Bill Still - is he a shill?

[0th0d0xypr0xy]

Hey everyone, been a while since I posted last. I've come across Bill Still and noticed how he referenced the 'money changers' *cough* 

Anyway, I came across this and wondered what you made of it. I found it pretty clever, I always thought L. Frank Baum's 'The Wizard of Oz' had a hidden meaning. Bill forwards a theory publicised by Professor Hugh Rockoff in which the characters re-enact the march of Coxley's Army in a populist protest to the Panic of 1893, the Yellow Brick Road itself is synonymous with the monetary system of the gold standard the emerald city is Washington D.C. which in turn represents greenback money whilst Dorthy's silver shoes (note the film changes them to ruby red, whereas in the books they were silver) represent the free silver movement or 'Silverites' which were a popular social movement toward the late 19thC..

The detail goes on, the scarecrow without a brain is a Midwestern farmer, the tinman is an industrial worker and the lion represented William Jennings Bryan (who supported the free silver movement and ran for President several times but was considered a coward aka was bought off). Lastly, the wicked witches of the East and West represent J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller/Rothschild..

The video makes some good points especially concerning the Bank of Dakota project and James Robertson's Interbank Research Organisation to cite as just a few examples..

Anyway, I hope you enjoy watching it.

[LordLindsey]

As Oggie has often said, EVERYONE knows where they were on 911...

EXCEPT BILL STILL.

Also, if you ever listen to his interviews, how many times does he EVER mention jews, zionists, zionism, israHell, and on and on and on?  Hell, he won't even use the term, "the cabal".

You can make of this what you will, but it tells "me"--and what do I know, right?--that this guy is being intellectually-dishonest, AT-BEST.

Lindsey

[yankeedoodle]

Have heard him talk about Wizard of Oz.  Very good as far as explaining symbolism and mechanics.

Have heard him talk on a few other topics.  VERY VERY VERY BAD.

No Jews in his bank, either, it seems.

[Ognir]

Steve he is a shill imho, all about the shekels with him
Didn't like the interview with him I did, Pat was more open but was shielded by Bill Shill

[mgt23]

...... not me noel.  A matey from Cornwall doing PhD in Scotland called Richard.  I don't use proxies and I don't like my name being attached to some irrelevant piece.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I posted about the origins of OZ about 7 years ago over on the WUFYS site.  My take on these story is that it is legit, but Baum's background is questionable, IMHO, because he was involved with theosophy. 

I think that Bill Still is a perfect example of how ignorant a person can become when he protects certain sentimental interests from the light of reason.

When Still is discussing monetary issues, he is very knowledgable. When he is discussing current issues like 9/11, or the war on terror, or israhell, he is about as ignorant as you can possibly imagine. On topics such as these, Bill Still seems to watch Fox News with rapt attention, swallowing every ridiculous word and never questioning any of it. Those who oppose him on these subjects, he calls "RT watchers". Just a flat-out retard.

It was very surprising to see such a Jekyll and Hyde turnabout in someone of such a high intellect, but I am afraid this is human nature. Still was a military brat, and it is inconceivable to him that the the US Army would ever fight an unjust war.

In conclusion, he is not a conscious shill, but worthless on topics outside of the monetary system.

[Ognir]

Me bad Steve

What I remember from the phone calls with them (Other guy Pat Cash)
was that Stills was over protective of  Cash's loose mouth, that was a shame

As CM mentioned above, I don't buy it, expert on Rothschild banking and ignorant of jews pulling off 911

[apollonian]

Hey everyone, been a while since I posted last. I've come across Bill Still and noticed how he referenced the 'money changers' *cough* 
...

---------------------------------------------------

Bill Still: Shill And A Half, Indubitably; Real Money MUST BE Commodity-Based, PERIOD
(Apollonian, 7 Jun 15)

[/size]

Topic question is whether Still is shill?--and yes, Still is GROSS, disgusting, absolute shill, dis-info agent, charlatan, mountebank, clown, without the slightest question or doubt.  Still pretends that "money" can be fiat, like paper, and that it doesn't have to be commodity-based, hence finite and limited in quantity.  Here below, I propose to expostulate the Austrian theory how and why real money MUST, necessarily, be commodity-based (hence gold/silver being best practical forms).  For ref. see Mises.org.

For money MUST be commodity and commodity-based--making it limited and FINITE in quantity--WHICH THEN PREVENTS (legalized) COUNTERFEITING, the issuance of fiat-money, advocated by Still, having no commodity base.  For without the commodity-base keeping the value of money, fiat-money will lead to legalized COUNTERFEITING, the issuance of un-limited quantity, hence INFLATION.  Only commodity-money prevents inflation and the destruction of money-system, economy, and culture.

For one needs merely imagine the origin of money--HOW did it arise?  For in the beginning all/any commerce and trade must have been barter in nature, the trade of good for good, pure and simple.

As the culture, primitive as they would have been, progressed a certain commodity would have evolved to being a common "medium of exchange"--meaning something any other commodity could have been traded (sold) for.

For imagine in the barter society, one coming to market w. one's goods, and finding the commodity one was most looking for to exchange was not present--what would one do?--just go home w. one's goods hoping for better luck the next day?  Thus it must have evolved and developed that instead of going home empty-handed for what one was looking for, one would simply exchange it for a commonly valued commodity which was available, and now presumably easier to handle and carry--with the idea one could later and more conveniently trade for what one originally wanted when that originally desired commodity did eventually become available.

Further, that commonly valued commodity ("medium of exchange") could additionally serve as a store-of-value and even, later, as a unit-of-account.  And the medium-of-exchange commodity now only needs pass test of PRACTICALITY--(a) it must be DURABLE as it changes numerous times fm hand-to-hand--A METAL.  (b) It should be relatively valuable so that one need carry only a relatively small weight/mass to equal the probable larger mass/weight of whatever other commodity one was looking to purchase--a PRECIOUS METAL, like gold or silver.  (c) Additionally, a metal then affords divisibility of the mass as way of making change, this being a minor issue compared w. the first two, durability and practicality.

Still is actually, never forget or doubt, shilling for the Jew bankers--how do u know?--for he's defending the false notion that real money can be other than commodity-based.  Still diverts the discussion to question of charging-of-interest and debt-money which he insists is the nub/essence of the problem--which is false.  For the real problem is the legalized COUNTERFEITING, proliferation of the units of currency (not money, which is defined as commodity, w. "intrinsic value").

For note, as the quantity of money (hence commodity-based) MUST remain limited/finite in order to prevent INFLATION, the VALUE of the (commodity-based) money will increase as quantity of goods and svcs increase relative to the stable quantity of money.  If the quantity of (commodity-based) money goes down, due to hoarding or saving, etc., then the value of the money remaining in circulation simply goes up, obviously and necessarily.

Problem w. INFLATION, as of fiat-money, is that as the increased quantity of "money" (funny-money, not the real thing which must be commodity-based) is circulated into the economy, PRICES necessarily go up, an absolute and necessary effect.  Further, as the currency (not real "money") supply increases, more and evermore LOANS are enabled as the currency makes its way to "bankers."

And as the currency supply increases, causing inflation (rise in prices), EVENTUALLY the issuance of this flow of new currency must stop--due to the ever-increasing inflation.  But what now happens to the LOAN and debt situation which arose fm the original increase of supply of currency?--they still need to be paid--BUT HOW now can they be paid if the incoming flow of currency is curtailed ("deflation")?  Thus the inflation inevitable causes (a) rise in debts and loans, which are (b) defaulted when the inflation is curtailed.  And this "BUST" ("recession/depression") follows necessarily REGARDLESS WHETHER "INTEREST" IS CHARGED on the loans.

Thus u see, Still wants to pretend that monetary inflation (issuance of ever-greater quantity of currency) and fiat-money is okay long as no interest is charged--this "interest" being really mere red-herring diversion upon the substance of money supply and quantity thereof.

Regarding "interest-charging," note this NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT the meaning of the old word, "USURY," which is lacking for basic, distinct definition fm the old sources (including the Bible).  For this "usury" is actually necessarily reference to fiat-money, NOT NOT NOT charging-of-interest.

For charging of interest is mere matter of contract btwn individuals--a fee for the renting of money or currency, perfectly rational and understandable for economic merits.  No gov. has the right to prevent such free contracting among the citizens in a free market and society.

Of course, it's obviously true that charging-of-interest will complicate and even enhance the eventual collapse of a fiat-money system--BUT THIS eventual collapse not primarily and fundamentally caused by charging-of-interest; rather, the inevitable collapse is caused by the increase of currency supply and then necessary "deflation" to prevent run-away inflation, which then causes collapse of the debt structure which is always built up during the inflation--it would happen REGARDLESS of charging-of-interest.

Note there are many, many others of Still's sort who shill for Jew bankers system like Ellen Brown (EllenBrown.com) and the guy at RealCurrencies.wordpress.com, insisting fiat-money (legalized COUNTERFEITING) can work.

[aura]

Steve he is a shill imho, all about the shekels with him
Didn't like the interview with him I did, Pat was more open but was shielded by Bill Shill

I remember this interview, I recall that you had brought up 9/11 and the stupidity of George Bush and he became very offended and defensive. He is nothing more than an opportunist seeking upon other people's work that he can use and misrepresent to push his worldview upon his audiences. What original information has he ever provided? Nothing.

I posted about the origins of OZ about 7 years ago over on the WUFYS site.  My take on these story is that it is legit, but Baum's background is questionable, IMHO, because he was involved with theosophy. 

I think that Bill Still is a perfect example of how ignorant a person can become when he protects certain sentimental interests from the light of reason.

When Still is discussing monetary issues, he is very knowledgable. When he is discussing current issues like 9/11, or the war on terror, or israhell, he is about as ignorant as you can possibly imagine. On topics such as these, Bill Still seems to watch Fox News with rapt attention, swallowing every ridiculous word and never questioning any of it. Those who oppose him on these subjects, he calls "RT watchers". Just a flat-out retard.

It was very surprising to see such a Jekyll and Hyde turnabout in someone of such a high intellect, but I am afraid this is human nature. Still was a military brat, and it is inconceivable to him that the the US Army would ever fight an unjust war.

In conclusion, he is not a conscious shill, but worthless on topics outside of the monetary system.

This alleged allegory of "The Wizard Of Oz" being a "Populist parable" has always been dismissed by scholar's of L. Frank Baum. Baum was never even interested in politics. I would challenge you on your claims that Bill Still is "very knowledge" on monetary issues. He is a simpleton, and a bad one at that. Its ironic then how he would allow himself to be a guest on Russia Today (RT), see link below.

"I'm not an economist, I just pretend to be one on TV." - Bill Still
http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=23325.0

Too provide some context into how L. Frank Baum and his children's story, "The Wizard Of Oz" has been manipulated by Ellen Brown (author, "Web Of Debt") and Bill Still's "The Secret Of Oz" a complete essay is required; in the meanwhile see:

"'Oz' Author Never Championed Populism" by Michael Patrick Hearn - New York Times (Published: January 10, 1992)
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/10/opinion/l-oz-author-never-championed-populism-370792.html

To the Editor:

In "No Mysticism in Oz, Just the Populist Credo" (letter, Dec. 20), Saul Rosen states that "The Wizard of Oz" is no more than "a secular political tract firmly based in history and ideology." In researching my biography of L. Frank Baum, I found no evidence that Baum's story is in any way a Populist allegory.

Mr. Rosen has taken his conclusions from "The Wizard of Oz: A Parable on Populism" by Henry M. Littlefield (American Quarterly, spring 1964), which has no basis in fact.  Baum was not "a supporter of the populist William Jennings Bryan in the Presidential campaign against the eventual winner, the Republican William McKinley." Baum even wrote a poem backing McKinley and the gold standard, published in The Chicago Times-Herald, July 12, 1896:

When McKinley gets the chair, boys,
There'll be a jollification
Throughout our happy nation
And contentment everywhere!
Great will be our satisfaction
When the "honest money" faction
Seats McKinley in the chair!

No more the ample crops of grain
That in our granaries have lain
Will seek a purchaser in vain
Or be at mercy of the "bull" or "bear";
Our merchants won't be trembling
At the silverites' dissembling
When McKinley gets the chair!

When McKinley gets the chair, boys,
The magic word "protection"
Will banish all dejection
And free the workingman from every care;
We will gain the world's respect
When it knows our coin's "correct"
And McKinley's in the chair!

No one knows how Baum voted in 1896. He did own and edit a Republican newspaper in Aberdeen, S.D., in 1890-91, in which he was aware of, but did not support the Populists.

During the 1896 campaign, Baum was on the road in Illinois, selling crockery when a friend asked him to speak before a Republican Party rally. He agreed and that night delivered a tirade against the opposition. Then he was asked by the Democrats to speak at their rally and delivered the same speech, this time directed against the Republicans. As he finished, he saw in the front row the friend who had invited him to speak at the Republican rally.

Baum had little faith in politicians, considering most of them to be, like the Wizard of Oz, humbugs. He wrote "The Wizard of Oz" to entertain children, not to lecture them about politics. MICHAEL PATRICK HEARN New York, Dec. 27, 1991

Input from an ideologue.

"Anyone who ever bothered to read The Wonderful Wizard of Oz will see that Baum himself admitted in the introduction that, "... the story of 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' was written solely to please children of today."

"Basing entire monetary reform proposals on a children's story is ludicrous, but that is exactly what the Greenbackers are currently pushing (such as what Bill Still did with his documentary, "The Secret of Oz"). To top it all off, even [Hugh] Rockoff admits there there is no proof of what Baum himself actually intended to convey, if anything."

"[T]he Greenbackers are so shaky that they have to misrepresent Baum's story in order to appear credible. Yet, that is exactly what is happening. [Ellen Brown's] The Public Banking Institute hosted their first ever "Public Banking in America Conference" this past April of 2012."

https://thelastbastille.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/the-wizard-of-oz-is-not-a-monetary-allegory/

Further reading:

"Michael Patrick Hearn, the leading scholar on L. Frank Baum, quoted this poem in a recent letter to the New York Times. Hearn wrote that he had found "no evidence that Baum's story is in any way a Populist allegory"; Littlefield's argument, Hearn concluded, "has no basis in fact." A month later, Henry M. Littlefield responded to Hearn's letter, agreeing that "there is no basis in fact to consider Baum a supporter of turn-of-the-century Populist ideology."

The Rise and Fall of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz as a "Parable on Populism" by David B. Parker [As published in the JOURNAL OF THE GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF HISTORIANS, vol. 15 (1994), pp. 49-63.]

http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/Populism.htm

Littlefield responds:

"'Oz' Author Kept Intentions to Himself" by Henry M. Littlefield - New York Times (Published: February 7, 1992)
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/07/opinion/l-oz-author-kept-intentions-to-himself-526392.html

To the Editor:

"'Oz' Author Never Championed Populism" by Michael Patrick Hearn (letter, Jan. 10) was a treat. As author of the 1964 article in question, "The Wizard of Oz: A Parable on Populism," I am honored to be identified by the authority on most things Ozian as the one who might have alerted readers to L. Frank Baum's fascination with things political.

However, I absolutely agree with Mr. Hearn that there is no basis in fact to consider Baum a supporter of turn-of-the-century Populist ideology. Read Baum's first book, then read my article. (Both may be found in "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz," Mr. Hearn's 1983 anthology).

Baum's story may be taken as a parable on Populism, not a Populist parable. For me, his first Oz story remains a gentle critique of those of us, whether farmer, worker or politician (Scarecrow, Tin Woodman or Lion?), who search out humbug wizards to solve our own self-made problems -- hardly the stuff of "Cross of Gold" speeches!

We will never know if Baum had any conscious allegory in mind. I still think of the possibility of political allusions in "The Wizard of Oz" as a kind of undercurrent, a context. My original point in the article was not to label Baum, or to lessen any of his magic, but rather, as a history teacher at Mount Vernon High School, to invest turn-of-the-century America with the imagery and wonder I have always found in his stories.

Thanks to M-G-M, Judy Garland, CBS and Ted Turner, who owns film rights, Baum's story lives on in our own age. HENRY M. LITTLEFIELD Carmel, Calif., Jan. 22, 1992

Bradley Hansen (Professor of Economics, University of Mary Washington) in his 2002 essay, "The Fable of the Allegory; The Wizard of Oz in Economics"

L. Frank Baum's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" has become popular as a teaching tool in economics. It has been argued that it was written as an allegory of Populist demands for a bimetallic monetary system in the late 19th century. The author argues that Baum was not sympathetic to Populist views and did not write the story as a monetary allegory.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1183440?seq=1#fndtn-page_scan_tab_contents
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ecb2/cd80e5ca0a245c77218d1d331c85ea5e13ed.pdf

[aura]

As Oggie has often said, EVERYONE knows where they were on 911...

EXCEPT BILL STILL.

Also, if you ever listen to his interviews, how many times does he EVER mention jews, zionists, zionism, israHell, and on and on and on?  Hell, he won't even use the term, "the cabal".

You can make of this what you will, but it tells "me"--and what do I know, right?--that this guy is being intellectually-dishonest, AT-BEST.

Lindsey

Bill Still is a "Christian Zionist" Lindsey; he has even appeared on Israeli TV, and was invited to Israel seen here with economist, MP Avishay Braverman. I recall at least 1 interview in recent years how he stated his favourite monetary policy is the one has practiced in Israel.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2pqng1/hi_im_bill_still_ask_me_anything/
https://www.facebook.com/BillStillOfficial/photos/a.185133181638103.1073741825.134596416691780/414730608678358/

"I'm doing a reddit forum under the name billstill3. To prove it, here is a never-before-published pic of me meeting the top Israeli economist, MP Mr. Braverman -- in the lunchroom of the Israeli Knesset a couple of years ago."

Still Report #85 - Channel 66 Israel interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmmz5fwPTeM
SR 1257 – Why the U.S. Must Continue to Support Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78wMbMMZJgo

Related:
Still Report #434 - Netanyahu's U.N. Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTh3vutP3xY
SR1250 – Israeli PM Netanyahu Blasts UN as a Moral Farce at UN Speech!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtm4Bd3HEC0
Still Report #903 - "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" Fake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdjKZPFFyII
Still Report #362 - Anti Semitism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuZIddipxUo

[rmstock]

.Anyone based in D.C. on a work related basis in some way has made `the
pledge' , this includes alt. right show hosts. Otherwise there is
literally no food on the table. Michael Collins Piper was fired from
AFP, and it literally meant his death. Christopher Bollyn had warned
MCP numerous times that AFP had been overtaken by Zionist investors. He
never believed it, until your fired i guess.
Sometimes you however need to survive. During wwii the Japanese invaded
Indonesia. The grandfather of a indigenous family was however loyal to
the Dutch, and had the Dutch Flag waving on a post on the lawn in front
of his house. The Japanese ordered the Dutch flag down, Granddad
refused and was shot on the spot. The father was less stubborn,
survived and made it into the Netherlands with his wife and children.

[yankeedoodle]

.Anyone based in D.C. on a work related basis in some way has made `the
pledge' , this includes alt. right show hosts. Otherwise there is
literally no food on the table. Michael Collins Piper was fired from
AFP, and it literally meant his death. Christopher Bollyn had warned
MCP numerous times that AFP had been overtaken by Zionist investors. He
never believed it, until your fired i guess.

This is very interesting, as I've never fully understood how the animosity between Piper and Bollyn developed.

I used to listen to Mike's RBN show regularly, and he and Christopher Bollyn were seemingly good friends, until, suddenly, Scott Makufka, aka Victor Thorn, suddenly appeared, and there popped up a "witness" named "Danner" who claimed to have witnessed the Pentagon event.  Mike devoted a ridiculous amount of airtime to this "Danner" character, who obviously was lying.  The result, though, was that Mike was arguing with Christopher Bollyn (and also Eric Hufschmid) and saying all kinds of bad things about Christopher, which continued until Mike finally went off of the radio.

Mike's dead, and Christopher Bollyn - who, to me, is one of the few people who are trustworthy - is hardly heard from.

Victor Thorn emerged as a big name, and he suddenly generated a lot of books and got a lot of coverage, and then, he mysteriously died, or committed suicide, or...well...who knows? 

I never trusted Thorn, although his material was certainly good - but, he basically re-hashed info that was already known - because he seemed to be at the center of the controversy between Mike and Christopher.

If, as you say, AFP is zionist controlled, maybe Thorn was an agent, and, with his assignment completed, they just fabricated a story that enabled him to disappear.