claim is either poor scholarship, or a lie.

Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
and he does not agree that 'profits are given to the government' (see (2))
Again, you are not reading him closely enough. He does agree that profits are rebated to the government - however, he now makes the new claim that this doesn't matter because the real money is to be made from re-loaning the money (ie fractional reserve banking). This is a different claim. It's true the banks make a profit from this, through their own activity. However, the banks were already doing this before they became part of the Fed. They can do this with any reserves from deposits and savings. He has changed the subject because the first claim is demonstrably untrue.

Once again, he is obliged to withdraw a false claim about profits, and reconstitute it in an entirely different form.

Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Is there a particular reason why you wish to 'protect' the Fed so to speak - when there are multiple investigators who confirm the same story?....
Most of them are from the same stable, who quote and plagiarise each other freely.

So, the phrases I quoted in the post above accurately reflect Griffin's views on those specific subjects, but not the new, entirely different set of claims which you have quoted. It's not my fault if he can't stick to his own story.
Reply

Independent
09-24-2013, 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
You had asked for proof that the individuals mentioned in the second vid are indeed zionists.....and now you have it.
But now you say that we should "forget about whether or not they are zionists, thats a distraction"??
How so?
What I am after is the same thing I looked for at the start - evidence directly linking these individuals to a conspiracy.To quote myself from earlier: 'Do you know where Icke or Griffin go beyond listing Jewish names to giving actual evidence?' Being Jewish, or a Zionist, or both, does not in itself mean they are conspiring to dominate the Fed or any other institution.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-24-2013, 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
However he now says that.....

With regards to ownership, can you indicate where he has mentioned, in his own words, that the Fed is foreign controlled?

He says:
"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...."

^ You have placed words into Griffins mouth.....and then go on to state that he has denied/ changed them.


Originally Posted by Independent
Whether or not the Fed 'resists' audits is not the big issue - the fact is that it is fallacious to claim that it is 'unaudited', which is the original claim.
Again, where exactly did Griffin, himself, make the claim that the Fed is 'unaudited'?

Im not sure if you are aware of what it took to even get the Fed audited in the first place.





No doubt, this is the reason why these types of embarrassing situations occur (where the Fed Inspector General herself, has no clue as to where the missing trillion dollars went to:




Originally Posted by Independent
Again, you are not reading him closely enough. He does agree that profits are rebated to the government - however, he now makes the new claim that this doesn't matter because the real money is to be made from re-loaning the money (ie fractional reserve banking). This is a different claim.
Where does Griffin himself say that the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed?
He mentions fractional reserve banking in his 600+ page book - so this is not a new claim at all.


^ Im not sure what you are trying to achieve by dissecting ONE authors words (from the many out there who are all saying basically the same about the Fed, as mentioned previously) and in addition trying to confound them even further.

The truth about the Fed Reserve is plain for all to see.
If you wish to believe the rosy picture that you have painted for the Fed, then may continue to do so.

All the best
Reply

~Zaria~
09-24-2013, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
What I am after is the same thing I looked for at the start - evidence directly linking these individuals to a conspiracy.To quote myself from earlier: 'Do you know where Icke or Griffin go beyond listing Jewish names to giving actual evidence?' Being Jewish, or a Zionist, or both, does not in itself mean they are conspiring to dominate the Fed or any other institution.

I have no intention of discussing any evidence to a 'NWO conspiracy' with you, if you can not even see the Fed for what it is (and there are hardly any doubts left here tbh).

Seriously....apologies, but no.


Peace
Reply

Independent
09-24-2013, 10:45 PM
Auditing
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Again, where exactly did Griffin, himself, make the claim that the Fed is 'unaudited'?
He makes this claim in the passage you quote. First he says: ‘The Fed resists external audit’. From this, we’re not sure if the Fed has resisted and succumbed, or is still unaudited. The next sentence tells us where his opinion lies: ‘If it were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found’. What’s he talking about, ‘if it were audited’? It has been audited! What does he mean, he ‘suspects nothing illegal would be found’ – it has been audited, we already know this! Griffin continues to imply it remains unaudited, even at this stage.

Ownership
With regard to the public/private issue, Griffin does indeed accept that the Fed has a publicly appointed Chairman and Board (he can hardly deny it). As Flaherty puts it:‘…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.’

Griffin replies: ‘Basically, Flaherty is correct as far as he goes.’ As I explained before, Griffin goes on to say that the public scrutiny (ie the government) doesn’t make any difference because the government is being controlled by the bankers as well. This claim does not make sense with the statement ‘the Fed is privately owned and managed’, if Griffin or anyone else is making it. If the government is also being controlled, it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not the Fed is public or private, so why does he bother talking about it?

Profits/interest
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Where does Griffin himself say that the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed?
I already quoted that passage for you earlier, here it is again:
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.’
Griffin: ‘It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government.’ As I described before, Griffin goes on to make a new claim that this doesn’t matter any more, they make their money in another way.

Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
He mentions fractional reserve banking in his 600+ page book - so this is not a new claim at all.
It is a new claim in relation to the question of how the Fed profits, which he introduces because he is obliged to accept that the Fed does not retain a significant amount of interest on the bonds.

So to summarise: Griffin accepts that the Fed is publicly controlled, not private. He accepts that almost all the interest on the Government bonds is rebated to the Treasury, not retained as profit. He does not appear to accept it is audited, although this makes no sense, as it is a matter of public record. Nevertheless, he continues to portray the Fed as a nest of conspirators for other reasons.

Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
^ Im not sure what you are trying to achieve by dissecting ONE authors words (from the many out there who are all saying basically the same about the Fed, as mentioned previously)
There's no other way to take them except one at a time. Also, at the evidence level they overlap strongly. But the degree of detail that's required (as in this thread) is enough to make me understand why no one else bothers.

Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
If you wish to believe the rosy picture that you have painted for the Fed, then may continue to do so.
I am not especially an admirer of the Fed (personally I prefer the Bundesbank model) and it has many failings - but conspiracy against its own people isn't one of them.
Reply

Independent
09-24-2013, 10:52 PM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
I have no intention of discussing any evidence to a 'NWO conspiracy' with you, if you can not even see the Fed for what it is (and there are hardly any doubts left here tbh).
That's an unexpected answer and I'm not sure I understand it. Surely, neither being a Jew, nor being a Zionist, is enough in itself to link someone to this or any other conspiracy? Are you saying that everyone who is identified as a Zionist is a conspirator? Zionism itself only dates to the late 19th century, and many of these conspiracy ideas predate that. I've always assumed people had other evidence, but is that it? Just being a Zionist?
Reply

Scimitar
09-25-2013, 12:14 AM
The word, Zionist was first penned by Nathan Birnbaum (1869 – 1934).

there are two types of zionists. one set wont call themselves that - they'll call themselves Jews and expect to return to Israel in peace when their Messiah arrives. That Messiah may be Isa AS.

the other group call themselves Zionists and they are taking the land by force, and in direct conflict with Jewish prophecy of returning peacefully to the homeland once their messiah returns. Who knows, maybe these Zionists already have a Messiah - a false one puppet pulling strings of governments and all? they already own all the BIG banks.

Reminds me of these ayaat in the Qur'an, re:

And there is prohibition upon [the people of] a city which We have destroyed that they will [ever] return
Until when [the dam of] Gog and Magog has been opened and they, from every elevation, descend
And [when] the true promise has approached; then suddenly the eyes of those who disbelieved will be staring [in horror, while they say], "O woe to us; we had been unmindful of this; rather, we were wrongdoers." [Al Anbiya 95-97] (sahih int tr)

If you really wanna fight back, break up your credit cards and take your money out of your banks to avoid the riba on it. Live halal.

That's how you fight back.

Scimi
Reply

~Zaria~
09-25-2013, 05:02 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
He makes this claim in the passage you quote. First he says: ‘The Fed resists external audit’. From this, we’re not sure if the Fed has resisted and succumbed, or is still unaudited.
'Resisting' an audit is very different from being unaudited.
Griffins says that: ‘The Fed resists external audit’ - which is TRUE.
It HAS been auditted but with much (ongoing) resistance. Please watch the last 2 videos that have been posted.


Originally Posted by Independent
Griffin continues to imply it remains unaudited, even at this stage.
Judging from the last video that has been posted, Im not sure if you regard what is currently going on, as an 'Audit' of the fed.

So, please dont shoot down the messenger, when his message is completely true.



Originally Posted by Independent
]With regard to the public/private issue, Griffin does indeed accept that the Fed has a publicly appointed Chairman and Board (he can hardly deny it).

As Flaherty puts it:‘…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.’
^ You are mixing up the concept of whether or not the Fed is 'foreignly controlled' (which Griffin denies ever saying - see last paragraph of his reply)
versus whether or not the Fed is privately owned, but publically auditted/ controlled.

In the latter case, Griffin is expounding on the fact that even those who are tasked to 'publically control' the Fed are specifically selected for this purpose.
He has never denied this/ changed what he has said - he is just repeating what he has always being saying.

If there was such transparency with regards to the financials of the Fed, then please tell us why it has been such an uphill battle for even those in congress to know what is going on?
Again, refer back to the history of the Fed being auditted and the issues that surround this.
Just because you do not wish to appreciate the full extent of this story, does not make Griffin a liar.


Profits/ Interest:

I had asked: "Where does Griffin himself say that the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed?"

^ To mean, where has Griffin himself, ever denied this (in his own book/ audio)? Answer: He has not denied this.
In his reply, he is simply agreeing to what Flaherty says (not in the manner of changing his own story - but in agreement), and again provides his full story (which is not a new claim at all - please refer to his original text).



************


You can continue to try to pick holes in the stories of each and every person who is against the Fed, and try to find some sort of discrepency (even when it is not there).

I am yet to hear you find any fault with the fraudulent, deceptive, interest-crippling Fed' - who is the cause behind the US economy being in ~9++ trillion dollar debt (most of which can not be even accounted for).
I am yet to see you look for the discrepancies between what the Fed says and what is actually revealed in its partial audits that occur with much resistance.
And perhaps comment on these, and why it is such, that the religious group that is the absolute minority in the states has found themselves so well represented on all fronts of financial, political and every other decision-making.
And rather than try to find excuses for why the meeting of Jekyll island occurred by 7 zionists in secrecy (that resulted in the policies that are now found in the Fed) - analyze and critically examine these.

Originally Posted by Independent
I am not especially an admirer of the Fed (personally I prefer the Bundesbank model) and it has many failings - but conspiracy against its own people isn't one of them.
^ Its not a conspiracy.
All that has been mentioned in this thread has, and is happening in broad daylight.

You dont have to believe us/ Griffin/ Iyke/ Paul/ Mullins or the hundreds of others (both within congress and outside of it) who corroborate the same story.
Research them for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

As mentioned, there not much more I can provide you on this. The choice is yours.

Peace
Reply

~Zaria~
09-25-2013, 06:02 AM
Please watch and share your thoughts:

Reply

Independent
09-26-2013, 10:17 AM
Greetings Zaria

What Griffin and his fellow conspiracists say is complicated and not unanimous. What their followers believe they are saying is more clear cut. As a result of Griffin’s and others’ work, many people believe the Fed is privately owned, privately managed and keeps all its profits for evil Jews. All three of these beliefs are wrong unless they are severely rephrased and qualified:

a) The institution of the Fed is in fact owned and managed at Board level by the Government (not by private banks and individuals, Jewish or otherwise).
b) It is regularly audited (although not everyone feels that audit is sufficiently wide ranging).
c) It does rebate almost all its profits to the Treasury relating to Treasury bonds (but some people feel it enables the banks to make unreasonable profits by re-lending the money the Treasury places with them).

With regard to the recent financial crisis and the Fed’s role in committing trillions of dollars in quantative easing and liquidity measures:

Although the notion of a Jewish financial conspiracy is baseless, that doesn’t mean there isn’t corruption and ineptitude in high finance. Did the Fed handle the collapse of Lehmans and the ensuing crisis right? We can only see what actually did happen, not what might have happened. The panic of those days was so great that there was a real danger of systemic collapse. In the event this was avoided, and I think the Fed and other institutions deserve credit for that. Whether they took the best decision is arguable, but they had to do something quick, and it did fulfill its primary objective (to stop the panic).

They provided trillions of dollars worth of liquidity in a deliberately different strategy from the 1930s, when governments reacted by protectionism and credit limitations – which was a disaster. Where did those trillions go? Into the pockets of Jewish bankers? Absolutely no evidence has been presented that this is what happened. If it had happened, the rescue plan could never have succeeded. Yes, some of the banks that received new liquidity had Jewish names on the door (although many of those are publicly quoted anyway), but it would have been truly extraordinary if the Fed had deliberately omitted rescuing such institutions.

When the crisis hit, the valuation of many assets and loans was entirely wiped out. Unless the economy was re-inflated with fresh liquidity immediately we would have potentially have seen the entire sysem collapsing in domino style.

The Fed didn’t create the crisis, but private financial institutions did (including all those that Ron Paul wants to set free from Fed interference). Many companies behaved in a stunningly reckless way with seemingly little understanding of the potential consequences of the risks they took in pursuit of short term gain.

We desperately need improve financial regulation to avoid a repeat. Whether that goes to the Fed or another body is up for debate, but to resist the idea of regulation because you don’t like the Fed is plain stupid. This is where the conspiracy theorists cause such damage to society. People waste time with fears of the Fed extending its power, instead of focusing on the need for regulation.

The whole American debate is hamstrung by the historic suspicion Americans have for central government (because it’s what they ran away from in Europe). There is a crazy confusion in some Fed opponents between resisting giving too much power to the Fed (because they think the big banks control it) and sweeping away the Fed (which is actually the only means the government has to control the banks in the US). Again, this valid debate is wrecked by paranoid conspiracists encouraging deep, gut fears about reds or Jews under the bed.

If you look at what happened elsewhere in the world during the crisis, America hasn’t done too badly under the Fed. In fact, America is looking distinctly healthier as a result of a high spending Fed than Europe with an austerity driven European Bank. (America’s main problem today is not debt but a current account deficit because of the failure either to raise taxes or cut spending).

My own country (Ireland) failed catastrophically to deal with the crisis and by its actions has literally ruined the country for a generation to come. (As a matter of fact, in Ireland you can see corruption and collusion between bankers and government, but not as part of any worldwide conspiracy and entirely without Jews.)

Other countries across Europe, especially Greece, Portugal and Spain, are reeling from ongoing crisis. Each one is very different in nature from the other. There is no pattern of world wide conspiracy. It’s also really hard to find anyone who gained from it. Many of the people who gained most during the boom lost most in the crash – and that’s both investors and ordinary citizens.

Trillions of euro have been lost. Not stolen, lost. Any number of individual bankers and investors, as well as large companies, have been seriously damaged by the experience and are much poorer today. Compared to the family who lose the roof over their heads, we may not have much sympathy for an investor who now has just 20 million euro, where before he had 200 million – but he is still a loser.

There is nothing about this crisis that suggests it fulfills any agenda. Everything about it points to the conclusion that the crisis was wholly unplanned, not understood, and severely damaging for almost everyone.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-26-2013, 03:05 PM
^ Its truly amazing that you can say this, after all of the information that has been provided in this thread, and after all the videos that have been posted (most especially the last video).

As you can find, even more and more members of congress are realizing what is going on (and these are individuals who are traditionally furtherest from so-called 'conspiracy theories').

Unfortunately, a large proportion of the public are so utterly brainwashed by the media - that by the way, is monopolized by only 6 companies (who control over 90% of what Americans and much of the world is fed) - (not surprisingly, most of these companies being jewish owned as well),
that they actually resist any other information that may be passed onto them.
As sister جوري has correctly described - its like living in a 'bubble'.

For these types of people, its actually best not to try to 'wake' them up.....
Each person is entitled to his/ her beliefs (even if the rest of us cannot comprehend the logic).

I do hope you will continue to research and at times, try to think laterally/ independently of what you are told to believe.

All the best on this journey.

Peace
Reply

Independent
09-26-2013, 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
I do hope you will continue to research
Actually I was thinking of reading something a little more factually based - The Wizard of Oz, perhaps.

Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
All the best on this journey
Good luck! Or as they say in Ireland, 'May the road rise up to meet you.'
Reply

~Zaria~
09-26-2013, 08:18 PM
Originally Posted by Independent
Actually I was thinking of reading something a little more factually based - The Wizard of Oz, perhaps.

I think we should realise that in many things in life, we will never find absolute proof.

Consider a judge who is preciding over a case - he was not present at the crime scene (hence absolute proof for the sequence of events, or the identity of the criminal will not exist); however using a system of enough evidence, relative to each other - he is able to come to a verdict.

On a balance of probabilities, a reasonable man will come to the conclusions that have been presented, and which members of US congress themselves are realizing.

Anyhows....

'May the wind be always at your back'.

Peace
Reply

al-qannash
09-27-2013, 01:56 AM
ya ukhti zaria, have you watch the video that I posted in this thread before? that video is a video of sheikh Anwar Al Awlaki, talking about world war 3, al-malhama. he talk about world war 3 (al-malhama) base on some hadith of rasulullah sallahu'alaihi wasalam which one of them already happen, which is hadith about united nation sanction on iraq that not allowed any food or money to go in.


in fact I join this forum in the first place to tell you about this video
Reply

Independent
09-27-2013, 10:17 AM
The man who saved the world

A remarkable story about a 3rd World War that might have been back in 1983 - and also a forgotten hero:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24280831
Reply

sea
09-28-2013, 08:47 AM
This guy is working so hard and now you cannot see the forest through all of the trees in your way. Stop thinking of it as a conspiracy for it is not. it is human nature and human nature is completely mapped out for the one who knows how to interpret it.
man is always wishing to take the ever revolving circle of life and place there finger on one place to lay blame. well this is as accurate as it would be to blame a domino for knocking over the one next to it.
Reply

~Zaria~
09-28-2013, 10:50 AM
Originally Posted by al-qannash
ya ukhti zaria, have you watch the video that I posted in this thread before? that video is a video of sheikh Anwar Al Awlaki, talking about world war 3, al-malhama. he talk about world war 3 (al-malhama) base on some hadith of rasulullah sallahu'alaihi wasalam which one of them already happen, which is hadith about united nation sanction on iraq that not allowed any food or money to go in.


in fact I join this forum in the first place to tell you about this video
:salam:

Thank you brother for this reminder.

This is the link for the audio of this video (I thought that the images used were a bit too violent for an Islamic video.....): http://archive.org/download/ImamAnwa...gement-Pt2.wma

(the relevant part to the discussion in this thread begins at 7:30min).


[In response to some of the comments that were made earlier and have now been deleted:
We should be cautious in accepting everything that the media claims - esp. when it is directed at tarnishing the image of a person who is considered 'an enemy to the west', and more-so, when the person can no longer defend himself.
It is not for us to pass judgements/ to speak ill of a deceased brother or sister in Islam - and when accusations are made of an upright, practicing muslim, who was so passionate about the deen - we should do our very best to make excuses for him (as taught by our prophet (sallalahu alahi wasalam).
Allah (subhanawatála) is the best of judges. Passing judgement and spreading unfounded allegations upon others (esp. in the above manner) should not be of our concern. ]


:wa:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!