Peter Joseph (creator of Zeitgeist) believes that I'm mentally ill because I disagree with him. You can read all about it on his forums (linked from this forum post), with a blog-based rebuttal here. You better not disagree with him, or you'll be labeled insane next. Perhaps I'm crazy for pointing out his forum post?
If anyone has looked on the forums of the Internet as of late, it seems as thought Part III is the most commonly believed; you typically hear things like "Well, Part I - I'm not too sure about, Part II may be/is not true, but I know Part III is true!" How do these people know? If they know, why not more people? Well, I decided to look into it myself.
I realize that most people who promote this film say "I did research, I know it's true", well if that was the case, Parts I and II wouldn't have been proven false. As I did in part I, I will go through the video as it talks, that is I will take a transcription and discuss it point by point in that manner, anything from the movie appears in green to make it easy to follow.
It is worth noting that this section has some pretty long quotes from movies and from other people. I only kept in quotes of substance, so I did not put in the quotes from the movie Network or anything like that, but I did keep the stuff from CNN, CNBC, and so forth.
The movie begins with some quotes from various people in history. On a hunch I decided to look into the context of these quotes and see what they were really talking about. I realize the purpose of the quotes are to give the viewer the impression that "something else is going on", but there's more to it than that. The viewer should be aware of the true meaning behind these quotes.
"There is something behind the throne greater than the king himself."
- Sir William Pitt, House of Lords 1770
This one was kind of difficult to track down, but I finally did find it. The quote in full is "A long train of these practices has at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something behind the throne, greater than the throne itself." What William Pitt was talking about, was a scandal of sorts, how King George III was under too much influence from Lord Bute, and how it seemed as though the King didn't care about what the French were saying. The speech this quote came from was made in 1770, six years after the King had already stopped seeing Lord Bute, and Pitt knew this. The purpose of the statement was to imply the King was weak; it was nothing more than an insult.
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
- Benjamin Disraeli, English Statesman 1844
This quote originates from a book written by Disraeli in 1844 which is a fictional account of the life and career of Henry Coningsby and his politics. Essentially the whole thing is Disraeli voicing his opinion to the Reform Bill of 1832, the British Whig Party, and Utilitarianism. This quote is frequently misrepresented by Anti-Semitic individuals who wish to prove that Jews control the world. In reality the context of the quote was discussion the concept behind governmental alliances. Thus it makes sense that things are run "behind the scenes" if governments make agreements with others to do or not to do something.
"The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson."
- Franklin D Roosevelt, US President 1933
I found the "source" of this quote. It is apparently a letter sent from Roosevelt to Colonel Edward M House, and can be received from Sterling Library at Yale University or from Radio Liberty. After hours of searching, I could not find a single location on the Internet that references this letter that is not a conspiracy site or is from a post on a forum written by someone who is promoting a conspiracy theory. More so, searching Yale's library database yielded nothing. I found plenty of letters, but not this one.
1775, the American Revolutionary War began, as the American colonies sought to detach from England, and it's oppressive monarchy. Although many reasons are cited for the revolution, one in particular sticks out as the prime cause: that King George III of England outlawed the interest free independent currency the colonies were producing and using for themselves, in turn forcing them to borrow money from the Central Bank of England at interest, immediately putting the colonies into debt. And as Benjamin Franklin later wrote:
"The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution."
First, there were many causes of the American Revolution, a big one was "taxation without representation", and indeed Benjamin Franklin did comment later in 1800 stating that he believed the ridiculous money system imposed on the colonies was a cause for the revolution. That is, where the colonies had to essentially ship massive amounts of money back to England because they imported more than they exported. King George III outlawed the colonies from making their own money period, despite the wording of this, implying that somehow it was only the interest free money that they were outlawing. The English economic style was that of money being loaned at interest to the government, from private companies. It is worth noting, that not all Central Banks are privately owned, nor do all Central Banks issue Fiat currency (money based on several things, such as payment of taxes and credible enforcement), some do back their money with gold.
In 1783 America won its independence from England. However, its battle against the central bank concept and the corrupt, greed-filled men associated with it had just begun.
So what is a Central Bank? A Central Bank is an institution that produces the currency of an entire nation. Based on historical precedent, two specific powers are inherent in central banking practice. The control of interest rates, and the control of the money supply, or inflation. A central bank does not simply supply a government's economy with money, it loans it to them at interest. Then, through the use of increasing and decreasing the supply of money, the central bank regulates the value of the currency being issued. It is critical to understand that the entire structure of this system can only produce one thing in the long run: debt.
It doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to figure this scam out. For every single dollar produced by the central bank is loaned at interest, that means every single dollar produced is actually the dollar plus a certain percent of debt based on that dollar. And since the central bank has a monopoly over the production of the currency for the entire country, and they loan each dollar out with immediate debt attached to it, where does the money to pay for the debt come from? It can only come from the central bank again. Which means the central bank has to perpetually increase its money supply to temporarily cover the outstanding debt created, which in turn, since that new money is loaned out at interest as well, creates even more debt! The end result of this system without fail is slavery. For it is impossible for the government and thus the public, to ever come out of the self-generating debt.
The primary reason a central banking system was implemented is because "free banking systems", that is ones that are not centralized, were unstable. Between 1837 and 1862, a time when we had free banking, banks issued their own bank notes, which were backed against their own gold and silver, and states regulated reserve requirements, interest rates on loans and deposits, and so forth. The problem with this system is it created a lot of unstable banks. In fact, banks would only last around 5 years before going bankrupt because they could no longer redeem the notes of customers. A third of banks failed during the free banking era.
Imagine going to a bank today, and them telling you that your paper money is actually worthless, you can't buy or sell anything with it. Of course, the movie implies this later by saying the Federal Reserve System creates worthless money, but if that was the case, I don't see why we haven't had massive market crashes and wide-spread instability as we did prior to the modern system.
Contrary to the film, the Federal Reserve does not increasingly create debt. The total debt mounted each year by the Federal Reserve is only about 7% of the total national debt. The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year, thus the money borrowed from the Federal Reserve has no net interest obligation for the treasury.
If we travel back to a time when banks made their own currency, we also had the problem of going to multiple banks. I imagine if banks still did that, we'd probably wind up with a bank monopoly anyway, because people would want the convenience of being able to use the same money everywhere, especially businesses. Instead the Central Banking system allows businesses and people to deal less with converting all the tons of different bank notes they receive, and allows them to more easily save their money in cash or coin form, or in a bank backed up by the FDIC.
The founding fathers of this country were well aware of this:
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
Instead of telling us the date of the quote or where it's from, the film just tells us the birth and death years of the person -- which is less than helpful. When searching for it, I noticed it was attributed to a letter that simply didn't exist. I did find letters that supposedly contained this quote But the other sentences in these letters were actually from different letters to different people. The entire quote in the film cannot be attributed to Thomas Jefferson, at all, anywhere. I searched all his complete works. It was fabricated from somewhere as far as I can tell. In letters, though, I did find that Thomas Jefferson was worried about banks being able to create their own currency, the exact thing the Central Bank system prevents.
"If you want to remain the slaves of the bankers and pay for the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nation's credit."
- Sir Josiah Stamp (1880-1941)
This quote is completely inaccurate, here is the real quote:
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."
The quote from the film is worded to make it appear as though Stamp was talking about credit and Central Banking, rather he was talking about people putting their money in banks at all, centralized or not.
By the early 20th century, the US had already implemented, and removed a few central banking systems, which were swindled into place by ruthless banking interests.
The First Bank of the United States was the first central bank that America had, and it was chartered by Congress after being proposed by Alexander Hamilton, one of our most important founding fathers. The purpose was not unlike our current system. It was to establish financial order, clarity, and precedence. Credit was also established, both in the US and overseas. It was also established to resolve the messy issue of fiat currency issued by the Continental Congress. Thomas Jefferson was not necessarily up in arms against it, rather he was not too interested in the idea, as he believed that the South would not benefit because it was an agricultural economy that did not require central banking.
After the charter for the First Bank of the United States expired, five years later the Second Bank of the United States was chartered in order to stabilize the currency. It was founded by noted friend of Thomas Jefferson and Founding Father, James Monroe. It was also created when James Madison and Albert Gallatin found the government was unable to finance the country in the aftermath of the War of 1812, which had put the country into a lot of debt. New privately formed banks printed bank notes as a result of this debt, which increased inflation greatly. Unfortunately, due to mismanagement and not having the protections the central bank does now, it became corrupt towards its end, and the nation's money was removed from it and transferred to a different bank. Quickly the Second Bank went bankrupt and turned into the Bank of Philadelphia.
As we can see, the central banking system helped America a lot, especially during its formative years, and kept the country stable in times of crisis. It is also hard to believe the film when it calls the founding fathers "ruthless banking interests".
At this time, the dominant families in the banking and business world were the Rockefellers, the Morgans, the Warburgs, the Rothschilds, and in the early 1900s, they sought to push once again, legislation to create another central bank. However, they knew the government and public were weary of such an institution, so they needed to create an incident to affect public opinion.
I could mention that "At this time..." is incorrect, because the Second Bank went defunct in 1841, and the oldest person on the list above was only 3 years old when it happened -- this hardly makes any of them dominant at this time. The film is basically setting us up for a conspiracy here, let's see how that turns out.
So, J.P. Morgan, publicly considered a financial luminary at the time, exploited his mass influence by publishing rumors that a prominent bank in New York was "insolvent", or bankrupt. Morgan knew this would cause mass hysteria, which would affect other banks as well, and it did. The public, in fear of losing their deposits, immediately began mass withdrawals. Consequently the banks were forced to call in their loans, causing the recipients to sell their products, and thus a spiral of bankruptcies, repossessions, and turmoil emerged.
Putting the pieces together a few years later, Fredrik Allen of LIFE Magazine wrote:
"The Morgan interests took advantage... to precipitate the panic [of 1907] guiding it shrewdly as it progressed."
Trying foot the blame on JP Morgan for the 1908 Bankers' Panic does not stand up to historical facts. The biggest contributor to the panic was actually the Knickerbocker Trust Company, which copied speculation tactics of Charles W. Morse, who had obtained Bank of North America and several other banks to float consolidations schemes. In any case, over-expansion and poor speculation led to a stock market crash in early 1907. If that weren't enough, the stock market crashed again in October of that year. This is why banks called in their loans, not because of some news paper article that was published. I tried to find reference to any such article, and I never could find it.
I have seen many conspiracy sites that square the blame on JP Morgan, claiming he "published rumors" of various banks, and all this. I cannot find any real evidence of that what so ever, outside a reference to a Life Magazine article, as quoted above by the film. I could not find that article, and considering Life Magazine has a history of publishing half-truths anyway, I cast doubt on the source until I can see an actual copy of the article in question.
In any case, JP Morgan actually helped the situation when he organized a team of bank and trust executives. This helped avoid complete economic ruin for the American economy by redirecting money between banks, security international lines of credit, and bought stock of healthy corporations to keep them from bankrupting.
Unaware of the fraud, the Panic of 1907 led to a Congressional investigation, headed by Senator Nelson Aldrich, who had intimate ties to the banking cartels, and later became part of the Rockefeller family through marriage. The Commission led by Aldrich recommended a Central Bank should be implement so a panic like 1907 could never happen again. This was the spark the international bankers needed to initiate their plan.
Unaware, perhaps, because there was no fraud taking place. Actually what happened was, Nelson Aldrich spent some time traveling around Europe, and believed the English, German, and French central banking systems were far better than what was going on in the US at the time. He was a firm believer in the progressive concepts of efficiency and science; so it is no surprise he wanted a system that worked well, easily, and was stable. He worked with various bankers and economists to design a plan for the central banking system he had in mind. In fact, he promoted a central banking concept that was decentralized, making it hard to believe he was in on any large conspiracy .
In 1910, a secret meeting was held at a J.P. Morgan estate on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. It was there that the central banking bill called the Federal Reserve Act was written. This legislation was written by bankers, not lawmakers. This meeting was so secretive, so concealed from government and public knowledge, that the 10 or so figures who attend, disguised their names when en route to the island.
Back in 1910 banking reform was a big issue in the United States, and Nelson Aldrich -- as we already discussed -- had seen how several European countries had Central Banking systems and helped draft a plan for one in the United States. This meeting was not that secretive. We know exactly who attended:
The film claims it was "bankers, not lawmakers", when the first two, or at least the first, would be considered as such. It makes perfect sense as well, considering as I already talked about, the whole idea was Nelson Aldrich's and he wanted help drafting a plan. That is, the help of people who knew about Banks and the help of the Treasury Department to set up the plan for a central bank in the US.
The whole mystery of it can be attributed to Forbes magazine, who published an article several years later of a bunch of bankers skipping town in the middle of the night to some island -- sounds more like some horrible John Grisham rip-off, rather than what actually happened. What's next? Are you going to tell me they were speeding away from Jekyll Island in a speed boat with monocles, bags of money with dollar signs, and their canes propped up against stacks of property deeds while they stroked their mustaches mincingly?
After this bill was constructed, it was then handed over to their political front man, Senator Nelson Aldrich, to push through Congress. And in 1913 with heavy political sponsorship by the bankers, Woodrow Wilson became President, having already agreed to sign the Federal Reserve Act in exchange for campaign support. And two days before Christmas when most of Congress was at home with their families, the Federal Reserve Act was voted in, and Wilson in turn made it law.
It really didn't need to be "handed over to him", because he already had it, considering he was the primary person behind it. While Woodrow Wilson did get some money from corporations, most of the money was from smaller donations, not banks.
The film implies that nobody knew about the act, when it had been debated and discussed for more than 4 months prior to being voted on. It passed the House on December 22, 1913 with 298 yeas to 60 nays, with 76 not voting (even if they would have voted all nay, it would still have been a majority of yeas). The next day the Senate passed it, 43 yeas to 25 nays, with 27 not voting. The record shows that almost all of those not voting on the bill had previously declared their intentions, and were paired with members of the opposite intentions.
Years later, Woodrow Wilson wrote, in regret:
"[Our] great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
The first quote is actually changed a bit, the original is:
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.
What's most interesting is that this originally was in a speech from 1912, so how could he be regretting something that hasn't happened yet?
The second quote is also different, but only slightly edited :
"We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world--no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
As with the first quote, this quote is from before the Federal Reserve Act even existed. This is actually from his 1912 campaign speech.
How can he regret something that hasn't happened yet? Could it be these are just being used and the film is inaccurately trying to tell you that he regretted passing the law, when that was not the case? That would be my guess.
Congressman Louis McFadden also expressed the truth after the passage of the bill:
"A world banking system was being set up here... a Superstate controlled by international bankers... acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. The Fed has usurped the government."
I could not find a source for this quote that was not a conspiracy web site, though I did find some interesting facts about what this quote possibly meant. Louis McFadden was quite a shady individual, and he believed that Jews controlled the world, most specifically the American economy. McFadden also blamed Jews for various changes in the American economy, including the Federal Reserve. He was also a major supporter of Hitler and the Nazi policies that were anti-Semitic; more specifically he supported Hitler's attempts to destroy the alleged Jewish control over the German economy, media, education, and business. And for the sake of full disclosure, when he ran for president in 1936, one of his campaign slogans was "Christianity instead of Judaism"
Therefore, in the quote above, if we replace bankers and Fed with "Jews", then we can get a picture of what McFadden was actually talking about. I'm not trying to derail from what he really said, but if he believed the banks were controlled by Jews and the Federal Reserve was a Jewish "problem", then it is safe to make such an assumption to change the words to show the truth behind what he was saying -- but I guess you can be the judge of that.
Now, the public was told that the Federal Reserve System was an economic stabilizer. And inflation and economic crises were a thing of the past. Well, as history has shown, nothing is further from the truth. The fact is the international bankers now had a streamlined machine to expand their personal ambitions.
Actually the US economy has been fairly stable since the great depression. There have been some ups and downs, but many of those can be attributed to international trading of oil, over-investments in unknown areas (such as the dot com boom), or private loans to individuals without income or assets rather than the Federal Reserve.
For example, from 1914 to 1919, the Fed increased the money supply by nearly 100%. Resulting in extensive loans to small banks and the public. Then in 1920, the Fed called in massive percentages of the outstanding money supply, thus resulting in the supporting banks having to call in huge numbers of loans, and just like 1907: bank runs, bankruptcy, and collapse occurred. Over 5400 competitive banks outside of the Federal Reserve System collapsed. Further consolidating the monopoly to a small group of international bankers.
Until fall 1914 the Federal Reserve was essentially on the sidelines, due to political and administrative delays. However, the increases were primarily due to the massive amounts of gold imported into the United States due to foreign countries owing the US more than $4 billion in railroad stocks. To keep up with this the treasury continued to print money. However by 1920, the First World War was over and postwar expansion peaked, causing a recession, the Federal Reserve attempted to stem the decline.
The decline caused the unemployment rate to rise from 4% to nearly 12% by 1921, this was in large part due to the fact that banks were trying to conserve gold reserves. The fact is, money backed by gold constantly lead to crisis because of banks worrying more about the gold than expansion. As for the "over 5,400 competitive banks", something is wrong with that figure, considering during the 1920s, there was an average failing of only 70 banks per year, which would be 77 years to be 5,400. This was nothing unusual at the time, considering prior to the Federal Reserve system, the average life-span of a bank was merely 5 years.
It also important to note, throughout this film, the film maker refers to "group of International bankers", well "international" banks cannot partake in the central banking / Federal Reserve System of the United States.
Privy to this crime, Congressman Lindbergh stepped up, and said in 1921:
"Under the Federal Reserve Act, panics are scientifically created. The present panic is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation."
I was unable to find a source for this quote, I have come to believe it is fabricated; however there is no doubt Congressman Lindbergh was against the Federal Reserve Act.
However, the panic of 1920 was just a warm-up. From 1921 to 1929 the Fed again increased the money supply resulting once again in extensive loans to the public and banks. There was also a fairly new type of loan called a margin loan in the stock market. Very simply, a margin loan allowed an investor to put down only 10% of a stocks price, with the other 90% being loaned through the broker. In other words, a person could own $1000 worth of stock with only $100 down. This method was very popular in the roaring 1920s, as everyone seemed to be making money in the market. However, there was a catch to this loan. It could be called in at any time, and had to be paid within 24 hours. This is termed a margin call, and the typical result of a margin call is the selling of the stock purchased with the loan.
Actually the 20s saw a reduction in loans compared to previous years, and banks lost money as far as earnings went. Margins are not as simple as the film maker makes them. Rather a certain amount of money was used as collateral and the rest of the money equal to the amount of stock being bought as borrowed from the broker. So for example if I bought some shares of Megacorp USA for $100, buying on Margin I would put down the net value of $20 of some of my own money and the broker would put the other $80 down. The net value is calculated by (share amount - loan amount). Let's suppose, though, the share goes from $100 to $85, the net value would then be $5 -- this is when a margin call happens. A margin call is posted only when the margin loan goes below the minimum net value set by the broker. So if the broker wanted it to be a minimum of $10, and now that the stock is down to $85 and only has a net value of $5, this is when a margin call happens. A margin call does not have to be paid within 24 hours, the amount of time depends on the broker, most brokers are around 72 hours.
So, a few months before October of 1929, J.D. Rockefeller, Bernhard Barrack, and other insiders quietly exited the market, and on October 24th, 1929, the New York financiers who furnished the margin loans started calling them in, en masse. This sparked an instantaneous massive sell-off in the market, for everyone had to cover the margin loans. It then triggered mass bank runs for the same reason, in turn collapsing over 16,000 banks, enabling the conspiring international bankers to not only buy up rival banks at a discount, but to also buy up whole corporations at pennies on the dollar. It was the greatest robbery in American history. But that didn't stop there. Rather than expand the money supply to recover from this economic collapse, the Fed actually contracted it, fueling one of the largest depressions in history.
Interesting that JD Rockefeller exited the market when he, along with the other "insiders", were buying up huge chunks of of stocks in order to try to curb the massive selling by showing the public they trusted the market. The reality is much different than the film suggests. "A few months before" is in September 1929, at this time the market slipped a lot, losing 17% of the total value. However it slowly started going up again until October 24th (Black Tuesday) when a record number of 12.9 million shares were traded. Essentially chaos ensued, several big boys in the industry, including Morgan and Chase tried to find a way to stem the selling. They acted through a intermediary to purchase a huge block of US Steel at a price well above the market price, this was a similar tactic that ended the panic in 1907. It halted the slide for that day as planned, but it was only temporary.
Over the weekend the events were covered in the newspapers across the country, and on Monday, October 28, more investors decided to get out of the market, and a record loss of nearly 13% occurred that day. The next day, called Black Tuesday, 16.4 million shares were traded, a record set that would not be broken again until 1969. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost another 12% that day. The market lost $14 billion in a single day, with a total week loss of $30 billion. During this week is when Rockefeller and others attempted to stem the selling as I noted above. This hardly makes them "exit the market". They had just as much to lose as the layman if the market fell, making a conspiracy illogical and stupid on their part.
Once again outraged, Congressman Louis McFadden, a long-time opponent of the banking cartel, began bringing impeachment proceedings against the Federal Reserve Board, saying of the crash and depression:
"It was a carefully contrived occurrence. International bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all."
Congressman Louis McFadden, long time anti-Semite, believed that the "banking cartel" was run by Jews, and moved to impeach president Hoover in 1932 and he went to bring conspiracy charges against Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The impeachment resolution was defeated by a vote of 361 to 8. Yes, just eight people voted for it. As I discussed above when we talked about McFadden previously, he believed International Bankers were a Jewish conspiracy and that Jews controlled American banks and the Federal Reserve, therefore he thought it must have been a Jewish conspiracy to make the market crash. Who else, in his mind, but the Jews would want to make American suffer just for their evil personal ambitions?
Not surprisingly, and after 2 previous assassination attempts, McFadden was poisoned at a banquet before he could push for the impeachment.
He was poisoned and died in 1936, however he did attempt to bring the impeachment and conspiracy charges forth in 1933, and they were overturned, as we discussed; he did not die for another 3 years after that -- so it was not some kind of conspiracy to keep him from impeaching anyone. No one knows why he was poisoned, but some think it was his opposition to the Federal Reserve system. We may never know.
Now, having reduced the society to squalor, the Federal Reserve bankers decided that the Gold Standard should be removed. In order to do this, they needed to acquire the remaining gold in the system. So, under the pretense of helping to end the depression came the 1933 gold seizure. Under threat of imprisonment for 10 years, everyone in America was required to turn in all gold bullion to the Treasury, essentially robbing the public of what little wealth they had left. At the end of 1933, the gold standard was abolished. If you look at a dollar bill from before 1933, it says it is redeemable in gold. If you look at a dollar bill today, it says it is legal tender, which means it is backed by absolutely nothing. It is worthless paper.
The only thing that gives our money value is how much of it is in circulation. Therefore the power to regulate the money supply is also the power to regulate its value, which is also the power to bring entire economies and societies to its knees.
Actually the Gold Standard was not abandoned at this time, instead something very different happened. The causes of the great depression were not completely clear, but in order to address the perceived causes and effects, Executive Order 6102 was signed on April 5, 1933 -- its purpose was to keep people from hoarding gold, by outlawing ownership of gold by an individual person or corporation greater than the amount of $100 (~$1,500 today) in value. The government required holders of large quantities of gold to sell their gold at the prevailing price of $20.67 per ounce -- later on the price was raised to $35 per ounce, and the government devalued dollars by 41% of the previous value.
Money was still redeemable in silver and gold before August 15, 1971 when Richard Nixon announced the US would abandon the gold standard. The limitation on gold ownership no longer exists, anyone can own any amount of gold they wish.
Most nations have fiat money today, not backed by any physical asset. It is not worthless paper, in fact the dollar is made from linen and cotton not paper, regardless, its worth is not based on how much is in circulation, rather it is based on the "guess" of how much tax and other revenues the government will receive in the next year.
If the power to regulate money is the power to bring entire economies and societies to their knees, then why do we need war? Wouldn't it make more sense to use our massive monetary power to force people into financial squalor? Most economies of the world are not based on gold, so it should be easy according to the movie.
"Give me control of a Nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of Rothschild Banking Dynasty
This quote has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve, in fact he died in 1812, long before the Federal Reserve existed. He was merely stating a fact, even if money is not backed by a central bank, it does not change the fact that if you have control over the money supply, laws mean little to you. However, that is not necessarily true in the US, where the Federal Reserve must answer to the congress, but because the Federal Reserve is private, congress cannot control it and use it for political means -- which seems ironic, but it is like a private company that is indirectly controlled by the US Congress.
It's important to clearly understand, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. It is about as federal as Federal Express. It makes its own policies and is under virtually no regulation by the US government. It is a private bank that loans all the currency at interest to the government, completely consistent with the fraudulent central banking model that the country sought to escape from when it declared independence in the American revolutionary war.
Apparently the film makers have a very small understanding of the Federal Reserve. Yes, it is a private corporation, however it is not as private as Federal Express. It is considered private because the decisions it makes do not necessarily have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislature. However, the Federal Reserve has a board of governors with seats for congressional officials. The Federal Reserve is also subject to heavy oversight from Congress. Therefore, it is not necessarily private or public, rather it is "independent within the government."
Now, going back to 1913, the Federal Reserve act was not the only unconstitutional bill pushed through congress. They also pushed the Federal Income Tax. It's worthwhile to point out that the American public's ignorance towards the federal income tax is a testament to how dumbed down and oblivious the American population really is.
Since when is the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional?
First of all, the federal income tax is completely Unconstitutional, as it is a direct, unapportioned tax. All direct taxes have to be apportioned to be legal based on the constitution.
That's actually not true, congress does have the power to impose an income tax, the Sixteenth Amendment does not impose this tax, rather it eliminates the requirement that direct income must be apportioned. We'll talk more about the 16th Amendment in a minute. Taxes on income from property had always been indirect taxes, and were not subject to apportionment. The 16th Amendment made the origin income irrelevant, which included labor, in respect to the apportionment rule.
Secondly, the required number of states in order to ratify the amendment to allow the income tax was never met, and this has even been sited in modern court cases.
"If you... examined [the 16th amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - U.S. district court judge James C. Fox 2003
This rumor has been on the Internet for quite some time, especially in conspiracy circles. The whole thing can be largely attributed to William J. Benson and his 1985 book "The Law That Never Was", where he claims that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. In December of 2007 Benson's "Defense Reliance Package" containing his argument that it was never ratified was offered for sale on the Internet. A federal court ruled it to be a "fraud perpetrated by Benson [that had] caused needless confusion and a waste of the customers' and the IRS' time and resources." Also stated by the court "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes."
In all actuality, it was ratified by 36 states, and one more a little later on. This is more than enough for the 3/4ths majority required to ratify the amendment. That is, there were 48 states and 37 of them is equal to just over 77%, more than the 75% required to be ratified.
Third, at the present day, roughly 25% of the average worker's income is taken via this tax, and guess where that money goes. It goes to pay the interest on the currency being produced by the fraudulent Federal Reserve Bank, a system that does not have to exist, at all. The money you make working almost three months out of the year goes almost literally into the pockets of the international bankers, who own the private Federal Reserve Bank.
The percentage is about right, it can be as low as 10% or as high as 35%, depending on many things. I have no clue as to where the film maker gets the conclusion that it goes to pay off the Federal Reserve Bank. As we discussed towards the beginning of this document, the debt accumulated by the Federal Reserve each year is only about 7% of the total national debt, which could easily be paid off by all the income taxes, many times over. However the earnings by the Federal Reserve are rebated to the Treasury every year, thus the money borrowed from the Federal Reserve has no net interest.
It actually goes to pay for a boatload of things, from the military, to social security, to nearly anything you can imagine.
And fourth, even with the fraudulent government claim as to the legality of the income tax, there is literally no statute, no law in existence, that requires you to pay this tax... period.
Oh really, maybe we should ask someone at the IRS?
"I really expended that, 'of course there's a law that you can point to, in the law book and code that requires to file a tax return. Of course, there is.' I was at that point where I couldn't find the statute that clearly made a person liable, at least not me, and most people I know, and I had no choice in my mind except to resign."
Joe Turner, Former IRS Agent
Perhaps get a second opinion?
"Based on the research that I did throughout the year 2000 and that I'm still doing, I have not found that law. I've asked Congress, a lot of people, we've asked the IRS Commissioner's helpers, they can't answer, because if they answer, the American people are gonna know that this whole thing is a fraud."
Sherry Jackson, Former IRS Agent
Interesting. Well, while these two were yakking, I managed to find the exact law in the IRS code! Can you believe it? It was just right there the whole time. 26 USC Section 1 says it is for every individual, Sections 61 and 64 essentially show that all income from whatever source is derived, Sections 6012 and Sections 6151 require you to file a tax return, and Section 6072 requires you to file an income tax return.
I'm not sure how it was so complicated for them to find it. Incase anyone is wondering, Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, is law, just as Title 23 is for highways and Title 35 is for patents.
"I have not filed a Federal Income Tax return since I left. "
Joe Turner, Former IRS Agent
"I have not filed an Income Tax return since 1999."
Sherry Jackson, Former IRS Agent
Maybe someone should show these two Google and how to use it.
The income tax is nothing less than the enslavement of the entire country.
Well, while it may seem unfair, comparing it to slavery is a bit unethical, because at one point this country had real slaves. 28% of all my money last year went to the Federal Government, while I wish I had that money, I hardly view myself as someone who is enslaved.
Now, the control of the economy and the perpetual robbery of wealth is only one side of the Rubik's Cube the bankers hold in their hands. The next tool for profit and control is war.
Since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913, a number of large and small wars have commenced. The 3 most pronounced were World War I, World War II, and Vietnam.
Why is the next tool war? I thought you said that the Federal Reserve gave people power to bring entire societies to their knees. What happened to that?
In 1914, European wars broke out centered around England and Germany. The American public wanted nothing to do with the war. In turn President Woodrow Wilson publicly declared neutrality, however, under the surface the US administration was looking for any excuse it could find to enter it.
If they were looking for an excuse, it sure took a while, because the US did not enter the war until April 6th, 1917.
In a noted observation by Secretary of State William Jennings:
"The large banking interests were deeply interested in the World War because of the wide opportunities for large profits."
I cannot attribute this quote to William Jennings Bryan, in fact it only appears on Illuminati and Jewish conspiracy sites as original sources, no where else. It wasn't even mentioned in his memoirs.
It's important to understand that the most lucrative thing that can happen for international bankers, is war, for it forces the county to borrow even more money from the Federal Reserve Bank at interest.
War is profitable for a lot of people, banks typically don't make much money until the war is over because they loan the money to contractors, not the other way around. Regardless if they borrow it at interest, as I have explained twice already, it does not matter because it is such a small amount of money in the national debt, and in the end it doesn't matter anyway because it is credited to the treasury.
Woodrow Wilson's top adviser and mentor was Colonel Edward House, a man with intimate connections with the international bankers who wanted in the war. In a documented conversation between Colonel House, Wilson's Advisor, and Sir Edward Grey, The Foreign Secretary of England, regarding how to get America into the war...
Grey Inquired: "What will Americans do if Germans sink an Ocean Liner with American Passengers on board?"
House responded: " I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into war"
The conversation did take place, but not within the context that the movie claims. The discussion originated from the fact that the boat The Gulflight has been torpedoed on May 1st[108 - 1] and the concern was "what would happen if it was a passenger boat instead?" The conversation also mentioned the Lusitania, which was a popular transatlantic vessel.
(Thanks to Brandon Z for his contribution to this section)
So, on May 7th 1915 on essentially the suggestion of Sir Edward Grey, a ship called the Lusitania was deliberately sent into German controlled waters where German Military Vessels were know to be. And, as expected, German U-boats torpedoed the ship, exploding stored ammunition, killing 1200 people.
It was not "deliberately sent into German controlled waters", rather Germany patrolled nearly all of the coast of Northern Europe. Britain sent out a warning stating that "submarines [are] active off the south coast of Ireland". The captain William "Bowler Bill" Turner took what he felt were prudent precautions, such as closing watertight doors, posting double lookouts, ordering a blackout, and had lifeboats swung out on their davits so they could be quickly put in the water if the need arise. After receiving another radio warning of the risk, Turner adjusted his heading northeast, apparently thinking that submarines are more likely to keep to the open sea, and so his ship would be safer close to land. The U-20 piloted by Kapitaenleutnant Walther Schwieger was low on fuel and returning home when it spotted the Lusitania on the horizon. At about 2:10 in the afternoon, the Lusitania was fired upon and sunk into history.
To further understand the deliberate nature of this setup, the German Embassy actually put advertisements in the New York times, telling people that if they boarded the Lusitania, they did so at there own risk, as such a ship sailing from America to England through the war zone, would be liable to destruction.
How does this prove it was deliberate? Yes a warning was issued and posted next to the advertisement for the return voyage of the ship, but that does not mean it it was put in place to be bombed on purpose. People were afraid of it, but the Captain assured everyone the ship was very fast and no one had nothing to worry about. If they were wanting to deliberately kill people, wouldn't they make sure nobody knew of the risk so the maximum amount of people would take the trip?
In turn and as anticipated, the sinking of the Lusitania caused a wave of anger among the American population and America entered the war a short time after
If by a short time, you mean almost 2 years before ever entering the war, and almost 3 before actually fighting. The British felt that America should declare war on Germany, however Woodrow Wilson still did not want to get the country involved, in which he was criticized by Britain as being a coward. After another ship was sunk with Americans onboard, Wilson protested through various German diplomatic channels and the Kaiser ordered severe restrictions on U boats attacking passenger vessels. It was in January 1917 that the Germans resumed unrestricted submarine warfare. It was a captured and decoded German telegram that spoke about how to make the United States enter the war and have Mexico declare war on the US that put the nail in the coffin of neutrality for Congress, and they declared war on April 6, 1917.
The First World War caused 323,000 American deaths. JD Rockefeller made 200 million dollars off of it.
Actually there were 117,465 American deaths (this includes the 128 Americans on the Lusitania), I'm not sure where they get this number that's almost 3 times that amount. How did JD Rockefeller make $200 million? The only way I can think of is if the American government bought a lot of oil. Saying someone who owns an oil company, the only oil company in the US made money from ... pretty much anything to do with oil is the understatement of the century, and shows know connections at all.
Not to mention the war cost about 30 billion dollars for America, most of which was borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank at interest, furthering the profits of the international Bankers.
Actually it was $22,625,253,000 to be exact as possible, about 8 billion less than the film's total, but that isn't that much. I've already explained the debt is not a big deal, and as I mentioned above, "international banks" cannot be a part of the Federal Reserve System, thereby making this term meaningless.
On December 7th 1941, Japan attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbor, triggering our entry into that war. President Franklin D Roosevelt declared that the attack was "a day that will live in infamy." A day of Infamy indeed, but not because of the alleged surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. After 60 years of surfacing information, it is clear that only was the attack on Pearl Harbor known weeks in advance, it was outright wanted and provoked.
Actually that is not clear at all, as we will discuss below, there is no real evidence that Roosevelt knew of the attacks, nor that they were provoked.
Roosevelt, whose family had been New York bankers since the 18th century, whose uncle Fredrik was on the original federal reserve board, was very sympathetic to the interests of the international bankers, and the interest was to enter the war. And as we have seen, nothing is more profitable for international bankers than war.
Roosevelt has several family members who were in the banking industry, only one actually founded a bank. Regardless, his name was not Fredrik, it was Frederic. I imagine the original conspiracy theorist that found this information changed the spelling of his name, perhaps to make him look more foreign or Jewish. He was appointed to a six year term on the Federal Reserve Board, however he resigned 4 years later in order to join the army. He received the Distinguished Service Medal for his wartime service. If someone was in league with the big-bad conspiracy to control all the money of the world, why would he resign and join the army which he conspired to send into battle? Sounds more than a little illogical to me.
In a journal entry by Roosevelt's Secretary of War Henry Stimson dated November 25th, 1941, he documented a conversation he had with Roosevelt:
"The question was how should we maneuver them into firing the first shot... it was desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors."
This quote is inaccurate, here is what Stimson really said in his journal:
The President brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked, perhaps (as soon as) next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.
I cannot find any source for the second sentence. So, what does this mean? Well it means that the President as well as Stimson were almost certain that the Japanese were going to attack at some point, but when they did the question was, how could America put itself into a position to where they would not suffer badly during this surprise attack.
In the months leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt did everything in his power to anger the Japanese, showing a posture of aggression. He halted all of Japans imports of American Petroleum. He froze all the Japanese assets in the United States.
One thing we must understand is that the US and Japan has been at odds since the the 1920s, however the tension did not meet boiling point until Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. There was also an effort by Japan to halt war supplies from entering China at this time by creating an embargo. When Japan invaded northern IndoChina (now Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, etc) This is the reason behind the US halting petroleum to Japan, as if the conspiracy theorists expected the US to do nothing at all when our ally China was being threatened.
The US also made loans to other allies as well, the largest to Britain and the smallest to China. This was a part of the Lend-Lease Act, which was a way American thought it could help combat the expansionism of Germany and Japan without directly entering the war. This is not a violation of any war rules, I'm not sure where the film maker comes up with such a conclusion.
And, on December 4th, 3 days before the attack, Australian intelligence told Roosevelt about a Japanese task force moving towards Pearl harbor.
Roosevelt ignored it.
The only non-conspiracy site that lists this is an archived New York Times article published June 29, 1989. From the article, it seems as though Elliot R Thorpe, who the conspiracy theorists say "warned Roosevelt", sent a message to Washington telling them that the Japanese were planning to attack Hawaii. Needless to say, this is extremely vague, and there is no other evidence these warnings actually took place, at least not from this man. There is no mention of it anywhere except this article and places that quote this article.
This film likes to inflate numbers. Actually 2,388 were killed, but that doesn't make it any less of a bad thing, of course. I was unable to find any source what so ever saying that "83% of the American Public wanted nothing to do with the war.", or actually any percentages what so ever. While it is known that after World War I the view by many Americans was that isolationism was a good thing, even before the attack of Pearl Harbor, this idea started to fade in favor of helping the allies without joining the war. It is true, however, that the attack on Pearl Harbor did further support of entry into the war.
In any case, this is not really an issue, because as the evidence shows, there was no real conspiracy to bring the US into the war by the US government. In fact the whole concept is illogical -- the Japanese could have easily annihilated our fleet, and came close, but they did not. The idea that the US government would sacrifice the pacific fleet and set themselves back a year and risk even more attacks in order to enter the war is ridiculous.
It is important to note, Nazi Germany's war effort was largely supported by two organizations, one of which was called IG Farben. IG Farben produced 84% of Germanys explosives and even the Zyklon B used in the concentration camps to kill millions.
One of the unspoken partners of IG Farben was JD Rockefeller's Stand Oil Company. In America.
In fact the German Air force could not operate without a special additive patterned by Rockefeller standard oil. The drastic bombing of London by Nazi Germany for example was made possible by a 20 million dollar sale of fuel to IG Farben by the Rockefeller standard oil company. This is just one small point about how America business funded both sides of World War II.
It is true that there was selling-buying of goods between I.G. Farben and Standard Oil, but there was also DuPoint, IBM, Industrial Alcohol Co, Cuba Distilling Co, and many others. There was an investigation into this, but it was dropped in favor of enlisting these companies into the war effort. I can't, however confirm the second part. It makes sense that there could have been such selling, but I cannot find a source for it. While there was some trading going on with the enemy, it hardly proves conspiracy, and proves more that people will sell to the bad guys to make more money than anything else.
One other treasonous organization worth mentioning is the Union Banking Corporation of New York City. Not only did it finance numerous aspects of Hitler's rise to power, along with actual materials during the war, it was also a Nazi money-laundering bank. Which was eventually exposed for having millions of dollars of Nazi Money in its vaults. The Union Banking Corporation of New York was eventually seized for violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act. Guess who the director and Vice President of the Union Bank was? Prescott Bush, our current President's Grandfather and of course our former President's father. Keep that in mind when considering the moral and political dispositions of the Bush family.
While this is based on fact, it is not entirely accurate. The Union Banking Corporation was founded by a Dutch bank that was formed and controlled by a German steel magnate and one-time Nazi supporter Fritz Thyssen. The executive members consisted of various Dutchmen and some Americans, one was Prescott Bush. Assets of the bank were frozen on May 10, 1940 when Germany invaded the Netherlands, because it was a Dutch owned company, however it was formally seized by the government in 1942, a total of $3 million was taken.
Prescott Bush was a director of the UBC with only one share. While he was a member of this company, it really proves no moral stance or is proof of helping the Nazis take power as some other conspiracy theorists claim. I am not an apologist for the Bush family, trust me on that one, my point is that there were many Americans that had mild and heavy ties with the Nazis and their beliefs, such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh (the pilot).
The United States official declaration of war on North Vietnam in 1964 came after an alleged incident involving US destroyers being attack by North Vietnamese PT boats in the Gulf of Tonkin. This was known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. This single situation was the catalystic pretext for massive troop deployment and full-fledged warfare. One problem however- the attack on the US destroyers by PT boats... never happened. It was a completely staged event to have an excuse to enter the war. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stated years later that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a "mistake", while many other insiders and officers have come forward relaying that it was a contrived farce, a complete lie.
Actually, it is not quite as simple as being fabricated. In reality, the US had been involved in Viet Nam since the 1950s, and so there would have been little need to lie in order to enter a war. In any case, it was less of a fabrication, and more confusion, miscommunication, hearsay, and people asking others to be quiet. In a way, if it was a conspiracy to enter the war, it was probably the most disorganized, random, and most asinine ways to do it. Let me explain what I mean:
There are two attacks in question. The first involved the USS Maddox and it claimed to be attacked by three North Vietnamese P-4 patrol torpedo boats 28 miles off the coast of North Vietnam. Details are still pretty scarce on what actually happened, but the USS Maddox suffered very minor damage and retired to South Vietnamese waters. The question was, not whether they had been attacked, but who fired first. Was it the USS Maddox or the North Vietnamese? That's the question that is still pretty unclear.
The second attack occurred two days later, the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy believed that they were going to be attacked by North Vietnamese ships, and began firing at radar targets. This is what Robert McNamara was referring to. The mistake was that they were firing blindly, and probably at nothing at all -- however McNamara did admit that attacks occurred during the first incident.
So while it was asinine and stupid behavior, it was not a massive conspiracy to enter the war. Rather it is pretty clear something actually happened during the first incident on August 2nd, while maybe nothing but the US ships firing at whales happened on the 4th. That is why I have to disagree that it was "a contrived farce, a complete lie." That is simply not the case.
Once in the war, it was business as usual. In October 1966, president Lyndon Johnson, lifted trading restrictions on the Soviet block, know full well that the Soviets were providing upwards of 80% of North Vietnams war supplies.
I think perhaps the results are backwards here. The US provided South Vietnam with 80% of their war supplies, training, and all costs. The USSR did supply support and materials to the North Vietnamese, but the Chinese provided far more. I could not find evidence of "lifting trade restrictions." And I'm not sure why these trading restrictions would matter anyway, considering North Vietnam is connected to China and China was not our ally by this time, so why would they help with our blockade? They wouldn't. The logic behind the US having a trade restriction between North Vietnam and the USSR is completely inane.
Consequently, Rockefeller interests financed factories in the Soviet Union, which the Soviets used to manufacture military equipment and send to North Vietnam.
Factories in the USSR were all state owned. There is not much more that can be said about this. There was no American financed activities until McDonalds and Tetris in the 1980s.
However, the funding of both sides of this conflict was only one side of the coin. In 1985,
Vietnam's Rules of Engagement were declassified. This detailed what American troops were and were not allow to-do in the war.
It included absurdities like North Vietnamese anti-aircraft missile systems could not be bombed until they were known to be fully operational. No enemy could be pursued once they crossed the border of Laos or Cambodia. And most revealing of all, the most critical strategic targets were not allow to be attacked, unless initiated by high military officials. Apart from these imposed ludicrous limitation, North Vietnam was informed of these restrictions and therefore could create entire strategies around the limitation of the American Forces. This is why the war went on so long and the bottom line is this: The Vietnam War was never meant to be won, just sustained. This war for profit resulted in 58,000 American death and 3,000,000 dead Vietnamese.
I was unable to find a real mention of "Rules of Engagement" or something similar anywhere outside conspiracy sites. Thought, that doesn't mean something like that did not exist. I did find a few documents that had "Rules of Engagement" in the middle of the names. They described how to attack the enemy, when to, and all that. I did not find anything like what the film is describing. In fact the documents I came across seem to say "attack when you can" rather than don't. It might also be worth mentioning that prior to the war in Viet Nam the US really never messed with guerilla warfare before and were no doubt used to conventional warfare, where it was slightly "honorable", in the sense, that everyone played rolls. This was one of the main reasons Viet Nam was so unsuccessful, that and piss-poor planning and execution.
So, where are we now?
We're finalizing debunking this entire film.
September 11th was the jumpstart for what is now an accelerating agenda by the ruthless elite. It was a staged war pretext no different than the sinking of the Lusitania, the provoking of Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin lie.
As we have seen, the conspiracy theories put forth by this movie are absolutely false, and hold no water, the evidence is barely circumstantial. As we discussed the Lusitania was sunk 3 years prior and has no meaning to the war. And the "provoking" of the attack on Pearl Harbor was not intentional, and would have been a horrible mistake for the US to make. As for the Gulf of Tonkin incident, while something happened on the first instance, the second is in question, with conflicting view points and no exact evidence of what really happened. In reality, it was just military men making asses of themselves, with no conspiracy in mind.
In fact if 9/11 wasn't a planned war pretext it would be an exception to the rule. It has been used to launch two unprovoked, illegal wars. One against Iraq and one against Afghanistan.
As we have seen they are all exceptions to the rules setup by the conspiracy theorists, as there was no conspiracy at all. The war in Afghanistan was not necessarily unprovoked and the one in Iraq is a whole different story.
However, 9/11 was the pretext for another war as well. The war against you.
Here we go.
The patriot act, homeland security, the military tribunals act and other legislations, are all completely and entirely designed to destroy your civil liberties and limit your ability to fight back against what is coming. Currently in the United States unannounced to most brainwashed Americans, you home can be searched without a warrant, with you being home... you can in turn be arrested with no charges revealed to you; detain indefinitely with no access to a lawyer and legally tortured... all under the suspicion that you might be a terrorist.
The first sentence is a setup, and it is quite obvious. While the Patriot Act does potentially violate civil liberties, it hasn't really been used to do so. This is mostly because the US Government knows the public, and the media (though not all sides of it) are waiting for something to happen. You can find the same claims made by conspiracy theorists since the UN conspiracy films of the 80s. Pretty much everything the government does, good or bad, is in some way to keep you from "fighting back."
I really don't want to voice my own opinions in these articles, or at least try to avoid it when I can, I will say that I do not agree with the previsions in the Patriot Act. I will however, remain realistic, and say while it can be used for evil to control all Americans, it won't be. It is completely asinine to believe the US government, who can barely organize the DMV would go out of its way to search your home, considering you could easily sue them for doing so. Of course, they could use their evil powers to plant evidence and so forth, but as we have seen above, the government seems pretty incapable of doing anything correctly, much less creating a mass conspiracy.
We'll look more into this as we go on, and don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to say "if you have not done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about", rather I am giving a realistic view point here.
If you need a painted picture of what is happening in the country, let's recognize how history repeats itself. In Feb 1933, Hitler staged a false flag attack, burning down his own German parliament building the Reichstag and blamed it on communist terrorists. Within the next few weeks he passed the Enabling Act, which completely eradicated the German constitution destroying people's liberties. He then let a series of preemptive wars all justified to the German people as necessary to maintaining homeland security.
This is a perfect example of Godwin's Law, and incase you were wondering, Godwin's Law states:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Essentially what that means is, the longer a conversation gets, the more likely Hitler or the Nazis will be compared to something. Here this law is invoked, and with good reason. No, not because there is an actual comparison, but because the comparison works when conspiracy theorists want to demonize anything.
History pretty much sets the blame on a conspiracy by the Nazis to start the fire in order to incite panic and fear. And this, was of course, used to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree. However, history hardly repeats itself in this situation. Let's consider that the Reichstag Fire Decree overruled the constitution completely, and allowed for the new dictatorial government to abolish freedom of speech, right to assembly, right to protest, and so forth. The Patriot Act does none of these things, not even close. Making a comparison between the Patriot Act and the Reichstag Fire Decree is like comparing rams to wolves.
I like how in the last sentence of the film quote, the narrator says "maintaining homeland security", clever words, of course, showing that the film maker is implying an obvious connection between the two, "proving" that the Nazis and the Bush administration are one in the same.
"An evil exists that threatens every man woman and child in this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland"
George Bush? Adolf Hitler
When announcing the Gestapo to the people
Sounds like any politician to me, generic stuff you can find from any president, prime minister, premier, or dictator.
On the matter of communism...and its front organizations should not obscure the issues.
- Video of Hitler speaking to the Reichstag
Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them
- George Bush, State of the Union Address
Again, same as I said above, but more so I fail to see a major connection and similarity here. The first is talking about communists and all their front organizations such as Unions and the like, and I cannot say the exact context because the quote is broken, and is missing a part of it. The second is about terrorists and other governments which do support them. Regardless, there were front organizations for communist movements and there still are (ANSWER, Not In Our Name, United For Peace and Justice, and so forth). There are terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Black September, PLO (parts of it), Hamas and Hezbollah that are guarded by their governments, or in some cases more powerful politically than the governments themselves.
It's time to wake up.
Yes, it is, and stop being paranoid and making connections between half-truths and lies.
The people in power go out of their way to make sure you are perpetually mislead and manipulated. The majority's perception of reality, especially in the political arena is not there own. It is shrewdly imposed up them, without them even knowing it.
While I agree that there is a lot of misleading politics to keep peoples minds off of the issues, e.g. making big deals about who the President is sleeping with in order to keep people from criticizing congress. In the end though, these tactics barely work. There are two different sides in our government, media, and society, and each side tries non-stop to make the other side look bad -- so if one side can prove a conspiracy or misleading of the public, it'll be in the media, or mentioned some where. You can find thousands of examples, such as the "Liberal Media" constantly talking badly about the war in Iraq while the "Conservative Media" does the opposite. If the job was to keep you mislead, they do a bad job at it, considering they constantly spill the beans on everything to the public. Try reading about Iran Contra or Watergate for instance.
For example, the public at large actually believes the invasion of Iraq is going badly, as sectarian violence
doesn't seem to stop. What the public fails to see is that the destabilization of Iraq is exactly what the people behind the government want.
This war is to be sustained, so the region can be divided up, domination of the oil maintained, continual profits reaped for the defense contractors and most importantly, permanent military bases established to be used as a launching pad against other oil bearing, non-conforming countries, such as Iran and Syria.
Why would they need a new launch pad? As if having massive bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and so forth are not enough? Domination of the oil is going badly as well, considering all the money goes to the new Iraqi government, not the US, not to mention the oil production has gone down -- pretty bad for a "war for oil", isn't it?
For further implication that the civil war and destabilization is purely intentional, in 2005 two elite British SAS officers were arrested by Iraqi police after being caught driving around in their car shooting at civilians, while dressed up as Arabs. After being arrested and taken to a jail in Basra, the British army immediately requested the release of these men. When the Basra government refused- British tanks came in and physically broke out the men from the Basra prison.
This is a story that cannot really be substantiated by sources, primarily because the stories are so conflicting. Some people say it was the SAS, some the SRR, and some that it did not happen this way at all. The British broke the men out of prison because they were handed over to Shi'a militia illegally, after Iraqi forces had already agreed to hand them over. The comments that they were dressed in an "Arabic fashion" were all at least second hand and were unattributed.
You might to ask yourself why the entire culture is utterly saturated by mass media entertainment from all sides, while the educational system in America continues it stupefying downward slide since the US government decided to take over subsidize the public school system.
I honestly believe the "stupefying downward spiral" is related to too much media saturation, and the reason is very simple: Media is entertaining, media sells, school is boring, and that's it. Nothing big behind it other than that.
The last thing the men behind the curtain want is a conscious informed public capable of critical thinking. Which is why a continually fraudulent zeitgeist is output via religion, the mass media, and the educational system. They seek to keep you in a distracted, naive bubble. And they are doing a damn good job of it.
The last thing the men behind the curtain want you to realize is that there is no curtain, only people wanting to make money, and they are not co-operating in any conspiratorial ways. There are many reasons our society is making a turn around, most of them are related to economic and social problems, not a big conspiracy to control everyone.
In 2005 an arrangement between Canada, Mexico and the United States was made. This arrangement, unannounced to the public, unregulated by congress, merges the United States, Canada and Mexico into one entity, erasing all borders. It's called the North American Union and you might want to ask yourself why you have never heard of this.
This is the most hilariously illogical conspiracy theory out there. Why in the world would congress allow this to happen? Who is behind it? Oh, let me guess, it's "They"; those who really control the world. The question here really even shouldn't be "Why would America allow this?", but rather "Why would Canada or Mexico allow this?"
In the end, Canada's GDP is $1.4 trillion, Mexico's is $893 billion, and the United States' is the largest in the world, over $13 trillion. This means that the United States has over 7 times the GDP and 85% of the population of Canada and Mexico combined. So, what makes anyone think that Canada and Mexico would agree to a program where they would certainly be the absolute minimum of partners -- dominated by the most powerful country in the world. And of course, the people of these nations would just bend over as well? Horribly unlikely.
Even if the Patriot Act conspiracies were real, and were meant to control you, Canada and Mexico do not have such laws, so how are they going to control their citizens? And even so, the Patriot Act and such is law, and if this operates outside of congress, why did they have to establish all of this in the first place? Couldn't they have just avoided it all together, all that conspiring, secret armies of people planting evidence and so forth?
In fact, there is only one mainstream reporter who has actually heard of, and has had the courage to cover this issue.
The Bush administration's open borders policy and its decision to ignore the enforcement of this country's immigration laws is part of a broader agenda. President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States, as we know it... and he took the step without approval from either the US congress, or the people of the United States.
- Lou Dobbs
It sounds to me like he's quoting someone, or reading. Perhaps he does talk about the NAU and the Amero, but the reason he's the only one talking about it is because it is just an urban legend that has been thoroughly debunked, as it defies logic or purpose.
But where does this NAU concept come from? Well it originates in a book entitled "Toward a North American Community" by Robert A Pastor. The book, written in 2001, proposes a hypothetical North American Union and a currency called the Amero. What an astonishing coincidence! Perhaps someone took this book and tried to contend that it was fact, began talking about it, and several others did as well, creating the idea that it is going to happen. There's a reason you can't find any references to "North American Union" or "Amero" before this book came out.
It's a deal that few have even heard of. It's been done by very few people at the very top, on behalf of the investment class, but the working class of people; political officials across our country from communities and cities- they don't know anything about this.
- Marcy Kaptur
I'm not sure the exact context of this quote, but if it was really happening, I'd expect more people in the government to be talking about it. As we have discussed in this article, it's near impossible for them to keep secrets or do anything correctly.
This isn't some trade agreement; it is a total removal of sovereignty from these countries, which will also result in a completely new currency called the Amero.
The dollar is the world's most solid currency, even though the Euro is competing with the dollar, the dollar remains the currency that is continually invested in because of the trust people around the world have in the US economy. It would be a tremendous mistake to abandon this and start a new currency. In fact, I know it would not be done, if anything the two other countries in the "NAU" would switch to the dollar, there's no reason to put horrendous mistrust in the currency by changing it. It is simply illogical and naive to believe two other countries would willingly be dominated by another, and that everyone would just blindly switch over.
I think the one thing that people who are dollars based need to focus on is e Amero, that's the thing no one is talking about that I think is going to have a big impact on everybody's life in Canada, the US and Mexico. The Amero is the proposed new currency for the North American Community, which is being developed right now between Canada the US and Mexico to make a borderless community much like the EU and the Dollar, the Canadian dollars and the Mexican Peso will be replaced by the Amero.
- Steve Previs, Jefferies International
Believing that they will somehow switch without anyone noticing is completely stupid. If one considers the economic impact in all countries, especially internationally considering how much is done with the US dollar, it becomes clear that such a switch is not something that can be done in secret. Thousands of pieces of software alone must be updated for the new currency, other countries must know about it in order to exchange it. There is no reason to move to such a currency, Canada and Mexico would never agree to it. Even if you believe in "they" and somehow "they" will change it, why didn't they change to the one world currency all the conspiracy theorists were talking about in the 1980s? Where's the UN birth control centers? All of the other stuff?
It's all lies, and just because some moron on television parrots it, does not make it real.
By default of this agreement, the American Constitution will eventually be obsolete.
As we have seen, no such agreement has any potential of taking place.
You would think that a situation like this would be on the cover or every major newspaper. That is until you release the people behind this movement are the same people who are behind the mainstream media and you are not told what you are not supposed to know. The North American Union is the same concept as the European Union, the African Union and the soon to be Asian union and the same people are behind all of them. And when the time right, the North American, the European union the African union and the Asian union will be merged together, forming the final stages in a plan these men have been working on for over 60 years.
This is the classic conspiracy theorist mindset, "I know something that nobody else knows." I'm still curious about the UN conspiracies, why did they stop trying to dominate the world? Or is it the same people but they changed their plan? Why would they change their plan if nobody knew about it but a few people with tin-foil hats?
If the NAU is the same as the EU, then it will take years to occur, with many steps, many of which include the public. Perhaps it is important to mention the EU was something that took many steps and involvement with other countries. Laws needed to be changed everywhere, not to mention a currency change which was a huge project -- this is not something you can do with nobody noticing.
Further, as we have discussed, all the conspiracies related to the Federal Reserve and their entanglement with wars and the like are not only not true, but also completely unrealistic and illogical.
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
- Paul Warburg, Council on Foreign Relations / Architect of the Federal Reserve System
I could not find a source for this quite that was not on a conspiracy site or anti-Jewish site. It seems strange though, why would someone setting up the Federal Reserve System be talking about creating a one world government? Even back then, people realized that a one world government was difficult to come by, if not impossible. I attribute this quote to originating from anti-Semitic individuals who wish to demonize Paul Warburg for his Jewish heritage and show proof of a Jewish plan to rule the world.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years........It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries"
- David Rockefeller, Council on Foreign Relations
Same as the above, except more likely to Illuminati and Bilderberg Group conspiracy theorists rather than anti-Semites. So, these quotes, like many on here, really come from non-existent places, that is they either were simply made up, or were cut-and-paste of many other quotes by a single person, or multiple people as we have seen.
One bank, one army, one center of power. And if we have learned anything from history, it is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No one world bank, no one world army (why would they need an army? Oh, I imagine to crush those conspiracy theorists, right?), no one center of power -- unless ... wait a second... this is the same claim made by the conspiracy theorists about UN. Again, why did that not happen? I agree though, absolutely power corrupts absolutely, thank god nobody is in absolute power over the world, and nobody will be -- claims have been made like this for at least 250 years, even longer in some cases, yet it has never happened.
This is Aaron Russo, a filmmaker and former Politician. To his left is Nicholas Rockefeller of the infamous Rockefeller banking and business dynasty. After maintaining a close friendship with Nicholas Rockefeller, Aaron eventually ended the relationship, appalled by what he had learn about the Rockefellers and their ambitions.
Exactly who is Aaron Russo? Well he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in another movie similar to the third part of Zeitgeist, the movie, called America: From Freedom To Fascism (at a later date I am going to discuss this movie on this site). The movie discusses the income tax, essentially stating the same claims as Zeitgeist does, and various other topics. Let's understand that this movie was made after Russo had over $2 million in tax liens filed against him by the IRS of California and New York for unpaid taxes. He refused to discuss it when asked in interviews.
Interview with Aaron Russo:
"I got a call one day from an attorney I knew and she said, 'Would you like to meet one of the Rockefellers?' And I said, 'Sure I would love to'
"We became friends and he began to divulge a lot of things to me, so he said to me one night, he said 'there's going to be an event, Aaron, and out of that event we are going to go into Afghanistan so we can run pipelines from the Caspian Sea, we are gong to go into Iraq to take the oil and establish a base in the middle east and we are gong to go into Venezuela and get rid of Chavez.'
"The first two they have accomplished, Chavez they didn't accomplish. And he said, 'You are going to see guys going into caves looking for...(laugh) looking for people they are never going to find. (laugh)' He was talking about how, 'by having this war on terror you can never win it, because it is an eternal war so you can always keep taking peoples liberties away', and I said 'how are you gong to convince people that this war is real?' and he said "by the media...the media can convince everybody that its real.'
'You just keep talking about things and saying them over and over and over again and eventually people believe it.
'You know- they create the Federal Reserve in 1913 through lies...
'They create 911... which was another lie. Through 911, then you are fighting a war on terror and all the sudden you go into Iraq... which was another lie... and now they are going to do Iran. It's all one thing leading to another, leading to another, leading to another.'
"I would say to him, 'what are you doing this for? What's the point of this thing? You have all the money in the world you would ever want- you have all the power...you're hurting people... it's not a good thing.' And he would say 'What do you care about the people for? Take care of yourself and take care of your family.' I said 'So what are the ultimate goals here?' He said, 'The ultimate goal is to get everyone in this world chipped with an RFID chip. And have all money be on those chips and have everything on those chips...and if anyone wants to protest what we do or violate what we want, we can just turn off their chip.'"
Why should anyone trust what he has to say? He's a tax dodger and from his movie, an obvious liar. I think what's most important, if he knew all this was going to happen, and the only person he told was Alex Jones after most of it already had happened, that makes Aaron Russo the most evil person in the world. If you have the ability to prevent a horrible terrorist attack or know something may happen, and you do nothing... I do not know of something more inhumane. I wouldn't trust this man at all, and if any of this is true, it's even more reason not to trust him because he let it happen and only mentions it later casually. I'd bet ameros to doughnuts this conversation between him and anyone other than himself never took place.
That's right -- micro chipped. In 2005, congress under the pretense of immigration control and the so called war on terrorism, passed the Real ID act, under which it is projected by May 2008, you will be required to carry around a Federal Identification card which includes on it a scannable bar code with you personal information.
Pretty much every industrialized country in the world has some form of national ID. In fact, the US has them already. I wonder if you have ever heard of Drivers Licenses? Birth Certificates? Social Security Cards? Draft Registration Cards? Oh man, the conspiracy is already underway! In reality, the Real ID is more like a drivers license, and doesn't change anything, it doesn't give the government anymore control over you than they already have. If it does, how does it? What difference would it be than them writing down your Driver's License Number? The difference here is that there is a national standard, where Drivers Licenses don't have them, and a scanner makes it easier to record this information when you go into a court house, and less likely for a mistake to occur.
Pretty much all the European countries that criticize the US as being "fascist" and such already have programs like this, Germany, France, Spain, England, etc.
However this barcode is only an intermediary step, before the card is equipped with a VeriChip RFID tracking Module, which will use radio frequencies to track your every move on the planet. If this sounds foreign to you, please note that the RFID tracking chip is already in all new American passports. And the final step is the implanted chip, which many people have already been manipulated into accepting under different pretenses.
So, they are going to issue the cards, and then do it all over again with RFID? Why do that, why not do the RFID first? Wouldn't that be more cost-effective for them? I mean, they do care about money more than anything, so why would they waste it?
We have a Florida family who are really pioneers in a brave new world. They have volunteer to be the first ever to have microchip identification devices implanted into their bodies.
After 9/11 I was really concerned with the security of my family...
-- Some Crazy Lady
I remember when this was on, they wanted to have their information easily identifiable. Fair enough, if someone wants to do it to themselves, they should have the right to, and I have never heard of any government agency supporting such an idea. In fact, most Americans think it's bizarre, why would they agree to it? Would it be forced on them? Why would anyone expect Americans to take it? Oh, right, the media will convince them it's a good idea.
I wouldn't mind having something planted permanently in my arm, that would identify me.
-- 60 minutes guy
I watched this 60 minutes program and he was talking about Alzheimer's patients, so if they appeared somewhere, completely confused, they could easily be identified. Regardless, he was speaking voluntarily.
In the end, everybody will be locked into a monitored control grid, where every single action you perform is documented... and if you get out of line, they can just turn off your chip, for at that point in time, every single aspect of society will revolve around interactions with the chips. This is the picture that is painted for the future if you open your eyes to see it. A centralized one world economy where everyone's moves and everyone transactions are tracked and monitored. All rights removed.
Let's be realistic, how will they track your every move on the planet? You would need endless amounts of satellites, radio towers, and not to mention for RFID scanners to work, you must be generally around 10cm from a recording device. Keep in mind, RFID tags are passive, that is, they don't send out signals, they are activated by a signal which also provides them with power.
Not to mention, how do you log and categorize something like that? If it is to control nearly 7 billion people now, that would be constant queries to a database, it would take literally billions of computers around the world, constantly filling their hard drives up with where people have just been. It would cost trillions to invest. It is one of the most impractical inventions there is. And for what? To control you? Why? You won't buy more, you won't do more for them, there's absolutely no reason for them to do it, other than wasting their own money, and most likely not getting more money from you in the future.
The same claim was made by Alex Jones and the other conspiracy theorists about the UN, and it never happened, and it won't happened. However, RFID didn't exist then, so they claimed it would be tattoos. Why does that sound so familiar?
The most incredible aspect of all: These totalitarian elements will not be forced upon the people, the people will demand them, for the social manipulation of society through the generation of fear and division has completely detached human from their sense of power and reality. A process, which has been going on for centuries if not millennia...
I find that highly unlikely. The film maker assumes that everyone is stupid. It reminds me of an old argument, that "if the Anti-Christ is going to do exactly what is in the Book of Revelation, how does he expect no one to notice?" That's my argument, in fact. The point is, do they honestly expect no one to notice and for everyone to accept it? It'd take years to even setup a system, with literally millions of IT professionals and other specialists, and yet nobody has ever heard of such a thing being done, and they won't.
Religion- Patriotism- Race - Wealth - Class... and every other form of arbitrary separatist identification and thus conceit, has served to create a controlled population, utterly malleable in the hands of the few.
So, now we see where the Religion part comes into play. I was beginning to think there was no reason to have Part I other than to trash Christianity. Even if these things are arbitrary, they still exist, and really aren't in the hands of "the few". I'd like someone to name these "few" for me, and provide real sources, not conspiracy sites.
"Divide and Conquer" is the motto, and as long as people continue to see themselves as separate from everything else, they lend themselves to being completely enslaved.
The men behind the curtain know this. And they also know- that if people ever realize the truth of their relationship to nature, and the truth of their personal power... The entire manufactured zeitgeist they prey upon, will collapse like a house of cards.
Separate from everything else? What does that even mean? The men behind the curtain are as real as the Wizard of Oz, they exist only in the paranoid minds of the conspiracy theorists. Every time someone tells the people "the truth", millions end up dying. I hope to god that nobody figures out the "real truth".
You can read my conclusion on the My Conclusion page.