To: William T. Still thesecretofoz@ gmail.com
Subject: Thanks for the excellent documentaries
Date: Tuesday, Oct 5, 2010
Dear Mr. Still,
I am writing this thank you note with a question that I would like to put before you. But first, please permit me to say that I owe you an immense debt of gratitude for getting me on to the trail of the nature of money. Your Money Masters documentary was among the many stepping stones for me for comprehending something I never learnt in the macro economics class at MIT (where I majored in EECS), nor from any dissent classes on US foreign policy that I took with Noam Chomsky almost three decades ago, and nor in any of the papers I have read from Ben Bernanke and Paul Krugman, both alums of MIT. I have since invited others to watch your revealing documentary with their own families. And yesterday I came across your new video and watched for about 30 minutes. Haven't got to the interesting part of OZ yet...
My humble question to monetary reform advocates continues to remain about the HOW of the reform, and not the WHY or the WHAT. That question was once again put to the American Monetary Institute's Mr. Zarlenga for his 2010 conference and I quote the relevant passages from it putting the same question to you:
The HOW to pursue reform given the all pervasive oligarchic rule with its unstoppable impetus for world government – a rule which hides behind the mask of elected peoples' representatives who in turn afford it legal cover, permit it to hide its vast wealth in tax-exempt foundations with which it formulates and enacts into law its preferred policies, underwrites social and scientific research in its preferred direction, and molds public opinion with its vast ownership of the news media and the myth-making infotainment industry – is the core unanswered reform challenge for plebeians rising to disaffirm and disarm the oligarchic rule.
Without the pursuit of the HOW in the face of these ground realities, the monetary reform agenda will continue to remain stillborn, a platitudinous run on the treadmill of inefficacy, just as it has been for the past 100 years.
These oligarchs are not about to roll-over and play dead while their power to play god is taken away by their own errand boys in Congress. And there is no “Jesus” today who can cleanse the House of the influence of the Money Changers. The bullet to JFK's head, inter alia for his Executive Order EO 11110*, sent a message loud and clear.
What activity we see in Congress from the likes of Dr. Ron Paul, I have come to believe is at best a “Limited Hangout”. And by way of analysis, I have independently reached exactly the same conclusion on the Gold Standard/any commodity backed standard as you. The warning in your video is so timely that it inspired me to compose a re-visit to this issue with my prior writings which also features your video:
I hope you can provide some insights into the implementation of good things when the system is entirely run by way of deception on behalf of powers so powerful today that really, even a Jesus may be stumped how to throw them out except through a revolution. We are hurtling down the yellow brick road of perpetual servitude, not accidentally, not by happenstance, but calculated to culminate in Global Governance, at immense speed. This report indicates it might get cemented by 2025: http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf.
As an additional realitycheck on the immense forces of the financial oligarchs that must be overturned in order to have any genuine monetary reform, I draw your kind attention to the outstanding exposition by Thomas Edison that was reported in the New York Times in its special edition of December 6, 1921. I am sure you are already familiar with it, but please permit me to quote the headlines and the principal argument which remains unsurpassed in its logic (and which supports your Jeffersonian concept of reform): “FORD SEES WEALTH IN MUSCLE SHOALS; Says Development Will Bring Great Prosperity to That Section of the South. EDISON BACKS HIM UP He Will Urge Congress to Lease It to Ford as the Logical Man to Carry Out Great Project. SUPPORTS CURRENCY PLAN Old Way, He Asserts, Compels Us to Add to the Public Debt to Increase the National Wealth.”
'But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way. ...
It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurers, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase national wealth, must go into debt, and submit to ruinous interest at the hands of men ...
Look at it another way. If the Government issues the bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt-edged paper. Why? Because the Government is behind them, but what is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds?
The people must pay any way; why should they be compelled to pay twice, as the bond system compels them to pay? The people of the United States always accept their Government's currency. If the United States Government will adopt this policy of increasing its national wealth without contributing to the interest collector – for the whole national debt is made up of interest charges – then you will see an era of progress and prosperity in this country such as could never have come otherwise.'
And I humbly invite reflection on the practical fact of the matter that: when Thomas Edison with his rational eloquence and global prestige, combined with the industrial muscle and name of Henry Ford – America's two greatest real wealth creators who were also admired by the American public of the time – could not politically out-wit the bankster oligarchy in those very early days when the power of the Fed was still in its infancy; when the financial oligarchy's control of the narrative, the media, and the academe had not become as absolute as it is today; when public debate was still so open that even the New York Times would deem it fit to print; etc., whether it is so pragmatic to bank on the good sense and bold courage of the American legislature when we have just seen the entire Representative System of America buckle under the threat of Martial Law as recently as October 2008 despite overwhelming support from the public to reject the bankster bailout Bill?
With best regards,
* As some researchers suggest. I am adding this footnote since Bill Still noted in our correspondence that for him it was inaccurate to link JFK's murder to the EO 11110. I told him that to dwell on that specific narrow point would be a red herring for my question, and that if he disagreed, he should simply ignore that point. I would like to elaborate in this footnote. As with anything else related to JFK's murder, it is hard to prove or disprove any specific reason for his killing due to the “plausible deniability” doctrine of NSC 10/2. Furthermore, the administrative language of statecraft minimally requires an insider's working knowledge to fully parse what things really mean. Words of statecraft don't necessarily mean what lay persons think they might mean. And, under the cloak of deception, as in Machiavellian statecraft, they even have layered meanings which only the concerned participants accurately comprehend. Sort of like steganography. See for instance excerpts from Col. Fletcher Prouty's Secret Team in the Mighty Wurlitzer for an example of calculated deception. The verbiage of EO 11110 remain incomprehensible to lay persons who do not have the larger context despite the superfluity of their “informed” opinions. Thus I personally remain agnostic on it. Secondly, Fletcher Prouty showed in The Guns of Dallas that unarguably, as gleaned from all the omissions, stand-down orders must have been forced upon the president's Protection Team. Its similarities to the stand-down of the American military on 9/11 is uncanny. Prouty correctly asked who had that kind of power over the Secret Service to overrule their standard operating practices? Lastly, James Douglass in COPA 09 itemized several unforgivable sins against the elite from his book JFK and the Unspeakable, quoting JFK as saying that he might get three “Bay of pigs” strikes before he might be put-down by a coup. Douglass counted many more! A disobedient American president simply can't survive his own war-mongering national security state – which is why, the overall system of governance in America always goes along with the oligarchic agendas and the nation goes from wars to wars every decade. The power they wield upon all branches of the Federal, State, and Local governments simply cannot be resisted by its officers today anymore than it could be resisted by President Woodrow Wilson a hundred years ago when he approved the Fed Reserve Act in 1913. it is easier to be co-opted than to resist. It's permitted to write it all in one's memoir ex post facto of course! To pretend that any new crop of green recruits into Congress will magically turn against the very golem upon whose goodwill they survive in the first place is simply being Pollyanish. And to hypothesize that an uncompromising murderous Savior like Old Hickory Jackson will magically turn up and who, while eliminating all the new 'untermenschen' from this land, will also “kill the bank”, well, I come from the land where most everyone is awaiting some savior. But we don't look forward to murderers bailing us out! Bill Still's pertinent response to my HOW question is reproduced below. Bill Still has no HOW solution. Which unfortunately also means he has no solution to offer but platitudes. As for his particular WHAT solution, of the government taking over the issuing of debt-free fiat money like President Lincoln did, I am solution agnostic at this point unless it is severely flawed, and Bill's concept isn't. In fact, theoretically it is very sound. Its weakness is in that it relies on careful and watchful implementation – any great idea can be crippled by poor implementation. On the other hand, the gold standard idea suffers from mainly one core-flaw, and if that is eliminated, it can also be made to work. That flaw is that most of the world's gold bullion, and its gold mines, and its precious and semi-precious minerals, are all owned by the same golem. Those pitching the gold standard must also condition their proposal to the nationalization of private gold bullion reserves and private gold mines and putting them in trust under the government which will issue the currency that it will back. Without such nationalization of the reserves, the gold standard is a solution deceptively proposed by the banksters' own agents, assets, and sayanim. Beware. Finally, without eliminating fractional reserve lending and forcing that ratio to be unity, the problem of inflation has really not been solved.
Bill Still replied on Tue., Oct 5, 2010
“I have dealt with it. I believe the American voting electorate will fulfill their historic destiny to break the back of this plutocracy by electing representatives who will do the right thing, just as they did in Jackson's era. No where else in history has any nation even come close to an effective opposition. I have offered my own plan -- real legislation. I have offered slightly different plans of others, acknowledging -- unlike others in my field -- that I am not omniscient.”
To: Bill Still thesecretofoz@ gmail.com
Cc: Ellen H Brown, G. Edward Griffin
Subject: Re: Thanks for the excellent documentaries
Date: Sat, November 6, 2010 at 12:08 AM | Updated November 09, 2010 to link to the already analytically predicted banker's call to return to Gold Standard!
I finally found the time this evening to finish watching the last hour and half of your excellent documentary. Congratulations for an outstanding and persuasive narrative. I noticed in the credits that perhaps many members of your family were listed – same last name. Thank you all very much.
For one thing, you have completely addressed and sensibly demolished all the concerns listed by G. Edward Griffin for your Money Masters documentary here (some of these were rather specious IMO to begin with and that had rather surprised me coming from a learned scholar like Mr. Griffin):
I am not sure why Messrs. Ron Paul/Griffin/Mises et. al., are hung up on the Austrian economics and Gold standard today (as opposed to it arguably being a solution in the past when not all gold was under the monopoly control of the same cartel and the state could possibly nationalize the gold mines and bullion – not possible today!) when commonsense alone leads one to the conclusion you have reached in both your documentaries.
On top of it, my own independent and impartial research has led me to the same comprehension even though economics and money matters were never my interest before. As I wrote in my Monetary Reform Bibliography Introduction, 'Economics and Money aren't supposed to be as abstruse as it is made out to be, and nor does it take a Ph.D. from M.I.T. to realize that one is being taken for a sodomized ride on the Capricorn of economics gibberish' :
The banksters who today own all the gold bullion and the gold mines will once again, through different ruses, try to return to the gold standard. As already analytically predicted in the News Epilogue in the aforementioned Monetary Reform Bibliography on February 15, 2009:
'And the most fruitful realization of Captain Rhett Butler's swashbuckling truism is yet to come, the profiting “from the upbuilding” of civilization: the new Gold Standard which will be pitched with Congressman Ron Paul's help as the panacea demanded by the peoples. Since all the world's gold bullion supply, and the world's gold mines, are already under monopoly control of the same arsonists, no problem.
In the New Economic World Order, with global central banks – themselves controlled from behind the scenes by the same handful of private family banks owned by the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers – managing the world's merged global monetary system as well as all the world's political governments in a global governance architecture, it won't be a problem returning to the Gold Standard. All the fine gold will have to be purchased from the same private international banksters in order to back the trillions in new common currency issued for transacting the entire world's commerce. How convenient once again!
The new monetary system will be happily made inflation averse amidst cheers from the foolish goyem of the world. The new gold based standard after all, does have to protect the enormous wealth of the private banksters from inflationary-erosion in a largely serf-world of the New World Order, wherein, the only real asset owners are the banks. The new financial empire also has to be stable enough to last a millennium! Can't have inflation eroding away all its loot as it did moms and pops meager assets and life savings in the twentieth century. Why indeed the Gold Standard will now make perfect sense for the banksters and the handful of real wealth owners of the world, was so passionately explained over a hundred years ago by William Jennings Bryan, that it is best refreshed in the goy's mind directly from the horse's mouth. The contorted dialectical brilliance of the devilish banksters is truly unsurpassed!'
And right on cue, the banksters' have now begun to do just that. The Reuter's headline of Nov. 08, 2010 reads: World Bank chief surprises with gold standard idea
I did some informal survey of their ownership a while back and found that the Rothschilds control, through interlocking proxy corporate control extending from Barrick to many mining companies, not just most of the gold bullion and gold mines on earth, but also almost all precious metal mines on earth as well! All the world's mines are now privatized under a consolidated loci of control. Principally, you are absolutely correct that there is no reason to have a physical commodity back a national currency. As you rightly quoted Edison: “If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good, also”. Edison further went on to explain that the real science in controlling inflation was to have just the right amount in circulation, not too little as to choke commerce and cause contraction, and not too much so as to cause inflation. I quote Edison at length from his Muscle Shoals article in the New York Times and I make a similar case as you have made here:
I principally stand behind, as well as in front of, my humble analysis which is entirely objective as I only came to this subject seeking truth and nothing more, and therefore, I fully endorse your documentary without hesitation Bill (albeit I am not sure that I would quite agree with all points of detail and all interpretation of history but that's besides the main point of your documentary).
Your video is featured on my website as well. I will try to purchase a few copies to distribute to friends and organizations, for my kids' school and also to donate to the local public library, funds permitting. I would very much like to support you in any way I can. Please suggest to me how – for whatever little I can do, I would be happy to do so. You have very astutely, and of course quite correctly, positioned the Monetary reform cause as a Human Rights issue, a Civil Rights issue. And a survival of the species issue if I may be permitted to add to that! I only wish that alliances can be formed with other monetary reformers who push the gold standard and other silly solutions with clearly specious reasoning. I lump Mr. Ron Paul in this category. I am only confused about G. Edward Griffin, for he ought to know better. I invite open interlocution and public debate on this subject – let the public be informed by principal antagonists debating each other rationally, unemotionally, and without disparagement. So please notice the CC.
The last remaining question for me to figure out is still the same one however as I inquired in my first letter to you – the HOW. And that is something I am spending a lot of my time on. The world government impetus is driving all global events, including the banking crises in Iceland which I have followed closely. It was not happenstance as you will surely agree, but a diabolical conspiracy to precisely precipitate the crises for which the solution they would present to solve that crises was already sitting in their top drawers, the proposal to join the EU. That was the main reason why that central bank of Iceland was privatized! It is also the same reason why the global financial crises has been deliberately precipitated – it is not quite as you suggest in your documentary that it is out of control of the bankers themselves. The banksters know exactly what they are doing. But that is irrelevant to this letter.
There is another bankster's ruse in the works which you might of course be aware of already – nationalizing the Fed. Dr. Ron Paul is big on that, and it has the same catch as the nationalizing of Bank of England. The controlling interests will remain the same – so it will just be a cosmetic cover to throw crumbs at the crowd demanding blood, if it ever came to that! You did not address this dimension as yet another red herring to watch out for in your documentary.
Incidentally, Mr. G. Edward Griffin did an outstanding documentary in 1970 which you may have seen, The Capitalist Conspiracy, based on Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. The recipe Mr. Griffin outlined in that film over 40 years ago is not only self-evident today, but is entirely empirical throughout modern history, and especially since the banking oligarchy started orchestrating global events. If interested, I have dedicated a detailed essay exploring the subject here:
The HOW problem cannot be underestimated Bill. It transcends the solution spaces you (and Ellen Brown, as well as many others) have outlined, from state owned banks, to people's power, to voting the right leaders into office, to federalizing the issue of money, et. al. The banksters are “that” close to completing their control of earth and its peoples; this is also the reason I suspect why they permitted the publication of Tragedy and Hope. I may hazard the guess that it is perhaps also the reason why your revealing documentary even exists today – for they do not care who learns what anymore!! Knowledge does not translate into action or activism. Neither does conscience. I don't know what motivates people in large numbers anymore, albeit I used to think that I did. But empiricism suggests neither of those two aspects are the prime movers. Besides, all people mobilization functions which used to exist in Western society, like America's very powerful labor unions for instance, grass-roots political parties, etc., have all been eliminated. Now people power is at best only mob power and the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team is already stationed just outside of Mainstreet USA to deal with that after the calculated repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act:
It is all linked in an interconnected chain and monetary reform, while being the principal lever to break that chain as you rightly suggest, is very closely guarded by the golem to prevent it from happening. That begs the pragmatic question HOW!
My best regards to you, and again thank you for being a terrific public teacher,
Letter to Bill Still – Director of The Secret of Oz – How? By Zahir Ebrahim