Bill Still's candidacy

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
Still is a gatekeeper advocating a new fiat currency and working against the gold and silver mouvement.
His documentary " The moneymasters" has been pretty badly exposed by Edward Griffin ( http://www.freedomforceinternational.or ... =meetstill).

Furthermore, Still claims arabs were responsable for 911.

Stay away from the guy.
 
OP
L

Lofihi

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
30
Arabs responsible for that is laughable, I didnt know any of these things, and will look at them . thomas schauf was running in 2000 but went off the.grid,i assumed still was tom's "designate"
 

montmorency

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
255
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
I don't know who Edward Griffin is, but Bill Still's views on money seem pretty sound to me.

For a different, but related (UK) approach, have a look at PositiveMoney dot org .


The problem is not Fiat money, but that the ability to create our money supply has been given to unelected, unaccountable bankers.
 
J

j.

Guest
montmorency said:
I don't know who Edward Griffin is, but Bill Still's views on money seem pretty sound to me.

For a different, but related (UK) approach, have a look at PositiveMoney dot org .


The problem is not Fiat money, but that the ability to create our money supply has been given to unelected, unaccountable bankers.

So increasing the money supply democratically is ok? Stealing when approved by majorities is ok?
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
montmorency said:
I don't know who Edward Griffin is

Then i'm sorry for you.

Still claims that, because 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. [b]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[/b].

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.
 

4peatssake

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,055
Age
62
I have no pony is this race but to be fair, Still does have a rebuttal to Griffith's criticism of him and his views.

Bill Still refutes G. Edward Griffin on Economics

What I find very sad is that even those who understand there exist tremendous corruption cannot come together in any measure of unity and strength to deal with the actual problem.

Instead they expend their energy fighting one another and the corruption plays on. Makes you wonder about their real motives doesn't it?
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
4peatssake said:
I have no pony is this race but to be fair, Still does have a rebuttal to Griffith's criticism of him and his views.

Bill Still refutes G. Edward Griffin on Economics

He did write a rebuttal, you're absolutely right, but ,as i wrote on another forum, it was just a big, fat pack of lies for the sake of saving face:

Griffin:Lincoln’s issuance of fiat money, called Greenbacks in violation of the Constitution, once again was presented as an act of statesmanship.

Still:I wonder what part of the Constitution Mr. Griffin is referring to here? Article 1, section 8 clearly says that Congress alone should
create the money
and "regulate the Value thereof….”
Wouldn't regulating the value thereof mean the Congress should be in control of the quantity?


Actually, the correct text from Article 1, section 8 is :
Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.

So, in order to respond to Griffin's arguments, Still is reduced at falsifying words from the constitution in his rebuttal.

Why ?

Anyone who read Griffin's book knows he went to great lenghts in explaining the difference between COINING money and CREATING it.
Coining means regulating the amount of metals in the coin; it does not mean at all creating money .
The constitution reserves the right to create money to the states and forbids it to the governament.
Section 10 also stipulates states CAN NOT make anything other than gold and silver LEGAL tender (meaning people [the free market] can use whatever they want as currency BUT, legally, gold and silver are the official currency).

Since Still proposes the creation of a new fiat currency by the governament, he needs people to believe the constitution allows it, when in reality it's the complete opposite.

So he wrote this farce hoping nobody read Griffin's book.
 

4peatssake

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,055
Age
62
And the Band Played On
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
:D

As they say, the devil is in the details. ;)
 

4peatssake

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
2,055
Age
62
burtlancast said:
As they say, the devil is in the details. ;)
You bet he is. Making sure everyone keeps fighting among themselves so no real change is ever possible.
People don't even realize they are fitting perfectly into the plan.
They no longer know how to properly ponder what is unfolding all around them and fail to realize they are simply playing out the roles that were created for them. They've swallowed the blue pill but think they chose the red.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
One first needs to find someone he knows for a fact tells the truth, amongst the tens and tens of disinformants placed there to send you down the wrong path, telling 90% truth and mixing it with 10% lies.

Griffin's book on the federal reserve is 700 pages big; so you really need motivation before spending one month reading it in your spare time. But that's alright, because i knew from his lectures the man has integrity.

His work on Vit B17 is a must read.
 

montmorency

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
255
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
j. said:
montmorency said:
I don't know who Edward Griffin is, but Bill Still's views on money seem pretty sound to me.

For a different, but related (UK) approach, have a look at PositiveMoney dot org .


The problem is not Fiat money, but that the ability to create our money supply has been given to unelected, unaccountable bankers.

So increasing the money supply democratically is ok?

If the money supply needs to be increased, according to the needs of the real economy, then yes, let it be increased, in order to serve the will of the people, as expressed by democratic means. I thought that's what it meant to live in a democracy. But the power to create money was handed over to the banking sector in Britain in 1694, and in the United States in 1913.

I don't think one has to be some sort of extreme libertarian to want to question the role and actions of the banking sector, especially in recent years, given the financial crash of 2007 / 2008, and the state of most western-style economies at the present time.



Stealing when approved by majorities is ok?

I have no idea what you mean by this. I don't approve of stealing by anyone. If you can point to where I approved of stealing, then I will eat whatever humble pie you serve me.
 

montmorency

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
255
Location
Oxfordshire, UK
@burtlancast:

Thank you for your sympathy, and the slightly more useful piece of information you repeated. I may not be wiser, but I am now a little better informed.

Well, I don't of course know the detail of the American constitution since I live under a different and unwritten constitution, so the distinction between what the Federal government can do and what the states can do had escaped me.

I know that Americans take their constitution very seriously, but it's different here, since no one is quite sure what's in ours and what isn't. Supposedly an advantage. But personally, I don't think yours was written in stone (literally or metaphorically), and clearly ours wasn't.

It's not really practical to use gold and silver nowadays, even if it were advisable from a money supply point of view, which I happen to think it isn't.

But I suspect we'll never agree on that.

No, of course politicians aren't perfect. They are human, make mistakes and sometimes get things disastrously wrong. But with a properly functioning democracy, these things should debated and out in the open. Yes, it's true that lobbyists of all sorts have far too much power, and are killing our two democracies, but that's something we can and should change.
 
J

j.

Guest
montmorency said:
I have no idea what you mean by this. I don't approve of stealing by anyone. If you can point to where I approved of stealing, then I will eat whatever humble pie you serve me.

Increasing the money supply is equivalent to stealing. Increasing the money supply decreases the value of the money, but it takes a while for this effect to occur, so it's a transfer of wealth to those who use the money first, those who use the newly printed money before it lost its value, and those are usually the powerful and politically connected.

If there is a system where the money supply can be increased at will or by the approval of a group, democratically or otherwise, then there should be no legal tender laws so people who want to protect themselves from inflation can use gold as money or other things whose supply can't be increased at will.
 
J

j.

Guest
montmorency said:
If the money supply needs to be increased, according to the needs of the real economy, then yes, let it be increased, in order to serve the will of the people, as expressed by democratic means.

I don't think it's ok for certain actions to occur, even if they're decided by a majority, for example, killing people, stealing, restricting freedom of expression, even with the approval of a majority. Increasing the money supply is under almost all circumstances just well-disguised theft.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
montmorency said:
It's not really practical to use gold and silver nowadays, even if it were advisable from a money supply point of view, which I happen to think it isn't.

Care to explain why ?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom