Greetings,
Understanding how deeply the US government, media and many other influential role-players in society, are puppets to a zionist agenda:
Greetings,
Understanding how deeply the US government, media and many other influential role-players in society, are puppets to a zionist agenda:
جوري liked this post
#MUST WATCH#:
The Syrian War: What You're Not Being Told:
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.
Last edited by Independent; 09-16-2013 at 08:14 AM.
Greetings,
Due to limitations on time, each point will be taken individually:
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
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
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.
Just in case you need more information, this website is a gold-mine:
The Federal Reserve Bank
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
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!), so apologies if Im not able to respond immediately).
Last edited by ~Zaria~; 09-17-2013 at 04:01 AM.
جوري liked this post
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.format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Have a great break and enjoy your holiday!
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.format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad H
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...
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?
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.format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
Last edited by جوري; 09-19-2013 at 12:06 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:
^ Couldn't agree more.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.'
If you have read the book: Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins, you may be able to appreciate this further.
^ This is your opinion (that the 'New World Order' is a conspiracy).format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
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).format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
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:
Or has some of these changed?format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Peace
Last edited by ~Zaria~; 09-22-2013 at 08:08 PM.
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.format_quote Originally Posted by ~Zaria~
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.
Last edited by Independent; 09-23-2013 at 09:54 AM.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
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:
^ TrueThe 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.
^ 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."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 the context that I have understood the above quote (which is actually in agreement to what you have said above).
And Allah knows best.
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
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.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]
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?
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.Frank Vanderlip, one of the Jekyll Island attendees and the president of National City Bank, wrote in his autobiography:[7]
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]
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.
Last edited by ~Zaria~; 09-23-2013 at 12:02 PM.
format_quote Originally Posted by tearose
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.)
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks