G. Edward Griffin: Exposing The Creature From Jekyll Island

[adam-taggart-2 (Adam Taggart)]

G. Edward Griffin, the author of the seminal book on the formation of the Federal Reserve, The Creature of Jekyll Island, joins the podcast this week to add his perspective to our ongoing critical examination of the Fed and the impact its actions are having on society.

Meeting Ed and getting to spend time with him was a real honor for Chris and me. His breadth of knowledge of the central banking system as well as his engaging manner of storytelling are masterful. Plus, he's simply a wonderfully kind person.

Ed's decades of research and critique of the Federal Reserve, sadly, have left him with conclusions that corroborate our own. Despite its carefully-crafted image as an essential public servant, Griffin concludes it is anything but. It is a private cartel that has connived its way to tremendous advantage and power, secretly (and not-so-secretly) plundering the American people of their treasure and freedoms.

On The Fed's True Goals

[In researching the Federal Reserve] I was looking for a very complex mechanism. And I couldn’t believe at that time that there would be deliberate deception in this system. So, I was working on the false assumption that everybody in the system was doing their best to make it work on behalf of mankind and on behalf of society. Initially, I never entertained the idea that its goal was not to benefit mankind at all.

And so, where one would say, look: the Federal Reserve system is failing to meet its goals -- because it said its goals were to stabilize the economy and to preserve purchasing power, etc. -- I finally came to the realization: No, those are not its goals.

 

If we understand what its goals really are, then it’s not failing at all. It’s succeeding amazingly well.

 

And most people, as I initially did, have found that an impossible assumption to entertain. They simply can't get over it.

  

On Whether The Fed Is A 'Conspiracy'

Most dictionary definitions of the word "conspiracy" seem to agree that a conspiracy occurs when:

• two or more people come together
• they use methods of deceit and deception to achieve a goal
• which is unethical or illegal.

Those are the three requirements. So talk about the Fed:

Are there two or more people? Oh, yeah. OK, there’s one down. 

Do it use methods of secrecy? Yes. It has secret meetings [beginning from its very conception at Jekyll Island] . It has closed meetings in which the public is excluded and the minutes of which are not shared for years, sometimes decades, sometimes never. Yes, of course, elements of the Fed's activities are highly secretive.

And is the result either unethical or illegal? Well, now that’s where it gets interesting.

Because first of all, it’s not illegal what they’re doing -- because the banking industry has heavy influence over the people who write the laws. That’s the reason the banks are so involved in the political system: so they can write the laws. So, that what they want to do is legal.

So, the Federal Reserve is plundering people legally. But is what its doing unethical? The propaganda is that the Federal Reserve is 'stabilizing the economy'. They’re doing it for the American people.

But you and I, or anybody else that’s not on the receiving end of all this money flow that the Fed has created, we look at what they’re actually doing and most of us would say it's highly unethical. Our wealth, our economic prosperity and financial freedom -- all are being siphoned away -- for the benefit of a very small elite few. I think most people who they really understand what the Federal Reserve is doing would agree that’s unethical.

And there’s where you meet the definition of a conspiracy, though I don’t insist anybody call it that. Just call it what it is: a group of people who know what they’re doing and are plundering us.  

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with G. Edward Griffin (58m:35s).

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/g-edward-griffin-exposing-the-creature-from-jekyll-island/

[lesphelps]

I was taught monetary expansion (i.e. money loaned into existence) in two classes while pursuing a BBA in Accounting, in the early 70s.
One class was Macro Economics, which I believe was core curriculum. The other class was an elective I took in the last semester with a title something like Money and Banking.
Not a word about monetary expansion in my MBA curriculum in the 90s.
I don’t see how you could teach Macro Economics without covering monetary expansion. Without it, how would you teach formulas for M1, M2, etc?
Perhaps Macro Economics is no longer core curriculum for business degrees.
However, the dire implications of monetary expansion and the Fed were not taught anywhere in either of my degree programs.
Those I learned from on-line resources, like the Crash Course.
Perhaps this will shed some light on people saying they were never taught monetary expansion in college:

[time2help]

Though the Fed may aim to befog…word on the street is it’s a primary cog in the funding of the ZOG.

[paradime]

This is a top-notch interview by Chris, who acknowledged the huge influence that G. Edward Griffin’s ‘‘The Creature from Jekyll Island’’ had on him (and his wife - twice in her case ;->). The Wikipedia story alone makes this interview a ‘‘must listen’’ - no more $ shall they get from me unless/until they reform themselves.
Griffin appears to be in the global warming skeptic camp. Chris handled this part of the interview in a gentle way, but did gingerly probe at the possibility that ‘‘faith-based skepticism’’ (my words, not his) might be putting in an appearance. My undergraduate degree was in Chemistry, and I have yet to run across any convincingly scientific skepticism as regards anthropogenic climate change. Whether or not warming turns out to be the long-term consequence of greenhouse gas emissions remains to be seen (what with the slowing of the gulf stream) - but the short-term data sure is a slam dunk. Either way, big-time climate change appears to be a done deal, the only question being whether mankind somehow escapes the proclamation of the fork (‘‘done’’).
In honor of Griffin’s contribution to elucidating the mechanism of money creation (i.e., its being ‘‘loaned into existence’’), I will take a careful look at what he comes up with vis-a-vis climate change, but am not holding my breath.

[ces]

It’s so unfortunate that such an authority on the Fed discredits his authority there by presenting himself as an authority on things for which he is not an authority. It is not possible for me to recommend his work on the Fed to others, as absolute credibility of the source is mandatory, when the subject is something as ‘heretical’ as a fundamental critique of the Fed.
Griffin does not seem aware that an institution like the Fed will use any idea, whether true or false, as a means to advance its ends. That the Fed and other Central Banks use climate change as a means to advance their ends does not invalidate the broad scientific, fact-based, consensus that man-made climate change is real. He should investigate the historical funding of anti-climate change publications, and reflect on the history of cigarette-industry funding for research that purported to de-link smoking from cancer.

[acemiller1981gmail-c (acemiller1981@gmail.com)]

Ok so I listened to the whole podcast. Loved Ed’s book change my life and perspective. I find many of his perspectives similar to my own. As a theme in my own life I often think “trust but verify”. There I find inconsistency’s in the verification process. I have a lot if respect for Ed and his research. Near the end of the podcast got into global warming. I have no training in climate science my concerns are in government oversight and what policy looks like. I am weary of getting into any discussion that I have no training to interpret the data. I felt he was assertive to it’s falsehood and Chris brought up about believe and facts. I’m not sure if Ed picked up on what Chris was saying. But for me some credibility was lost in my eyes. It makes me very aware of my own believes and if I can be correct on much of what I’m interpreting but may make assumption patterned on past conclusions. If we see the same story like the fed also with incentives in big Pharma. It may look the same in climate science. I’m comfortable with the his book. I’m comfortable in the recognition of how monopolies have incentives to control information. I don’t know if I could assert global warming to be false. I may not believe the evidence given or conclusions but I’m simply not trained in the data analysis. I suppose I’m uncomfortable with the assertion. It seems that excellent minds are capable of believes just as I am. Its unsettling. I would have been more comfortable with him just presenting another perspective on co2 emissions. I’m not sure what happened. Thoughts?

[pipyman]

I appreciate what you’re saying, but really? Do we really need to be “experts” to work out that deforestation, 7.5 billion people, massive pollution and emissions of all kinds are having a dramatic impact on the planet’s balance on all fronts? I am well aware of my own tendency to blind myself with ridged beliefs. But I have my eyes and heart in nature enough to know that this isn’t one of those occasions. A spade, sometimes = a spade…

[cmartenson (Chris Martenson)]

Pipyman wrote:

I appreciate what you're saying, but really? Do we really need to be "experts" to work out that deforestation, 7.5 billion people, massive pollution and emissions of all kinds are having a dramatic impact on the planet's balance on all fronts? I am well aware of my own tendency to blind myself with ridged beliefs. But I have my eyes and heart in nature enough to know that this isn't one of those occasions. A spade, sometimes = a spade.....

I'm very much in agreement with you. In my own relatively short lifetime nature has taken a brutal beating. I know this in the fish that are not there in Long Island Sound, I know this is the rarity of butterflies on a brilliant summer day, and in the turtle that are no longer on the roads to be helped across. That said, I always prefer to let people say what they will without trying to change their minds on the post, especially when we are in an area like climate science that is absolutely loaded with belief oriented material. Unless someone has a firm grasp of both complex systems theory/analysis and climate science, the chance that they are operating from beliefs approaches 100%. I've not seen the sort of science and scientists that Ed has assembled, so I can only reserve judgment until I have. I will say that to me the simple chemistry of the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere equilibrating with the oceanic carbonic acid levels of the seas seems pretty straightforward to me, and that alone is enough for me to say CO2 in atmosphere is problematic. And, I would be willing to bet that various parties like the Fed and Goldman Sachs are more than happy to exploit any tragedy for their personal, deeply morally wrong, antisocial gains. "Hey too much carbon dioxide you say? Let's put a tax on it, which will crank the price up and price out the shitty poor countries from using any future oil/coal thereby both making a crap-ton of money AND preserving the dwindling tasty fossil fuel treasures for us here in the rich countries." My title of this comment is meant to point to the fact that even scientists carry a lot of beliefs about "how things work" and we know that various branches of science are heavily infected with belief systems that prevent rapid adoption of new material. Healthcare and economics come to mind.

[lesphelps]

ParaDime wrote:

Griffin appears to be in the global warming skeptic camp. Chris handled this part of the interview in a gentle way, but did gingerly probe at the possibility that ''faith-based skepticism'' (my words, not his) might be putting in an appearance. My undergraduate degree was in Chemistry, and I have yet to run across any convincingly scientific skepticism as regards anthropogenic climate change.

First, I will state, for the record, that I believe that the globe is getting warmer, at least where I live. I am also convinced we are in population overshoot and seriously damaging our planet. I can see that every where I go. Having said that, CES, mentions "Trust, but verify." I like Al Bartlett's, "do the math." I imagine there is a lot of excellent science being done regarding climate. However, issues have been raised that have not been addressed by those involved. Two game changing issues that remain unresolved relate to temperature history. First, NASA, has changed historic recorded temperatures. Their database now contains colder historic temperatures than their databases of 15 years ago. When I ran across this claim, I did not take it at face value. I verified it personally. NASA has changed historic temperatures to colder values. NOAA has now done the same with their database. Now, when weather men say that today's temperature breaks a record, you don't know if it's really true, or if it's just a case where a previous record high temperature has been changed in the database. This also means that any science done using NASA or NOAA temperature databases may produce trend lines with the wrong slope. Another claim that goes untested is increased frequency of extreme weather. It is often stated as fact. However, records indicate that hurricanes and class 4 and higher tornadoes are declining ever so slightly in frequency. I ran these numbers myself. The thing is, there are endless issues within the arena of AGW science. There are entire books on the subject, by people who aren't skeptical. It is simply not fair to assume that anyone who is skeptical hasn't done due diligence. If the last two decades has taught me anything, it's that nothing reported by the news media can be taken at face value. Same goes for anything reported by the government, or ANY government funded institutions. Thanks for not calling Griffin a "denier." That's a real red flag for me.

[pauljam]

Great point, CES - I find myself agreeing. I have to admit that I cringed and honestly felt embarrassed for G. Edward when he lead off his remarks about AGW science by saying something like “turns out that CO2 is actually needed for life to survive on our plant, and as such humans need it”. While he was not at all wrong about this, this point has nothing to do with AGW – either for or against - he started the entire conversation off on a 5th grade science level. Moreover, he presents this point it in a way that suggests that the people who think AGW is a problem do not understand this fact at all. Starting off this way sunk his credibility in my eyes, irredeemably tainting his reference to other sources of science that he said he had to back up his position. Why would I waste my time digging deeper when he starts out like this?
Whenever there are profits to be made from information based on research outcomes, history tells us that the outcome side that warrants the most skepticism is the side that stands to benefit or lose the most $. There will always be researchers skewing research results - most often this occurs in research created by industry (example - Monsanto’s research on the safety of glysophate and GMO’s), but occurs often in academia when industry money is funding research (pharmaceuticals and health care). I find assertions that AGW researchers are, en masse, skewing data ludicrous - public funded grants are not nearly as lucrative as industry grants. The most money to be lost are on research outcomes that validate AGW, considering that such validation poses an existential threat to industrial revolution business as usual. Academics can also be motivated by the need to distinguish their research in completion with their colleagues. An academic can make quite a name for her/himself by doing research that repudiates existing orthodoxy in a scientifically defensible way (via research that is widely accepted by colleagues). There would be much to be gained career-wise by scientists repudiating AGW science in a way that is broadly valid.

[a-c]

Chris.
Really loved your interview with Ed Griffin. I have been listening to Peak Prosperity for a number of years now and have loved what you do.
It was especially a treat to hear Ed - after listening to his book via audible for the last few years - I recommend it to anyone who wants to listen - plus I also recommend your podcast often to my friends and associates.
I could hear that it was a little challenging for you regarding Ed position on climate change because I know how much of a environmentalist you are and a Climate change proponent. I would like to commend you for not editing out that part of the interview - and my respect for your integrity went up heaps to realize you where prepared to give him the ability to share what he did.
Keep it up Chris - if you ever come to Australia I will be there in a shot and I will
bring as many people as I can to hear you speak!

[rheba]

Yes I agree with all of the comments above. I was so sad to hear those last words on climate change. Especially sad to hear mention of “Lord Monckton” (sp?) in this connection. He is a horror!
In these circumstances it is probably appropriate to talk about ecology in the broad sense and to empasize all of the destruction that is plainly obvious and able to be documented. I have never had a bit of luck dealing with climate change deniers. I do try to consider their claims and have heard many of them say that CO2 is healthy and we need more of it. Yikes. Such a terrible end to such a wonderful interview.
I wonder whether there is anyone out there who could do a really good talk on “degrowth” and focus on the political philosophy that might accompany a shrinking economy. What do we call those who truly advocate shrinking the state? Anarchists? Is there a better word?

[waterdog14]

The comparison of paid climate change skeptics to the tobacco industry (“Merchants of Doubt”) is apropos. The oil industry knew about climate change in the late 1980’s, and Shell Oil even created an informative movie about climate change in 1991:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger
When I hear the climate-change skeptics jacking their jaws, I ask myself just what motivates them. Sometimes it’s profit. Sometimes it’s tribalism. Sometimes it’s entrenched confirmation bias (not willing to admit they were wrong earlier, and thus ignoring any information that contradicts their belief) - I’d call this “stubbornness” for short. Sometimes the denial stems from fear – fear of having to face the future of life on an unstable earth.
Deniers that are motivated strictly by profit (the Merchants of Doubt) are almost unforgivable. The remaining deniers – those who are misled by others, or are trying to fit in with their peers, or are afraid – deserve our concern and pity. If they don’t recognize that climate change is real, and begin to prepare for it, they’re going to get a very rude awakening. It is happening now!

[skipr]

It would have been very interesting if Paul Craig Roberts was part of this interview. I don’t think he would have been nearly as polite as Chris when it got to climate change.

[sand_puppy (sand_kitty)]

Wonderful interview. I really like and appreciate Griffin.
Who are the “the few” who designed and benefit from this scam? Do they have a name? Is it a group? How are they organized?
Who EXACTLY are they?

[cmartenson (Chris Martenson)]

…my philosophy is to let speakers and guests voice their views, and then trust that you, the listener, can decide what works for you and what doesn’t.
Trust yourself.
I have that faith in my own ability to separate wheat from chaff, and I trust you too.
I find I gather a lot more from the universe this way; some people I agree with entirely, and some only partly. I take what works and leave the rest.
As I grow older (and wiser) I’ve learned that I know a lot less than I thought I did. Anybody who thinks they know how the world actually works has some more ageing to do, IMO.

Things I would have thought preposterous a few years ago are now valuable parts of my life. Beliefs and opinions I thought rock-solid, are no longer with me, while new understandings have rocked my world view.
For example, I was certain I understood how DNA and natural selection and inheritance of traits worked. Turns out it was mostly wrong. I was taught what was known, as though it was truth. But it wasn’t even close. And so I either had to stretch my views to accommodate the new truths, or cling to what I knew because that was easier.
So…is it possible to hold open the view that we do not yet have all the information yet about climate change? Can we be malleable in light of the truth that humans utterly lack the ability to predict the future behaviors of complex systems?
If we can, then we are also open to receiving new information that may, if we are lucky, rock our worlds.
Further, having to respond to thoughtful critics means we have the chance to explain ourselves and sharpen our views and points. So there’s value in being thoughtfully challenged. Ed’s a thoughtful guy, so I’m kind of interested in hearing not only what he has to say, but how he says it.
Which brings us back to the beginning. I prefer to let people express their views fully because, as the interviewer, I am there to listen, not to speak. Which is how I learn.

[troika]

Well I thought I must have missed something in the podcast so I went and looked at the transcript and no where did I see Mr. Griffin say he was a climate change denier. What he did say was that we are now at the lowest levels of CO2 in the environment that we have ever been. Would it not be more appropriate to say, gee that’s interesting can you share your source with me I would like to hear more about what lead you to this conclusion. Instead people seemed to be shocked because Mr. Griffin did not believe exactly like they do and therefore must be a “climate change denier”. If the objective is to learn more, pointing fingers will not expand our understanding. If I am not mistaken it took Mr. Griffin 6 years to write his impressive book. Just perhaps he knows something we don’t?
And frankly we absolutely SHOULD be questioning climate change and the cause because as soon as there is a consensus that climate change is man-made the powers that be will be looking at whom to blame. And to be sure that’s gonna be you, me, and all the other billions of people who are not in power and are not uber rich. When life as we know it starts to fall apart “the people to blame” may become targets of populations reduction. Wheew glad extermination has never happened before, we can breath easy and go back to shopping at Wal Mart and watching reality TV.
Makes me cranky when one of my hero’s gets the thumbs down treatment!
AKGrannyWGrit

[aggrivated]

Mr. Griffin does think conspiracies are a normal part of history. So, when it comes to climate change research dollars, who is handing out the research money? and which proposals were denied and why? Those who rule the money make the rules.
Just because there seems to be a consensus among the majority of scientists doesn’t mean their research hasn’t been skewed by who received money and what their research proposals were trying to accomplish. Everybody has to eat and scientists can be worn down just as well as anybody else.
I am very skeptical of any person or entity that looks to profit or control based on a particular scientific result. It sounds like Ed Griffin is first of all a skeptic.

[thatchmo]

I just had a great idea. Could the PP crew have next year’s Rowe conference- should we all still be breathing- aboard a cruse ship traversing the Northwest Passage? I hear the ice is mostly gone, so should be smooth sailing. We could do some first-person investigating on this climate change thingy…Aloha, Steve.

[quercus-bicolor-2 (Quercus bicolor)]

Les, I can assure you that when you hear about a record temperature for a given date or month at a given station, the current observation is being compared against the original unaltered temperature from that stations historical record. The 30-year averages maintained by NOAA for their ASOS stations are also unaltered.
There have been adjustments done for the purpose of assessing climate change. There are good reasons for performing adjustments (changes in station location and changes in land use patterns around the stations such as urban development or regrowth of forest on abandoned farm and pasture lands). If you want to call these into question, you will need to carefully assess for yourself whether the adjustments are done in good faith or with a hidden motive.
Finally, in terms of extreme weather, please take a look at drought, floods, heat waves and even extreme cold. There is a fairly clear upward trend in many regions for some or all of these types of events.