'I would gladly kill Arabs - even slaughter them'

[Whaler]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/i- ... bled=false

Eden Abergil, the former Israel Defense Forces soldier who has been criticized for publishing controversial images on Facebook, allegedly wrote on her Facebook page on Thursday that she would "gladly kill Arabs – even slaughter them."



In war there are no rules," Abergil allegedly wrote on the wall of her profile page on the social network Facebook.

Photographs uploaded by Abergil from Ashdod and labeled "IDF – the best time of my life," depicted her smiling next to Palestinian prisoners with their hands bound and their eyes covered.

A comment attached to one of the photos of the soldier smiling in front of two blindfold men and posted by one of Abergil's friends read "That looks really sexy for you," with Abergil's response reading: "I wonder if he is on Facebook too – I'll have to tag him in the photo."

Since the photos were published by blogger Ido Keinan earlier this week, dozens of people have uploaded images on to their own Facebook pages depicting similar situations.

Abergil responded on Facebook to an image in which a women was pasted instead of the Palestinian prisoners in the original images, saying that it was not funny and that she would not let anyone ruin her "perfect life."

"I can't allow Arab lovers to ruin the perfect life I lead," she allegedly wrote. "I am not sorry and I don't regret it."

"I am in favor of a Jewish-Zionist State," she added. "I defend what has been rightfully mine for ages," she wrote.

During an Army Radio interview on Tuesday, Abergil repeatedly said that it had never occurred to her that "the picture would be problematic," asking interviewer Ilana Dayan whether the media asked for detainees permission when they film them.

Referring to the possibility that the images could injure Israel's image in the international arena, Abergil said: "We will always be attacked. Whatever we do, we will always be attacked."

On Monday, the IDF spokesman issued its response to the photographs, saying that "on the face of it the behavior exhibited by the soldier is base and crude."

The head of the Public Committee Against Torture, Ishai Menuchin, also commented, saying that "these terrible photographs reflect a norm in the way Palestinians are viewed, as an object and not as humans. It is an attitude that ignores their feelings as humans and their individual rights."

[Ognir]

That is how they feel about cattle
they still think they are the chosen
but don't realize that the whole world
now knows that the biggest RACIST STATE is
israHELL

Clock is ticking down

[superzebra]

That is how they feel about cattle
they still think they are the chosen
but don't realize that the whole world
now knows that the biggest RACIST STATE is
israHELL

Clock is ticking down

i wish that you were right but i think israel is winning.just look at anti arab and anti slamic hystrya in USA.

the same in UK,HOLLAND,GERMANY.

[Whaler]

That is how they feel about cattle
they still think they are the chosen
but don't realize that the whole world
now knows that the biggest RACIST STATE is
israHELL

Clock is ticking down

i wish that you were right but i think israel is winning.just look at anti arab and anti slamic hystrya in USA.

the same in UK,HOLLAND,GERMANY.

The pro Israel/anti Islamic hysteria in the US is over hyped and pushed by Jews in the media. I think it's propaganda and is fed to the rest of the world as if the majority of Americans are fanatical pro Israel Zionists...it's total BS and is a way for Jews to make people think they are alone and outcasts for not supporting Israel.

 Here is the real data...cheer up.

Anti-Israel sentiment grows in US
Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:51AM

http://www.presstv.com/detail/139300.html

A new opinion poll shows the Israeli regime is losing support among the American public as more US citizens question Tel Aviv's commitment to peace.

The survey presented to Israeli leaders last week was conducted by pollster and strategist Stanley Greenberg and sponsored by America's pro-Israeli organization, the Israel Project, Ha'aretz reported on Thursday.

The opinion poll revealed the number of Americans who think the US needs to support Israel dropped to 51 percent in July from 58 percent in June and 63 percent in August 2009.

On Tel Aviv's commitment to peace, only 45 percent of Americans surveyed in July said they felt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was committed to the Middle East peace process.

Meanwhile, 39 percent responded that Netanyahu and his administration are not committed to seeking peace with the Palestinians.

The finding is a serious challenge for the rightist Netanyahu as a late 2007 poll indicated that 66 percent of American respondents believed the Israeli administration, then led by his predecessor Ehud Olmert, was committed to peace.

Conducting similar surveys in European countries, Greenberg said the data reflects the worst time for Israel with regard to German public opinion since 2008.

In Germany, 50 percent of the respondents said they had "very cold" or unfavorable feelings toward Israel, compared with 39 percent who said they experienced "cold" or "very cold" feelings toward Palestinians.

In Sweden, the situation was similar to that in Germany, with 49 percent saying their feelings toward Israel were "cold" or "very cold."

In France, those sympathizing with Israel did not go beyond 24 percent and the number, though narrowly, was outweighed by 31 percent who said that felt "cold" or "very cold" feelings toward it.

Found this here:  http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130849

[brandon dean]

That is how they feel about cattle
they still think they are the chosen
but don't realize that the whole world
now knows that the biggest RACIST STATE is
israHELL

Clock is ticking down

i wish that you were right but i think israel is winning.just look at anti arab and anti slamic hystrya in USA.

the same in UK,HOLLAND,GERMANY.

The pro Israel/anti Islamic hysteria in the US is over hyped and pushed by Jews in the media. I think it's propaganda and is fed to the rest of the world as if the majority of Americans are fanatical pro Israel Zionists...it's total BS and is a way for Jews to make people think they are alone and outcasts for not supporting Israel.

 Here is the real data...cheer up.

Anti-Israel sentiment grows in US
Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:51AM

http://www.presstv.com/detail/139300.html

A new opinion poll shows the Israeli regime is losing support among the American public as more US citizens question Tel Aviv's commitment to peace.

The survey presented to Israeli leaders last week was conducted by pollster and strategist Stanley Greenberg and sponsored by America's pro-Israeli organization, the Israel Project, Ha'aretz reported on Thursday.

The opinion poll revealed the number of Americans who think the US needs to support Israel dropped to 51 percent in July from 58 percent in June and 63 percent in August 2009.

On Tel Aviv's commitment to peace, only 45 percent of Americans surveyed in July said they felt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was committed to the Middle East peace process.

Meanwhile, 39 percent responded that Netanyahu and his administration are not committed to seeking peace with the Palestinians.

The finding is a serious challenge for the rightist Netanyahu as a late 2007 poll indicated that 66 percent of American respondents believed the Israeli administration, then led by his predecessor Ehud Olmert, was committed to peace.

Conducting similar surveys in European countries, Greenberg said the data reflects the worst time for Israel with regard to German public opinion since 2008.

In Germany, 50 percent of the respondents said they had "very cold" or unfavorable feelings toward Israel, compared with 39 percent who said they experienced "cold" or "very cold" feelings toward Palestinians.

In Sweden, the situation was similar to that in Germany, with 49 percent saying their feelings toward Israel were "cold" or "very cold."

In France, those sympathizing with Israel did not go beyond 24 percent and the number, though narrowly, was outweighed by 31 percent who said that felt "cold" or "very cold" feelings toward it.

Found this here:  http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130849

yes, what he said.

most people I know think israel is a piece of dog shit.  the only people who defend israel anymore (besides the chosen people......) are braindead zombies.  even my father, who ten years ago would call me an anti-semite for criticizing israel, even he now disbelieves anything the israeli government says.

ten years ago if someone said it looks as though israel were winning, I would have agreed with you.  but now, not so much.  the ziojews' hold on our media is still complete, but their hold on public opinion has fallen with the rise of the internet.  the whole world is against them.  public opinion in britain is not at ALL in their favor, and it's falling here.  there were dozens of anti-israel protests last year when israel was bombing gaza.  that's a first in this country.

zion is going down, and it's beautiful to watch, no matter how long it takes.  the only shitty thing is watching people still being mowed down by their evil, as any monster would thrash out with everything it has when in its death throes.  and I'll go so far as to say we are witnessing the fall of the false zion.  israel is fucked.  they can still do LOTS of damage, and they most certainly will, but they're going down...

[Negentropic]

most people I know think israel is a piece of dog shit. the only people who defend israel anymore (besides the chosen people......) are braindead zombies. even my father, who ten years ago would call me an anti-semite for criticizing israel, even he now disbelieves anything the israeli government says.

ten years ago if someone said it looks as though israel were winning, I would have agreed with you. but now, not so much. the ziojews' hold on our media is still complete, but their hold on public opinion has fallen with the rise of the internet. the whole world is against them. public opinion in britain is not at ALL in their favor, and it's falling here. there were dozens of anti-israel protests last year when israel was bombing gaza. that's a first in this country.

zion is going down, and it's beautiful to watch, no matter how long it takes. the only shitty thing is watching people still being mowed down by their evil, as any monster would thrash out with everything it has when in its death throes. and I'll go so far as to say we are witnessing the fall of the false zion. israel is fucked. they can still do LOTS of damage, and they most certainly will, but they're going down...

The anti-Israel sentiment has always been there in the political far left and far right but not so much in the middle. Among strong far-leftists there was and is plenty of castigation of Israel but only as part of a wider anti-American, anti-imperialist sentiment (led by stooges like Castro and  intellectuals like Chomsky and Zinn and Blum and Parenti and the like) whose goal is to get imperialism to back off completely but also, and especially capitalism. In other words,  on the bigger chessboard (not the grand chessboard but one of the progressively 'grander' chessboards leading to Nathan's  Royal Grandmaster  House of Rothschilds mother-of-all-boards) of the really deep-cover agents on the left if you want to call them that and not useful idiots, they will give up a knight to capture a rook, but still delivering a win to the king and queen.  They are willing to give up as much as the defeat of Israel to a two-state solution (never a complete defeat) if they can get the backdown of the imperialist U.S. forces and the capitalist system which they hate and consider to be the root of all evil (at least to the degree that they actually believe the Marxist ideas they profess to believe).  This makes the world or most of the world squarely mixed economy socialist and in the clutches of the head honchos. On the far right also,  the conservatives that lean towards Libertarianism like Patrick Buchanan and actual Libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul himself (not his retarded son, just Ron) are 100% against giving Israhell 4 billion dollars a year minimum.  When you are anti-imperialist but also anti-capitalist, you are advancing mixed-economies built on fractional-reserve government spending by default (how else will you finance the social programs and government spending?) which always perpetuate their red-tape and resolve into socialism and if not stopped full-on communism of the type the former U.S.A., soon to be U.S.S.A. is about to experience. Both degrees of Marxism (although idiot-savant hardcore Marxists like one of my cousins will deny that true Marxism and its puke-inducingly 'sophisticated' glories has ever been understood or practiced)  are a creation of Jews that always play into the hands of the most elite of MSE (money shitting elites, Jews and Shabbos but definitely Jews in the top rung) who then have another dictatorship to exploit.  The pro-capitalist conservative people on the right, as far as they're not pushing for abolishing the FED but rather for going back to a regulated fascistic type of state-corporate mixed economy are also playing into their hands.  Some people, including Alex Jones, also claim that even the Libertarians if they stick to the gold standard are playing into a world government hand. As of right now I'm not entirely convinced of the last part about the gold and metal standard. Not unless you have a hand as strong as Hitler running the joint, you'd still be susceptible to inflation, distortion of prices, with a fiat money tied to productivity increase system. It was after the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1933 that most of the inflation, war-spending and monumental thieving through inflation happened.  But as long as the majority of the people agree on the Libertarian or Constitutionalist non-usurious creative-free-market solution then once the bankers are out of the way, all non-fractional-reserve and non-debt-based solutions, whether gold based or not, can be tried and the best one adopted.  

Only in the U.S. and a few other countries is a libertarian solution even thinkable because this is where it was achieved internally to the most degree anywhere in the post-Jackson and pre-Lincoln years. It spreads in the U.S. first before it will even take root anywhere else. That's why confusing the United States' relatively-peaceful and freedom-tolerant internal record (with the notable exception of the Indian massacres and the slave-trade, of course) with its horrific external war-mongering and condemning it as one-&-the-same wholesale, the way MSMD Yiddy Yoda tends to do is short-sighted. If not in the U.S. then where?  Forget brutal conrolled-opposition internal tyrannies like Iran or Cuba or China who are externally 'peace-loving.'  They were made that way on purpose to fit the opposite piece of the puzzle and always put the blame on the U.S. enough to create constant East-West, Islam vs. Christianity, tyranny vs. so-called 'freedom' tension.  You also have the Russians playing a charade half-way between the tyrannies and the so-called free west. Will the French or the English or the Irish or the Swedish or Spain or Argentina or Italy or the Russians take the lead in forcing non-usurious creative free markets to thrive?  Sadly it doesn't seem so at all in their own countries but their free-thinking and freedom loving people will support the Americans. Ameria's been set-up to take the hatred of everyone but the ghosts of Jackson and Jefferson are the flip-side of that coin. They will have to take the lead again if they haven't turned over inside their graves so many times as to lose all supernatural powers.    

So yes, anti-Israel sentiment has always been brewing both on the far-left and on the far-right for years, the question is whether the brainwashed, majority middle is starting to come to its senses.  If yes, and if it is genuine, then the people need to put their money where their mouth is. The very first thing that needs to be done is no more loan-guarantees of a minimum of 4 billion a year to Israhell. If they're angry then they can at the very least kick-ass on their pathetically controlled political systems through someone like Ron Paul to accomplish at least that.  If not Ron 'Osama-Bin-Laden-did-It' Paul then Alex Jones (say what you want about fat-boy's Israel-shilling but he is isolationist and anti-Fed and pro-9-11-truth up to the Bilderdoubleburger gate, something Ronnie Paul ain't) or G. Edward Griffin or Jeff Rense (if a UFO can abduct him from Oregon) or DBS (if he's still a U.S. citizen, I doubt it) or a specially trained 007 agent of DBS yet to be named or  Christopher Bollyn or Mark Glenn or Charles Giuliani or some other similarly minded American truther eligible, but the Loan guarantees need to go as a symbolic casting off of shackles and no one is going to get killed over it either. That's when the people in the military or militia movement and even garden-variety rambos who are sick of Israel need to put their guns where their mouth is and protect the leaders of the freedom movement from the MSE death-squads.  Without, at the very least, cutting off their funding from the U.S. taxpayers to symbolize revolt, all that anger might as well be a million people in a worldwide gulag prison-planet bashing their heads against a brick wall.  When you think about it, this is a deliberately imposed drain on the U.S. economy which serves the triple purpose of weakening the host and strengthening the agent of the main parasite (the International Jew bankers) and psychological demoralization for the host and re-enforcing the power-trip for the parasite and agents of the parasite . Think about it: 4 to 10 billion dollars a year is not even a drop in their trillionaire bucket but it's a psychological shackle imposed to show power and demoralize.  That's why they do not allow the shackle to come off without severe consequences and not because they can't get the 4 to 10 billion easily somewhere else.  The people of goodwill and conscience the world over who rail against tyranny need to heed the ancient wisdom of Sun-Tzu and learn that it's the psychological war that needs to be won first and always or else the rest is lost.  What gives me hope is that I see more and more signs around the internet and as a result more and more in the non-internet so-called 'real matrix or altered reality ' that people-of-goodwill are aware of the importance of the psychological battle and waging it without fear of some smear label being attached to them.  The smear-labels have lost their welcome and cache. When the critical mass is reached, all the shackles come off and stay off, not just a measly 4 to10 billion a year but that's where it needs to start.


 







militia resistance must come from the deep forests

Singin' dem anti-imperialist golf-handicap controlled-opposition blues

[brandon dean]

The anti-Israel sentiment has always been there in the political far left and far right but not so much in the middle. Among strong far-leftists there was and is plenty of castigation of Israel but only as part of a wider anti-American, anti-imperialist sentiment (led by stooges like Castro and  intellectuals like Chomsky and Zinn and Blum and Parenti and the like) whose goal is to get imperialism to back off completely but also, and especially capitalism. In other words,  on the bigger chessboard (not the grand chessboard but one of the progressively 'grander' chessboards leading to Nathan's  Royal Grandmaster  House of Rothschilds mother-of-all-boards) of the really deep-cover agents on the left if you want to call them that and not useful idiots, they will give up a knight to capture a rook, but still delivering a win to the king and queen.  They are willing to give up as much as the defeat of Israel to a two-state solution (never a complete defeat) if they can get the backdown of the imperialist U.S. forces and the capitalist system which they hate and consider to be the root of all evil (at least to the degree that they actually believe the Marxist ideas they profess to believe).  This makes the world or most of the world squarely mixed economy socialist and in the clutches of the head honchos. On the far right also,  the conservatives that lean towards Libertarianism like Patrick Buchanan and actual Libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul himself (not his retarded son, just Ron) are 100% against giving Israhell 4 billion dollars a year minimum.  When you are anti-imperialist but also anti-capitalist, you are advancing mixed-economies built on fractional-reserve government spending by default (how else will you finance the social programs and government spending?) which always perpetuate their red-tape and resolve into socialism and if not stopped full-on communism of the type the former U.S.A., soon to be U.S.S.A. is about to experience. Both degrees of Marxism (although idiot-savant hardcore Marxists like one of my cousins will deny that true Marxism and its puke-inducingly 'sophisticated' glories has ever been understood or practiced)  are a creation of Jews that always play into the hands of the most elite of MSE (money shitting elites, Jews and Shabbos but definitely Jews in the top rung) who then have another dictatorship to exploit.  The pro-capitalist conservative people on the right, as far as they're not pushing for abolishing the FED but rather for going back to a regulated fascistic type of state-corporate mixed economy are also playing into their hands.  Some people, including Alex Jones, also claim that even the Libertarians if they stick to the gold standard are playing into a world government hand. As of right now I'm not entirely convinced of the last part about the gold and metal standard. Not unless you have a hand as strong as Hitler running the joint, you'd still be susceptible to inflation, distortion of prices, with a fiat money tied to productivity increase system. It was after the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1933 that most of the inflation, war-spending and monumental thieving through inflation happened.  But as long as the majority of the people agree on the Libertarian or Constitutionalist non-usurious creative-free-market solution then once the bankers are out of the way, all non-fractional-reserve and non-debt-based solutions, whether gold based or not, can be tried and the best one adopted.  

Only in the U.S. and a few other countries is a libertarian solution even thinkable because this is where it was achieved internally to the most degree anywhere in the post-Jackson and pre-Lincoln years. It spreads in the U.S. first before it will even take root anywhere else. That's why confusing the United States' relatively-peaceful and freedom-tolerant internal record (with the notable exception of the Indian massacres and the slave-trade, of course) with its horrific external war-mongering and condemning it as one-&-the-same wholesale, the way MSMD Yiddy Yoda tends to do is short-sighted. If not in the U.S. then where?  Forget brutal conrolled-opposition internal tyrannies like Iran or Cuba or China who are externally 'peace-loving.'  They were made that way on purpose to fit the opposite piece of the puzzle and always put the blame on the U.S. enough to create constant East-West, Islam vs. Christianity, tyranny vs. so-called 'freedom' tension.  You also have the Russians playing a charade half-way between the tyrannies and the so-called free west. Will the French or the English or the Irish or the Swedish or Spain or Argentina or Italy or the Russians take the lead in forcing non-usurious creative free markets to thrive?  Sadly it doesn't seem so at all in their own countries but their free-thinking and freedom loving people will support the Americans. Ameria's been set-up to take the hatred of everyone but the ghosts of Jackson and Jefferson are the flip-side of that coin. They will have to take the lead again if they haven't turned over inside their graves so many times as to lose all supernatural powers.    

So yes, anti-Israel sentiment has always been brewing both on the far-left and on the far-right for years, the question is whether the brainwashed, majority middle is starting to come to its senses.  If yes, and if it is genuine, then the people need to put their money where their mouth is. The very first thing that needs to be done is no more loan-guarantees of a minimum of 4 billion a year to Israhell. If they're angry then they can at the very least kick-ass on their pathetically controlled political systems through someone like Ron Paul to accomplish at least that.  If not Ron 'Osama-Bin-Laden-did-It' Paul then Alex Jones (say what you want about fat-boy's Israel-shilling but he is isolationist and anti-Fed and pro-9-11-truth up to the Bilderdoubleburger gate, something Ronnie Paul ain't) or G. Edward Griffin or Jeff Rense (if a UFO can abduct him from Oregon) or DBS (if he's still a U.S. citizen, I doubt it) or a specially trained 007 agent of DBS yet to be named or  Christopher Bollyn or Mark Glenn or Charles Giuliani or some other similarly minded American truther eligible, but the Loan guarantees need to go as a symbolic casting off of shackles and no one is going to get killed over it either. That's when the people in the military or militia movement and even garden-variety rambos who are sick of Israel need to put their guns where their mouth is and protect the leaders of the freedom movement from the MSE death-squads.  Without, at the very least, cutting off their funding from the U.S. taxpayers to symbolize revolt, all that anger might as well be a million people in a worldwide gulag prison-planet bashing their heads against a brick wall.  When you think about it, this is a deliberately imposed drain on the U.S. economy which serves the triple purpose of weakening the host and strengthening the agent of the main parasite (the International Jew bankers) and psychological demoralization for the host and re-enforcing the power-trip for the parasite and agents of the parasite . Think about it: 4 to 10 billion dollars a year is not even a drop in their trillionaire bucket but it's a psychological shackle imposed to show power and demoralize.  That's why they do not allow the shackle to come off without severe consequences and not because they can't get the 4 to 10 billion easily somewhere else.  The people of goodwill and conscience the world over who rail against tyranny need to heed the ancient wisdom of Sun-Tzu and learn that it's the psychological war that needs to be won first and always or else the rest is lost.  What gives me hope is that I see more and more signs around the internet and as a result more and more in the non-internet so-called 'real matrix or altered reality ' that people-of-goodwill are aware of the importance of the psychological battle and waging it without fear of some smear label being attached to them.  The smear-labels have lost their welcome and cache. When the critical mass is reached, all the shackles come off and stay off, not just a measly 4 to10 billion a year but that's where it needs to start.

wow, great post!  there are only a couple points I feel the need to comment on, because you said it pretty damn well.  "yiddy yoda" hahaha

first off, you're right, there has always been anti-ziojew sentiment in this country since the south realized who started the civil war, and really since the mass jewish emigration of the 1830's.  but let's go back even further.  thomas jefferson, ben franklin, and even george washington ALL warned at different about jewish influence in the future united States:

"What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims [the Talmud] could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine... It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook."
---Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826 Letters, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library

"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."
---Benjamin Franklin. (This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the diary of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.)


"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
---George Washington, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.)

***************

as far as the gold standard is concerned, there's an important element you didn't mention:  there were TWO different gold standards--one for the public, which was cut in 1933 by FDR and his government when they stole everyone's gold to put in fort knox and use as collateral on loans from zionist british banks.  the other, the government gold standard, was not done away with until 1974 when nixon's government axed it.  that's why the new reagan administration created the "gold commission:" to study why the government went off the gold standard less than ten years before.  after being shot, reagan just introduced deregulation or "reaganomics," and the rest is history.

here is the way I feel about a gold-backed economy: the king of england kicked the jews out of england in the late 13th century for usury.  they were trying to take over the economy by lobbying for the official currency to be gold.  instead, the king instituted the tally stick, which is a fiat currency, and the most successful currency in human history, lasting over 600 years.

in colonial america, the colonials created their own currencies, collectively known as "colonial scrip."  colonial scrip was fiat, and was horrendously successful.  it was so successful that when british parliament asked Ben Franklin why the colonies were so successful, his immediate and simple answer was the currency.  within a year, colonial scrip was outlawed, and the british debt-based pound instituted.  within a year of that, there were massive economic depressions and inflation in the colonies.

when lincoln went to the jewish banksters during the civil war and asked for loans, they quoted him interest rates in the 20's and 30's.  lincoln said "fuck you" and tried to figure it out a different way.  the secretary of the treasury told him the constitution specifically said that the US Congress' job was to "regulate" the currency, meaning to draw the amount of money back during an inflationary period, and to put money into circulation during deflation.  the constitution also says gold or silver should be good for all debts, public and private, but it does NOT say the currency should be backed by gold.  if congress is supposed to regulate the money supply, how can the currency be supported by a finite commodity, which would self-regulate the market?  it's a massive contradiction.

so lincoln has his greenbacks printed as a fiat currency, and saved the country with it.  the issues of the civil war go much deeper than this, but my opinion is that lincoln saved the country from the zionist jewish bankers in europe, who paid france to invade the south and england to invade the north when both sides became too weak to fight.  they didn't count on greenbacks, and lincoln was assassinated for this exact reason.  greenbacks were so successful that the banksters could not get them out of circulation until the 1990's!!

I am not saying fiat is the only way to go, and I'm not saying a commodity-backed system couldn't work.  what I am saying is that corruption in an economic system is the evil we must eradicate.  whether gold-backed or fiat, a sound economy is not possible while corruption is rampant.  we can argue the niceties of economics til the cows come home.  the fact is that whether fiat or commodity-based, the ziojews have it sewn up.  

but as far as gold is considered, why in the hell would someone want to base their economy on the one thing the jews have promoted and mostly controlled throughout history?  furthermore, why would someone want to base their economy on a finite commodity, which is a market open to being cornered by wealthy interests (and the gold market IS cornered)?

I've noticed a marked increase in anti-israeli and even anti-jewish sentiment in the last few years.  when I first started to look into the middle east mess a little over ten years ago, there was nothing on the subject, and everyone I talked to was on israel's side.  now, because of the internet, people of all walks of life are questioning israel.  the radical (left or right) sentiment has always been there, but now even normal rightists and leftists are speaking out.  it is strictly thanks to the internet, and the voice that anti-israel critics finally have after sixty years...  so yes, the sentiment has always been there,  but it was always a fringe opinion.  that now seems to be changing...

[brandon dean]

The anti-Israel sentiment has always been there in the political far left and far right but not so much in the middle. Among strong far-leftists there was and is plenty of castigation of Israel but only as part of a wider anti-American, anti-imperialist sentiment (led by stooges like Castro and  intellectuals like Chomsky and Zinn and Blum and Parenti and the like) whose goal is to get imperialism to back off completely but also, and especially capitalism. In other words,  on the bigger chessboard (not the grand chessboard but one of the progressively 'grander' chessboards leading to Nathan's  Royal Grandmaster  House of Rothschilds mother-of-all-boards) of the really deep-cover agents on the left if you want to call them that and not useful idiots, they will give up a knight to capture a rook, but still delivering a win to the king and queen.  They are willing to give up as much as the defeat of Israel to a two-state solution (never a complete defeat) if they can get the backdown of the imperialist U.S. forces and the capitalist system which they hate and consider to be the root of all evil (at least to the degree that they actually believe the Marxist ideas they profess to believe).  This makes the world or most of the world squarely mixed economy socialist and in the clutches of the head honchos. On the far right also,  the conservatives that lean towards Libertarianism like Patrick Buchanan and actual Libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul himself (not his retarded son, just Ron) are 100% against giving Israhell 4 billion dollars a year minimum.  When you are anti-imperialist but also anti-capitalist, you are advancing mixed-economies built on fractional-reserve government spending by default (how else will you finance the social programs and government spending?) which always perpetuate their red-tape and resolve into socialism and if not stopped full-on communism of the type the former U.S.A., soon to be U.S.S.A. is about to experience. Both degrees of Marxism (although idiot-savant hardcore Marxists like one of my cousins will deny that true Marxism and its puke-inducingly 'sophisticated' glories has ever been understood or practiced)  are a creation of Jews that always play into the hands of the most elite of MSE (money shitting elites, Jews and Shabbos but definitely Jews in the top rung) who then have another dictatorship to exploit.  The pro-capitalist conservative people on the right, as far as they're not pushing for abolishing the FED but rather for going back to a regulated fascistic type of state-corporate mixed economy are also playing into their hands.  Some people, including Alex Jones, also claim that even the Libertarians if they stick to the gold standard are playing into a world government hand. As of right now I'm not entirely convinced of the last part about the gold and metal standard. Not unless you have a hand as strong as Hitler running the joint, you'd still be susceptible to inflation, distortion of prices, with a fiat money tied to productivity increase system. It was after the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1933 that most of the inflation, war-spending and monumental thieving through inflation happened.  But as long as the majority of the people agree on the Libertarian or Constitutionalist non-usurious creative-free-market solution then once the bankers are out of the way, all non-fractional-reserve and non-debt-based solutions, whether gold based or not, can be tried and the best one adopted.  

Only in the U.S. and a few other countries is a libertarian solution even thinkable because this is where it was achieved internally to the most degree anywhere in the post-Jackson and pre-Lincoln years. It spreads in the U.S. first before it will even take root anywhere else. That's why confusing the United States' relatively-peaceful and freedom-tolerant internal record (with the notable exception of the Indian massacres and the slave-trade, of course) with its horrific external war-mongering and condemning it as one-&-the-same wholesale, the way MSMD Yiddy Yoda tends to do is short-sighted. If not in the U.S. then where?  Forget brutal conrolled-opposition internal tyrannies like Iran or Cuba or China who are externally 'peace-loving.'  They were made that way on purpose to fit the opposite piece of the puzzle and always put the blame on the U.S. enough to create constant East-West, Islam vs. Christianity, tyranny vs. so-called 'freedom' tension.  You also have the Russians playing a charade half-way between the tyrannies and the so-called free west. Will the French or the English or the Irish or the Swedish or Spain or Argentina or Italy or the Russians take the lead in forcing non-usurious creative free markets to thrive?  Sadly it doesn't seem so at all in their own countries but their free-thinking and freedom loving people will support the Americans. Ameria's been set-up to take the hatred of everyone but the ghosts of Jackson and Jefferson are the flip-side of that coin. They will have to take the lead again if they haven't turned over inside their graves so many times as to lose all supernatural powers.    

So yes, anti-Israel sentiment has always been brewing both on the far-left and on the far-right for years, the question is whether the brainwashed, majority middle is starting to come to its senses.  If yes, and if it is genuine, then the people need to put their money where their mouth is. The very first thing that needs to be done is no more loan-guarantees of a minimum of 4 billion a year to Israhell. If they're angry then they can at the very least kick-ass on their pathetically controlled political systems through someone like Ron Paul to accomplish at least that.  If not Ron 'Osama-Bin-Laden-did-It' Paul then Alex Jones (say what you want about fat-boy's Israel-shilling but he is isolationist and anti-Fed and pro-9-11-truth up to the Bilderdoubleburger gate, something Ronnie Paul ain't) or G. Edward Griffin or Jeff Rense (if a UFO can abduct him from Oregon) or DBS (if he's still a U.S. citizen, I doubt it) or a specially trained 007 agent of DBS yet to be named or  Christopher Bollyn or Mark Glenn or Charles Giuliani or some other similarly minded American truther eligible, but the Loan guarantees need to go as a symbolic casting off of shackles and no one is going to get killed over it either. That's when the people in the military or militia movement and even garden-variety rambos who are sick of Israel need to put their guns where their mouth is and protect the leaders of the freedom movement from the MSE death-squads.  Without, at the very least, cutting off their funding from the U.S. taxpayers to symbolize revolt, all that anger might as well be a million people in a worldwide gulag prison-planet bashing their heads against a brick wall.  When you think about it, this is a deliberately imposed drain on the U.S. economy which serves the triple purpose of weakening the host and strengthening the agent of the main parasite (the International Jew bankers) and psychological demoralization for the host and re-enforcing the power-trip for the parasite and agents of the parasite . Think about it: 4 to 10 billion dollars a year is not even a drop in their trillionaire bucket but it's a psychological shackle imposed to show power and demoralize.  That's why they do not allow the shackle to come off without severe consequences and not because they can't get the 4 to 10 billion easily somewhere else.  The people of goodwill and conscience the world over who rail against tyranny need to heed the ancient wisdom of Sun-Tzu and learn that it's the psychological war that needs to be won first and always or else the rest is lost.  What gives me hope is that I see more and more signs around the internet and as a result more and more in the non-internet so-called 'real matrix or altered reality ' that people-of-goodwill are aware of the importance of the psychological battle and waging it without fear of some smear label being attached to them.  The smear-labels have lost their welcome and cache. When the critical mass is reached, all the shackles come off and stay off, not just a measly 4 to10 billion a year but that's where it needs to start.

wow, great post!  there are only a couple points I feel the need to comment on, because you said it pretty damn well.  "yiddy yoda" hahaha

first off, you're right, there has always been anti-ziojew sentiment in this country since the south realized who started the civil war, and really since the mass jewish emigration of the 1830's.  but let's go back even further.  thomas jefferson, ben franklin, and even george washington ALL warned at different times about jewish influence in the future united States:

"What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims [the Talmud] could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine... It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook."
---Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826 Letters, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library

"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."
---Benjamin Franklin. (This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the diary of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.)


"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
---George Washington, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.)

***************

as far as the gold standard is concerned, there's an important element you didn't mention:  there were TWO different gold standards--one for the public, which was cut in 1933 by FDR and his government when they stole everyone's gold to put in fort knox and use as collateral on loans from zionist british banks.  the other, the government gold standard, was not done away with until 1974 when nixon's government axed it.  that's why the new reagan administration created the "gold commission:" to study why the government went off the gold standard less than ten years before.  after being shot, reagan just introduced deregulation or "reaganomics," and the rest is history.

here is the way I feel about a gold-backed economy: the king of england kicked the jews out of england in the late 13th century for usury.  they were trying to take over the economy by lobbying for the official currency to be gold.  instead, the king instituted the tally stick, which is a fiat currency, and the most successful currency in human history, lasting over 600 years.

in colonial america, the colonials created their own currencies, collectively known as "colonial scrip."  colonial scrip was fiat, and was horrendously successful.  it was so successful that when british parliament asked Ben Franklin why the colonies were so successful, his immediate and simple answer was the currency.  within a year, colonial scrip was outlawed, and the british debt-based pound instituted.  within a year of that, there were massive economic depressions and inflation in the colonies.

when lincoln went to the jewish banksters during the civil war and asked for loans, they quoted him interest rates in the 20's and 30's.  lincoln said "fuck you" and tried to figure it out a different way.  the secretary of the treasury told him the constitution specifically said that the US Congress' job was to "regulate" the currency, meaning to draw the amount of money back during an inflationary period, and to put money into circulation during deflation.  the constitution also says gold or silver should be good for all debts, public and private, but it does NOT say the currency should be backed by gold.  if congress is supposed to regulate the money supply, how can the currency be supported by a finite commodity, which would self-regulate the market?  it's a massive contradiction.

so lincoln has his greenbacks printed as a fiat currency, and saved the country with it.  the issues of the civil war go much deeper than this, but my opinion is that lincoln saved the country from the zionist jewish bankers in europe, who paid france to invade the south and england to invade the north when both sides became too weak to fight.  they didn't count on greenbacks, and lincoln was assassinated for this exact reason.  greenbacks were so successful that the banksters could not get them out of circulation until the 1990's!!

I am not saying fiat is the only way to go, and I'm not saying a commodity-backed system couldn't work.  what I am saying is that corruption in an economic system is the evil we must eradicate.  whether gold-backed or fiat, a sound economy is not possible while corruption is rampant.  we can argue the niceties of economics til the cows come home.  the fact is that whether fiat or commodity-based, the ziojews have it sewn up.  

but as far as gold is considered, why in the hell would someone want to base their economy on the one thing the jews have promoted and mostly controlled throughout history?  furthermore, why would someone want to base their economy on a finite commodity, which is a market open to being cornered by wealthy interests (and the gold market IS cornered)?

I've noticed a marked increase in anti-israeli and even anti-jewish sentiment in the last few years.  when I first started to look into the middle east mess a little over ten years ago, there was nothing on the subject, and everyone I talked to was on israel's side.  now, because of the internet, people of all walks of life are questioning israel.  the radical (left or right) sentiment has always been there, but now even normal rightists and leftists are speaking out.  it is strictly thanks to the internet, and the voice that anti-israel critics finally have after sixty years...  so yes, the sentiment has always been there,  but it was always a fringe opinion.  that now seems to be changing...

[brandon dean]

The anti-Israel sentiment has always been there in the political far left and far right but not so much in the middle. Among strong far-leftists there was and is plenty of castigation of Israel but only as part of a wider anti-American, anti-imperialist sentiment (led by stooges like Castro and  intellectuals like Chomsky and Zinn and Blum and Parenti and the like) whose goal is to get imperialism to back off completely but also, and especially capitalism. In other words,  on the bigger chessboard (not the grand chessboard but one of the progressively 'grander' chessboards leading to Nathan's  Royal Grandmaster  House of Rothschilds mother-of-all-boards) of the really deep-cover agents on the left if you want to call them that and not useful idiots, they will give up a knight to capture a rook, but still delivering a win to the king and queen.  They are willing to give up as much as the defeat of Israel to a two-state solution (never a complete defeat) if they can get the backdown of the imperialist U.S. forces and the capitalist system which they hate and consider to be the root of all evil (at least to the degree that they actually believe the Marxist ideas they profess to believe).  This makes the world or most of the world squarely mixed economy socialist and in the clutches of the head honchos. On the far right also,  the conservatives that lean towards Libertarianism like Patrick Buchanan and actual Libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul himself (not his retarded son, just Ron) are 100% against giving Israhell 4 billion dollars a year minimum.  When you are anti-imperialist but also anti-capitalist, you are advancing mixed-economies built on fractional-reserve government spending by default (how else will you finance the social programs and government spending?) which always perpetuate their red-tape and resolve into socialism and if not stopped full-on communism of the type the former U.S.A., soon to be U.S.S.A. is about to experience. Both degrees of Marxism (although idiot-savant hardcore Marxists like one of my cousins will deny that true Marxism and its puke-inducingly 'sophisticated' glories has ever been understood or practiced)  are a creation of Jews that always play into the hands of the most elite of MSE (money shitting elites, Jews and Shabbos but definitely Jews in the top rung) who then have another dictatorship to exploit.  The pro-capitalist conservative people on the right, as far as they're not pushing for abolishing the FED but rather for going back to a regulated fascistic type of state-corporate mixed economy are also playing into their hands.  Some people, including Alex Jones, also claim that even the Libertarians if they stick to the gold standard are playing into a world government hand. As of right now I'm not entirely convinced of the last part about the gold and metal standard. Not unless you have a hand as strong as Hitler running the joint, you'd still be susceptible to inflation, distortion of prices, with a fiat money tied to productivity increase system. It was after the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1933 that most of the inflation, war-spending and monumental thieving through inflation happened.  But as long as the majority of the people agree on the Libertarian or Constitutionalist non-usurious creative-free-market solution then once the bankers are out of the way, all non-fractional-reserve and non-debt-based solutions, whether gold based or not, can be tried and the best one adopted.  

Only in the U.S. and a few other countries is a libertarian solution even thinkable because this is where it was achieved internally to the most degree anywhere in the post-Jackson and pre-Lincoln years. It spreads in the U.S. first before it will even take root anywhere else. That's why confusing the United States' relatively-peaceful and freedom-tolerant internal record (with the notable exception of the Indian massacres and the slave-trade, of course) with its horrific external war-mongering and condemning it as one-&-the-same wholesale, the way MSMD Yiddy Yoda tends to do is short-sighted. If not in the U.S. then where?  Forget brutal conrolled-opposition internal tyrannies like Iran or Cuba or China who are externally 'peace-loving.'  They were made that way on purpose to fit the opposite piece of the puzzle and always put the blame on the U.S. enough to create constant East-West, Islam vs. Christianity, tyranny vs. so-called 'freedom' tension.  You also have the Russians playing a charade half-way between the tyrannies and the so-called free west. Will the French or the English or the Irish or the Swedish or Spain or Argentina or Italy or the Russians take the lead in forcing non-usurious creative free markets to thrive?  Sadly it doesn't seem so at all in their own countries but their free-thinking and freedom loving people will support the Americans. Ameria's been set-up to take the hatred of everyone but the ghosts of Jackson and Jefferson are the flip-side of that coin. They will have to take the lead again if they haven't turned over inside their graves so many times as to lose all supernatural powers.    

So yes, anti-Israel sentiment has always been brewing both on the far-left and on the far-right for years, the question is whether the brainwashed, majority middle is starting to come to its senses.  If yes, and if it is genuine, then the people need to put their money where their mouth is. The very first thing that needs to be done is no more loan-guarantees of a minimum of 4 billion a year to Israhell. If they're angry then they can at the very least kick-ass on their pathetically controlled political systems through someone like Ron Paul to accomplish at least that.  If not Ron 'Osama-Bin-Laden-did-It' Paul then Alex Jones (say what you want about fat-boy's Israel-shilling but he is isolationist and anti-Fed and pro-9-11-truth up to the Bilderdoubleburger gate, something Ronnie Paul ain't) or G. Edward Griffin or Jeff Rense (if a UFO can abduct him from Oregon) or DBS (if he's still a U.S. citizen, I doubt it) or a specially trained 007 agent of DBS yet to be named or  Christopher Bollyn or Mark Glenn or Charles Giuliani or some other similarly minded American truther eligible, but the Loan guarantees need to go as a symbolic casting off of shackles and no one is going to get killed over it either. That's when the people in the military or militia movement and even garden-variety rambos who are sick of Israel need to put their guns where their mouth is and protect the leaders of the freedom movement from the MSE death-squads.  Without, at the very least, cutting off their funding from the U.S. taxpayers to symbolize revolt, all that anger might as well be a million people in a worldwide gulag prison-planet bashing their heads against a brick wall.  When you think about it, this is a deliberately imposed drain on the U.S. economy which serves the triple purpose of weakening the host and strengthening the agent of the main parasite (the International Jew bankers) and psychological demoralization for the host and re-enforcing the power-trip for the parasite and agents of the parasite . Think about it: 4 to 10 billion dollars a year is not even a drop in their trillionaire bucket but it's a psychological shackle imposed to show power and demoralize.  That's why they do not allow the shackle to come off without severe consequences and not because they can't get the 4 to 10 billion easily somewhere else.  The people of goodwill and conscience the world over who rail against tyranny need to heed the ancient wisdom of Sun-Tzu and learn that it's the psychological war that needs to be won first and always or else the rest is lost.  What gives me hope is that I see more and more signs around the internet and as a result more and more in the non-internet so-called 'real matrix or altered reality ' that people-of-goodwill are aware of the importance of the psychological battle and waging it without fear of some smear label being attached to them.  The smear-labels have lost their welcome and cache. When the critical mass is reached, all the shackles come off and stay off, not just a measly 4 to10 billion a year but that's where it needs to start.

wow, great post!  there are only a couple points I feel the need to comment on, because you said it pretty damn well.  "yiddy yoda" hahaha

first off, you're right, there has always been anti-ziojew sentiment in this country since the south realized who started the civil war, and really since the mass jewish emigration of the 1830's.  but let's go back even further.  thomas jefferson, ben franklin, and even george washington ALL warned at different times about jewish influence in the future united States:

"What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims [the Talmud] could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine... It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook."
---Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826 Letters, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library

"Jews, gentlemen, are Asiatics, let them be born where they will nor how many generations they are away from Asia, they will never be otherwise. Their ideas do not conform to an American's, and will not even though they live among us ten generations. A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention."
---Benjamin Franklin. (This prophecy, by Benjamin Franklin, was made in a "CHIT CHAT AROUND THE TABLE DURING INTERMISSION," at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787. This statement was recorded in the diary of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina.)


"They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."
---George Washington, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.)

***************

as far as the gold standard is concerned, there's an important element you didn't mention:  there were TWO different gold standards--one for the public, which was cut in 1933 by FDR and his government when they stole everyone's gold to put in fort knox and use as collateral on loans from zionist british banks.  the other, the government gold standard, was not done away with until 1974 when nixon's government axed it.  that's why the new reagan administration created the "gold commission:" to study why the government went off the gold standard less than ten years before.  after being shot, reagan just introduced deregulation or "reaganomics," and the rest is history.

here is the way I feel about a gold-backed economy: the king of england kicked the jews out of england in the late 13th century for usury.  they were trying to take over the economy by lobbying for the official currency to be gold.  instead, the king instituted the tally stick, which is a fiat currency, and the most successful currency in western history, lasting over 600 years.

in colonial america, the colonials created their own currencies, collectively known as "colonial scrip."  colonial scrip was fiat, and was horrendously successful.  it was so successful that when british parliament asked Ben Franklin why the colonies were so successful, his immediate and simple answer was the currency.  within a year, colonial scrip was outlawed, and the british debt-based pound instituted.  within a year of that, there were massive economic depressions and inflation in the colonies.

when lincoln went to the jewish banksters during the civil war and asked for loans, they quoted him interest rates in the 20's and 30's.  lincoln said "fuck you" and tried to figure it out a different way.  the secretary of the treasury told him the constitution specifically said that the US Congress' job was to "regulate" the currency, meaning to draw the amount of money back during an inflationary period, and to put money into circulation during deflation.  the constitution also says gold or silver should be good for all debts, public and private, but it does NOT say the currency should be backed by gold.  if congress is supposed to regulate the money supply, how can the currency be supported by a finite commodity, which would self-regulate the market?  it's a massive contradiction.

so lincoln has his greenbacks printed as a fiat currency, and saved the country with it.  the issues of the civil war go much deeper than this, but my opinion is that lincoln saved the country from the zionist jewish bankers in europe, who paid france to invade the south and england to invade the north when both sides became too weak to fight.  they didn't count on greenbacks, and lincoln was assassinated for this exact reason.  greenbacks were so successful that the banksters could not get them out of circulation until the 1990's!!

I am not saying fiat is the only way to go, and I'm not saying a commodity-backed system couldn't work.  what I am saying is that corruption in an economic system is the evil we must eradicate.  whether gold-backed or fiat, a sound economy is not possible while corruption is rampant.  we can argue the niceties of economics til the cows come home.  the fact is that whether fiat or commodity-based, the ziojews have it sewn up.  

but as far as gold is considered, why in the hell would someone want to base their economy on the one thing the jews have promoted and mostly controlled throughout history?  furthermore, why would someone want to base their economy on a finite commodity, which is a market open to being cornered by wealthy interests (and the gold market IS cornered)?

I've noticed a marked increase in anti-israeli and even anti-jewish sentiment in the last few years.  when I first started to look into the middle east mess a little over ten years ago, there was nothing on the subject, and everyone I talked to was on israel's side.  now, because of the internet, people of all walks of life are questioning israel.  the radical (left or right) sentiment has always been there, but now even normal rightists and leftists are speaking out.  it is strictly thanks to the internet, and the voice that anti-israel critics finally have after sixty years...  so yes, the sentiment has always been there,  but it was always a fringe opinion.  that now seems to be changing...

[Negentropic]

but as far as gold is considered, why in the hell would someone want to base their economy on the one thing the jews have promoted and mostly controlled throughout history? furthermore, why would someone want to base their economy on a finite commodity, which is a market open to being cornered by wealthy interests (and the gold market IS cornered)?

Because gold and silver have evolved as the most practical money commodities and stores of value. High in demand, high value per unit-weight, compact, mobile, durable, many industrial uses other than medium of exchange, easily divisible into smaller parts without losing value, Actually you don't need all that much Gold or Silver back your paper-money-receipts with dollar to equivalent weight of gold and then, of course, no fractional reserve counterfeiting allowed as per the constitution. Even with just 20% to 30% of the world's mined gold in circulation, the notes or receipts going around would just adjust to the amount of gold or silver or other metal that's available. It's all this fractional-reserve, debt-based inflation that makes it seem like you would need a huge amount of gold.

by Hans F. Sennholz
No Shortage of Gold
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/no-shortage-of-gold/#



Here's a critique of the mistakes made in "The Money Masters" video (DBS and Rafeeq and Alex Jones also express views similar to the Money Masters guys, opting for no debt-based fractional reserve banking but also no gold or silver backing) by G. Edward Griffin and also, following that by  some members of the Mises Institute Libertarian forum:

MEET BILL STILL, FIAT-MONEY ADVOCATE
An analysis of the documentaries Money Masters and Capital Crimes
© 2006 by G. Edward Griffin

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=meetstill&refpage=issues

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate two video documentaries on monetary issues that were written and produced by Bill Still. One is The Money Masters and the other is Capital Crimes. They are excellent productions with a great deal of history and professionally created images. They tell the story of our debauched monetary system based on fractional-reserve banking. There is just one problem. They offer a false solution – which is to say they offer no solution at all. The alleged solution is that we abandon our present fiat money system and adopt another one similar to it. Yes, they actually advocate FIAT money! The proposal is that we should take the power to create money-out-of-nothing away from big, bad bankers and turn it over to nice, trustworthy politicians. In my view, it is very naïve to think that politicians are more trustworthy than bankers. The problem with money created out of nothing is not who does it but that it is done at all.

These documentaries remind me of William Greider's book, Secrets of the Temple, which was offered to the public as a scathing exposé of the Federal Reserve System. Greider's history was excellent, but his conclusion was fatally flawed. After having proved that the Fed was conceived as a weapon of the banking elite against the common man and having shown that this is exactly the function it has always served, his conclusion was, not to abolish the Fed or even to make serious changes to it. His "call to action" was simply to stop worrying about it. The Fed has made mistakes, he said, but we have learned many lessons along the way. All we need now are wiser men to run it! That is the kind of solution that made his book acceptable to the giant publishing house, Simon and Schuster. It is no solution at all. The elite do not care what we know about a problem they have created if we do nothing to solve it. They are good at putting forth their own opposition – writers like Greider – who will sound the alarm and rally the troops but lead them – nowhere.

More recently, Simon and Schuster published another book in this same genre, Day of Deceit; The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, by Robert Stinnett. It is a blockbuster of facts and previously hidden documents proving conclusively that FDR, Secretary-of-War Henry Stimson, General George Marshall, and many others in the Roosevelt Administration secretly plotted to cause Japan to successfully Attack Pearl Harbor. They did this to create an excuse for bringing the United States into World War II, which they desired for political reasons. So, what was Stinnett's conclusion? Was it to condemn these men for their treachery? Not at all. It was that this act was justified because it helped put a stop to Hitler in Europe. In other words, to halt totalitarianism in Europe, it was necessary to adopt totalitarianism in America, and to do so was an act of statesmanship! Once again, Simon and Schuster provided the American people with a false opinion leader. What's the point of getting all frothed up over a president lying to the voters and deliberately causing thousands of Americans to be killed if we are then to decide that he was a hero for dong so?

That is exactly what Bill Still has done in his documentaries. The solution to fiat money is not MORE fiat money. It is REAL money based on tangible assets, and none has yet been discovered that serves as well as gold or silver. The assertion in the videos that wooden sticks were successfully used in England as money is grossly misleading. Tally sticks were occasionally used like government-issued script that could be applied to the payment of taxes, but at no time in history were they ever used as a medium of exchange for substantial economic transactions. To propose that we now can live with fiat money based on that myth is a non-solution of the highest order.

Still points with admiration to some of the darkest days of the American Republic. He praises Lincoln for issuing debt-based money, called Greenbacks, during the Civil War even though this was a blatant violation of the Constitution. His argument is not that this was a desperate expediency required by the urgency of war, but that it was an act of brilliant monetary statesmanship. In a similar vein, he approvingly surveys the early colonial period in which colonial governments resorted to printing-press money without silver or gold backing. It led to disastrous inflation and was devastating to the common man; but he says this was caused, not by flooding the colonies with fiat money, but by England forcing the colonies to STOP the practice! He relies on the words of Benjamin Franklin to support his case, and, indeed, Franklin speaks forcefully. Still does not explain that, although Franklin was an advocate of fiat money in the early years, after the experience of rampant inflation had taught its painful lesson, such a view was in the extreme minority. Still makes it appear that Franklin was expressing the consensus of the Founding Fathers when, in fact, it was just the opposite.

Still claims that it would be a mistake to return to a gold-backed monetary system because most of the world's gold now is held by the bankers. This is a deceptively appealing argument. First, it is not true. Central banks do hold more gold than any other single entity; but the total inventory of gold in the hands of private citizens, as bullion or coins or jewelry or known deposits in working mines, is much larger. If money were to be restored to a precious-metal base, this largely invisible reserve would be more than adequate to supply the demand. We must remember that the limited supply of gold as a monetary base is an advantage, not a disadvantage. If it were not scarce, it would not have utility as money. The smaller the supply, the more valuable it is. As pointed out in The Creature from Jekyll Island, any amount of gold or silver will work just as well as any other amount. The only difference is how valuable each unit of measure will be. The argument that "we don't have enough gold in the world" is without foundation, and those who say this do not understand the fundamental mechanics of money.

Bill Still does not make this argument but he comes close when he says that most of the world's gold is held by the bankers. Even if this were true (which it is not) we need to ask a question: If gold is so useless as a backing for money, why are the bankers trying to acquire it as fast as they can? And why are central bankers so strongly opposed to gold or silver-backed currencies? The answer is obvious. It is because precious metals still are, and will continue to be, a universally recognized storehouse of value, and that value cannot be manipulated by bankers OR free-spending politicians. But fiat money CAN be – and always will be.

This brings us to the crux of the matter. Still claims that, because the bankers have operated a gigantic monetary scam for hundreds of years, it is time to break their grip over our lives and establish a fair and honest monetary system We could not agree more on that point. But then, in the tradition of Greider and Stinnett, he attempts to lead us to a non-solution. He claims that we should take this power from the bankers and give it to the politicians, because they are chosen by the people and, therefore, can be trusted.

In my view, this is the most naïve concept since Adolph Hitler won the elections in Austria as "the man you can trust." We must not forget that politicians gave this monopoly to the bankers in the first place. Politicians continue to cooperate with the system in all of its corruption. Politicians derive huge benefits from this system and repeatedly place their careers above the public good. Politicians vote the bills that spend more than comes in from taxes and thereby create that hidden tax called inflation. Politicians write the laws that take away our liberty in the name of fighting terrorism or crime or drugs. It is the height of folly to design a plan of monetary reform based on the assumed wisdom and incorruptibility of politicians.

If this morning we were to give politicians the right to create money out of nothing, by noon they would be swarmed by lobbyists from the banking industry, and by nightfall, most of them would have sold their souls. Nothing would change except appearances. The only solution that the power brokers fear is a system that does not allow bankers OR politicians to manipulate the money supply – and the only system that prevents that is one based on something of tangible value, something that, itself, cannot be created out of nothing. The only way to remove the temptation from both bankers AND politicians is to restrain them with a money system that is backed 100% by precious metal. Period! And all the half-truths about Talley Sticks and Greenbacks and Ben Franklin quotes cannot change that.

Incidentally, in 2005, Liberty International Entertainment released a made-for-TV documentary that echoed this same call for a new American fiat money to be issued by the government. That's not surprising inasmuch as Bill Still was one of the writers and also appeared as an on-camera expert. The program included a segment devoted to Hewey Long in which he passionately advocates the classic Marxist nostrum of redistribution of wealth as a solution to the ills of society – and no one challenged it. Lincoln's issuance of fiat money, called Greenbacks in violation of the Constitution, once again was presented as an act of statesmanship. There were numerous other flaws that seriously marred this otherwise excellent production, including the acceptance of the myth that JFK was assassinated because he opposed the international bankers. (For an analysis of this myth, go to http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcon ... age=issues.) If someone wanted to derail a movement for true monetary reform, they could not do better than to promote myths like this coupled with the ultimate non-solution called fiat money.

It is not my intent to attack Bill Still as a person. I have met him on several occasions and, although we are at opposite poles regarding our view of fiat money, I consider him to be well informed and sincere. Nor do I have any desire to become embroiled in endless debate on this topic. The publications and recordings listed below present just about everything I have to say on the topic. If I haven't made my case by now, it is unlikely that further verbiage would help. My purpose in preparing this analysis is simply to accommodate those who have contacted me and wanted to know my opinion of these documentaries. My short answer is this: Fiat money is the problem, not the solution.

You have to be careful listening to "The Money Masters", since it's a mix of truth and completely wrong and misguided economic policies.

What's correct about that "documentary" is that fractional reserve banking enrich the few at the expense of the many.

What's wrong is almost everything else.  

They fail to understand a basic economic law, which is that the size of money supply doesn't matter, any size is optimum for the economy to function properly.  

They beleive that increasing the supply of money causes prosperity, and the only thing wrong about it is that it enriches private indivudual.  Same for the FED.  What they critisize is not that it exploits the poor, but that it enriches private banks and that it's "secret".  What they promote is a FED but totally controlled and run by politicians and bureaucrats.

There's so many things that are wrong in the documentary that it makes an uninform public know even less about sound economics than before he watched it.  For instance, tally sticks were not money, they were mostly bonds certificates. They were not even homegenous goods.  Continental scripts didn't create prosperity, they were all inflated out of existance.  Ben Franklin was pro-fiat money because he owned a printing press (literally) and had government contracts to print the money himself.

The whole documentary is a primitivo-socialist rant against what is "private", "secret", and glorifies the government.  They promote a massively inflationary government managed money, without realizing that it's exactly what we have now.

To answer your specific question, I seriously doubt that "70% of the gold supply" is in the hand of a small group of people.  Rich people don't hold their wealth in gold, they hold land or financial assets.  Central banks hold about 12-18% world money supply, depending of the source, and that's already a huge part.  

But anyhow, it wouldn't matter, since money holdings represent always a very small part of the total wealth in an economy, and for it to confer any advantage to their holders, they have to spend it.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/3868/58780.aspx

First, the gold standard wasn't just a gold standard.  The Coinage Act of 1792 included gold, silver, copper, and nickel for using precious metals for various denominations.  You could carry around today's equivalent of $800.00 with 1 oz. of gold as opposed to carrying a stack of 40 twenty dollar bills.  

Anyway, the scarcity of gold would have two free market responses:

1) People would have higher incentive to dig for more gold diluting the 70% held in the hand's of a small group.

2) That small group would have incentive to spend their gold.  
 

The free market, when fully operational, favors a decentralization of wealth.  This is why the "Trust" met together to formulate the Federal Reserve in 1910.  They were losing market shares from the advantages they gained from legislation in the 1870s.  Smaller banks were popping up every where and were actually loaning money they had instead of fractional reserve banking.  The Government was paying down it's debt and was on it's way to being out from under the burden of debt it carried.  They wanted to do more then rearrange the deck, they wanted to own the whole casino.  So they met with Senator Aldrich to form legislation that would continue this rate of capital extraction in a way that was in their favor.  And thus the Federal Reserve was born.  I will remind you that at that time those seven people who met to form the Federal Reserve easily represented over 1/3rd of the entire planet's wealth.  

Putting the printing press in the hands of the legislators instead will take things from bad to worse.  In fact, there is no authority for that in our Constitution either.  Our Constitution says in Article 1 Section 8 that Congress was authorized to COIN money.  Not CREATE money.  No individual or group should be left with that power and our founders understood this(with the exception of Alexander Hamilton).  

Suppose that small group holding 70% as you allege, what good would it do them?  The prices would automatically adjust to the 30% in circulation and if they introduced it back into the economy, the prices would readjust and they would no longer have 70%.  So unless they actually contribute something extremely worthwhile to the economy, they wouldn't be able to keep 70%, and even if they horded it, that would do them no good either.

[brandon dean]

Yes, they actually advocate FIAT money!

omigod omigod omigod!  so this guy who is attacking bill still's first tactic is to scream fire in a theater.  I don't need to read any more of that tripe.  negentropic, perhaps you should respond to what I said instead of thowing up a wall of text/quotes from other people.  you didn't even respond to points I made.  bill still is BRILLIANT.

the most successful currency in HISTORY was the tally stick, which was FIAT.
the healthiest time in our nation's economic history was when using colonial scrip, before the revolution, which was FIAT.
lincoln's greenback's WHICH GOT HIM KILLED, were completely FIAT.  starting to get it yet?

jews controlled gold from the beginning.  they were the ones pushing for gold coins, and they're the ones who got them.

the constitution straight out says the congress shall REGULATE THE CURRENCY, which would not be possible under a commodity based system.  are you following anything I'm saying, or are you going to blindly follow what ron paul and the mises institute tell you?  are you going to actually respond to the points I'm making, or are you going to paste another couple articles of what other people think?

I'll say it one more time: whether commodity based or fiat, with endemic corruption, no economic system can succeed.

I'm not spewing anything from bill still, money masters, or anyone else' opinion.  this is my opinion based on the facts.  but because bill still is the only person to have made a production out of this topic, it all gets attributed to him.  money masters is great, but I haven't watched it in years.  there are plenty more substantial resources to study the jewish history of gold than just that.  or, just use your brain.  how could congress possibly regulate a self-regulating market based on a finite commodity?  

but if you're not going to respond to what I'm saying, please don't just post a wall of pasted text to overshadow the things I'm saying.  it's rude, to say the least...

[Christopher Marlowe]

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German pronunciation: [I HATE MISES TO PIECES]; September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian  economist, philosopher, author and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern free-market libertarian movement and the Austrian School.
 Biography
Coat of arms of Ludwig von Mises' great-grandfather, Mayer Rachmiel Mises, awarded upon his 1881 ennoblement by Franz Joseph I of Austria
Early life
Ludwig von Mises was born in the city of Lemberg, in Galicia, Austria-Hungary (now Lviv in Ukraine), to parents Arthur Edler von Mises from a recently ennobled Jewish family involved in building and financing railroads, and Adele von Mises (née Landau), the niece of Dr. Joachim Landau, a Liberal Party deputy to the Austrian Parliament.

Ayn Rand (pronounced /ˈaɪn ˈrænd/;[1]  born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982), was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,[2]  playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. She first achieved fame in 1943 with her novel The Fountainhead, which in 1957 was followed by her best-known work, the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged.

Rand's political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally limited government. She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism,[3][4] including fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state,[5] and promoted ethical egoism while rejecting the ethic of altruism.[6] She considered reason to be the only means of acquiring knowledge and the most important aspect of her philosophy,[7] stating, "I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
Early life
Rand was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Алиса Зиновьевна Розенбаум) on February 2, 1905, to a bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg. She was the eldest of the three daughters (Alisa, Natasha, and Nora) of Zinovy Zakharovich Rosenbaum and Anna Borisovna Rosenbaum, largely non-observant Jews.

Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912  – November 16, 2006) was an American economist, statistician, and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics. Among scholars, he is best known for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary  history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1]  He was an economic advisor to U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Over time, many governments practiced his restatement of a political philosophy that extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with little intervention by government. As a professor of the Chicago School of Economics, based at the University of Chicago, he had great influence in determining the research agenda of the entire profession. Friedman's many monographs, books, scholarly articles, papers, magazine columns, television programs, videos and lectures cover a broad range of topics of microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic history, and public policy issues. The Economist magazine praised him as "the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century...possibly of all of it".[2]

Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation  of many types. He once stated that his role in eliminating U.S. conscription was his proudest accomplishment, and his support for school choice led him to found The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Friedman's political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, emphasized the advantages of free market economics and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the opinions of American conservatives and libertarians.

Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 in Brooklyn, New York, to recent Jewish immigrants, Jenő Friedman and Sára Landau from Beregszász in Hungary (now Berehove, part of Ukraine) both of whom worked as dry goods merchants. Shortly after Milton's birth, the family relocated to Rahway, New Jersey. A talented student, Friedman graduated from Rahway High School during 1928, soon before his 16th birthday.

Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an American intellectual, individualist anarchist,[1]  author, and economist  of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism and popularized a form of free-market anarchism he termed "anarcho-capitalism".[2][3]  Rothbard wrote over twenty books and is considered by some to be "dean of the Austrian School of economics, the founder of libertarianism, and an exemplar of the Old Right".[4]

Building on the Austrian School's concept of spontaneous order, support for a free market in money production and condemnation of central planning,[5] Rothbard advocated abolition of coercive government control of the economy. He considered the monopoly force of government the greatest danger to liberty and the long-term well-being of the populace, labeling the State as nothing but a "gang of thieves writ large"—the locus of the most immoral, grasping and unscrupulous individuals in any society.

Rothbard was born to David and Rae Rothbard, who raised their Jewish family in the Bronx. "I grew up in a Communist culture," he recalled.[21]  He attended Columbia University, where he was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and economics in 1945 and a Master of Arts degree in 1946. He earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree in economics in 1956 at Columbia under Joseph Dorfman.

Sheldon Richman is an American political writer and academic, best known for his advocacy of libertarianism.

He is the editor of The Freeman, a magazine published by The Foundation for Economic Education,[1], a Senior Fellow at the Future of Freedom Foundation, a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, a member of the Advisory Panel for the Center for a Stateless Society[2], and a member of the Liberty and Power group weblog at the History News Network. His own blog is called Free Association.[3]

A graduate of Temple University, Richman was formerly a journalist, and a senior editor at the Cato Institute[1] and the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University.

Jewish Libertarians on FaceBook
Name:
    Jewish Libertarians
Category:
    Common Interest - Politics
Description:
    For Jews who love liberty!
    Classical liberals believe in the American heritage of individual liberty, free enterprise, and small government.
    Libertarians recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve this precious heritage for our children and grandchildren.
    The libertarian way is a caring, people-centered approach to politics. We believe each individual is unique. We want a system which respects the individual and encourages us to discover the best within ourselves and develop our full potential.
    "Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud!"
    Live and let live and the golden rule are the libertarian ways. We have some fairly prominent and diverse Tribe members who have joined this group. To mention a few ...
    - Gary Aminoff (Vice-Chair, Los Angeles Republican Party);- Jason Bedrick (former New Hampshire State Representative);- Dr. Walter Block (Professor of Economics);- Bob Burg (author and speaker);- Dr. Steven Burgauer (author and Professor);- Bruce Cohen (Libertarian Party);- Sloane Frost (Board member, Students for Liberty); - Eric Garris (AntiWar.com);- Gerry Gershonowitz (Log Cabin Republicans);- Rich Goldman (Free State Project);- David Gordon (Mises Institute);- Dr. Shoshana Grossbard (Professor of Economics);- Avi Hein (Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies);- Dr. Steve Horwitz (Professor of Economics);- Dr. Paul Levinson (Professor of Media Studies;- Michael Ostrolenk (Medical Privacy Coalition and Liberty Coalition);- David Ratowitz (2010 candidate for Congress, Illinois 08);- Andrea Rich (former President, Laissez Faire Books);- Louis Rose (Republican Liberty Caucus);- Ilya Shapiro (scholar, Cato Institute); - Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer (Board member, Goldwater Institute);- Adam Weinberg (Leadership Institute) (read less)
   
   Some notable members of the tribe who are libertarians:

    Historic
    -----------
    Burton S. Blumert, 1929-2009
    David Brudnoy, 1940-2004
    Frank Chodorov, 1887-1966
    Ralph de Toledano, 1916-2007
    Aaron Director, 1901-2004
    Milton Friedman, 1912-2006
    Ze'ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1880-1940
    Frank Meyer, 1909-1972
    Ludwig von Mises, 1881-1973
    Robert Nozick, 1938-2002
    Dyanne Petersen, 1950-2003
    Ayn Rand, 1905-1982
    Murray N. Rothbard, 1926-1995
    Irv Rubin, 1945-2002
    Julian Simon, 1932-1998
    Aaron B. Wildavsky, 1930-1993

Founders of the Libertarian Movement
    -----------
    Milton Friedman
    Rabbi Israel Kirzner
    Manny Klausner
    Robert Nozick
    Ayn Rand
    Murray Rothbard
    Jarret Wollstein
    Ludwig von Mises

    Hollywood
    -----------
    Jason Alexander (actor)
    Kinky Friedman (musician)
    Rikki Klieman (commentator)
    Geddy Lee (musician)
    Jason Reitman (producer)
    Aaron Russo (producer)
    Gene Simmons (musician)
    Howard Stern (radio)

   Judges
    -----------
    Douglas H. Ginsberg, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
    Alex Kozinski, U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Ninth Circuit
    Richard Posner, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    Ira J. Raab, New York State Supreme Court Justice (Ret.)

   Elected
    -----------
    Sam Steiger, former U.S. Representative from Arizona
    Jason Bedrick, former New Hampshire State Representative
    Jenn Coffey, New Hampshire State Representative
    Dan Greenberg, Arkansas State Representative
    Ilana Freedman, Billerica (MA) Town Meeting Member
    Richard Freedman, Billerica (MA) Town Meeting Member
    David Kopel, former Colorado State Assistant Attorney General
    Andre Marrou, former Alaska State Representative (1992 LP Prez. candidate)
    Carol McGuire, New Hamsphire State Representative
    Dan McGuire, Epsom (NH) Trustee of the Trust Funds
    Jeff Steinport, former member of the Grand Rapids (MI) School Board
    Joe Straus, Texas State Representative (Speaker of the House)

   

   Others
    -----------
    Jonathan Adler, Case Western Professor of Law
    Barbara Amiel, columnist (UK)
    Randy Barnett, Georgetown Professor of Law
    Gary Becker, U. Chicago Professor of Economics
    Walter Block, Loyola Professor of Economics
    Alan Bock, Orange County Register
    Nathaniel Branden, psychologist
    Reuven Brenner, McGill Professor of Economics
    Bob Burg, author
    Paul Cantor, U. Virginia Professor of English
    Andrew J. Cohen, Georgia State Professor of Philosophy
    David Deutsch, physicist
    Daniel Drezner, U. Chicago Professor of Political Science
    Michael Edelstein, psychologist
    Richard Epstein, U. Chicago Professor of Law
    Bruce Fein, attorney
    Arthur Finkelstein, Republican political consultant
    David Friedman, Santa Clara University Professor of Law
    Eric Garris, antiwar.com
    Steven Greenhut, Orange County Register Columnist
    Shoshana Grossbard, San Diego State Professor of Economics
    Leon T. Hadar, foreign policy analyst and author
    Abraham Halpern, former President, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
    David Harsanyi, Denver Post Columnist
    John Hasnas, Georgetown Professor of Law
    Jonathan Hoenig, TV Commentator & CapitalistPig.com
    Steve Horwitz, St. Lawrence Professor of Economics
    Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist
    Arnold Kling, GMU Professor of Economics
    Alan Kors, U. Pennsylvania Professor of History
    Ray Kurzweil, technology guru
    Bob Levy, Cato Institute Chairman
    Jacob Levy, U. Chicago Professor of Political Science
    Zvi Lothane, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine Professor of Psychiatry
    Nancy Lord Johnson, 1992 LP Vice-Presidential candidate
    Eric Margolis, columnist, Toronto Sun
    Andre Marrou, 1992 LP Presidential candidate
    Ilana Mercer, columnist
    Tonie Nathan, 1972 LP Vice-Presidential candidate
    Grace Pooley, poet and activist
    Sheldon Richman, columnist
    Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 LP Vice-Presidential Candidate
    Arthur Rubin, mathematician
    Murray Sabrin, former New Jersey Gubernatorial candidate
    Jeffrey Satinover, psychologist
    Irwin Savodnik, USC Professor of Psychiatry
    Jeffrey Schaler, American Univ. Professor of Justice
    Peter Schiff, financial advisor
    Rita J. Simon, American University Professor of Justice
    Dr. Jeffrey A. Singer, Director, Maricopa County Medical Society
    Daniel Shapiro, West Virginia University Professor of Philosophy
    Aeon J. Skoble, Bridgewater State College Professor of Philosophy
    Russell Sobel, West Virginia University Professor of Economics
    Ilya Somin, GMU Professor of Law
    Christina Hoff Sommers, author
    Alan Stockman, University of Rochester Professor of Economics
    John Stossel, ABC News
    Jacob Sullum, Reason Magazine
    Vin Suprynowicz, Las Vegas Journal-Review
    Thomas Szasz, psychiatrist
    Alexander Volokh, University of Houston Law
    Eugene Volokh, UCLA Professor of Law

Libertarians! Yeah!

Is anybody fooled by this nonsense? After they have acquired all the money, real property and means of production, they will eliminate the power of government because they make up less than 1% of the world population. Rule by a Democratic Republic would force them out of power if the people ever woke up.  

As far as gold is concerned, I have to side with Bill Still on this one. The Jewish Mises arguments against the Talleystick system seem to be ipse dixit. Ditto with the Greenback and Colonial Scrip criticism.  

The real problem is FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING. 90% of the money coming into existence is produced by fractional reserve lending, only around 10%  is from the private Federal Reserve. ALL OF OUR MONEY is loaned into existence right now. Money is Debt. That is the problem.

Blaming the problem on "politicians" is a weak Libertarian argument. If we didn't have rule by elected government, we would have instead rule by feudal lords. That is what the Jewish bankers have planned for us next.

Give the government the power to create money. Spend money into existence at a reasonable rate and there will be zero inflation. Eliminate fractional reserve lending and there will be a stable economy, and the Kondratieff cycle will disappear.