The Money Masters

November 17, 2005 01:30 by keithkaragan
After some hounding I finally watched the documentary: The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America. (you can find it in the Internet Archive @ Produced in 1996 by Bill Still and Pat SJ Carmack, the film is over 3 hours long and is fairly dry in it's delivery - nonetheless, it's difficult to stop watching it.
The premise of the film is that the practice of fractional lending and centralized control over the international banking system by a few ultra elite puts the American public (among others) into economic slavery, as these institutions can (and do) control the economic cycles to further their own power and economic interests - and significant economic and human cost to everyone else. Mr. Still proposes actions, at the conclusion of the film, that he believes will free us from the control of these powerful interests.
I looked around the internet for information regarding the film, it's creators, and looked for opinions regarding the subject matter. There is significant information regarding the banking system, with both proponents and opponents (naturally), but very little information about Mr. Still and Mr. Carmack. There is a sort-of grass roots following to the film, and there are quite a few websites that have links to the site where one can buy the video, and some text snipped from the site regarding the film. The little opinion I came across was mostly positive (although there are also several vocal detractors) and was voiced from such diverse milieus as leftist groups, marijuana legalization advocates, 911 conspiracy groups, and white supremacist groups. Quite a cross section.
I'm not certain, at this point, what the information presented means to me personally - and how it will affect my political viewpoint regarding this subject - it's just too soon to tell. The historical aspects of the film are very compelling for me personally, and I found it very interesting and extremely disturbing from the perspective of liberty and freedom.
Mr. Still proposes a change from money issues by the Federal Reserve Bank that is not based on collateral (known as fiat currency) to one that is still based on nothing, but is issued by the government - and relieves the government from the interest paid on such money. Of the detractors I found, this seems to be a common point that they disagree with - they tend to support a collateralized system. In the film, several points in time of US history where this banking system was successfully opposed by the administration were highlighted - and I saw some similarities in the philosophies and results of those presidents with Bill Clinton. Later, in reading some other information online about the film, and mentioned later in the film as well, references to Clinton's mentor as having positions opposed to the banks influence in the economy lead me to believe that this may have indeed been a pillar of what Clinton was trying to achieve (and did in so much as reducing the national debt, if only until the current administration reversed this). Of course, in 1996 the realization of Clinton's effect had yet to happen. Reflection on the Bush family's participation in banking in the early part of the 20th century may also indicate where their allegiances lay, especially in light of both Bush administrations willingness to go to war, and to increase national debt.
Another thought I have in regard to the films points is in the vein of 'real' money - gold, silver, etc. - Is oil a sufficient (or even more valuable) collateral in the 21st century? Oil is a resource that is dwindling, and becoming more valuable over time. It's not as timeless as gold, but countries that have oil certainly have the ability to derive great 'real' wealth from this resource, and as we see in the middle east, Venezuela, and other oil producers - these countries appear to be more able to free themselves from the influence of the international banking interests - at least on the surface, it would be interesting to know how in debt these counties are in comparison to the US - and are any of the international militarism and terrorism actions currently in play being funded in order to bring these nations into the central bank's scope, as is documented in the film for the European counties and the US.
Without a doubt I take the information presented as a call to arms for me to personally divest from the debt cycle and think of what financial instruments are available outside of this milieu, and how accessible they are to me as an individual. If nothing else presented in the film is true other than the influence on the creation of booms and busts in the economy, I'm seriously concerned and disturbed about my economic future being at risk throughout the remainder of my life - retirement funds, college funds, savings, etc ...
Digg It!DZone It!StumbleUponTechnoratiRedditDel.icio.usNewsVineFurlBlinkList

Be the first to rate this post

  • Currently 0/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Related posts

Comments are closed