Forum Post: "The Creature From Jekyll Island" is TRASH
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 30, 2011, 1:33 p.m. EST by Rico
(3027)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
G. Edward Griffin, the author of "The Creature From Jekyll Island," is NOT an economist, he is an AUTHOR, and authors write books when they see a market for them. He has a long history of pandering to people who want to hear about and will PAY to read about various controversies.
Here's a short bio of G. Edward Griffin from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin :
"G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer.[1] He is perhaps best known as the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System.
Starting as a child actor, he became a radio station manager before age 20. He then began a career of producing documentaries and books on often-debated topics like cancer, Noah's ark, and the Federal Reserve System, as well as on libertarian views of the Supreme Court of the United States, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. Since the 1970s, Griffin has promoted laetrile as a cancer treatment,[2] a view considered quackery by the medical community.[3][4] He has also promoted the Durupınar site as hosting the original Noah's ark, against skeptics as well as near-Ararat Creationists."
According to G. Edward Griffin's own web site at http://www.gedwardgriffin.com/ , his only FINANCIAL credential is a certificate in Financial Planning from the College of Financial Planning in Denver, which was founded in 1972. Per the college's web-site at http://www.cffpinfo.com/cfp.html , the courses required to obtain a Certificate in Financial Planning are:
CFPE 1101 Financial Planning Process & Insurance
CFPE 1102 Investment Planning
CFPE 1103 Income Tax Planning
CFPE 1104 Retirement Planning & Employee Benefits
CFPE 1105 Estate Planning
G. Edward Griffin has ZERO credentials in economics. His ONLY knowledge of finance but for 5 classes at what is essentially a community college. He's an AUTHOR who has made a CAREER out of feeding the suspicions of folks. LOT'S of people do the same thing regarding UFOs, extraterrestrials, etc.; the mere fact that there are innumerable shows on television about ghosts, for example, does not PROVE there are ghosts, it simply proves there is MONEY to be made TALKING about ghosts !
PLEASE stop citing Mr Griffin as a "reference." He's a CLOWN.
You don't need an education in finance to know what a Ponzi Scheme looks like.dopey.
Right, and all those Nobel Prize winners in Economics are simply expressing thoughts that any common man might have during the routine course of his day.
I thought we established this Rico. The "Nobel Prize" in Economics isn't a Nobel Prize at all. It's called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and was set up in 1968, by the Swiss Bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences
Again I ask, isn't it suspicious that a Banking Institution funds this? Isn't it suspicious that Nobel himself didn't see Economics as a Science? Mainly because it isn't.
Read the criticisms on that page. They are of interest.
You're arguing semantics. My POINT was that there are people who spend their entire lives studying economics and their work is peer reviewed by others who do the same. This is the process that creates credible science upon which one can build a reasonably justifiable opinion.
So a group of people get together and agree on how the system should work, and we follow that.
And when that fails, as it obviously has, we move on to something else.
Considering the current situation with world finance, some of these people need to give their Nobel Prizes back...They obviously have no idea what they are doing. I love your boot licking of the elites BTW...
Ben bernanke was time man of the year for his contributions to economics. Seriously, you are attacking griffin now? Stop wasting time. It's a good book and at the time he wrote it, 95% of the world would have not known what the fed was. Thank god someone spoke about about it. Go back to polishing helicopter bens shoes
Even if Griffin's work is fiction and he has zero credentials, as you assert, the Federal Reserve is in the tank for the big banks and always has been. Witness the bailouts, the loan guarantees, mortgage-backed securities fraud, fractional reserve banking fraud, Wall Street flunkies Bernanke and Geithner running our economy, etc. However the Federal Reserve was conceived, it was conceived in hell by plutocrats.
Whats your point..There are many many economists that have been calling foul the fed since inception..
Good. Then you should have no problem providing a link to a scholarly paper that has been subjected to peer review by the community of economists (you know, the ones who get Nobel Prizes and so forth) that suggests complete dismantling of the Federal Reserve System as WELL as the National Banks of all countries around the world.
A nobel prize LMAO..Like the peace prize your president got..lol
No links huh? Just as I suspected.
First you assert "There are many many economists that have been calling foul the fed since inception," then when challenged, suggest even the Nobel Prize winning Economists can't be trusted.
By the way, you DO understand the difference between how the prizes in Economics, Physics, Medicine are awarded versus how the Peace prize is awarded, right ? I assume not.
No I was saying Nobel Prizes are a joke after Obama won the peace prize.LoL How may have died..In what imaginable circumstance..lol And this peace is being administered as we speck.. Sorry i have seen a few upsetting videos today..so find the subject of Nobel prize system a bit of a joke. but Its actually really not funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUa8wxye8RM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmIEfTV77vM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ZFB4UlR7g
Greenspan was the problem with the Fed, #1 criminal.
You don't need qualifications to be intelligent or successful or credible.
Right, and all those Nobel Prize winners in Economics are simply expressing thoughts that any common man might have during the routine course of his day.
Watch "The Money Masters": A history of Central Banking and the Federal Reserve. The information in this video has never been debunked. Sorry RICO.
Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs&feature=player_embedded
Wikipedia Article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Money_Masters
G Edward Griffin Interviews Norman Dodd On Tax Exempt Foundations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM
G Edward Griffin has done some truly incredible work (shrugs) Watch this, everyone. You wont forget it.
Griffin brought us a very important story. Do you ever wonder how secrecy REALLY works? Well, you won't learn it here, but you will learn why you don't know.------
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8605813744843314322
Transcript.
http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html
Okay. If you did want to know how secrecy REALLY works, where would you go?
Probably the same place I would go to figure out of ghosts are real, whether people really can talk to the dead, or whether there really are extraterrestrial UFOs... nowhere. There isn't a shred of evidence supporting them, yet people believe. Conspiracy theories are particular appealing to us because they appear to our primal fear of powerful yet hidden forces. They are perpetuated by correlation without any proof of causation; they can't be proved or disproved. Lacking any facts, the opinions we hold are nothing but projections of our own character. People are fascinated by these grand stories full of suspense and intrigue that appeal to our deepest fears, and lot's of people make a lot of money talking about them. That doesn't make them true.
The nwo loves you!
genetic research will change tomorrow
Lotsa propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, psyops out there to discredit real conspiracy theories, like 911, the Holohoax, CIA killed JFK, USS Liberty false flag, real reasons for WW2, Jesus (if he existed) literally rising from the dead. (The Truth will never die but rise again.)
Zeitgeist has a little misinformation but their cause (eliminating money) is good.
http://666ismoney.com/MoneyQuotes.html
What's your credentials and explanation for being an apologist and shill for the "Federal" "Reserve".
None. That's why I clearly state my opinions as opinions rather than fact and provide reputable references to show people how I came to the conclusions I present. Those who reference "The Creature from Jekyll Island" are referencing a book written by a man who has a long record of catering to people's fears and beliefs in order to sell his books and lectures. He is simply not a credible source on which people seeking to formulate a rational opinion should rely.
I will, by the way assume your statement "being an apologist and shill for the Federal Reserve" to be synonymous with "disagreeing with me".
I don't have a belief system and try to keep my thoughts to what "is"...Looking to the issue of Central Banking and the history of it..It is a Ponzi Scheme that ensures that people at the top, the banking elite remain on top...Now you may want to call that Public or Federal..But the money that is made by Federal Reserve action go into private hands...Where it counts, the Fed is private...End of discussion.
The author of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" has financial motives and no qualifications. There are Nobel Prizes awarded in the field of Economics every year. This field is not simple, and it requires more eduction than 5 community college classes to understand it. Unfortunately, any credible text on economics is "boring" while "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is full of intrigue and suspense. It's a great STORY, and it's made the author a lot of money. That's all.
If you'd like to read a recent publication showing some interesting research in economics, read the VERY light treatment by established experts in the field at http://atlas.media.mit.edu/media/atlas/pdf/HarvardMIT_AtlasOfEconomicComplexity.pdf Note it takes a while to load because economists world-wide are all downloading this new concept explaining disparity in wealth across the nations of the world.
Let's talk about how the Federal reserve was formed in 1913.
Off topic. The post simply shows that a widely cited reference should be taken with a grain of salt given the author's long history of profiting by taking controversial stances combined with his lack of qualifications.
So too was the way Bill Clinton signed the Commodities Futures Modernization Act in the final daze of his Presidency. To me, it shows that Democracy, as Plato said, is mob rule, one level above tyranny. What we need is to abolish money and establish Technocracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodities_Futures_Modernization_Act
The fact that he doesn't have any ties to the obviously corrupt and horrific financial system actually makes me think better of him. Thank you for pointing out how much more I can trust his opinion.
LOL ! So OPINION now ranks above KNOWLEDGE insofar as we AGREE with said opinion ! So much for the Age of Reason.
Rico, I've seen you around this site quite a bit. I believe you type in Caps Locks because you believe the person you are speaking to is stupid. All that is going to make me think is that you are stupid. If you are seeking honest communication in order to come to an understanding with me, and others, you would do yourself a favor and stop this action. If not, then you reveal yourself for what you are.
Secondly, if you can't see that the current system is corrupt and horrific, then you don't have eyes. You clamor and claim that no one presents evidence, and yet when they do, you ignore it completely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUpZhhbKUBo
That link is a very good start to coming to an equal understanding with one another. I feel that Aaron Russo lays it out on the table in a manner that cannot be debated.
If you wish to continue the conversation respectfully, I'll gladly do so. Here is my opening statement. The Financial System as it exists today is corrupt and will only lead to further horrors. That's just the way the system works.
If I were speaking directly to you in person, I would place emphasis on the words I type in bold. That's all the bold is meant to convey. Is there some more accepted convention to convey vocal emphasis on a word that's easily accomplished in these forums? I haven't been able to figure out how to put certain works in boldface ( <B> and </B> work in preview, but not in the posted text).
I do respect the urge to put certain emphasis on things. I myself fall into that when writing to friends and family. However, I do think it is important to point out that, regardless of what your intent is, it is certainly coming across as if you lack faith in our ability to know what you mean.
I mean this sincerely. If you make your points without the emphasis entirely, you will be taken more seriously. You will encourage people to debate with you, rather then simply mock you, or disregard you.
If you are sincere in your beliefs, and wish to debate them, on their merits alone, then your point should speak for itself. Speaking in Caps Lock doesn't help you. It simply makes you seem irrational and rigid.
I do want to debate you. I think you have taken a very strong stance, and believe in it emphatically. I look forward to the discussion.
Arron Russo is disinformation. I met him (and the persons who support him) in person.
How is Mr. Russo disinformation?
I can't remember all he said but remember how I felt after meeting him, his supporters and seeing his film at a convention he sponsored.
So... you know it in your gut?
I'll take my eyes over your gut any day.
Okay . . . I thought a little and now remember his nonsense about the income tax being a fraud was his biggest mistake. I'm studied the tax protester movement and met many of the ppl involved or that followed and ended up in jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism
All I'm seeing is a series of technicalities and minor complaints in regards to the specific nature of certain quotations. The essence of each of those quotes remains in tact, as does the essence of the argument.
U don't "see" very well, the tax protester's arguments will not work in court.
Google, "ad hominem".