Interview 1276 – G. Edward Griffin Debunks the JFK/Fed Myth

by | May 18, 2017 | Interviews | 45 comments

If you follow the alt media you’ve probably heard the theory that the bankers were behind the JFK assassination. The theory holds that JFK was trying to end the Fed by creating debt-free, silver-backed money through Executive Order 11110, and the bankers saw this as a threat to their monopoly over the money supply. But this theory is not just wrong, it is completely opposite to reality. Joining us today to set the record straight once and for all is G. Edward Griffin, editor of and author of the seminal book on the Federal Reserve, The Creature From Jekyll Island.



The Creature From Jekyll Island

“JFK and the Fed” by G. Edward Griffin

Economic Report of the President, January 1963 (pg. XXIII on “Silver”)


  1. The ideological myth regarding Kennedy works, because we want to believe. His assassination works, because there is so much evidence and justification for the deep state offing the man.

    However, as to whether Kennedy wanted a bank note separate from the FR is still questionable.

    I would ask people to look into the death and life of Mary Pinchot Meyer. Her involvement with JFK is now well known. She sat on major circles with him and visited the Whitehouse more than any of his so-called ‘lovers’. Her story, told by Peter Janney, himself the son of a CIA agent under Frank Wisner, is a must read (

    For you see, Mary was murdered execution style in 1964. James Jesus Angleton, the ghost of the CIA, was found by Bill Bradley and his wife, Antoinette, the sister of Mary Pinchot Meyer looking for Mary’s diary in her home. But that is not all: he was then found by the Bradley couple at Mary’s studio behind Bradley’s home where she painted, picking the lock to look for the diary.

    The diary they say was found, and Bradley the so-called Ace reporter and editor of the Washington Post gave it to Angleton. He said Nagleton then gave it back and he went on and said he burned it. A real reporter, that one.

    He refused to state what was in the diary before he and his wife died sometime around 2015. He went to the grave with the most important story of his career.

    Mary was a devotee of Timothy Leary, who was a CIA agent since the end of WWII. He developed manuals for the CIA and then went on to Harvard to continue the MK Ultra Program.

    “Eventually Leary encountered the fabulously wealthy William Mellon Hitchcock (aka “Mr. Billy”), the grandson of the founder of Gulf Oil. Mr. Billy took to LSD and to Timothy Leary and offered him and his acolytes the use of his 64-room country estate. Here at the Millbrook estate Leary established the Castalia Foundation, named after the priestly sect in Hesse’s novel The Glass Bead Game, which was dedicated to the scholarly study of LSD and its spiritual applications” (

    The point: Mellon was CIA, Leary was CIA and Leary coached, according to Janney, that she was given and gave low doses of LSD to Kennedy to ‘change the world’. Janney says.

    Kennedy had no time to disentangle himself and his office from Allen Dulles. The deep state killed the man and whether he was ‘turning’ as author James Douglas says or not, his murder was at the hands of both the National Crime Syndicate (who oversaw the Mafia) and rogue or non-rogue elements of the CIA.

    Read David Talbot’s book for more. “The Dulles Brothers”.

    James, consider the death of Mary Pinchot Meyer one that deserves a documentary

    • weilunion, ditto your request that James do a doc on Mary Pinchot Meyer.

      May I correct the reference to “Bill Bradley”; I believe you meant “Ben Bradlee.” The former was a Princeton and pro basketball player turned U.S. Senator:

      The subject of this interview is timely for me, because only a few hours ago I happened to listen to podcast #164, which is the audio version of John Hankey’s JFK documentary, Dark Legacy (

      (James, I’m now more than halfway through listening to all your podcasts. Each has been a worthwhile investment of my time.)

  2. There are many, and I do not consider James one of them, who believe in global socialism. James does not for he is an agorist and I respect that. But in order to supplant capitalism global unity among workers, the disenfranchised and the unemployed must be the next stage of material and subjective development.

    Living, as I have, in many Latin American countries that seek to by-pass capitalism and jump from feudalism to socialism, I have seen the failures.

    Dialectical materialism is a necessary reality to take into consideration to understand how societies develop. Capitalism is now in a global stage of decay.

    If one is an agorist, then the answer would be in voluntary associations on an individual level. However, to reach the stage of libertarian socialism a society, and indeed the world, societies must go through this stage of capitalism and then organize globally to kill it. Only then will voluntary associations be viable.

  3. Yes, I remember years ago reading on this whole topic and the debunking then of this myth. There are others swirling around the ‘lost’ president to do with a ‘Green Hilton Agreement’,’Global Collateral Accounts’ philanthropically given with human kind the beneficiary, lost or found vaults of gold and other precious items of near a million tons of bullion, with shadowy figures like a Mr. Neil Keenan reported on by equally shadowy figures like a Mr. Benjamin Fulford and other involvements,a Karen Hudes and the like and of course ancient family groupings with names like the ‘White Dragons’ and so forth. All good fun unless the gullible are taken in with the fraudulent soliciting for money being involved. It is amazing how subjects like these grow legs and begin walking about on the net.

    It always strikes me as a point of interest how those on the far right political spectrum always see the globalists as evil socialists while those anywhere else on this spectrum, right-center-left, see the globalists as neo feudal fascists. I just see them as wealthy power and control freaks who will use anything at their disposal that advances their interests, keeping whatever belief system they have, if any, very well hidden.

  4. = “Socialism” =

    I hate censorship. That said I think “Socialism” as a word should be outlawed. “Socialist” is better. Like Social-esque or Social-ish. “Socialistic” even better.

    Social (aka tribal) tendencies can be used for good or evil. Totalitarians can use capitalist, communist, and whateverist means to their ends. Bottom up socialist ideas can build wonderful worker coops (not promoted enough in media for my tastes) or terrible lynching parties.

    = “Science” =

    While I’m at it, I want to crap on “Science” as a noun. Too many people believe in the abstract dogma of “science”. Like socialism, science is a process, famously the “Scientific Method”, and it can be corrupted at every stage. Ask the wrong question, interpret the wrong answer, select the wrong data, keep the data secret, sell your school out to corporations, etc… Blind faith in science, religion, and patriotism are all stupid dogmas.

    = Red Pill =

    Bad health care and big pharma jokes aside, there are actually other “Red Pill” references in media.

    The Matrix was not the first. In Total Recall Arnold’s character was offered pills to “wake up” but saw the guy sweat and declined with his gun. I feel like there was another earlier example too but I can’t recall it right now.

    YouTube has a very good documentary called “The Red Pill” on the misperceptions of Western propaganda regarding Libya and it shows the decay since “liberation”.

    Cassie Jaye is a documentary director and feminist curious about the men’s rights movement and fell down that rabbit hole. I am really looking forward to that documentary also titled “The Red Pill” because she has had fascinating promotional interviews.

    Rant over, mic drop, now I need some red Smarties.

  5. The only one I know of who alone broke the power of the elite that was suppressing and exploiting poor people, was a God fearing man called Hans Nielsen Hauge. He started a lot of small cooperations owned by common people in a flat structure. But that was not socialism. Norway still today enjoys the fruits of his peaceful Revolution, although socialism and greed has destroyed much of it. He spent much of his life in prison, of course, but still had a more positive impact than any other freedom fighter I have ever read about.

  6. “… JFK was trying to end the Fed by creating debt-free, silver-backed money..”

    James, please. Definitions matter. They are the foundations on which we build the logic of our analysis. Screw them up, or be inconsistent in their use, and your whole analysis fails.

    Consider the above statement. What does ‘backing’ mean? It means that someone is promising to pay an asset against a claim. What is a promise to pay an asset? A debt. So, by definition, you can not have ‘backed’ money that is ‘debt-free’. Equity money (such as silver or bearer titles to same) can never be ‘backed’ because it is not a promise by anyone to do anything. It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

    Please be more careful with your definitions or you will find yourself leading your readers down the slippery ‘Newspeak’ rabbit hole that the banksters are trying to trick us into taking.

    • The problem with currency today is that it is created out of nothing and issued as a loan, with a markup.

      A finite commodity backed currency does not have this problem, as long as the promise isn’t false. If a paper note simply replaces a unit of commodity stored in the vault and there is exactly one note for each unit of commodity, there’s no debt problem. There are problems with pegging the currency, or in this case better said money, to a value of an asset which price is set by the (global) market.

      • In 1913, we went from equity money to debt money. Specifically, from dollars-in-gold to gold-backed dollars. Immediately, the Fed began a stealth printing campaign. The result was the roaring twenties, followed by the Great Depression. Their solution was to change the dollar-gold ratio, remove it from exchanges, and still keep printing as fast as they could. Finally, in 1971, it caught up with them and they gave up on the ‘backing’ shell-game all together.

        If you think this means that there is no debt problem with gold-backed debt money, then I have a bridge I want to sell you. There are so many ways for central banks to lie and deceive that there is no way that debt money can ever be trusted, even if it is ‘backed’ 100% by an equity asset.

        The only way we can ever get a stable monetary system that does not create an uberwealthy class is to have an all-equity system. In other words, eliminate all debt from our money supply. And, if we do that, then there will be no such thing as ‘backing’.

        • Are you talking about currency or money?

          Be it gold or paper backed gold used as money, the promise can still be broken. The gold can be diluted, the paper can be duplicated at will. The only substantial difference being that you can’t dilute gold as much as you can overprint. Nor you can overprint as easily as you can add zeros to a variable in software on a server somewhere.

          There is no currency nor money without promise which, in turn, can be broken. If the duty to uphold the promise can be enforced (best with pitchforks and torches) any sort of fiat currency will do.

          Even with debt free currency you still have no protection against overprinting. Unless you’re using something that can’t be printed, produced nor diluted at will. I don’t know of any such material.

          Putting “gold-backed debt money” on the equal footing with “central banks” doesn’t do you a service. One does not imply the other. Currency should not be issues by banks nor governmental entities. Its source will always be under assault by jackals.

          • When I use the word ‘money’, that is what I am talking about. Specifically, ‘money’ is ‘what you buy stuff with’, while ‘buy’ is to participate in a three-party transaction, as opposed to ‘trade’ which is a two-party transaction. These definitions are standard Austrian fare.

            I try to avoid the use of the word ‘currency’ as its definition is not so well established.

            There is no ‘promise’ by anyone regarding physical gold. It is what it is, so there is no need to ‘back’ any promise. True, it could have been surreptitiously adulterated, but that would be fraud, a clear crime. Risks of such acts are always present in any commercial dealings, including trade. But such acts are rare because they are criminal, unlike overextending oneself when making bad loans, which is just bad business.

            If you use the warehouse model for banks (rather than the casino model now used), then the bearer receipts issued by the bank do suppose a promise by the bank, but it is a commitment to safe-keep someone’s else’s property, not a promise to pay a debt. There is, for instance, no debt associated with your parking your car in a parking garage or storing your furniture in a U-Store-it. The owner of either of those facilities could steal or fraudulently encumber your assets, but this is very unlikely to happen, because the law is very clear on who owns them.

            That is distinctly different from a casino-based banking system such as we have now. In the current case, title of your deposits transfers to the owner of the bank when you make a deposit and he is free to do whatever he can convince regulators he should be allowed to do with your funds, including playing the ponies with them if he wants.

            In the warehouse model for banking, you have strong protection against the banker issuing multiple receipts for the assets stored with him because, since he doesn’t own those assets, such an act would clearly be fraud.

            In fact, the above is one of the major tenets of discussion in Jekyll Island. If you aren’t sure about it, I suggest you re-read the book.

            • I disagree with you on several points.

              Both money and currency need to be divisible, fungible, durable and transportable. An additional property of money is that is a store of value. Precious metals or oil could be considered a store of value (oil failing to be transportable,) while paper (or FIAT) currency always and I do mean always goes to zero in the long run. Simply because the promise to not overprint is always broken.

              Regarding gold used as money issued by the state, dilution comes in form of the state cheating on its people. I’m not sure whether or not you’re trying to be funny regarding the fraud thing. Literally every state ever to issue gold as money diluted it because they overspent. Either that, or they moved on to paper and then printed till cows came home.

              As far as private dealings are concerned (something I wasn’t referring to previously since we were talking about issuing money,) there are fake precious metal bars up the wazoo, they are all over the place. Even top tier dealers are known to run into them, coming from various sources. Coins are usually taken to be safe in this regard, especially gold ones since it’s difficult to coat wolfram inner with gold.

              I’m not certain why have you gone on the warehouse tangent. We were talking about issuing currency, not about making deposits. The debt is created when issuing currency and when credit is created, that has nothing to do with deposits. Compared to these, deposit fraud is a minor grievance.

              If this is still about the issue of issuing money and or currency:

              NB. any form or money or currency can be issued with debt attached. This is not something intrinsic to the system, but it is the current state of affairs caused by greed, corruption, subversion, lust for power etc. This is unsustainable and people who introduced it did so for their personal gain.

              1. we can use money which has its inherent value for trade and commerce. The entity issuing said money has to make and keep the promise to not dilute the money supply. A problem with this system is that value of the commodity will be set by the market and therefore the value of money will have to follow suit, because simply if monetary value of a coin went under the value of the material it was used for minting it, one would have an interest to melt the coin and thus make a profit.

              Another big issues are the moneychangers.

              2. we can use currency, a bit of shiny paper made difficult to forge and with no or very little intrinsic value attached to it. The promise here is that there won’t be overprinting, which will cause hyperinflation.

              Digital currency is an option as well, however there is so much abuse potential I can’t really consider it.

              The record shows that both money and currency have been used throughout the history to rob people of fruits of their work. It’s a perfect system, works like a charm every time.

              • I guess I am bothered by several assumptions that you seem to be making. They are:

                GOVERNMENTS DECIDE WHAT IS TO BE USED FOR MONEY. No, the marketplace decides what is to be used for money. The state, through it’s taxing function, can influence that decision, but, because commerce is a collective action, the medium which is chosen to conduct it (‘money’) is always selected by those who use it. If you don’t believe this, ask how commerce was conducted in the absence of the state, something that has happened since before agriculture was invented.

                ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN ISSUE MONEY. Long before any state issued money, gold and silver, to name two candidates, were used to lubricate commerce.

                MONEY MUST BE DIVISIBLE, FUNGIBLE, etc. The market chooses what is money and they have no ‘must be’s in their decision. Wampum did not satisfy your list, yet it has been used. Cigarettes don’t, either, but they have served. Ditto large round stones in Yap Island. Money is so essential for commerce that the market will choose something, the best candidate available (even if that candidate doesn’t have the all desirable characteristics that you mention), and work around the problems.

                MONEY MUST HAVE INHERENT VALUE. Bitcoin has no inherent value, yet it is money. In fact, you seem to actually contradict yourself here by pointing out that, to have an ‘inherent value’, a thing must be needed for something and usually that need comes from it’s consumption, meaning having a ‘inherent value’ makes a candidate a poor choice for money because the stock in existence will fluctuate because of this consumption. Wheat, for this reason (if no other), is usually not chosen by the marketplace for use as money. Ditto (since modern industrial processes began to consume it) for silver. One of the reasons gold is such a good candidate is because it has little ‘inherent value’ due to very low commercial (meaning non-monetary) consumption. Specifically, its stock-to-flow ratio is very high, something around 80-100.

                One of the objections that the market place has against using gold for money is that it can’t be transfered easily over long distances without the use of a third party and that it is heavy to carry. One of the arguments that debt money proponents make is that debt money does not suffer from these two problems. And they are right.

                But there is a solution for gold for this issue, which is to use competing local (NOT national) institutions to issue warehouse receipts for gold on deposit. These can be transmitted easily and, because they are titles to assets, not debt, they can’t be duplicated and used to inflate the money supply as can debt.

                ANY FORM OF EQUITY MONEY WILL BE USED TO CREATE DEBT MONEY, SO THE LATTER WILL ALWAYS BE MONEY. Debt isn’t always money, any more than gold or 22 cartridges are. Mortgages aren’t money, for instance, nor are 30-year treasury bonds.

                All you have to do to stop the use of debt as money is mandate a few simple rules. Don’t allow banks to take title on their depositors assets, don’t allow banks to issue loans, don’t allow banks to become monopolies, don’t allow governments to become banks, and don’t allow non-bank lending institutions to make loans with terms of less than a year.

                GOVERNMENT PROMISES CAN BE TRUSTED. Never. The only function government should have in the issuance of money is to certify the honesty of private mints and money warehouses. They might be honest in this function because there is little profit in lying. But give them (or anyone else, for that matter) the exclusive right to create money and you give them control of the world.

              • The only one here making assumptions here is you, Sam.

                Your assumptions no. 1, 2, 5 and 6 are mind boggling to say the least. I don’t know where did you that pull stuff out and I don’t really care. People disappoint me every day so I ought to get used to that.

                Your assertion about how market decides what is going to be used for payment is about 200 years outdated now. The world is one big box of monopoly and everything is rigged, it’s been like that for a while now.

                With points 3 and 4 you show lack of knowledge and understanding. If you refuse to see the difference between money and currency, I don’t think anyone can help you. If you are interested to learn the difference, I’d suggest videos like Bill Still’s “The secret of Oz” or the excellent series by Mike Maloney “Hidden secrets of money.” Frankly, to have a person of such level of economical understanding scold James Corbett on related matter is … well, mind boggling. I’m not saying the man is error resistant, he gladly accepts corrections, but this is just ridiculous.

                Bitcoin is not money. It’s a currency.

                There you go off with your assumptions again. I stated, gold can be melted if its market value is higher than token value of the coin. If you can’t see the simple meaning of these words, I can’t help it.

                Dear lord. Wheat is not chosen as money because a) it’s not easily/reliably divisible b) it’s not fungible c) it’s not transportable d) it’s not durable AND it can be grown at will. Though, to use your own examples there, I’m quite certain wheat has been used for settling payments quite often and probably still is. In a very, very limited scope, just like cigarettes.

                I’m sure we can both find a better use of our time. I certainly can, have a nice day Sam.

        • Sam, Mkey this dialog reminds me of a chapter in William Coopers book. Behold a Pale Horseman. Chapter13 page 333. “The Story of Jonathan May” . May, with the Texans John Conelly and the Hunt brothers tried to develop an alternative banking system until the Fed.Resrve destroyed the Texans and illegally jailed J.May in fed. prison. Fascinating and complex story just as hard to decipher as you alls dialogs. I promised myself to study this to comprehension and it still is difficult. This is exactly how the “THEY” Blow us over with gobble de gook. No reply needed until we all get up to speed. It is worth understanding and you both seem somewhat adept. Mays explanations are no better but if your interested check it out.

          • My son is currently supervising a couple construction projects for some of the Hunt Ft. Worth, TX properties. I hear some interesting stories.
            I remember when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market. People were smuggling silver out of Mexico to cash in on the play.

  7. Bookmark this VideoThe JFK / Silver Certificate / Federal Reserve / Globalist Bankers MYTH

    We can do our part by forwarding this information when we run across comments about the myth on message boards.

  8. As I was watching this video, I had to pull out of the freezer some frozen crow and pop it into the oven. Eating crow is tough to chew.

    Thank you gentlemen for correcting a false concept which I had.

    Part of the dilemma which many of us have involves time. It takes time to thoroughly research each small detail about a particular event or story.
    Hired Guns
    Since I don’t have time to thoroughly do my homework and research, I decided to get a “Hired Gun”, a real truth slinger.
    I want one of the best I can get. Someone who will blaze a trail through the badlands.
    This is why I am here.

  9. Bozeman, Montana – Red Pill EXPO link

    An interesting sidenote on sights to see in historic Bozeman includes its colorful brothel history.

    Brothels helped to settle the West (5 minutes – worth watching)

    Segue to Hurdy Gurdy
    In 1885 Montana legislators passed a law that made the “hurdy gurdy” house (brothel) illegal. These dance halls got their name from the stringed instrument often found in them.

    “Hurdy Gurdy” means “Turn Your Bottom”
    Expert describes the Hurdy Gurdy on YouTube –

    Nice song with an historical flavor done with the Hurdy Gurdy…
    Game of Thrones – Hurdy-Gurdy/Folk Guitar by a couple guys

  10. Eustace Mullins’ on FED, Ron Paul, Rockefeller & G. Edward Griffin

    “my book had already been in print for 50 years and I [inaudible] millions of readers… So, uh, Griffin scored a coup d’etat by taking my book and presenting it as his own and he has been, he has already built an empire [inaudible]”


    • He states on Ron Paul

      “Ron Paul will work for anyone who hires him. He is using my book to keep the Rothschild in power”

      which I found a bit odd. This was a September 2009 interview. In January 2008 he was a lot more positive on Ron Paul

      Eustace Mullins – Ron Paul & the Presidential Elections

      Again, thoughts?

      • Sidenote: In early 2008, I was doing a Texas recruiting campaign for Richard Gage to help get more engineers and architects on board. I spoke to one of Ron Paul’s son-in-laws. He was an engineer. He was signed up to “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”.

        (3 minutes) The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in a kitsch kind of way with Richard Gage. Some great photos of the 9/11 Movement in Action.

    • Eustace Mullins spent the last years of his life in Dallas.
      Here he is at a “Loose Change – Final Cut” event our group was putting on. Some well known names in the 9/11 Movement were there. Jason Burmas and James G, one of the co-authors to several of the thermitic papers with Jones, Ryan, et al. James also ramrodded the famous Toronto Hearings.

      Eustace had a guy who kind of took care of him. Evidently, his mental state kind of got shaky in the final years and there was contention about aspects of his estate (book rights) between he and the caretaker.

      • mkey, You mentioned Ron Paul. In the video , you can hear the caretaker of Eustace Mullins talk about speaking at Ron Paul events. This is the summer of 2008. Eustace died at the beginning of 2010, age 86. His health was rough and you can see it in the video. I think his mental state wore out, and thus his odd attitudes towards the end.

        • That crossed my mind, yes. Stroke leaves you in a bad shape.

  11. The society at large is polarized and tearing up at the seams. This is especially valid in the US.

    Regarding this issue you mentioned, I’d put modern feminism under scrutiny instead of brushing off the whole thing off as “misogynist men.”

  12. kabouit,

    Netflix banned “The Red Pill” film. Mike Adams of Natural News reports on the censorship.

    Texan Mike Adams will also be a guest speaker at The Red Pill EXPO.

    Recently, Mike has been helping to let people know that the largest U.S. ORGANIC Farm is in jeopardy of being forcibly sprayed with poisonous herbicides. (Thank you MONSANTO…the health care industry loves you.)

    • Which community are you talking about? Where is the divide?

      Even if this is a psyop, there are so many going on everyday it’s physically impossible for each to get the same amount of attention. Additionally, it would be completely counterproductive.

      Choosing a title for the movie one is making is fairly within their rights. The “red pill” term as far as I know doesn’t belong to anyone. Thanks to leftist bullshit we have lost so many words maybe I’ve grown insensitive over possible loss of more.

      As far as google searches go, it’s dependent on their algorithms (and maybe a little something on the side) how will they rank specific content. I wouldn’t say it’s a measure of “hijackness.”

      On the topic of gender polarization, on every day basis I see a lot more pressing issues than this movie which, based on the imdb page isn’t grabbing insane amounts of attention. I can’t really comment on it since I haven’t watched it.

      If you find to be important, dive in.

    • kabouit,
      You said: “So it has come to this? The truth seeking community is being polirized by the ultimate dividing criteria: gender.”

      What?! No.
      Did you read the article by Mike Adams?

    • kabouit,

      I agree with you film The red pill is made for divide&concur and is abusing the term. But since it’s not farfetched to say that our language is being hijacked, I don’t see a big problem regarding the abuse. Film presents some real issues man are facing and to say it’s misogynistic is overreaction.

      But most importantly is what the film is not saying and put under scrutiny, modern feminism. Instead of endless repetition of man’s experiences they could squeeze in a presentation of some really insidious aspects of modern feminism. Even more so, they had the right people near by.

      Steve Brule, who had a part in the film, is working with Janice Fiamengo and she is really thoroughly exposing modern feminism.

      For example:
      Feminist Terminology 1: Gender
      Why I Am An Anti-Feminist

      But film’s author didn’t see an opportunity to make a good film, and we get just a flat story about people and events without insight into ideas that lay behind, something that could invigorate our mind.

      I would also like to see this topic here on CR. But I have a feeling that James, like an excellent communicator, wisely prefer to stay out of these debates (for example also property), because of possibility to loose more then gain with it. Especially because at the end of the day, topics like this don’t really matter. Real enemy of the people is elsewhere.
      These topics provoke so many emotional responses, so many beliefs involved and lack of knowledge and understanding…… a minefield.

      There are not many female commentators here around as far as I can decipher. So be strong, be wrong. We need yin-yang.

    • HRS, I read Natural News regularly and usually agree with Mike Adams .

      I also sent an email in support of the Organic farm that is being threatened.

      I have admired the work of G E. Griffin for a long time, although I don’t agree with some of his views. For one, he doesn’t think HIV is real. I wrote to him about this and he kindly replied, giving me his reasons. I do however like a particlar saying of his which goes something like, “I believe it is this way, however I reserve the right to change my opinion (should evidence to the contrary present itself).”

      Lastly, I very much like and support the “Red Pill” concept, however I don’t like the name. It’s imagery is too “Big Pharma” for my taste. (Though I understand where it comes from).

  13. For European jews it suffice to be of jewish mother. They don’t take kindly to other combinations and look down to “biblical” jews.

  14. Well I finally am a Corbett Report member after being a massive fan of his work for many years on YouTube. So I can now leave comments here.

    This report changed my mind on this entire situation. I was convinced JFK was offed by the Fed for Executive Order 11110, but obviously I was wrong. So thank you very much to Corbett for correcting me on that. So who killed JFK? Now I am pretty sure it was the CIA.

    Anyways. Big props for breaking down my false belief in that narrative. Every time I watch the Corbett Report I learn something new.

    -Titus Frost

  15. Socialism and communism are words with so many meanings that before using them one should first put down definition so we could be sure we are talking about the same thing.
    Both of them are not inherently bad and not working alternatives, something that is supposedly proven in history. Who knows how these alternatives could develop in the absence of State. I think presence of State is the main reason they went so bad.

    For better understanding I would recommend watching:

    Masters of money- Karl Marx

    Of course, BBC is excellent in producing quasi-documentaries and they omit an important fact Marx proved long ago: capitalism is in itself producing wealth accumulation i.e. wealth gap. Capitalism in bed with state (corporatism) just make things worse.
    Also capitalism never Delivered (BBC claim) except to some extent in developed countries. If you are ok with your well-being while millions of people are literally starving….ask yourself about the state of your empathy and watch:

    Stealing Africa

    I have great respect for Griffin, but his almost obsession with Collectivism bothers me a lot. And Individualism should be the antidote.

    So we have to go from one extreme to the other?
    Let me ask: Has a pursuit of happiness became an empty phrase?
    Well, if we turn to Epicurus, he said for happiness we need: friends, independence or self-sufficiency, enough time to live reflected life.

    Epicurus on happiness

    Is it farfetched to say friends are your Intimate Collective?
    And most importantly,
    Real Friends are more then just a sum of Individuals.
    I hope this is self-evident.
    Individual/Collective is similar to yin/yang in my opinion.

  16. For the record, while reading my daily copy of The Activist Post, I saw an article in the feed talking about how the JFK case was solved. Naturally, I clicked on it. The discussed the FED note and gave it as the reason for his assassination. In the comment section, I stated this myth had already been busted and referenced this video for those seeking clarification. As I never go on facebook, I’ll never find out if anyone follows through, but it’s all about the breadseeds… Thanks, Jim

  17. Is Griffin’s research really seminal, or a rip-off of Eustace Mullins’ work? Certainly the latter wrote earlier and his book (not Griffin’s) was banned in Germany.

    Jan Lamprecht has been digging into Joseph Kennedy’s pro-German and pro-Hitler attitudes when US ambassador to Britain, until sacked for those views in 1940, by Roosevelt who was one of the prime instigators of WW2 ;

    This looks like an important backdrop to the assassinations of both Kennedy brothers, likewise JFK’s strangely positive comments about Hitler.
    There looks like something bigger here than quibbling over the meaning of one Kennedy executive order.
    The Kennedys might have got a whiff of the Jewish general assault on Christianity, and shared similar views to Ford.

    Another interesting element in this background to the JFK presidency and assassination is Kathleen Kennedy’s marriage into the Cavendish family, and her murder when she stood to inherit most of the Cavendish/Devonshire fortune. This Anglo-dutch house seems to be at least as important as the Rothschilds in the modern financial system, though a lot less talked about. Perhaps partly because English pride in money gouging is less fervent than Jewish, perhaps partly because Cavendish are more senior and use Rothschild something like a masque

  18. Boy, the computer hacking is un-believable. Took many attempts to access this site.

    OK, individualism: the story of circling the wagons around ‘self’. No altruism, as Ayn Rand stated, it is al about me and whatever trickles down is enough cake for the masses.

    No, we do not want individualism, especially the bourgeoise definition of it.

    We need to work towards “Individuality”. Both very different terms and yes, concepts or terms, compile the narrative and if one does not question language, they learn to know nothing.

    Mentioned on this report was the need and intellectual courage to examine ones’ own point of view, and that of others.

    Yet most pople have no mechanisms for thinking. If you ask some one, “What do you do when you think?” they cannot answer with clarity.

    For they lack the necessary consciousness and pragmatic devices to allow them to “think about thinking, while they are thinking, to make thinking better.”

    The failure is education and not just schools, for I have tramped around campuses and elementary schools half my life; I am 65.

    The entire society is an educational manufacturing machine; spewing rumors, disinformation, all meant to build the narrative, or the Policeman, inside our head.

    So how to examine points of view that do not corroborate our own, that force us to reason, another name for critical thinking but with affective differences, through points of view we do not agree with, and also to engage in meta-cognition, the questioning of ‘self’.

    Let me say:

    Reasoning is what makes us human and when we abdicate, or when our reasoning power is hijacked in favor of lies, half truths and emotional appeals to products of the mind, we fail to understand reason and how to employ it.

    Here are some suggestions, and they are Socratic

    Ask, what is the source of my own point of view on X or Y and why do I believe what I do, or come to conclusions as I do;

    Two, ask what would someone who disagreed with me respond to my conclusions and reasoning? What facts might they have that I eill have to confront,both myself, and the claims I make;

    Three, and forgive the pedantics: What evidence do I have for what I ‘believe’ (often calcified into ‘truth’) and what evidence does not agree with me? How will I confront evidence from other points of view?

    Four: What are the consequences of my thinking, not just now, but projected and again, on assumptions. What am I assuming will be the consequences of what I believe and conclude, and what would I say to someone who disagrees.

    The intellectual moral courage and empathy needed for all this cognitive inner Socratic spirit, i the affective dimension of critical thinking. The values and dispositions of fair minded critical thinking, not Sophistic.

    We must become jurors of our own mind, understanding that reasoning is a process and if it is what makes us human, then its theft is a crime against humanity that only we can change.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member