“Permit me to issue and control the money of a 
nation, and I care not who makes its laws!” 
~  Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Many years ago, while living in Indianapolis, I attended the same seminar (as depicted in the video below) about the Federal Reserve, put on by G. Edward Griffin—though at the time I didn’t know who he was, and hadn’t yet heard of his recently published book The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.

As I recall, I heard about the seminar through a local talk radio program; it was to be held in nearby Cincinnati, and, since my brother lived there at the time, I called him up, traveled to Cincy, and we attended the seminar together.

That was where I learned the outraging fact that not only does the Fed print money from nothing, then “loan” it to us with interest, but in fact, all of the Fed’s expenses in creating the money—the paper, ink, machinery, labor, storage/transportation, etc—is paid for by the taxpayers! In other words, first we pay for the entire expense of creating the bogus money out of thin air, then we pay interest to them for loaning it to us (or to the Federal Government, which we also repay, with interest).

That seminar was also the first time I had ever heard the term “usury”. And this process clearly qualifies as usury (to be clear, I have no problem with someone charging interest—essentially, rent—to loan money to others, that’s simply the cost of doing business; but to charge billions in interest on money that was not actually earned, but created from nothing (and, in fact, the loanees paid to produce the money)…well, that’s usury, if not downright criminal).

This is precisely why they’re able to keep the interest rates so, and still turn a profit—the creation of all that fake money costs them absolutely nothing—and besides, through the magic of fractional reserve banking, the banks can actually loan out up to nine times the bogus money that is created!)

I recently stumbled across the following video on YouTube, and recognized the speaker as the same one from the seminar I attended—G. Edward Griffin—and upon watching just a few minutes of it, I determined that it was, in fact, a video version of that same seminar.

The seminar in the video is broken into two segments of approximately 47 minutes and 1 hour, and I would highly recommend anyone not already familiar with Griffin’s seminar, or his book, or the criminality of the Federal Reserve System in general, take the time to watch it, as Mr. Griffin conveys a wealth of important information. But I would like to share a couple of the more salient points here:

At the beginning of his presentation, after calling the Fed “one of the greatest scams of all history”, Mr. Griffin outlines seven reasons the Fed should be abolished:

1) It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives

2) It is a cartel operating against the public interest

3) It is the supreme instrument of usury

4) It generates our most unfair tax

5) It encourages war

6) It destabilizes the economy

7) It is an instrument of totalitarianism 

As for reason #7, I would like to add that the institution of a central bank is plank #5 of The Communist Manifesto, in which Karl Marx describes the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power: “5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

In the final segment of his presentation, Mr. Griffin describes the international elements of the Federal Reserve and the agenda it is pursuing with all these trillions of dollars in free money (keep in mind, this presentation was given over twenty years ago—1994—so the plan as outlined here has likely progressed much, much further by now):

“My final topic is a short one, and it has to do with usury. An interesting concept. Usury used to be defined in ancient times as interest on a loan, period. Any interest, on any loan, was usury. Well, it’s been redefined in modern times as “excessive” interest on a loan, in view of the fact that when people earn their money, and they save it, they sacrifice the use of it, and then they loan it to somebody else for their venture—they’re entitled some reasonable return on that sacrifice; some interest return is…it seems fair and logical to most people. So the question today is “excessive interest”…what is that? 


It was Thomas Edison who said “People who will not turn a shovel full of dirt on the project, nor contribute a pound of materials, will collect more money then will the people who will supply all the materials and do all the work.”

When I read that I wondered if that was true. I took my calculator and I ran the numbers. You might try this sometime: if you assume a $100,000 home to be built, and that $30,000 is to go for the land and the architect’s fees, and the building permits, that kind of thing; $70,000 to go for the actual 
construction of the house—the materials and the labor; you assume further that the buyer goes to the bank, puts 20% down, and takes out a 10% loan for thirty years. Punch in the numbers, and you will see that he will pay to the bank, in interest, $172,741—compared to $70,000 for labor and materials. In other words, as Edison said, 2 1/2 times more will be paid to the banks—who did nothing—than for those who provided all the labor and of all the materials.


And you may say: “Well yes, that’s true, but don’t forget the time value of money; reasonable interest is rational, people need to be compensated for the sacrifice of their money over thirty years, that’s a long period of time.”

Wait a minute—not this money, ladies and gentlemen. Nobody earned this money, nobody saved this money, nobody sacrificed anything for this money. This money was created out of nothing; and I suggest that a $172,741 interest on “nothing” is excessive! I think we need to focus on this issue; we need a new definition of the word usury: any interest on any loan of fiat money—meaning money created out of nothing.

Now this example of $172,741 unearned interest on a $100,000 home is like a grain of sand in the Sahara. Look around the desert: all of the other homes of America; all the factories; all the machinery in the factories; all of the high-rise buildings; the hotels; all the airplanes, the automobiles, the farm equipment, the farm structures; everything that we have, you’re looking at a similar relationship here. This is staggering. To consider the amount of money that is in this huge, wide river of wealth, flowing into the banking cartel, because the money was created out of nothing. It’s such a wide river of wealth, you can’t even 
think across it in your mind. It’s perpetually moving into the banking cartel. This is a dead short across the productive capacity of America. This is money that should be going to the people who produce, and who create—instead of being siphoned off to a scam. Think out what our standard of living could be, if it weren’t for this dead short across our economy.

Well, where is this money going, this river—where is it flowing? You get the mental picture that maybe it’s going into a lake somewhere or behind a dam, all this money is rising, accumulating, people are getting richer and richer and richer. No, not so, that’s not how it works. They’re spending the money! What are they spending if for? Well, they’re not spending it for more yachts and more mansions, that’s not it. I mean they got rid of the mansions back on Jekyll Island, they got bored with those things. Once a person has all the money that they can possibly use for the material pleasures of life, what is left? Sure—power. Absolutely. They are spending this money for power, ladies and gentlemen, to acquire power over you and me and our children. They are literally buying up the world with it—but I don’t mean they’re buying up the real estate, or the hardware; they’re buying up control over people. Technically—in sociological terms—they’re buying control over the power centers, which means those groups and institutions through which people live and work and follow leadership and accept information. People are always associated in groups and they work in groups, they move in groups. And these groups have heads at them, leaders; and this money has been going for many years to acquire influence—if not control over—the leaders of these power centers in society, so they can therefore indirectly influence and control you and me.

Specifically, that means they had been spending this river of wealth, very freely, to buy control over:


  • politicians
  • political parties
  • television networks
  • cable networks
  • newspapers
  • magazines
  • publishers
  • wire services
  • motion picture studios
  • universities
  • labor unions
  • church organizations
  • trade associations
  • labor unions
  • tax-exempt foundations
  • multinational corporations
  • Boy Scouts
  • Girl Scouts
  • you name it!

Make your own list; I guarantee you if you have a large, influential organization, which influences people, 
you will find that this river of wealth has been flowing partly into an attempt to acquire control over the leadership of these institutions and organizations—especially those which are offered as opposition, especially those which supposedly are to stop this whole process from happening.

Now, this has not only been going on in America, but this has been going on in every nation in the world—
pretty much in the industrialized nations as it has gone on here, but I’d like to call your attention to what’s been happening in the so-called “third world” or the underdeveloped nations. This process is now complete; it’s not going on—it’s finished. They literally have bought those nations.

If you ever wondered what’s going on there with the IMF World Bank, every once in a while on the back page of the newspaper you read that congress once again authorized another hundred billion dollars or so to go to the World Bank. And then it explains very carefully that this money is being used for humanitarian reasons; it is being used uplift the standard of living of these poor people. That is an appearance of the fourth kind if you ever saw one! It’s not being used for that at all. If it is, they’re not doing a very good job, 
because after all these years, you cannot point to one of those countries which has had its standard of living raise one iota by this vast expenditure money. Because it was never designed to do that. The money does not go to the people, it does not go to the industries, or the businesses of those countries—where it might have a chance of raising the standard of living—it goes to the politicians doesn’t it? It goes to the governments of those countries, and it is used specifically to perfect and strengthen the control mechanisms over their people. Usually this starts out as an inefficient dictatorship; but by the time they get the UN money it ends up as an efficient dictatorship. They have a better organized and equipped army; they have a better-paid bureaucracy, more people in the bureaucracy; they have more ways of controlling their subjects; they have food chains that they can offer to their friends and deny it to their enemies. This money is used to build totalitarian systems in every country that you want to point to and analyze.

You see, these people, these leaders of these countries, for the most part couldn’t care less about the standard of living of their subjects, as long as they live well; they live in their mansions, have their yachts their jet aircraft, and they go to New York and live in the Waldorf-Astoria while they attend United Nations meetings. They’re very happy with that. They have no ideology—Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Capitalism—what difference does it make? Where’s the money? That’s it with these people.

We know how welfare families in this country can be second, third generation families and there’s no hope at all of getting them off the dole, because they can’t imagine any other way of life. This happens at the international stage, too. We’re dealing with countries now that are second, third, in some cases fourth-generation welfare governments! They don’t know how to survive unless that money comes free, through the 
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—[which] means from us. There’s no way in the world they’re going to break free from that. These countries, ladies and gentlemen, have already been purchased, lock stock and barrel, in this fashion, and they are now in place in the new world order—and they’re simply waiting for us to show up.

And that’s the other side of the coin, because not only does this transfer of wealth to these countries from us not raise their standard of living, but it does in fact help to lower ours. And this too is part of the plan. A strong nation is not a candidate for surrendering its sovereignty. But if a nation can be brought to its knees—if it is hungry, desperate, has chaos in its streets, if it has political turmoil—then the people in that nation will much more likely accept any solution that’s offered to them by their government, or by a world government. If there’s anarchy in the streets, as we saw in Watts; in Los Angeles, people were joyous when the soldiers showed up! They were joyous because this now was an end to anarchy. It was a dress rehearsal. 
They won’t care whether the helmets on these people are blue or brown! If it says UN on the side, they won’t, that won’t make any difference, they’ll say “Thank God for the UN! Finally brought and restored peace to our streets!” And if people are hungry, and they’re out of work, and they don’t know what to do in the economy, they’ll be so thankful for a UN monetary unit which has purchasing power, a little bit. Thank God for this UN money, because the old American dollars are kaput. Don’t know what to do with them.

This is the plan, ladies and gentlemen: to weaken America. And so that’s the process, and I’m mentioning this because I want to emphasize to you that what is going on here has nothing at all to do with wealth; the name of the game now, is power.”


I urge you to watch the entire video:

Now, fast-forward 17 years to 2011, and watch as Glenn Beck exposes the Fed with guests G. Edward Griffin, and Mark Calabria, Director of Financial Regulation Studies at the Cato Institute. This episode exposing the Federal Reserve is rumored to be the reason he was fired from Fox: