Interview 1276 - G. Edward Griffin Debunks the JFK/Fed Myth

05/18/201784 Comments

If you follow the alt media you've probably heard the theory that the bankers were behind the JFK assassination. The theory holds that JFK was trying to end the Fed by creating debt-free, silver-backed money through Executive Order 11110, and the bankers saw this as a threat to their monopoly over the money supply. But this theory is not just wrong, it is completely opposite to reality. Joining us today to set the record straight once and for all is G. Edward Griffin, editor of and author of the seminal book on the Federal Reserve, The Creature From Jekyll Island.



The Creature From Jekyll Island

"JFK and the Fed" by G. Edward Griffin

Economic Report of the President, January 1963 (pg. XXIII on "Silver")

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (84)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. paul6 says:

    Well, I clearly support myth busting. So this is a great show, IMHO.

    But you should recheck your belief system from time to time, as well. I think your equating “Globalism” and “Socialism” and your supposing that “Bankers” are for “Socialism” and redistribution is misguided. If bankers were for redistribution they could not serve their function as holders and managers of global capital. And if some bankers were for redistribution in the sense of raising the living standard for the poor, I would welcome that. A tiny number of individuals has as much property as half of humanity. This has to change somehow, I would say.

    • weilunion says:

      There are many, and I do not consider James one of them, who believe in global socialism. James does not for he is an agorist and I respect that. But in order to supplant capitalism global unity among workers, the disenfranchised and the unemployed must be the next stage of material and subjective development.

      Living, as I have, in many Latin American countries that seek to by-pass capitalism and jump from feudalism to socialism, I have seen the failures.

      Dialectical materialism is a necessary reality to take into consideration to understand how societies develop. Capitalism is now in a global stage of decay.

      If one is an agorist, then the answer would be in voluntary associations on an individual level. However, to reach the stage of libertarian socialism a society, and indeed the world, societies must go through this stage of capitalism and then organize globally to kill it. Only then will voluntary associations be viable.

    • john.o says:

      Yes, paul6, the insistence on intellectual honesty is always welcome and a big part of why James is so deservedly growing in influence and popularity. He certainly appears to have intellectual honesty, capability, discipline + a lot of dogged determination and a staggering work ethic. (Not that James staggers; I stagger thinking about it.)

      But I too note the “bankers=globalism=socialism=bad” formulation made without much attention to complexities, e.g. those inherent in the term “socialism”. (Not to speak of the usually implicit term “bad.”)

      I am not defending “socialism,” which I admit always ends up looking either like either 1) a dream or 2) rule by the cruel and obtuse, which ultimately seems to mean drug dealing gun running bankers and oilmen and their armies and goons these days.

      But it’s not like the unlanded miners, longshoremen, factory and farm workers of the 19th and 20th century could all go off and found internet startups, or much of anything else easily, either. And much of the socialism of the time was hardly the type learned by Kennedy at the London School of Economics.

      Workers organizing to get a piece of the pie, and dreaming of owning the pie collectively, are not the same as Rockefellers Fords and Rothschilds conspiring to make the whole world their pie! Even if the latter sometimes use the former in their machinations.

      Taxtion is theft. Yep. I see that now. Thank you, James, and many other fine thinkers who have worked so hard to convince me. But everybody in the modern world who owns anything, is trading in property stolen by brigands to begin with. So by all means let’s fight against those robbing us all, but let’s not ride too many moral high horses.

      At my best I think the property/taxation capitalism/socialism/free market human situation we are in is a tragedy. Rockefellers & ilk can somehow make it seem a melodrama, I admit. At my darkest hour it’s all a comedy. But it is never a simple morality play. I have a feeling a man, one of whose favorite books is Absalom, Absalom, knows this deep down.

      Agorism sounds beautiful. And I think it is helpful. To me at this very time in my life, as a matter of fact, it is very helpful. I mean that in all sincerity, but it is still an ism at a moment in time. The realities of human experience and history transcend all isms. And even the most beneficent ism is put to evil purposes sooner or later — usually sooner.

      • = “Socialism” =

        I hate censorship. That said I think “Socialism” as a word should be outlawed. “Socialist” is better. Like Social-esque or Social-ish. “Socialistic” even better.

        Social (aka tribal) tendencies can be used for good or evil. Totalitarians can use capitalist, communist, and whateverist means to their ends. Bottom up socialist ideas can build wonderful worker coops (not promoted enough in media for my tastes) or terrible lynching parties.

        = “Science” =

        While I’m at it, I want to crap on “Science” as a noun. Too many people believe in the abstract dogma of “science”. Like socialism, science is a process, famously the “Scientific Method”, and it can be corrupted at every stage. Ask the wrong question, interpret the wrong answer, select the wrong data, keep the data secret, sell your school out to corporations, etc… Blind faith in science, religion, and patriotism are all stupid dogmas.

        = Red Pill =

        Bad health care and big pharma jokes aside, there are actually other “Red Pill” references in media.

        The Matrix was not the first. In Total Recall Arnold’s character was offered pills to “wake up” but saw the guy sweat and declined with his gun. I feel like there was another earlier example too but I can’t recall it right now.

        YouTube has a very good documentary called “The Red Pill” on the misperceptions of Western propaganda regarding Libya and it shows the decay since “liberation”.

        Cassie Jaye is a documentary director and feminist curious about the men’s rights movement and fell down that rabbit hole. I am really looking forward to that documentary also titled “The Red Pill” because she has had fascinating promotional interviews.

        Rant over, mic drop, now I need some red Smarties.

    • mik says:

      Socialism and communism are words with so many meanings that before using them one should first put down definition so we could be sure we are talking about the same thing.
      Both of them are not inherently bad and not working alternatives, something that is supposedly proven in history. Who knows how these alternatives could develop in the absence of State. I think presence of State is the main reason they went so bad.

      For better understanding I would recommend watching:

      Masters of money- Karl Marx

      Of course, BBC is excellent in producing quasi-documentaries and they omit an important fact Marx proved long ago: capitalism is in itself producing wealth accumulation i.e. wealth gap. Capitalism in bed with state (corporatism) just make things worse.
      Also capitalism never Delivered (BBC claim) except to some extent in developed countries. If you are ok with your well-being while millions of people are literally starving….ask yourself about the state of your empathy and watch:

      Stealing Africa

      I have great respect for Griffin, but his almost obsession with Collectivism bothers me a lot. And Individualism should be the antidote.

      So we have to go from one extreme to the other?
      Let me ask: Has a pursuit of happiness became an empty phrase?
      Well, if we turn to Epicurus, he said for happiness we need: friends, independence or self-sufficiency, enough time to live reflected life.

      Epicurus on happiness

      Is it farfetched to say friends are your Intimate Collective?
      And most importantly,
      Real Friends are more then just a sum of Individuals.
      I hope this is self-evident.
      Individual/Collective is similar to yin/yang in my opinion.

    • D. Rolling Kearney says:

      I believe the book you are looking for is “The Naked Capitalist” by W. Cleon Skousen, which is a follow-up to “The Naked Communist.” “The Naked Communist” explains the phenomenon of violent Socialism and who its proponents are, while “The Naked Capitalist” answers your exact question: why would the wealthiest men in the world be behind a philosophy that would supposedly put themselves out of business?

  2. weilunion says:

    The ideological myth regarding Kennedy works, because we want to believe. His assassination works, because there is so much evidence and justification for the deep state offing the man.

    However, as to whether Kennedy wanted a bank note separate from the FR is still questionable.

    I would ask people to look into the death and life of Mary Pinchot Meyer. Her involvement with JFK is now well known. She sat on major circles with him and visited the Whitehouse more than any of his so-called ‘lovers’. Her story, told by Peter Janney, himself the son of a CIA agent under Frank Wisner, is a must read (

    For you see, Mary was murdered execution style in 1964. James Jesus Angleton, the ghost of the CIA, was found by Bill Bradley and his wife, Antoinette, the sister of Mary Pinchot Meyer looking for Mary’s diary in her home. But that is not all: he was then found by the Bradley couple at Mary’s studio behind Bradley’s home where she painted, picking the lock to look for the diary.

    The diary they say was found, and Bradley the so-called Ace reporter and editor of the Washington Post gave it to Angleton. He said Nagleton then gave it back and he went on and said he burned it. A real reporter, that one.

    He refused to state what was in the diary before he and his wife died sometime around 2015. He went to the grave with the most important story of his career.

    Mary was a devotee of Timothy Leary, who was a CIA agent since the end of WWII. He developed manuals for the CIA and then went on to Harvard to continue the MK Ultra Program.

    “Eventually Leary encountered the fabulously wealthy William Mellon Hitchcock (aka “Mr. Billy”), the grandson of the founder of Gulf Oil. Mr. Billy took to LSD and to Timothy Leary and offered him and his acolytes the use of his 64-room country estate. Here at the Millbrook estate Leary established the Castalia Foundation, named after the priestly sect in Hesse’s novel The Glass Bead Game, which was dedicated to the scholarly study of LSD and its spiritual applications” (

    The point: Mellon was CIA, Leary was CIA and Leary coached, according to Janney, that she was given and gave low doses of LSD to Kennedy to ‘change the world’. Janney says.

    Kennedy had no time to disentangle himself and his office from Allen Dulles. The deep state killed the man and whether he was ‘turning’ as author James Douglas says or not, his murder was at the hands of both the National Crime Syndicate (who oversaw the Mafia) and rogue or non-rogue elements of the CIA.

    Read David Talbot’s book for more. “The Dulles Brothers”.

    James, consider the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer one that deserves a documentary

    • CQ says:

      weilunion, ditto your request that James do a doc on Mary Pinchot Meyer.

      May I correct the reference to “Bill Bradley”; I believe you meant “Ben Bradlee.” The former was a Princeton and pro basketball player turned U.S. Senator:

      The subject of this interview is timely for me, because only a few hours ago I happened to listen to podcast #164, which is the audio version of John Hankey’s JFK documentary, Dark Legacy (

      (James, I’m now more than halfway through listening to all your podcasts. Each has been a worthwhile investment of my time.)

  3. gepay says:

    I have to agree – I read about this and looked into it. Of course the order is written in governmentese so it was hard for me to understand what it did say. Once I found someone who did, it was clear that what you reported was true. As mentioned, JFK’s Treasury Sec came from the mainstream banking community. JFK had made so many other enemies (the CIA, the oil barons, the southern racists, Hoover, LBJ, even his wife would have been a suspect in any normal murder) that it wasn’t necessary for the bankers to have joined in much less ordered his assassination. I do believe that when elected, JFK was your basic cold war liberal warrior. However, the Bay of Pigs somewhat opened his eyes. Then the Cuban Missile Crises did awaken him to the point where he did become a threat to the Military industrial Complex and its joining to the national security complex. Khrushchev knew what war was – he was the political commissar at Stalingrad. Notice how shortly after JFK was assassinated that Khrushchev was deposed. They could possibly have ended the cold war. Possibly JFK if he had lived longer would have noticed the biggest conspiracy in plain site – the present financial system -rigged for the elites and corporations.

    • PeaceFroggs says:

      From the jfklibrary (dot) org

      –Kennedy and the Cold War–

      Cold War rhetoric dominated the 1960 presidential campaign. Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon both pledged to strengthen American military forces and promised a tough stance against the Soviet Union and international communism.

      –The Cuban Missile Crisis–

      In June 1963, President Kennedy spoke at the American University commencement in Washington, DC. He urged Americans to critically reexamine Cold War stereotypes and myths and called for a strategy of peace that would make the world safe for diversity. In the final months of the Kennedy presidency Cold War tensions seemed to soften as the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was negotiated and signed. In addition, Washington and Moscow established a direct line of communication known as the “Hotline” to help reduce the possibility of war by miscalculation.


      Coincidence that JFK was assassinated a mere 4 months after given that speech which called for rapprochement with Russia, which by the way would have put an end to the Cold War (Bretton Woods version 2.0), but instead history gave us Nixon which ended Bretton Woods (stopped convertibility into gold) in 1971 which led to the Oil crisis, which created the petrol dollar when the US allied themselves with Saudi Arabia, which led to countless wars including Gulf War 1, 9/11 and Gulf War 2.

      Can’t rewrite history it seems, but at least if we understand the past and how we got here, maybe we won’t get fooled again.

  4. healthlaws says:

    Good points gepay. I was going to say the same thing. It wasn’t necessary for the bankers to get involved. The Bay of Pigs woke JFK up. Did JFK make the connection to the bankers? If he hadn’t already after the Bay of Pigs its a sure bet he would have eventually. Which would have sealed his fate in the same manner.

  5. bladtheimpailer says:

    Yes, I remember years ago reading on this whole topic and the debunking then of this myth. There are others swirling around the ‘lost’ president to do with a ‘Green Hilton Agreement’,’Global Collateral Accounts’ philanthropically given with human kind the beneficiary, lost or found vaults of gold and other precious items of near a million tons of bullion, with shadowy figures like a Mr. Neil Keenan reported on by equally shadowy figures like a Mr. Benjamin Fulford and other involvements,a Karen Hudes and the like and of course ancient family groupings with names like the ‘White Dragons’ and so forth. All good fun unless the gullible are taken in with the fraudulent soliciting for money being involved. It is amazing how subjects like these grow legs and begin walking about on the net.

    It always strikes me as a point of interest how those on the far right political spectrum always see the globalists as evil socialists while those anywhere else on this spectrum, right-center-left, see the globalists as neo feudal fascists. I just see them as wealthy power and control freaks who will use anything at their disposal that advances their interests, keeping whatever belief system they have, if any, very well hidden.

  6. herrqlys says:

    My contribution to the historical review here rests with the personal history and testament of Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. If you are unacquainted with the name, please conduct a search and read his biography, so I don’t have to waste space here, to authenticate his being in the very middle of military things JFK.

    There is a whole treasure trove of videos with interviews on YouTube, plus resources at:

    The one salient to the topic at hand — motivation for JFK’s assassination — is both remarkable and breathtaking. It is also noteworthy that Prouty was an advisor to Oliver Stone on the movie JFK. So much first-hand history, and so many myths blown away (55 mins):

    I could listen to this man forever. The several hours I have spent so far are indelible.

    • herrqlys says:

      Sorry James 🙁 I hadn’t encountered your Episode 229 Remembering Fletcher Prouty on May 7, 2012. This long pre-dated my being a visitor to The Corbett Report.

      • herrqlys says:

        Spreading myself a little too thin today. I should have expanded on that last post to point out that the YouTube link I listed was published on YouTube almost 2 weeks after Episode 229, and so it’s not covered by James’ podcast.

        This details the history of JFK’s involvement in the attempted invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, and JFK’s policy initiatives for Vietnam.

        Col. Prouty gives his personal insight into some of the people and the groups who were infuriated by JFK’s actions and future intent, and corrects some of the myths propagated about these matters.

  7. VoltaicDude says:

    Great interview – doesn’t get better than Corbett and Griffin!

    Too many good quotes to pick a few out – people should just make the effort to watch this more than once.

    One point that I’d like to emphasize though is that people are sometimes loath to accept info like this because they think it means all their “self-re-education” is suddenly challenged! – of course that’s not true, and part of that self-re-education should in fact be learning to be more open and confident about that kind of process.

    (None-the-less, this is a great opportunity to play devil’s advocate – I’m smiling!)

    So what are you guys saying?! So you believe it was Oswald alone?!

    Does that mean I have to give up my studied reassessment that H.W. was a significant player in JFK’s assassination? And I guess that means too that H.W. has nothing to do (as former head of CIA, V.P.-Elect, and V.P.) with the MK-Ultra assassination of John Lennon and attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan (and of course, that war somewhere during H.W.’s reign wasn’t already planned)?

    And of course these cultish criminal conspirators did not then later follow-up by using W. in the assassination of JFK,jr, after the latter founded the magazine “George” (cryptically referring to…?).
    (Looks like the original posting of this documentary – with at least hundreds of thousands of views – was deleted.)

    Is that what you guys mean? I mean, do you expect me to think for myself or something? Please tell me what to think.

    Geez – you guys.

    • PeaceFroggs says:

      Thanks for the link to the JFK.jr video, I had forgotten about this, even back then I knew this was hit, but it took 9/11 and the Internet to really wake me up.

  8. erichard says:

    Mr Griffin says he likes to find any errors. He should consider this claim from the comments on the YouTube version of this video:


    JFK applied for registration with the London School of Economics but he never attended because he got sick. Griffin was wrong to say that he was a graduate of LSE (at 11:55).
    on 24 October 1935 the Academic Registrar, Eve Evans, placed a note on Kennedy’s file:
    “This American student paid his fees on the 7th October, but immediately fell ill and has been obliged to return to America before beginning attendance. His case therefore falls within the category in which we are empowered by Mrs Mair to refund the fees while retaining the registration fee. Would you transfer £31 10s to suspense? Professor Laski is in touch with his father, and he will instruct us later as to the disposal of the sum.”
    In September 1935, Kennedy made his first trip abroad when he traveled to London with his parents and his sister Kathleen. He intended to study under Harold Laski at the London School of Economics (LSE), as his older brother had done. Ill-health forced his return to America in October of that year, when he enrolled late and spent six weeks at Princeton University

    —end quote

  9. royb says:

    The only one I know of who alone broke the power of the elite that was suppressing and exploiting poor people, was a God fearing man called Hans Nielsen Hauge. He started a lot of small cooperations owned by common people in a flat structure. But that was not socialism. Norway still today enjoys the fruits of his peaceful Revolution, although socialism and greed has destroyed much of it. He spent much of his life in prison, of course, but still had a more positive impact than any other freedom fighter I have ever read about.

  10. Sam says:

    “… JFK was trying to end the Fed by creating debt-free, silver-backed money..”

    James, please. Definitions matter. They are the foundations on which we build the logic of our analysis. Screw them up, or be inconsistent in their use, and your whole analysis fails.

    Consider the above statement. What does ‘backing’ mean? It means that someone is promising to pay an asset against a claim. What is a promise to pay an asset? A debt. So, by definition, you can not have ‘backed’ money that is ‘debt-free’. Equity money (such as silver or bearer titles to same) can never be ‘backed’ because it is not a promise by anyone to do anything. It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

    Please be more careful with your definitions or you will find yourself leading your readers down the slippery ‘Newspeak’ rabbit hole that the banksters are trying to trick us into taking.

    • mkey says:

      The problem with currency today is that it is created out of nothing and issued as a loan, with a markup.

      A finite commodity backed currency does not have this problem, as long as the promise isn’t false. If a paper note simply replaces a unit of commodity stored in the vault and there is exactly one note for each unit of commodity, there’s no debt problem. There are problems with pegging the currency, or in this case better said money, to a value of an asset which price is set by the (global) market.

      • Sam says:

        In 1913, we went from equity money to debt money. Specifically, from dollars-in-gold to gold-backed dollars. Immediately, the Fed began a stealth printing campaign. The result was the roaring twenties, followed by the Great Depression. Their solution was to change the dollar-gold ratio, remove it from exchanges, and still keep printing as fast as they could. Finally, in 1971, it caught up with them and they gave up on the ‘backing’ shell-game all together.

        If you think this means that there is no debt problem with gold-backed debt money, then I have a bridge I want to sell you. There are so many ways for central banks to lie and deceive that there is no way that debt money can ever be trusted, even if it is ‘backed’ 100% by an equity asset.

        The only way we can ever get a stable monetary system that does not create an uberwealthy class is to have an all-equity system. In other words, eliminate all debt from our money supply. And, if we do that, then there will be no such thing as ‘backing’.

        • mkey says:

          Are you talking about currency or money?

          Be it gold or paper backed gold used as money, the promise can still be broken. The gold can be diluted, the paper can be duplicated at will. The only substantial difference being that you can’t dilute gold as much as you can overprint. Nor you can overprint as easily as you can add zeros to a variable in software on a server somewhere.

          There is no currency nor money without promise which, in turn, can be broken. If the duty to uphold the promise can be enforced (best with pitchforks and torches) any sort of fiat currency will do.

          Even with debt free currency you still have no protection against overprinting. Unless you’re using something that can’t be printed, produced nor diluted at will. I don’t know of any such material.

          Putting “gold-backed debt money” on the equal footing with “central banks” doesn’t do you a service. One does not imply the other. Currency should not be issues by banks nor governmental entities. Its source will always be under assault by jackals.

          • Sam says:

            When I use the word ‘money’, that is what I am talking about. Specifically, ‘money’ is ‘what you buy stuff with’, while ‘buy’ is to participate in a three-party transaction, as opposed to ‘trade’ which is a two-party transaction. These definitions are standard Austrian fare.

            I try to avoid the use of the word ‘currency’ as its definition is not so well established.

            There is no ‘promise’ by anyone regarding physical gold. It is what it is, so there is no need to ‘back’ any promise. True, it could have been surreptitiously adulterated, but that would be fraud, a clear crime. Risks of such acts are always present in any commercial dealings, including trade. But such acts are rare because they are criminal, unlike overextending oneself when making bad loans, which is just bad business.

            If you use the warehouse model for banks (rather than the casino model now used), then the bearer receipts issued by the bank do suppose a promise by the bank, but it is a commitment to safe-keep someone’s else’s property, not a promise to pay a debt. There is, for instance, no debt associated with your parking your car in a parking garage or storing your furniture in a U-Store-it. The owner of either of those facilities could steal or fraudulently encumber your assets, but this is very unlikely to happen, because the law is very clear on who owns them.

            That is distinctly different from a casino-based banking system such as we have now. In the current case, title of your deposits transfers to the owner of the bank when you make a deposit and he is free to do whatever he can convince regulators he should be allowed to do with your funds, including playing the ponies with them if he wants.

            In the warehouse model for banking, you have strong protection against the banker issuing multiple receipts for the assets stored with him because, since he doesn’t own those assets, such an act would clearly be fraud.

            In fact, the above is one of the major tenets of discussion in Jekyll Island. If you aren’t sure about it, I suggest you re-read the book.

            • mkey says:

              I disagree with you on several points.

              Both money and currency need to be divisible, fungible, durable and transportable. An additional property of money is that is a store of value. Precious metals or oil could be considered a store of value (oil failing to be transportable,) while paper (or FIAT) currency always and I do mean always goes to zero in the long run. Simply because the promise to not overprint is always broken.

              Regarding gold used as money issued by the state, dilution comes in form of the state cheating on its people. I’m not sure whether or not you’re trying to be funny regarding the fraud thing. Literally every state ever to issue gold as money diluted it because they overspent. Either that, or they moved on to paper and then printed till cows came home.

              As far as private dealings are concerned (something I wasn’t referring to previously since we were talking about issuing money,) there are fake precious metal bars up the wazoo, they are all over the place. Even top tier dealers are known to run into them, coming from various sources. Coins are usually taken to be safe in this regard, especially gold ones since it’s difficult to coat wolfram inner with gold.

              I’m not certain why have you gone on the warehouse tangent. We were talking about issuing currency, not about making deposits. The debt is created when issuing currency and when credit is created, that has nothing to do with deposits. Compared to these, deposit fraud is a minor grievance.

              If this is still about the issue of issuing money and or currency:

              NB. any form or money or currency can be issued with debt attached. This is not something intrinsic to the system, but it is the current state of affairs caused by greed, corruption, subversion, lust for power etc. This is unsustainable and people who introduced it did so for their personal gain.

              1. we can use money which has its inherent value for trade and commerce. The entity issuing said money has to make and keep the promise to not dilute the money supply. A problem with this system is that value of the commodity will be set by the market and therefore the value of money will have to follow suit, because simply if monetary value of a coin went under the value of the material it was used for minting it, one would have an interest to melt the coin and thus make a profit.

              Another big issues are the moneychangers.

              2. we can use currency, a bit of shiny paper made difficult to forge and with no or very little intrinsic value attached to it. The promise here is that there won’t be overprinting, which will cause hyperinflation.

              Digital currency is an option as well, however there is so much abuse potential I can’t really consider it.

              The record shows that both money and currency have been used throughout the history to rob people of fruits of their work. It’s a perfect system, works like a charm every time.

              • Sam says:

                I guess I am bothered by several assumptions that you seem to be making. They are:

                GOVERNMENTS DECIDE WHAT IS TO BE USED FOR MONEY. No, the marketplace decides what is to be used for money. The state, through it’s taxing function, can influence that decision, but, because commerce is a collective action, the medium which is chosen to conduct it (‘money’) is always selected by those who use it. If you don’t believe this, ask how commerce was conducted in the absence of the state, something that has happened since before agriculture was invented.

                ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN ISSUE MONEY. Long before any state issued money, gold and silver, to name two candidates, were used to lubricate commerce.

                MONEY MUST BE DIVISIBLE, FUNGIBLE, etc. The market chooses what is money and they have no ‘must be’s in their decision. Wampum did not satisfy your list, yet it has been used. Cigarettes don’t, either, but they have served. Ditto large round stones in Yap Island. Money is so essential for commerce that the market will choose something, the best candidate available (even if that candidate doesn’t have the all desirable characteristics that you mention), and work around the problems.

                MONEY MUST HAVE INHERENT VALUE. Bitcoin has no inherent value, yet it is money. In fact, you seem to actually contradict yourself here by pointing out that, to have an ‘inherent value’, a thing must be needed for something and usually that need comes from it’s consumption, meaning having a ‘inherent value’ makes a candidate a poor choice for money because the stock in existence will fluctuate because of this consumption. Wheat, for this reason (if no other), is usually not chosen by the marketplace for use as money. Ditto (since modern industrial processes began to consume it) for silver. One of the reasons gold is such a good candidate is because it has little ‘inherent value’ due to very low commercial (meaning non-monetary) consumption. Specifically, its stock-to-flow ratio is very high, something around 80-100.

                One of the objections that the market place has against using gold for money is that it can’t be transfered easily over long distances without the use of a third party and that it is heavy to carry. One of the arguments that debt money proponents make is that debt money does not suffer from these two problems. And they are right.

                But there is a solution for gold for this issue, which is to use competing local (NOT national) institutions to issue warehouse receipts for gold on deposit. These can be transmitted easily and, because they are titles to assets, not debt, they can’t be duplicated and used to inflate the money supply as can debt.

                ANY FORM OF EQUITY MONEY WILL BE USED TO CREATE DEBT MONEY, SO THE LATTER WILL ALWAYS BE MONEY. Debt isn’t always money, any more than gold or 22 cartridges are. Mortgages aren’t money, for instance, nor are 30-year treasury bonds.

                All you have to do to stop the use of debt as money is mandate a few simple rules. Don’t allow banks to take title on their depositors assets, don’t allow banks to issue loans, don’t allow banks to become monopolies, don’t allow governments to become banks, and don’t allow non-bank lending institutions to make loans with terms of less than a year.

                GOVERNMENT PROMISES CAN BE TRUSTED. Never. The only function government should have in the issuance of money is to certify the honesty of private mints and money warehouses. They might be honest in this function because there is little profit in lying. But give them (or anyone else, for that matter) the exclusive right to create money and you give them control of the world.

              • mkey says:

                The only one here making assumptions here is you, Sam.

                Your assumptions no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are mind boggling to say the least. I don’t know where did you that pull stuff out and I don’t really care. People disappoint me every day so I ought to get used to that.

                Your assertion about how market decides what is going to be used for payment is about 200 years outdated now. The world is one big box of monopoly and everything is rigged, it’s been like that for a while now.

                With points 3 and 4 you show lack of knowledge and understanding. If you refuse to see the difference between money and currency, I don’t think anyone can help you. If you are interested to learn the difference, I’d suggest videos like Bill Still’s “The secret of Oz” or the excellent series by Mike Maloney “Hidden secrets of money.” Frankly, to have a person of such level of economical understanding scold James Corbett on related matter is … well, mind boggling. I’m not saying the man is error resistant, he gladly accepts corrections, but this is just ridiculous.

                Bitcoin is not money. It’s a currency.

                There you go off with your assumptions again. I stated, gold can be melted if its market value is higher than token value of the coin. If you can’t see the simple meaning of these words, I can’t help it.

                Dear lord. Wheat is not chosen as money because a) it’s not easily/reliably divisible b) it’s not fungible c) it’s not transportable d) it’s not durable AND it can be grown at will. Though, to use your own examples there, I’m quite certain wheat has been used for settling payments quite often and probably still is. In a very, very limited scope, just like cigarettes.

                I’m sure we can both find a better use of our time. I certainly can, have a nice day Sam.

        • generalbottlewasher says:

          Sam, Mkey this dialog reminds me of a chapter in William Coopers book. Behold a Pale Horseman. Chapter13 page 333. “The Story of Jonathan May” . May, with the Texans John Conelly and the Hunt brothers tried to develop an alternative banking system until the Fed.Resrve destroyed the Texans and illegally jailed J.May in fed. prison. Fascinating and complex story just as hard to decipher as you alls dialogs. I promised myself to study this to comprehension and it still is difficult. This is exactly how the “THEY” Blow us over with gobble de gook. No reply needed until we all get up to speed. It is worth understanding and you both seem somewhat adept. Mays explanations are no better but if your interested check it out.

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            My son is currently supervising a couple construction projects for some of the Hunt Ft. Worth, TX properties. I hear some interesting stories.
            I remember when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market. People were smuggling silver out of Mexico to cash in on the play.

  11. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Bookmark this VideoThe JFK / Silver Certificate / Federal Reserve / Globalist Bankers MYTH

    We can do our part by forwarding this information when we run across comments about the myth on message boards.

  12. HomeRemedySupply says:

    As I was watching this video, I had to pull out of the freezer some frozen crow and pop it into the oven. Eating crow is tough to chew.

    Thank you gentlemen for correcting a false concept which I had.

    Part of the dilemma which many of us have involves time. It takes time to thoroughly research each small detail about a particular event or story.
    Hired Guns
    Since I don’t have time to thoroughly do my homework and research, I decided to get a “Hired Gun”, a real truth slinger.
    I want one of the best I can get. Someone who will blaze a trail through the badlands.
    This is why I am here.

  13. PeaceFroggs says:

    G. Edward Griffin says JFK was a globalist = Good!

    Remember that when JFK was alive the Bretton Woods system was still in effect, and it was Nixon and Co 7 after JFK assassination decoupled the US dollar from Gold convertibility making the US dollar a petrol dollar killing the Bretton Woods agreement.

    We live in a global world, that’s the reality of trade, however during Bretton Woods other countries that held US dollars were able to convert them into gold, Nixon did away with that, and that’s the problem with globalism today, which is why countries all over the world like the BRICS nations and Euro Nations have seeked ways to escape the clutches of the Anglo American Empire circa 1971.

    Slowly but surely, the Chinese yuan has been added to the SDR’s and the Euro has been created, therefore the US is scrambling to slow down the mass exodus of its dollar hegemony by making war with countries like Iraq…


    globalism pre JFK = good
    globalism after JFK = bad

  14. Pablo de Boer says:


    Address at meeting of International Monetary Fund, 30 September 1963

    This folder contains materials collected by the office of President John F. Kennedy’s secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, concerning President Kennedy’s address to a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the Sheraton-Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. In his speech the President explains how the IMF helps to ensure international economic stability, and discusses how his administration limits straining the country’s balance of payments by increasing exports, maintaining stable prices, limiting foreign expenditures, decelerating foreign demand on the country’s capital markets, and increasing the attractiveness of foreign investment in the United States. Materials in this folder include a press and mimeographed copy of the speech, in addition to note cards with handwritten notations by the President.

    Tip off Pablo, click on text to enlarge

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      This s a part of that speech

      September 30, 1963 – President Kennedy’s Address at the Meeting of the International Monetary Fund

      • Pablo de Boer says:

        (Globalist) JFK about IMF

        Since I last met with you, we have suffered the loss of one of the great leaders of the International Monetary Fund, Per Jacobsson. He served the Fund with skill and dedication. He combined a great deal of wisdom and experience with warm good humor. We will miss him, but the indelible mark that he left upon your work and upon the monetary systems of the world and upon the IMF will continue to guide us.

        To his successor, Mr. Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, I extend my best wishes as he now guides the Fund. We are grateful to France for releasing him for this service. His broad talents and experience equip him admirably for the heavy responsibilities which now press upon him.

        I am glad, too, that the Bank was able to find a talented successor to Mr. Eugene Black. Mr. Black’s genius helped give this institution the best reputation any bank or banker can have, a reputation for combining prudence with constructive generosity. I am pleased that Mr. George Woods has been selected to sustain this tradition.

        Twenty years ago, when the architects of these institutions met to design an international banking structure, the economic life of the world was polarized in overwhelming, and even alarming measure, on the United States. So were the world’s monetary reserves. The United States had the only open capital market in the world apart from that of Switzerland. Sixty percent of the gold reserves of the world were here in the United States. The war-torn nations of Europe and the Far East faced difficult tasks of reconstruction with depleted and inadequate capital resources. There was a need for redistribution of the financial resources of the world and the financial strength of the free world. And there was an equal need to organize a flow of capital to the impoverished and underdeveloped countries of the world.

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          other part of his speech

          Secondly, we are initiating further savings in our overseas dollar expenditures.

          Third, we are seeking to slow down the very rapid increase in overseas demands on our capital markets, as well as to retard the outflow of short-term capital resulting from interest rate differentials.

          Fourth, we intend to maintain stable prices and to increase the attractiveness of investment here in the United States.

          We do not seek by precipitous action to improve our position at the expense of others. We do seek by comprehensive effort, consistent with our international responsibilities, to reduce outflows which are weakening our capacity to serve the world community. In short, every nation in the world has a direct interest, for the dollar is an international currency. And the security of the dollar, therefore, involves the security of us all.

          The operations of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Finance Corporation, and the International Development Association all play important roles in this effort. Their techniques of cooperative action and the availability of their resources permit capital to be deployed around the world in the most effective and efficient manner.

          In a special message to the Congress on the balance of payments, I announced that the United States had for the first time entered into a standby arrangement with the Fund. The attendance of all of you at this meeting underscores the extent of world involvement in these institutions and the determination for so many nations to work together for mutual strength. We have been able to do this in so many fields and we have done it, it seems to me, with such success in recent months and years that I am confident that that intimate association will continue to grow and to prosper.

          During the past year many of you have cooperated, either through the international organizations or through your own central banks, in an improved approach to the problems of foreign exchange and gold markets. Credit facilities and reserve-holding techniques have been improved. The international monetary systems met with ease the Cuban crisis last autumn, the strains upon sterling early in 1963, and the evidence that our own payments situation had not developed as well as we hoped in the first half of this year. This performance has benefited every nation, large and small. But success should not, I believe, be an encouragement to inaction. This Nation–the United States-must continue its efforts to meet the balance of payments problems now confronting us. And we must all assure ourselves by preparations now that we will be ready to meet the international monetary problems of the future.

          I am pleased to learn that studies of these problems and of appropriate measures to deal with them are about to be launched. There is a sharp distinction, however, between long-term questions of international liquidity and the current problems of international imbalance. We do not intend to neglect the latter while pursuing the former.

          This Government considers our tax reduction and reform program, which has recently been approved by one house of the Congress, to be the most important action that Congress can take now to improve our long-range position. It should help attract capital investment, improve our ability to sell goods and services in world markets, stimulate the growth of our economy and the employment of our people, give greater freedom to monetary policy, and play a vital supporting role in our determination to achieve equal rights and opportunities for all of our citizens.


          IMF = BIS

        • Pablo de Boer says:

          JOHN F. KENNEDY

          Sound recording of President John F. Kennedy’s address to a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the Sheraton-Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. In his speech President Kennedy explains how the IMF helps to ensure international economic stability, and discusses how his administration plan to limit straining the country’s balance of payments by increasing exports, maintaining stable prices, limiting foreign expenditures, decelerating foreign demand on the country’s capital markets, and increasing the attractiveness of foreign investment in the United States.


          IMF = BIS

    • PeaceFroggs says:

      “…and discusses how his administration limits straining the country’s balance of payments by increasing exports, maintaining stable prices…”

      — Look up the inflation rates of the US from 1776 until 1971, and from 1971 until 2016! Thanks Nixon.

      • herrqlys says:

        Under the gold standard, the convertibility of a currency held by another nation, from world trade, into gold from the nation of the issued currency, meant that the trade debt between nations was extinguished. Any nation’s economic health could be determined by a nation’s gold reserves (or lack thereof).

        After the US went off the gold standard in 1971, there was no longer a standard mechanism for the extinguishing of these balance of payments debts. As a consequence, debtor nations saw their balance sheets go lop-sided and had to print more currency (albeit from “thin air” by their central bank) to maintain liquidity in the domestic currency supply.

        The result was more and more created currency chasing goods and services that didn’t expand at the same rate. Ergo, inflation. The intrinsic human value of goods and services didn’t change. Currencies simply lost their purchasing power over time.

        In cases where hyper-inflation was created, a currency re-denomination was put into place. Under this method, the ever-increasing currency supply was scaled back to issue new currency bank notes that displayed fewer zeroes in the face amount. Zimbabwe is a classic example of where denominations were not scaled back.

        It was with the advent, and aggressive promotion, of digital consumer banking that the denominations of currency notes could be stabilized. A growing number of everyday consumer purchase transactions didn’t have to be settled by an exchange of currency notes.

        • PeaceFroggs says:

          Yeah, like I said haha!

          So of course nations are looking for ways to curb their holdings in dollars, 1971 was a financial coup. The problem isn’t really globalism, its the US unfair advantage.

        • herrqlys says:

          I hope I didn’t overreach my own understanding of currencies in the modern world 🙂

          In the case of the US in 1971, with the accumulating external debts of the Vietnam war, the rise in consumer credit spending (credit cards), and the growing level of foreign imports to satisfy an affluent lifestyle, the US dollar was marginally supported by the export of financial capital (loans, at interest) to foreign markets.

          The contrived oil crisis of 1973 created a new dynamic for the US dollar. The ‘settlement’ with OPEC brought about the tacit agreement that all futures sales of petroleum would be priced in US dollars.

          The introduction of this global trade stipulation meant that the world’s oil consuming nations had to buy US dollars to finance the purchase of their oil and gas. Thus the term petro-dollar. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and the others agreed to deposit their massive US dollar revenues into New York, London and other select European banks.

          The Wall Street and City of London investment banks, in particular, now gained astronomical sums that scheming minds could turn into financial casinos.

          There was the added benefit, for those seeking tax avoidance contrivances, of holding these US currency deposits offshore – the Eurodollar pools.

          • PeaceFroggs says:

            “Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and the others agreed to deposit their massive US dollar revenues into New York, London and other select European banks.”

            — That would explain part of the reasoning for America’s wars in Iraq, since Saddam had threatened to use Euro’s or had already starting doing so.

            “The Wall Street and City of London investment banks, in particular, now gained astronomical sums that scheming minds could turn into financial casinos.”

            — Is it any wonder why countries like Russia, China and India are looking to create their own “SDR’s” of sorts as in the BRICS, and why Berlin and Paris have decided to create the EURO? I don’t think so, seems rather reasonable if you ask me.

            The US have not only been playing with a stacked deck of cards since 1945’s Bretton Woods Agreement, they’ve been able to benefit from unfair cover charge just to be able to sit inside their gamed financial casino (as you put it) since 1971.

  15. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Bozeman, Montana – Red Pill EXPO link

    An interesting sidenote on sights to see in historic Bozeman includes its colorful brothel history.

    Brothels helped to settle the West (5 minutes – worth watching)

    Segue to Hurdy Gurdy
    In 1885 Montana legislators passed a law that made the “hurdy gurdy” house (brothel) illegal. These dance halls got their name from the stringed instrument often found in them.

    “Hurdy Gurdy” means “Turn Your Bottom”
    Expert describes the Hurdy Gurdy on YouTube –

    Nice song with an historical flavor done with the Hurdy Gurdy…
    Game of Thrones – Hurdy-Gurdy/Folk Guitar by a couple guys

  16. kabouit says:

    I’m sure many of you are aware of this, but the whole “Red Pill” expression has been hijacked by a few angry men who use it to promote a misogynistic agenda and movie.

    It might be worth a mention since it may taint the idea behind the real Red Pill concept brought in the Matrix.

    • kabouit says:

      And before I hear it, no, it’s not only about men’s rights. The fact of calling the movement “the Red Pill” in itself says a lot. As if the deception behind the red pill (the Matrix) is women. And the documentary, as polite as it seems is not the only thing using the term. Here’s a slightly less polite one.

      And one Google search of Red Pill and you’ll stumble pages upon pages of anger towards women. I am surprised nobody else brought it up yet.

    • mkey says:

      The society at large is polarized and tearing up at the seams. This is especially valid in the US.

      Regarding this issue you mentioned, I’d put modern feminism under scrutiny instead of brushing off the whole thing off as “misogynist men.”

    • HomeRemedySupply says:


      Netflix banned “The Red Pill” film. Mike Adams of Natural News reports on the censorship.

      Texan Mike Adams will also be a guest speaker at The Red Pill EXPO.

      Recently, Mike has been helping to let people know that the largest U.S. ORGANIC Farm is in jeopardy of being forcibly sprayed with poisonous herbicides. (Thank you MONSANTO…the health care industry loves you.)

      • kabouit says:

        So it has come to this? The truth seeking community is being polirized by the ultimate dividing criteria: gender.

        Why do I say this?

        I don’t believe it is a coincidence the man rights community chose the name “red Pill”. The term “Red Pill” has been a symbol of truth seeking for decades now. Now it is being attributed to the single most dividing cause out there: gender equality.

        It doesn’t matter whether you’re a man or a woman, gender will always be divided. Been married lately? It is a constant struggle for balance. And that is the beauty of it. Men and women grow as individuals through that principle.

        But truth seeking is not about gender equality. It’s about power equality for all men and all women. By choosing such a symbolic name for their movie, the Red Pill team knew exactly what they were doing: creating a divide in the truth seeking community.

        Put all biases aside for one minute and look at the strategy behind it: don’t you think the name is loaded if being for such a hot, polarizing topic, knowing what it has been representing the past 2 decades?

        I am also disappointed by what I read in response to bringing this up.

        I’ve felt like a minority in this community being female. It’s been frustrating to see other female friends still stewing that Hillary didn’t win because apparently that would have solved gender equality in their opinion. Very frustrating indeed. And the so-called left has probably hurt both men and women with all their gender this and that by creating anger between everybody. I am disappointed to sense this side of the spectrum has not yet explored that possibility and is in fact falling for it.

        The Red Pill movie is a strategy in my opinion. It’s not so much about men’s right as it is about causing controversy. Calling it “The Red Pill” is in itself a red flag. Netflix banning it could be even be part of the strategy. If it isn’t, then Netflix has some serious issues, but that’s for another conversation I guess.

        A lot of divide and conquer strategies has been discussed on this gem of a website. But not this one. Maybe it’s time we all buck up and look into it.

        • mkey says:

          Which community are you talking about? Where is the divide?

          Even if this is a psyop, there are so many going on everyday it’s physically impossible for each to get the same amount of attention. Additionally, it would be completely counterproductive.

          Choosing a title for the movie one is making is fairly within their rights. The “red pill” term as far as I know doesn’t belong to anyone. Thanks to leftist bullshit we have lost so many words maybe I’ve grown insensitive over possible loss of more.

          As far as google searches go, it’s dependent on their algorithms (and maybe a little something on the side) how will they rank specific content. I wouldn’t say it’s a measure of “hijackness.”

          On the topic of gender polarization, on every day basis I see a lot more pressing issues than this movie which, based on the imdb page isn’t grabbing insane amounts of attention. I can’t really comment on it since I haven’t watched it.

          If you find to be important, dive in.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          You said: “So it has come to this? The truth seeking community is being polirized by the ultimate dividing criteria: gender.”

          What?! No.
          Did you read the article by Mike Adams?

        • mik says:


          I agree with you film The red pill is made for divide&concur and is abusing the term. But since it’s not farfetched to say that our language is being hijacked, I don’t see a big problem regarding the abuse. Film presents some real issues man are facing and to say it’s misogynistic is overreaction.

          But most importantly is what the film is not saying and put under scrutiny, modern feminism. Instead of endless repetition of man’s experiences they could squeeze in a presentation of some really insidious aspects of modern feminism. Even more so, they had the right people near by.

          Steve Brule, who had a part in the film, is working with Janice Fiamengo and she is really thoroughly exposing modern feminism.

          For example:
          Feminist Terminology 1: Gender

          Why I Am An Anti-Feminist

          But film’s author didn’t see an opportunity to make a good film, and we get just a flat story about people and events without insight into ideas that lay behind, something that could invigorate our mind.

          I would also like to see this topic here on CR. But I have a feeling that James, like an excellent communicator, wisely prefer to stay out of these debates (for example also property), because of possibility to loose more then gain with it. Especially because at the end of the day, topics like this don’t really matter. Real enemy of the people is elsewhere.
          These topics provoke so many emotional responses, so many beliefs involved and lack of knowledge and understanding…… a minefield.

          There are not many female commentators here around as far as I can decipher. So be strong, be wrong. We need yin-yang.

      • john k says:

        HRS, I read Natural News regularly and usually agree with Mike Adams .

        I also sent an email in support of the Organic farm that is being threatened.

        I have admired the work of G E. Griffin for a long time, although I don’t agree with some of his views. For one, he doesn’t think HIV is real. I wrote to him about this and he kindly replied, giving me his reasons. I do however like a particlar saying of his which goes something like, “I believe it is this way, however I reserve the right to change my opinion (should evidence to the contrary present itself).”

        Lastly, I very much like and support the “Red Pill” concept, however I don’t like the name. It’s imagery is too “Big Pharma” for my taste. (Though I understand where it comes from).

  17. mkey says:

    Eustace Mullins’ on FED, Ron Paul, Rockefeller & G. Edward Griffin

    “my book had already been in print for 50 years and I [inaudible] millions of readers… So, uh, Griffin scored a coup d’etat by taking my book and presenting it as his own and he has been, he has already built an empire [inaudible]”


    • mkey says:

      He states on Ron Paul

      “Ron Paul will work for anyone who hires him. He is using my book to keep the Rothschild in power”

      which I found a bit odd. This was a September 2009 interview. In January 2008 he was a lot more positive on Ron Paul

      Eustace Mullins – Ron Paul & the Presidential Elections

      Again, thoughts?

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Sidenote: In early 2008, I was doing a Texas recruiting campaign for Richard Gage to help get more engineers and architects on board. I spoke to one of Ron Paul’s son-in-laws. He was an engineer. He was signed up to “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”.

        (3 minutes) The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in a kitsch kind of way with Richard Gage. Some great photos of the 9/11 Movement in Action.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      Eustace Mullins spent the last years of his life in Dallas.
      Here he is at a “Loose Change – Final Cut” event our group was putting on. Some well known names in the 9/11 Movement were there. Jason Burmas and James G, one of the co-authors to several of the thermitic papers with Jones, Ryan, et al. James also ramrodded the famous Toronto Hearings.

      Eustace had a guy who kind of took care of him. Evidently, his mental state kind of got shaky in the final years and there was contention about aspects of his estate (book rights) between he and the caretaker.

  18. herrqlys says:

    My post is off topic, but as there isn’t a “current events” posting spot for Corbett Reporteers I leave it here, the latest of James’ commentaries.

    Ideas highlighted in a May 18, 2016 article from the Saudi point of view, inspired by US inference that Saudi Arabia was complicit in the 9/11 attacks:

    – the nature of the U.S. plutocratic structure, and it’s current economic configuration, is that it cannot exist without a military enemy
    – American foreign policy is built upon the principle of advance planning under the extrapolation of future probabilities
    – a part of standard U.S. policy is the time-delayed, opportunistic revealling of archival documents, to use as leverage against various countries…’victory by means of archives’

    Today, a year later, on May 19, 2017 Donald Trump makes his first official international visit as a head of state, with a meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The Donald is “bearing gifts — a package of weapons deals totaling more than $100 billion, which if confirmed would be one of the largest single arms sales in American history.”

    As an addendum to a recent post of mine, I want to mention that part of the 1973 OPEC oil crisis settlement included US guarantees of military support for Saudi Arabian security, and weapons sales to bolster the Saudi’s own military capabilities. i.e. win-win for the US dollar and the US weapons industry, and a win of sorts for Saudi Arabia.

    Here is an article from the Saudi point of view about The Donald’s visit, including the exhortation “Please don’t be “just another version of Obama”:

    And from the contributing journalists’ hopes and fears that the meetings will:

    “lead to agreements and… results that will end the terror that is so powerfully striking the region and the world, and to true cooperation, with the aim of finding a solution to unresolved issues.”

    “address…[the] threat to the region’s security, its encouraging of terrorism, and its support for extremism that have destabilized our region and exposed it to terror attacks…”

    These Saudi writers are, of course, referring to Iran as the terrorist villain.

  19. herrqlys says:

    Okay. Something more along the plot line here.

    How long will the TPTSB tolerate interference with the control of the nation’s money supply, bestowed upon The Federal Reserve (private) Bank?

    If you live in Arizona, Louisiana, North Carolina or Texas and are not aware of the current legislative initiatives, you should be.

    “Several States Looking to Repeal Taxes on Gold and Silver”

    I stayed on the site because I thought I saw a picture suggesting that I could find a girlfriend there… then I read the caption:

    “Retail Bloodbath: It’s Not All Amazon’s Fault”

  20. M says:

    Very interesting stuff. I personally think it is obvious that the Kennedys were no saints and came from an inside family, but that is also the reason they were dangerous. About the secret society speech I have to comment that while some parts of it really point towards the Soviet Union, the part about secret societies really does not. I am not aware of any communist secret societies operating inside the United States. Perhaps Kennedy knew about some but they have never been made public? Another view would be that he really did believe there was “monolithic conspiracy” which supports both side the left and the right. That is actually how Mafia also operates. They supported both JFK and Nixon (through Teamsters) in 1960 election and in many other cases too.

    The part about the secret societies really point toward the Cosa Nostra or Mafia. It is a secret society with secret oaths. Joseph Kennedy is claimed to have made a deal with the leaders of Chicago Outfit that they deliver Illinois to JFK and that really does seems to have happened. Whatever JFK was supposed to deliver to them was probably left undelivered as he appointed RFK as the Attorney General and he went to crusade against the Mafia. Convictions against organized crime rose 800 percent during his term. They were mostly lower ranking mobsters, but then again it was very hard to get to the leaders as the lower ranking mobsters did the dirty work. This eventually led to development of the RICO-act, which is almost the only way to get to the bosses.

    I feel many people dont really understand how powerful the Mafia actually was. A quote from the book “Five Families: The Rise, Decline, and Resurgence of America’s Most Powerful Mafia Empires”

    “In fact, the Mob’s economic surge in the second half of the century was astonishing. A government analysis estimated that, in the 1960s, the illicit profit of the nation’s twenty-odd Mafia families topped $7 billion annually, approximately the combined earnings of the ten largest industrial corporations in the country. The lion’s share of the illicit wealth was reaped by the most powerful segment of the Cosa Nostra conglomerate—the five New York gangs.”

    So the Mafia actually was a lot bigger than the US Steel. While the Sicialian mafias power has dimished what has happened to the Jewish part of the Syndicate? Donald Trumps connection to the mafia at least through his Jewish lawyer Roy Cohn. To be fair towards Trump one could not have been succesful real-estate developer in New York without the connection to the mafia families. As turncoat Sammy Gravano puts it that Donald Trump could not build a building if they did not want it.
    Also for anyone interest this part is very important in gaining understanding how the legitimate businesses benefit from the Mafia:

    Anyway back to Kennedys I have to also add interesting connections between Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, the Mob (especially Sam Giancana) and the Kennedys. Also the Jimmy Hoffa, Mafia and Kennedy is very important in my opinion. Killing Jimmy Hoffa is a great documentary available at YouTube and the stuff in Gangster Report in general. It seems that they are willing to go where many Mafia experts and the mainstream media is not.

  21. M says:

    Also would like to add that if there is monolithic global conspiracy, it is mainly Jewish like the American Mafia was mainly Italian. A quote from Benjamin Freedman:

    “In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don’t blame Mr. Kennedy. I’m fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he’s a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He’s playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you’ve got to play with the fish. Let ’em out and pull ’em in. Let ’em out and pull ’em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy’s father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don’t think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.”

    If he and his brother were really playing with the enemy (and it seems they really were whether the enemy was/is mainly Jewish or not) we all know how that the play ended for both.

    • herrqlys says:

      While I agree with the gist of your comments, I am leery about identity politics. Many words in the English language morph over time with fluctuations in common usage. Valid ideas can also be invalidated, or at least be misunderstood, by the use of inexact terminology. In this context I would have preferred that you had used a more nuanced form of “Jewish”.

      I am certainly no expert, so please don’t heckle me or my comment simply for any misunderstanding I may have about some pedantic point of philosophy. I have the following understandings:

      To be Jewish is to hold a belief and faith in Judaism as expressed in the Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim (collectively covering the 24 books of the Tanakh – or Mikrah – the Hebrew bible), as a way of life and community. The Talmud and other texts address the rabbinical laws of the faith. Jewishness is a faith, not a race or a nationality.

      To be an Israeli, a full citizen of the state of Israel, is conditional upon your being of Jewish faith, and preferably from a maternal Jewish bloodline. This should not be a race issue, but today within the domestic state of Israel it is becoming ever more so.

      To be Zionist is to support the “right” of the state of Israel to exist in the geographical area known as the Holy Land, Palestine.

      As with most things in our complex society, the reality is a spectrum of varieties. You can be Jewish, but not Israeli. You can be Jewish, and even Israeli, and yet not dogmatically Zionist. You can be a non-Israeli Jew who supports Zionism, or even a non-Jew who supports Zionism.

      In its extreme, Zionism encompasses both an apartheid policy and the quest for development of a Greater Israel (especially as advocated in the writings of Oded Yinon, a former Israeli foreign minister and journalist).

      • herrqlys says:


        Oded Yinon was not a former Israeli foreign minister.
        Rather, he was “attached” to the foreign ministry, whatever that really means..

      • mkey says:

        For European jews it suffice to be of jewish mother. They don’t take kindly to other combinations and look down to “biblical” jews.

      • Pablo de Boer says:

        Hola aloha Herrqlys,

        Just like each country and border is Israel also an illegal state created and invented by humans. Even the existence of Israel is in contrary to Torah teachings according to some Rabbis. And one other thing is sure even if you are Jew or Zionist and this is, that Israel is a fascist state and created rivers of blood from the marternal as paternel side of humanity.

        Existence of Israel contrary to Torah teachings: Rabbi Weiss

        All borders are imaginary and exist only in the human mind

  22. herrqlys says:

    For more on Oded Yinon’s ideas please see:

    Abby Martin’s stated reason for quitting the RT broadcast network, in her on-air rendering, had me discredit her subsequent points of view because I felt she didn’t really understand the history and dynamics of either Ukraine or Crimea, and yet made a significant personal choice due to this lack of understanding.

    After viewing her renewal on teleSUR’s Empire Files, I am back in her audience. After making a prolonged visit to the West Bank and Israel (she wasn’t permitted to visit Gaza) Martin has done several episodes on what she learned there. I submit a relevant teaser here:

    I’m relatively new to an in-depth understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum. It wasn’t so long ago that I got my mental colourations of the issues from the tainted legacy media, including Hollywood. I make no further comment, here, on the ownership and editorial policies of this media.

    What I do wish to make clear is that I do see how the grinding up of Palestinian resolve to live where they do, and how the wars in Lebanon, Iraq and, now, Syria contribute to the fragmentation of the surrounding Arab peoples.

    Israel stands ready to fill any vacuums, or to at least be in a totally dominant position over any remaining, but lesser, neighbouring states. The power in banking and politics has solicited, and is apparently receiving, international support for Zionist ambitions.

    • herrqlys says:

      More errata… sigh. Live and learn.

      The importance of Oded Yinon would appear to be overblown, although he was an academic and did write/lecture about these types of things, including on behalf of the World Zionist Organization. The translator, Israel Shahak, has had his own integrity questioned before.

      The quotes from Theodore Herzl and Rabbi Fischmann about their Biblical interpretation of what constituted the Promised Lands is at least part of the historical record. I couldn’t establish the provenance of that map of a Greater Israel.

  23. ImperatorTruth says:

    Well I finally am a Corbett Report member after being a massive fan of his work for many years on YouTube. So I can now leave comments here.

    This report changed my mind on this entire situation. I was convinced JFK was offed by the Fed for Executive Order 11110, but obviously I was wrong. So thank you very much to Corbett for correcting me on that. So who killed JFK? Now I am pretty sure it was the CIA.

    Anyways. Big props for breaking down my false belief in that narrative. Every time I watch the Corbett Report I learn something new.

    -Titus Frost

  24. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Another MYTH exposed…
    Episode 317 – The Truth About Glass-Steagall
    YouTube –

  25. wingsuitfreak says:

    For the record, while reading my daily copy of The Activist Post, I saw an article in the feed talking about how the JFK case was solved. Naturally, I clicked on it. The discussed the FED note and gave it as the reason for his assassination. In the comment section, I stated this myth had already been busted and referenced this video for those seeking clarification. As I never go on facebook, I’ll never find out if anyone follows through, but it’s all about the breadseeds… Thanks, Jim

  26. Mark K. P. says:

    Is Griffin’s research really seminal, or a rip-off of Eustace Mullins’ work? Certainly the latter wrote earlier and his book (not Griffin’s) was banned in Germany.

    Jan Lamprecht has been digging into Joseph Kennedy’s pro-German and pro-Hitler attitudes when US ambassador to Britain, until sacked for those views in 1940, by Roosevelt who was one of the prime instigators of WW2 ;

    This looks like an important backdrop to the assassinations of both Kennedy brothers, likewise JFK’s strangely positive comments about Hitler.
    There looks like something bigger here than quibbling over the meaning of one Kennedy executive order.
    The Kennedys might have got a whiff of the Jewish general assault on Christianity, and shared similar views to Ford.

    Another interesting element in this background to the JFK presidency and assassination is Kathleen Kennedy’s marriage into the Cavendish family, and her murder when she stood to inherit most of the Cavendish/Devonshire fortune. This Anglo-dutch house seems to be at least as important as the Rothschilds in the modern financial system, though a lot less talked about. Perhaps partly because English pride in money gouging is less fervent than Jewish, perhaps partly because Cavendish are more senior and use Rothschild something like a masque

  27. weilunion says:

    Boy, the computer hacking is un-believable. Took many attempts to access this site.

    OK, individualism: the story of circling the wagons around ‘self’. No altruism, as Ayn Rand stated, it is al about me and whatever trickles down is enough cake for the masses.

    No, we do not want individualism, especially the bourgeoise definition of it.

    We need to work towards “Individuality”. Both very different terms and yes, concepts or terms, compile the narrative and if one does not question language, they learn to know nothing.

    Mentioned on this report was the need and intellectual courage to examine ones’ own point of view, and that of others.

    Yet most pople have no mechanisms for thinking. If you ask some one, “What do you do when you think?” they cannot answer with clarity.

    For they lack the necessary consciousness and pragmatic devices to allow them to “think about thinking, while they are thinking, to make thinking better.”

    The failure is education and not just schools, for I have tramped around campuses and elementary schools half my life; I am 65.

    The entire society is an educational manufacturing machine; spewing rumors, disinformation, all meant to build the narrative, or the Policeman, inside our head.

    So how to examine points of view that do not corroborate our own, that force us to reason, another name for critical thinking but with affective differences, through points of view we do not agree with, and also to engage in meta-cognition, the questioning of ‘self’.

    Let me say:

    Reasoning is what makes us human and when we abdicate, or when our reasoning power is hijacked in favor of lies, half truths and emotional appeals to products of the mind, we fail to understand reason and how to employ it.

    Here are some suggestions, and they are Socratic

    Ask, what is the source of my own point of view on X or Y and why do I believe what I do, or come to conclusions as I do;

    Two, ask what would someone who disagreed with me respond to my conclusions and reasoning? What facts might they have that I eill have to confront,both myself, and the claims I make;

    Three, and forgive the pedantics: What evidence do I have for what I ‘believe’ (often calcified into ‘truth’) and what evidence does not agree with me? How will I confront evidence from other points of view?

    Four: What are the consequences of my thinking, not just now, but projected and again, on assumptions. What am I assuming will be the consequences of what I believe and conclude, and what would I say to someone who disagrees.

    The intellectual moral courage and empathy needed for all this cognitive inner Socratic spirit, i the affective dimension of critical thinking. The values and dispositions of fair minded critical thinking, not Sophistic.

    We must become jurors of our own mind, understanding that reasoning is a process and if it is what makes us human, then its theft is a crime against humanity that only we can change.

  28. HomeRemedySupply says:

    UPDATE February 2020

    In this reconstituted video from February 2011, Episode 174 – Patriot Mythology, James Corbett discusses the JFK Silver Myth (among other topics, such as the Fat Bin Laden video).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top