The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind (Debt Ceiling Truth)

Via HiddenSecretsOfMoney.Com

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” – Aldous Huxley

“By this means the government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.”  – John Maynard Keynes

Just a short examination of the inner workings of the insidious horror that is the “Federal” Reserve system.

*$5.00 in fiat currency to the first con$umer cannibal, who can reveal the dominant stock holders of Molech Inc, aka The Federal Reserve.

 

 

 

, , , ,

  • Cortacespedes

    House of Rothschild.

    The Warburg family.

  • BuzzCoastin

    Money: the Poor Man’s Credit Card

  • dani pettas

    Awesome video.

  • Cortacespedes

    So the fiat currency “financial” system is a bit of “smoke and mirrors” eh? I imagine most systems are. They’re all “gamed” to the inventor’s “backdoor” schemes. Not much different from any carny game you’ll find at the local county fair.

    As for who “invests”in the Fed… Nobody knows the answer to that for sure, except for the “investors” themselves and in fine mafia family style, they ain’t talkin’. You can give a perfectly meaningless shotgun answer like “The Rothschilds”but that doesn’t really say much and means even less. I imagine it to mean a group of faceless, soulless “humans” (using that term VERY loosely) who are so far removed from their own ilk, as to be able to gamble with the entirety of humanity; or the very planet as a whole, for that matter. “Übermensch”in their own minds, petty piles of banal evil in reality.

    Actually, what’s even more interesting about this video, which lays a claim stating that it will enlighten us to the evils of fiat currency, is who’s behind it. The gold bugs. Yeah, pretty upfront about it too. Gold will solve all of your problems. Invest in it. IT’S REAL. It has WORTH.

    So, who gives this gold it’s worth? The market? That’s about as good an answer as “The Rothschilds”. It’s just another scheme gamed by another group of schemers.

    Yeah, think I’ll pass on goldbuggery. No answers there. Better to just watch “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” again, just to remind myself of a few things.

    “Gold itself ain’t good for nothin’ except makin’ jewelry with and gold teeth. Aw, gold’s a devilish sort of a thing anyway. You start out to tell yourself you’ll be satisfied with twenty-five thousand handsome smackers worth of it, ‘so help me Lord and cross my heart.’ Fine resolution. After months of sweatin’ yourself dizzy and growing short on provisions and findin’ nothin’, you finally come down to fifteen thousand and then ten, finally you say, ‘Lord, let me just find five thousand dollars worth and never ask for anything more the rest of my life.’…Here in this joint, it seems like a lot, but I tell you, if you was to make a real strike, you couldn’t be dragged away. Not even the threat of miserable death’d keep you from trying to add ten thousand more. Ten you want to get twenty-five. Twenty-five you want to get fifty. Fifty, a hundred. Like roulette. One more turn, you know, always one more.”

    • gustave courbet

      So, do you think this guy is full of it and just pushing an investment angle that he’s already bought in to, or his analysis legit(or both)?

      • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

        My question is, would this all be okay if the federal reserve DID have some kind of money backing all of it?… despite this, it sounds more complicated than he makes it… how does the fed have zero money if they are recieving money from the govt at the end of the cycle? it clearly said that its only a 6% dividend going to the “owners”, wheres the other 94%?

        • drlechter

          for an in depth understanding of the fed and why this video is bull, check out Ellen Browns Web of Debt. Its the clearest explanation of a fairly complex subject that I have seen.
          Gold bugs and gold have always been part of the scam. Britain used gold back when it ruled the waves as the fed uses the petro dollar now, to loot the world and the US currently. But it is difficult to explain briefly so read the book if you are interested

      • Cortacespedes

        The analysis is simplistic, but accurate in most areas. He’s really pushing an agenda tho. And his solution to the Federal Reserve problem, isn’t much better.

        If you want to read some good ideas on the future of banking, this guy is a good source http://beyondmoney.net/

  • Rhoid Rager

    I watched this the other day and I discussed this with my wife. I have a serious problem with this video and the people like Maloney who are always promoting PMs as ‘a store of wealth’. Maloney and the rest of his ilk look at the financial crisis and collapse of fiat currencies as another investment opportunity. He specifically says this in his other videos. The PM proponents are of the breed that made some or all of their wealth through investing prior to the revelation that central banks all over the world are printing money as a stop-gap measure against debt-destruction as a result of the end of growth. These people never have a problem with the practice of usury (the base reason why current debt is unservicable). They are generally of the elitist mindset in that they think they don’t have to work for their money–with ‘sound’ judgment and a view of the future they can place their current wealth in some vehicle to make it ‘grow’. This is usury and is the basic problem behind the financial ‘crisis’. People trying to make money from money without actually working for it. They are parasites. They are emulating the Fed and the banksters behind the Fed when they continue to tacitly promote the practice of usury. And, as Bill Still has pointed out, their stacking of gold will play right into the banksters’ hands when they attempt to reintroduce the gold standard to back a new currency. Usury is the problem, not debt.

    • Cortacespedes

      Are you suggesting that we inject Sharia law into our financial institutions?
      They’re not even that radical in Dubai. (jk)

      What’s funny is that WIR Bank has been operating in Switzerland for how many years? It’s not perfect, but it is a departure.

      • Rhoid Rager

        I suggest that we inject the notion of entropy into the financial funhouses.

    • gustave courbet

      I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I would posit that it is not usury in general that is the problem, but the way it is being leveraged at the top, combined with fractional reserve banking, which causes inflation. Usury can be a legitimate charge for a service, ex: a loan, and can be beneficial to commerce, assuming there is regulation accompanying it. If banks did not lend out more then they held in deposit, they would be like any other business, and make a modest fee of interest for their service. Again, not my subject of expertise, feel free to point out any errors I might have made.

      • emperorreagan

        Historically, many cultures have frowned on usury. The amount of interest one could charge was severely limited (as was the case in Rome), if not prohibited altogether (for Christians & Muslims at various points). Things like jubilees in Babylon and Israel were aimed at preventing people from becoming indebted forever. In some parts of the world, debt slavery has been (and still is) fairly common. So at least some of of the problems with usury and people’s awareness of them are completely independent from problems with fractional reserve banking.

        The way the current banking system as set up obviously magnifies problems with usury, with the layers of usury between the Fed & the final person who needs a loan for a house or some other credit. And it’s even worse in the US because major national banks have basically been able to circumvent all state and local laws restricting usury, through winning a series of Supreme Court decisions and buying off Congress to prevent any financial reforms, federal laws limiting usury, etc. Couple that with the decline of community banking institutions (being bought out by Bank of America, for example) and the entire system was and still is primed for abuse.

        Banking as currently constructed basically transfers all risk downstream – capital is always protected. The bank bailout was interesting because all of the downside of the risks banks took transferred downstream by two different mechanisms – the state passed the downside cost on to everyone through the bailout and the individuals involved ate the downside cost of foreclosures, bankruptcies, loss of businesses, etc.

        • Cortacespedes

          “Socialize the losses, privatize the profits”, I think is the “financial system” mantra.

        • Rhoid Rager

          I disagree somewhat with your analysis. The term usury usually denotes excessive charging of interest, however, the classical and religious understanding refers to any money charged on top of loans. For example, Aristotle’s critique of usury held that money ought to be extinguished from existence with every transaction and that usury assumes that money continues to live past its intended use as a medium of exchange, and that this is against nature.

          So we fall into a semantic trap when we focus on laws _limiting_ usury. It’s not a problem that can be mitigated in degrees. It is either permitted or not permitted. But once it is permitted, that’s when power begins to be consolidated by the usurious class through the function usury has of siphoning wealth from the bottom to the top. This, of course, leads to the permissible context of usury being systematically re-written–i.e. permitted in these circumstances, under these assumptions, and at these interest rates but no more and no higher. But to accept degrees of usury is the same as accepting degrees of slavery or murder.

          • emperorreagan

            I’d say that when you’re operating within the existent structure of the state, you’re always arguing to what degree slavery or murder are acceptable. They’re already permitted. Likewise, usury is permitted thanks to the dominant states at the moment.

            I would be curious as to where the change in the meaning of usury occurred. Adam Smith, for instance, was opposed to the complete prohibition of usury but indicated it needed to be controlled. Was it in that era where usury transitioned from meaning interest to abusive interest?

            I think the arc of what constitutes abuse is interesting. Obviously, there has long been a double standard between north and south. What’s interesting to me within the US is the shift I mentioned – with the Supreme Court rulings – to lift the limits on abuse within its own boarders altogether. It’s particularly interesting, because I wonder if the relative peace and stability (basically lack of any threat whatsoever to the usurious class) has bred complacency and is leading them to overplay their hand and hasten the decline of the American empire.

          • Rhoid Rager

            Good questions.

            What commonly grants me solace is the truth I have experienced behind the saying, pride comes before a fall.

      • Rhoid Rager

        Sorry for the late reply. To be brief, the problem with usury of any percentage is that the assumption surrounding the interest charged on top of the money loaned out is that it must be serviced using something of value outside of the original transaction. Usury opens a vacuum in society that must be filled by continual expansion–hence the obsession with economic growth. Consider the effects of modern interest-driven society–ecological destruction, social degradation, unprecedented wealth inequality. Filling the vacuum created by usury becomes the sole objective of a society that tolerates the charging of any rate of interest. It’s no accident nor dogmatic ideal that usury is condemned, in some form or another, by most major religions (it is even condemned in the Rig Veda). The ancients knew of this effect from experience. Basic math tells us that P+I never equals P.

        One could take a more scientific approach and understand usury as a foolhardy attempt to contradict the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). The gigantic derivatives market is not simply a fluke of a greedy class of people who rehypothecated existing wealth to create the monstrosity the currency system is saddled with, rather the tremendous debt the species must now contend with is the _logical conclusion_ of assuming that money does not decay. Money is simply a claim on real world wealth, and if we accept that basic premise, then it is an inescapable paradox that, despite the very well accepted fact that material things of real worth decay, the system of claims that we place on those real things does not. In economic reality, money not only does not decay, it can be created from nothing to infinity.

        We’ve been tricked into plugging ourselves into a massive life-support system geared into using this completely unrealistic means of management of resources. Some would call it slavery, since, through its all-pervading logic we must continue to live by it and use it until we each die, but I prefer to look at it as a playful bump in the evolution of our consciousness as a species. Such systemic mistakes as usury are required so that we may better understand ourselves and how we relate to others.

  • Dan (Director-Hidden Secrets)

    Thanks for sharing our video – much appreciated.