The American Dream: The Greatest Theft In Human History

For anyone still wondering why it is that fat cat bankers are buying up the country while the rest of us are complaining that “the rent’s too damn high,” filmmakers Tad Lumpkin and Harold Uhl spell it out in a fantastic thirty minute animated documentary film, The American Dream. Well worth your time watching – Parts 1 and 2 are below:

The official description of the film:

The AMERICAN DREAM is a 30 minute animated film that shows you how you’ve been scammed by the most basic elements of our government system. All of us Americans strive for the American Dream, and this film shows you why your dream is getting farther and farther away. Do you know how your money is created? Or how banking works? Why did housing prices skyrocket and then plunge? Do you really know what the Federal Reserve System is and how it affects you every single day? THE AMERICAN DREAM takes an entertaining but hard hitting look at how the problems we have today are nothing new, and why leaders throughout our history have warned us and fought against the current type of financial system we have in America today. You will be challenged to investigate some very entrenched and powerful institutions in this nation, and hopefully encouraged to help get our nation back on track.

, , ,

  • http://twitter.com/Marklar_Prime Marklar Kronkite

    Absolutely awesome. Informative AND entertaining.

  • Marklar_Prime

    Absolutely awesome. Informative AND entertaining.

  • Leadfarmermf

    I’m showing this to everyone I can…the war has begun.

  • Leadfarmermf

    I’m showing this to everyone I can…the war has begun.

  • Anonymous

    Excellent. Thanks to all those who put the effort in to make it.

  • Anonymous

    Excellent. Thanks to all those who put the effort in to make it.

  • Demosthenes

    Entertaining yes, factual, hardly. Firstly Aaron Burr was Jefferson’s vice president precisely because he OPPOSED him in the previous election as was the tradition in the early republic, not only that but Jefferson would later hold Burr guilty of Treason! The purpose of Hamilton’s national bank was to centralize US debt to give the failing government legitimacy. Secondly, Jackson opposed a central bank because he believed it would destroy the Agricultural tradition in America by encouraging industrializing; not because he fought against some vague banking conspiracy. Thirdly, yes it is true that central European banks took a foothold in England after the Napoleonic wars, but it hardly bankrupted the English people. In fact the presence of a strong central bank was the MAIN reason Britain was able to have the largest middle class in the WORLD at the time. What this video seems to forget is that capitalism REQUIRES monolithic lending institutions to maintain business, unless those posting advocate a return to mercantalism and uncentralized currency I’d suggest they do some homework before they cast dispersions at a fundamental fixture of civil society.

  • Demosthenes

    Entertaining yes, factual, hardly. Firstly Aaron Burr was Jefferson’s vice president precisely because he OPPOSED him in the previous election as was the tradition in the early republic, not only that but Jefferson would later hold Burr guilty of Treason! The purpose of Hamilton’s national bank was to centralize US debt to give the failing government legitimacy. Secondly, Jackson opposed a central bank because he believed it would destroy the Agricultural tradition in America by encouraging industrializing; not because he fought against some vague banking conspiracy. Thirdly, yes it is true that central European banks took a foothold in England after the Napoleonic wars, but it hardly bankrupted the English people. In fact the presence of a strong central bank was the MAIN reason Britain was able to have the largest middle class in the WORLD at the time. What this video seems to forget is that capitalism REQUIRES monolithic lending institutions to maintain business, unless those posting advocate a return to mercantalism and uncentralized currency I’d suggest they do some homework before they cast dispersions at a fundamental fixture of civil society.

    • Mrfergenator

      You are obviously a FED bro. stop brainwashing us

      • 

        Uh oh. I detect an Alex Jonesian.

    • turtleboy

      The film does not argue against a central bank. It argues against a PRIVATE central bank that lends us our own money at interest. The point is, the treasury should print and distribute money without Fed intervention. Currently the treasury prints money, gives it to the private Federal Reserve Bank, and they lend it back to us and charge interest. What is the point of the Fed in this transaction? Our central bank should be owned by us, not a handful of wealthy aristocracy.

    • GoodDoktorBad

      Even if what you say about Jefferson and Burr’s political rivalry is completly true, it has little bearing on the big picture. There will always be political rivalries. To use your own words:
      “….. to centralize US debt to give the failing government legitimacy” says it all. That statement only supports the films legitimacy, rather than disproving it. There is nothing vague about conspiracy, only your (and others) attempt to justify it is vague. I’d venture a guess that you are a minion of these “monolithic lending institutions” and believe that it benefits you to spout historical tidbits so you can appear authoratative.
      As for England’s middle class or any other middle class in the past or present exists primarily because the world has never gone beyond fuedalism and fiefdom. Just because it has always been this way does not make it a good thing -at least not for the majority of folks who aren’t super rich and powerful.
      People don’t require capitalism, capitalism requires people -mainly as fodder to feed its greedy and inhuman appetites. Your argument assumes that capitalism is our lord and savior. Its pretty obious that greed and power are a hinderance to human development and not a benefit, especially if you notice that the earth is an abundant and generous source of sustanance for all who live on it, one must ask the question: Why do so many have so little and so few have so much?

      • Anarchy Pony

        Generally because of the concept of land ownership and private property. The simple truth is we were all better off in the paleo-lithic. 

  • Mrfergenator

    You are obviously a FED bro. stop brainwashing us

  • turtleboy

    The film does not argue against a central bank. It argues against a PRIVATE central bank that lends us our own money at interest. The point is, the treasury should print and distribute money without Fed intervention. Currently the treasury prints money, gives it to the private Federal Reserve Bank, and they lend it back to us and charge interest. What is the point of the Fed in this transaction? Our central bank should be owned by us, not a handful of wealthy aristocracy.

  • Rasvin911

    what exactly do you propose we do about it?

  • Rasvin911

    what exactly do you propose we do about it?

  • Theneonheart.com

    money has as much to do with dreams as the future has to do with the future.

  • Theneonheart.com

    money has as much to do with dreams as the future has to do with the future.

  • http://www.theneonheart.com/ theneonheart

    are you the super secret leader dude?

  • http://www.theneonheart.com/ theneonheart

    are you the super secret leader dude?

  • Anonymous

    Even if what you say about Jefferson and Burr’s political rivalry is completly true, it has little bearing on the big picture. There will always be political rivalries. To use your own words:
    “….. to centralize US debt to give the failing government legitimacy” says it all. That statement only supports the films legitimacy, rather than disproving it. There is nothing vague about conspiracy, only your (and others) attempt to justify it is vague. I’d venture a guess that you are a minion of these “monolithic lending institutions” and believe that it benefits you to spout historical tidbits so you can appear authoratative.
    As for England’s middle class or any other middle class in the past or present exists primarily because the world has never gone beyond fuedalism and fiefdom. Just because it has always been this way does not make it a good thing -at least not for the majority of folks who aren’t super rich and powerful.
    People don’t require capitalism, capitalism requires people -mainly as fodder to feed its greedy and inhuman appetites. Your argument assumes that capitalism is our lord and savior. Its pretty obious that greed and power are a hinderance to human development and not a benefit, especially if you notice that the earth is an abundant and generous source of sustanance for all who live on it, one must ask the question: Why do so many have so little and so few have so much?

  • Me

    Wow, that was some scary propaganda. I agree with Demosthenes, this was hardly factual. This video makes it seem like the Federal Reserve caused the nation’s debt, which is completely untrue. Also, the Federal Reserve has several methods of adjusting the amount of currency. Sure, they make loans to banks, but the only time they do so is when banks run low on money to avoid bank runs. Banks need to make loans and charge interest to keep their money supply growing, this is why they can pay people interest on their deposits to keep your money steady with inflation. The Federal Reserve can also buy and sell government securities to put money into the economy.

    The biggest purpose of the Federal Reserve is to regulate banks. The fractional reserve this video mentioned, how banks only keep a small percentage of their funds, the rest being loaned, is controlled by the Federal Reserve in an attempt to avoid running out of money. The biggest issue with this video is the idea that the Mint could just print money as it pleased. The Federal Reserve closely monitors the economy and sets how much money should be in circulation. If the mint printed too much we would see dangerously high inflation.

    The Federal Reserve is not some evil monster.

  • Me

    Wow, that was some scary propaganda. I agree with Demosthenes, this was hardly factual. This video makes it seem like the Federal Reserve caused the nation’s debt, which is completely untrue. Also, the Federal Reserve has several methods of adjusting the amount of currency. Sure, they make loans to banks, but the only time they do so is when banks run low on money to avoid bank runs. Banks need to make loans and charge interest to keep their money supply growing, this is why they can pay people interest on their deposits to keep your money steady with inflation. The Federal Reserve can also buy and sell government securities to put money into the economy.

    The biggest purpose of the Federal Reserve is to regulate banks. The fractional reserve this video mentioned, how banks only keep a small percentage of their funds, the rest being loaned, is controlled by the Federal Reserve in an attempt to avoid running out of money. The biggest issue with this video is the idea that the Mint could just print money as it pleased. The Federal Reserve closely monitors the economy and sets how much money should be in circulation. If the mint printed too much we would see dangerously high inflation.

    The Federal Reserve is not some evil monster.

    • turtleboy

      Everything that you say is true, but we don’t need a private bank to do any of that. The treasury can do all of the things you mention. The problem with the Fed is that it is privately owned by a few very wealthy and powerful people, and the citizens of the United States have no oversight over their activities. The Congress doesn’t even have the power to audit their books. We pay interest to this bank for every single dollar in circulation. Why? The privately held Federal Reserve Bank owns the entire US economy, and we do not need them.

      Remember the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE corporation, owned by private people. If we change the name of the Federal Reserve to, lets say Bill Johnston, it doesn’t sound so great anymore. The Treasury prints money for the people of the United States, and then gives every single dollar to Bill Johnston for free and without collateral. Bill Johnston then loans the money (that was given to him for free) back to the people of the United States and charges them interest for the privilege. The people of the United States have no right to audit Bill Johnston’s books to see how much he is keeping for himself, and they have no authority to tell Bill Johnston what to do with the country’s money.

      I would sure like to be Bill Johnston. How about you?

      The treasury itself can act as a central bank, while at the same time being transparent to, and controlled by the people it serves.

      • 1234

        Nicely put! The name change gave me a better perspective to look at it from.

  • turtleboy

    Everything that you say is true, but we don’t need a private bank to do any of that. The treasury can do all of the things you mention. The problem with the Fed is that it is privately owned by a few very wealthy and powerful people, and the citizens of the United States have no oversight over their activities. The Congress doesn’t even have the power to audit their books. We pay interest to this bank for every single dollar in circulation. Why? The privately held Federal Reserve Bank owns the entire US economy, and we do not need them.

    Remember the Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE corporation, owned by private people. If we change the name of the Federal Reserve to, lets say Bill Johnston, it doesn’t sound so great anymore. The Treasury prints money for the people of the United States, and then gives every single dollar to Bill Johnston for free and without collateral. Bill Johnston then loans the money (that was given to him for free) back to the people of the United States and charges them interest for the privilege. The people of the United States have no right to audit Bill Johnston’s books to see how much he is keeping for himself, and they have no authority to tell Bill Johnston what to do with the country’s money.

    I would sure like to be Bill Johnston. How about you?

    The treasury itself can act as a central bank, while at the same time being transparent to, and controlled by the people it serves.

  • 1234

    Nicely put! The name change gave me a better perspective to look at it from.

  • 

    Uh oh. I detect an Alex Jonesian.

  • Irie Stream

    Historical inaccuracies, nationalist fervor and highly questionable ‘red shield’ (read Rothschild) global conspiracy aside, the central premise of ‘The American Dream’ seems to be that it is better for a nation’s central bank to be in public rather than private control. Sure, but in terms of the source of many of the woes facing America and the rest of the world, that’s missing the point entirely (and purposely so I believe – see my conclusion). Did anyone else find it odd that despite exploitative lending practices, rule by the rich and economic decay being the context of the film not once was the word CAPITALISM mentioned??? As one commentator already mentioned, real, existing capitalism “REQUIRES monolithic lending institutions maintain business” – Demosthenes. Capitalism as we know it is inconceivable without such instruments. So if we really want to do away with such predatory institutions as the Federal Reserve, or any bank for that matter, we must acknowledge that they are but one head, to draw a metaphor from the film, of a multi-headed beast, a beast named capitalism which must die in its entirety for true solution to become manifest.
    Take note; upon checking out their website (http://www.theamericandreamfilm.com/the-good-guys.php), I found that the makers of this film view the likes of Glenn Beck, the CATO institute, the Drudge Report, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, etc. as ‘the good guys’, i.e. a who’s who of arch-conservativism and the right-wing propaganda machine, proponents of the very ideology that got us into this mess to begin with. As such, I can conclude that this film is a clever subterfuge, a right-wing attempt to shift the blame for an economic catastrophe away from the socio-economic system that generated it (capitalism) and on to such red herrings as bad-apple greedy bankers – as if they were a cause rather than a symptom – or the illuminati-’red shield’-whatever conspiracy. The ruling class knows you’re angry (you’re right to be angry) and through tricks like this they attempt to channel your anger away from themselves, the true enemies. Despite the dramatics of this film, this is how they keep people truly asleep.

  • Irie Stream

    Historical inaccuracies, nationalist fervor and highly questionable ‘red shield’ (read Rothschild) global conspiracy aside, the central premise of ‘The American Dream’ seems to be that it is better for a nation’s central bank to be in public rather than private control. Sure, but in terms of the source of many of the woes facing America and the rest of the world, that’s missing the point entirely (and purposely so I believe – see my conclusion). Did anyone else find it odd that despite exploitative lending practices, rule by the rich and economic decay being the context of the film not once was the word CAPITALISM mentioned??? As one commentator already mentioned, real, existing capitalism “REQUIRES monolithic lending institutions maintain business” – Demosthenes. Capitalism as we know it is inconceivable without such instruments. So if we really want to do away with such predatory institutions as the Federal Reserve, or any bank for that matter, we must acknowledge that they are but one head, to draw a metaphor from the film, of a multi-headed beast, a beast named capitalism which must die in its entirety for true solution to become manifest.
    Take note; upon checking out their website (http://www.theamericandreamfilm.com/the-good-guys.php), I found that the makers of this film view the likes of Glenn Beck, the CATO institute, the Drudge Report, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, etc. as ‘the good guys’, i.e. a who’s who of arch-conservativism and the right-wing propaganda machine, proponents of the very ideology that got us into this mess to begin with. As such, I can conclude that this film is a clever subterfuge, a right-wing attempt to shift the blame for an economic catastrophe away from the socio-economic system that generated it (capitalism) and on to such red herrings as bad-apple greedy bankers – as if they were a cause rather than a symptom – or the illuminati-’red shield’-whatever conspiracy. The ruling class knows you’re angry (you’re right to be angry) and through tricks like this they attempt to channel your anger away from themselves, the true enemies. Despite the dramatics of this film, this is how they keep people truly asleep.

  • Wanooski

    Generally because of the concept of land ownership and private property. The simple truth is we were all better off in the paleo-lithic.