Well folks, it's begun - finally. One state lawmaker in South Carolina is fed up with the fed

One State Lawmaker Fed up with Fed

While I wholeheartedly support the idea of getting rid of the Federal reserve, I have misgivings about the idea of a commodity-backed currency, such as a currency on the gold standard, for all the reasons noted in the article. Let's get it through our heads, folks, once and for all: real money is a receipt on the goods and services of the nation issuing it; it has nothing whatsoever to do with gold or any other commodity. As such, real money can only be issued by a state, in this case, South Carolina. The facsimile of money- you know, that stuff called "notes" that your local parasitic banker like JP Morgan Chase, hands you - is nothing but debt notes circulated as money.

I have no doubt that South Carolina's legislator is but the first of many, that the move to local currencies is a trend that will increase as people increasingly create their own solutions in the face of institutions that - like the Mubarak regime in Egypt - are simply unresponsive to the people and continuing to live in their own Rockefeller-induced fantasy world. Can we saw Zbigniew Brzezinkski here?

Now, speaking of J.P. Morgan Chase, well, consider just this one:

JP Morgan Chase & Madoff

Surely we cannot believe a reliable bank like JP Morgan-Chase, so long associated with those stallwarts of the American work ethic, the Morgans and Rockefellers, would resort to fraud? Well. considered that they were major players in the creation of the Federal Reserve, I'll leave the conclusions up to you...

Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Giuseppe Filotto on April 21, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    Dr. Farrell,
    I *think* I understand what you mean, but I really do not understand how the issuing of the type of money you suggest would be effectively and objectively measured. Nor do I understand how any kind of checks and balances (to prevent massive fraud, because, well… we’re still dealing with humans here…) can be put in place in such a system.
    Conversely, I think a reversion to pure gold bullion, which can be stored centrally by government banks and theoretically at least could be checked by any citizen that wanted to take the time to go and “visit” the big fort knox type places and see for themselves (some pretty extensive security concerns would have to be addressed but it could be done relatively easily if the will existed) would to my mind be much simpler.

    I also toy (in my head) with the idea of such a situation doing away entirely with the concept of interest. One could still do higher purchases over time, but at a set fee. I.e. Buy now it’s $100 buy in 10 easy payments it’s $12 per payment. But no interest, no banking fee etc (because the bank is centrally “owned” by the government and thus ultimately the people).
    What is the flaw with my idea?
    I would really like to understand this better. I keep thinking I am missing something, but so often when it comes to banking and banks and money in the past I later figured out there was nothing wrong with MY thinking….but rather the bankers. I would really welcome a longer article on this by you. I read your Babylon’s Bankers book but these questions remain. I may of course just be a bit slow, but I would appreciate any further work you might do on this.

  2. Bill on March 23, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    As of this date, 23 March 2011, I’m reading “Babylon’s Banksters.” Currently on Chapter One: Historical and Conceptual Background, page 54. From my reading so far, the best I can say right now is WOW!! I’ll even say it backwards: WOW!! The pieces of this penultimate puzzle are now for me falling so neatly into place; from paleoancient times to this very day! For me it dovetails so neatly into Hoagland’s and Bara’s researches concomittent with what I watch even on CNN! Forgive me, but now I must get off the computer and continue my reading starting on page 55! WOW!!

  3. Justina on February 17, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Liberty and license are two different things, and license is the
    degenerate form of freedom (licentious is the word derived
    from this), which is a slavery in itself.

    They knew the difference and provided to protect people from
    the govt. excess, and FROM EACH OTHER and FROM

    while the market is deciding what shall be accepted medium
    of exchange, how many must die or suffer years of illness
    because the only sources of what they need, do not accept
    what money they have, and do not want whatever they
    have to barter (except sex and that is not properly a
    commodity, or do you favor such “freedom” as means
    the freedom to choose death or other unpleasantness
    or prostitution?).

    The Market is not God. the hidden hand that guides is an
    illusion, a fantasy created by Adam Smith to sell an idea
    of NO TARIFFS, not of total anarchy.

    The so called spirit of liberty and freedom has its counterfeit,
    and that is a very ugly thing, ranging from freedom to conquer
    and exploit and murder, to disempowerment because
    unable to enforce one’s freedom and unable to organize
    with others effectively or in a timely, and ARMED manner.

    Anarchy always results in dictatorship.

    Remember, that the slaver Hubbard said that the way to
    enslave is to give the false promise of absolute freedom.

    Freedom is also whatever the propagandist, such as my evil
    mother, calls it.

    Remember that George Washington warned that “every man
    would be a tyrant if he could be,” and that is exactly why we
    need controls, but enough separation of powers that no
    one person can consolidate it all.

    Of course back then, they didn’t figure that some semi secret
    caste would consolidate power, or rather, though it could
    and only needed to be prevented by limiting coining and
    establishment of money to the government.

    That aces out national banks, and anarchy.

    for individual states to make their own coinage, wouldn’t
    be too damaging to the public interest. Perhaps. But
    I think it would be a step in the direction of secession,
    something that, pushed in the name of liberty, was a
    trick the British were working on the Confederacy,
    so that the division making the USA weaker, the USA
    could be annexed by Britain later.

    If Tsarist Russia hadn’t put its foot down, it would
    have worked.

  4. Concerned Friend on February 17, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Free Banking is the the only way to go. Justina is correct, money is a medium of exchange. So instead of having a monopoly on the issuance of money, solidified by legal tender laws that arbitrarily dictate what can and cannot be used as money, let the market decide what should be used as a medium of exchange (not arguing for a “only gold” reserve).

    “The Constitution
    reserves money issuance to the government,”

    The Constitution was created in the spirit of liberty and freedom. But it’s authors weren’t perfect, and the field of economics in a formal sense was still developing at their time. I am not a loose interpretation constitutionalist, but I do believe that new amendments should be added if they are consistent with the Founding Father’s philosophy.

  5. Justina on February 17, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    “those stallwarts of the American work ethic, the Morgans and Rockefellers,”
    that reminds me of some parody on the ad about making money the old
    fashioned way, we earn it that someone repeated or invented.

    “We make money the old fashioned way, we STEAL it.”

    • Vinnie on February 17, 2011 at 1:56 pm

      What do you think the whole idea of the creation of the federal reserve was if not to create a banking cartel that would solidify the eastern banking establishment and protect them from the competition of the private banks and companies who didn’t need to borrow money from them?
      What was the progressive era if not the time when the great monopolies were supposedly broken up, when in fact the anti-trust laws kept the competition which the would be monopolists hated so much from being able to threaten them?
      A true reading of history will show in almost every case that it was the exact opposite of what we’re asked to believe that really took place.
      If you get the chance, please read up on the many, many great books available on the creation of the federal reserve as well as some of the revisionist writings on how the progressive era solidified financial cartels and the corporate power that changed the completion of this nation forever, setting it on the road to a unified centralized state and global empire.
      Please Justina. Please, just once, do a little checking on the history of how we got to this point in time.

      • Justina on February 17, 2011 at 9:14 pm


        Eliminate the Fed, return to Constitutionally created money.

  6. Justina on February 17, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Because (1) something declared legal tender HAS to be
    recognized, and cannot be refused, so you will never
    drive into town on empty, and you are out of animal and
    human food, and you have all this money but oops, all
    the proprietors in town incl. the gas station has agreed
    they will not accept that particular kind of money for
    whatever reason.
    (2) there is something to be said for accepting foreign
    coin, but if the average person doesn’t know what all
    foreign coins look like, or their value in change of local
    coinage, it is easier to counterfeit or confuse and

    (3) NOTHING has ANY intrinsic value, incl. gold, gold
    and all metals are as worthless as paper intrinsically
    is, absent a popular valuation that has become
    entrenched in custom and law. It is ALL a fiction of
    human agreement and valuation.

    The point of money, is that it is a medium of exhange,
    anything can be valued in a certain amount, converted
    by exchange into that amount, and that easier to
    store and transport medium of exchange can then be
    taken wherever, and converted by exchange back
    into the same sort of thing or into ANYTHING else.

    The Colonies were issuing their own money, not just
    using whatever some “sovereign” individual declared
    was money as distinct from bartering goods themselves.

    Of course any obvious chunk of gold or silver was
    acceptable, but that was before silver copper, nickel
    and even aluminum and aluminum alloy coins that
    are prevalent today to judge by foreign coins I run
    across. But that is not the same thing. Nothing is
    keeping you from issuing scrip for trade inside an
    organization or barter network, some barter banks
    exist, or used to, that would assign credits, but
    that is good only among the subscribing individuals
    and not imposed or attempted to be imposed on
    anyone else.

    Even in those days, it was the honor and reliability
    of governments that guaranteed those coins, and
    the debasement of coin, now the normal condition
    everywhere, was considered a great evil, since one
    no longer was getting the same amount of gold
    or silver one expected to get.

    colonial governments issued money. The Constitution
    reserves money issuance to the government, and
    then Congress allowed the Fed to be created, which
    is not a government body merely a mercantilist kind
    of outsourcing. I am not sure that that was in fact
    Constitutional, and should be attacked on that ground.

    Stability, and reliability, is what everyone wants and
    needs in money. That is what government when it
    acts right provides, one of its purposes, proactively
    eliminating reasons for anger, stress, arguments,
    fights, and untold damage to individuals due to loss
    when money they use is not acceptable.

    the non acceptability of unknown coin, or some
    concern about whose king’s face is on it, has long
    been an issue even in less organized antiquity,
    ergo “money changers.”

  7. Vinnie on February 17, 2011 at 11:43 am

    What’s wrong with letting a truly free and unrigged market decide what people find acceptable in payment and use for money? Isn’t that exactly what existed in colonial America where all kinds of coinage from many countries circulated freely and whose value was known and understood by everyone? Why does anyone think that trusting a government to create endless notes or digits and making them “legal tender” is somehow superior to allowing the sum of all our transactions and dealings to set how much, what kind and what value will be given to and used in those exchanges? Do we honestly believe that there are a handful of men that somehow have the wisdom and knowledge to be able to define the limits on credit and set the interest rates for a whole economy without creating the very instability that results in the cycles of boom and bust and the continual depreciation of the monetary value? More to the point; how is it that we can know that these “wise men” aren’t influenced by special monetary cartels and interests that created central banking with fiat, debt based fractional reserves that indeed do great harm to the rest of the society? To assume this is to be set up for financial disaster. Oh, wait. That’s exactly where we are right now, isn’t it?
    Somehow, I’d rather take my chances in a completely free market environment than place my trust in the government or so called financial experts, who’ve proven time and again to be as fallible as they are corruptible.

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events