"it turns out to have been a paraphrasing, by congressman Charles Binderup, of a passage of Ford's 1922 book "My Like and Work":

“The people are naturally conservative. They are more conservative than the financiers. Those who believe that the people are so easily led that they would permit printing presses to run off money like milk tickets do not understand them. It is the innate conservation of the people that has kept our money good in spite of the fantastic tricks which the financiers play — and which they cover up with high technical terms. The people are on the side of sound money. They are so unalterably on the side of sound money that it is a serious question how they would regard the system under which they live, if they once knew what the initiated can do with it.” — Henry Ford, My Life and Work, p. 179

The revolution is happening now and it’s not being televised. If crypto doesn’t put an end to our current banking and monetary system nothing will

This is classic.

10 years ago there were tens of thousands protesting the central bank and now all of a sudden we have a cure with crypto and no one gives a shit.

How is crypto the cure?

By replacing the entirety of the central banking system.

It will never happen

Never said it would. Doesn’t change the fact it could.

But it couldn't though because it would never be allowed to happen

no u

This is bullshit. Anything created by a computer can be manipulated. The cryptocurrency is the 1st step to 1 world order. Pedo Jeff Epstein is promoting crypto currency now

You’re a different breed of “conspiracy” theorist than I am I guess.

We dont even know who invented Bitcoin. That alone should raise suspicions for anyone!

Who invented Fractional Reserve Banking?

Why was gold ever considered valuable in the first place?

I actually do think that bitcoin in particular, and crypto in general, will eventually be the way out. Try to keep in mind how few people understand the reserve banking system and then realize there are far fewer people understand computers/crypto enough to trust it. And of that small percentage that are "on board" with crypto only a small percentage of them could tell you the difference between bitcoin and ripple (other than one is cheaper and therefor must be a better deal).

There are others that see what you see.

That made me feel special! Thanks!

Hopefully one day enough people will wake up, and realize that the national debt is in dollars. We could all just walk away, with our own international currencies. It's like the end game goal of Fight Club, without having to physically blow anything up.

We just collectively say, "Fuck you, and your money." Slavery didn't end, it just diversified its portfolio to include everyone. Granted it got a little more politically correct too, but the idea is the same. Everyone works to make the old money richer.

Crypto in it's current form can't do much to stop the banking system. In the end, a bitcoin's value is based on how much USD it can be traded for, meaning bankers can still create as much USD as they need to control the crypto market (which I guarantee you is happening right now). Crypto is mostly just good for making transactions harder to track/tax.

This is so misinformed it’s incredible.

I don’t mean to jump down your throat, man. In this case, you’re talking out of your ass and don’t actually understand the value of the tech. You’re just repeating tired talking point.

The value in bitcoin > fiat : they do not derive their value the same way. You don’t get it yet.

Tell me then, how is crypto going to overturn centralized banking?

I understand that bitcoin's value lies in it's encryption, and decentralization, but it is similar to fiat in that it has no inherent value other than that. To me it seems that every day that bitcoins are traded for dollars increases the share of bitcoins that big finance controls. Maybe I'm wrong, I honestly do want to know more about it.

The centralized banking system costs, in actual dollars, is in the trillions per year. That’s the yearly cost of people running a system that essentially can be run by BTC - for now not all of it; but in my opinion the debt mechanisms we have in our systems are Bolshevik bastardizations of free markets meant to destroy sustainability in the long term. Medieval Usury at its finest.

So unlike fiat currency which requires a plethora of labor to operate and is inherently DEVALUED from the moment it is printed due to the debt that is attached to it - Cryptocurrency already has the inherent savings of the massive costs of the fractional reserve banking system.

It’s already worth about $1M per BTC - people don’t see it though because all this bullshit misinformation about the “inherent value” being zero.

It’s not true. Plain and simple.

I 100% agree about centralized banking and the fractional reserve systems. They are absolutely usury, and are the biggest parasites on the world economy. My worry is that the banking cabal realized the threat of crypto long ago and has been in the process of buying it up for a while now. It's similar to gold-backed currency before fiat, the limited supply of it actually made it easier for the cabal to find it and buy it all up. I honestly hope that I'm wrong.

I think that is why Satoshi hasn’t touched his money. It’s meant to be a spigot to ease the pressure off the value of someone does consolidate too much.

Ron Paul knows!

It's all just one huge, worldwide monetary clusterfuck

My grandpa.

Interesting you mention Henry Ford who is the author of “the International Jew” and was a believer in the protocols.

I think you should watch this video of Hitler, it’s really interesting.

But in a way Hitler did sort of fight the federal reserve and the banking system that was controlling Germany. The Nazis took control of the banking system and they started producing the currency and they gave interest free loans to families and workers that were improving the standard of living in Germany. They wiped away the debt owed to foreign powers and gave their people a few years of economic prosperity.

U should watch this video

There were problems before we had fiat money. And how is changing currencies going to bring the troops home?

All wars are bankrs' wars. End the shit - end the war.

If we were smart; we would all unite under this issue and not let up until we regained financial sovereignty. The republic is worthless if we don't control the currency. This is the main reason we fought for independence in the first place!

Is there any way we can organize? Any kind of organization/rallying through social media or websites that even resembled a call for revolution would get shut down/deleted

I thank Bill Still, Aaron Russo, and Ellen Brown for helping me to learn about the situation with the Federal Reserve System and our nation's currency. Ron Paul also raised awareness to the dilemma.

Bill Still's stuff is just awesome, really well researched. American history becomes a lot more interesting when you realize that most of it was spent fighting against the influence of the international banking cabal.

What would actually change if there was no Fed? You'd still have to work, many the Gini coefficient would be a little more equal, but what would really be different?

Worth noting that some of the original opponents of the "money monopoly" developed a belief that the concentration of power which maintained it was too complete to do away with simply through deregulating and decentralizing banking... in the 1860s... And it's only gotten worse.

For these and other reasons Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society. But, though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few. And when the light burst in upon them, they saw that this could be done by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost, - that is, to nothing beyond the expenses incidental to handling and transferring it. So they raised the banner of Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez faire the universal rule. Under this banner they began their fight upon monopolies, whether the all-inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists, or the various class monopolies that now prevail.

Of the latter they distinguished four of principal importance: the money monopoly, the land monopoly, the tariff monopoly, and the patent monopoly.

First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, - the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, - a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen and exemplification of the worlds of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

Second in importance comes the land monopoly, the evil effects of which are seen principally in exclusively agricultural countries, like Ireland. This monopoly consists in the enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation. It was obvious to Warren and Proudhon that, as soon as individualists should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupancy and cultivation of land, ground-rent would disappear, and so usury have one less leg to stand on. Their followers of today are disposed to modify this claim to the extent of admitting that the very small fraction of ground-rent which rests, not on monopoly, but on superiority of soil or site, will continue to exist for a time and perhaps forever, though tending constantly to a minimum under conditions of freedom. But the inequality of soils which gives rise to the economic rent of land, like the inequality of human skill which gives rise to the economic rent of ability, is not a cause for serious alarm even to the most thorough opponent of usury, as its nature is not that of a germ from which other and graver inequalities may spring, but rather that of a decaying branch which may finally wither and fall.

Third, the tariff monopoly, which consists in fostering production at high prices and under unfavorable conditions by visiting with the penalty of taxation those who patronize production at low prices and under favorable conditions. The evil to which this monopoly gives rise might more properly be called misusury than usury, because it compels labor to pay, not exactly for the use of capital, but rather for the misuse of capital. The abolition of this monopoly would result in a great reduction in the prices of all articles taxed, and this saving to the laborers who consume these articles would be another step toward securing to the laborer his natural wage, his entire product. Proudhon admitted, however, that to abolish this monopoly before abolishing the money monopoly would be a cruel and disastrous police, first, because the evil of scarcity of money, created by the money monopoly, would be intensified by the flow of money out of the country which would be involved in an excess of imports over exports, and, second, because that fraction of the laborers of the country which is now employed in the protected industries would be turned adrift to face starvation without the benefit of the insatiable demand for labor which a competitive money system would create. Free trade in money at home, making money and work abundant, was insisted upon by Proudhon as a prior condition of free trade in goods with foreign countries.

Fourth, the patent monopoly, which consists in protecting inventors and authors against competition for a period long enough to enable them to extort from the people a reward enormously in excess of the labor measure of their services, - in other words, in giving certain people a right of property for a term of years in laws and facts of Nature, and the power to exact tribute from others for the use of this natural wealth, which should be open to all. The abolition of this monopoly would fill its beneficiaries with a wholesome fear of competition which would cause them to be satisfied with pay for their services equal to that which other laborers get for theirs, and to secure it by placing their products and works on the market at the outset at prices so low that their lines of business would be no more tempting to competitors than any other lines.

To the above on the Four Monopolies, Tucker later added the following postscript:

Forty years ago, when the foregoing essay was written, the denial of competition had not yet effected the enormous concentration of wealth that now so gravely threatens social order. It was not yet too late to stem the current of accumulation by a reversal of the policy of monopoly. The Anarchistic remedy was still applicable.

Today the way is not so clear. The four monopolies, unhindered, have made possible the modern development of the trust, and the trust is now a monster which I fear, even the freest banking, could it be instituted, would be unable to destroy. As long as the Standard Oil group controlled only fifty millions of dollars, the institution of free competition would have crippled it hopelessly; it needed the money monopoly for its sustenance and its growth. Now that it controls, directly and indirectly, perhaps ten thousand millions, it sees in the money monopoly a convenience, to be sure, but no longer a necessity. It can do without it. Were all restrictions upon banking to be removed, concentrated capital could meet successfully the new situation by setting aside annually for sacrifice a sum that would remove every competitor from the field.

If this be true, then monopoly, which can be controlled permanently only for economic forces, has passed for the moment beyond their reach, and must be grappled with for a time solely by forces political or revolutionary. Until measures of forcible confiscation, through the State or in defiance of it, shall have abolished the concentrations that monopoly has created, the economic solution proposed by Anarchism and outlined in the forgoing pages - and there is no other solution - will remain a thing to be taught to the rising generation, that conditions may be favorable to its application after the great leveling. But education is a slow process, and may not come too quickly. Anarchists who endeavor to hasten it by joining in the propaganda of State Socialism or revolution make a sad mistake indeed. They help to so force the march of events that the people will not have time to find out, by the study of their experience, that their troubles have been due to the rejection of competition. If this lesson shall not be learned in a season, the past will be repeated in the future, in which case we shall have to turn for consolation to the doctrine of Nietzsche that this is bound to happen anyhow, or to the reflection of Renan that, from the point of view of Sirius, all these matters are of little moment.

B.R.T., August 11, 1926.

State Socialism and Anarchism: How far they agree, and wherein the differ.

I think the problem is deeper than the fed.. But it woukd be a great place to start certainly

While the National Bank system may be the biggest and worst problem, it is not the only one, and fixing it will not fix the whole system, which is bigger and more complex.

Uhhh not sure what's going on in the sub tonight but several really good posts, such as this one. Fucking refreshing.

People are on the verge of snapping right now.

It’s a good start but a drop in the ocean.

You are correct, and digital currency like bitcoin is the answer. No one shall control the money supply!

You’re right! Follow the money... but the bigger issue is the apathy of Americans to even care to understand how the Fed works. I like crypto but I’m suspicious bc you have big banks coming out with their own crypto currencies and we then are back to square one. I think a monopoly on major brands and companies and doing more local business would be a good start.

Yes. You hit it on the nail. It should always go back to the Fed. End the Fed. It's only brought war and a corrupted political/justice system while enriching the few.

Fixing the Fed will not fix the whole system, but it would take away an instrument of control, which is what money is for.

Here are Bob Livingston and Andreas Antonolpoulos on the subject of fiat money and cryptocurrencies as well:

Money Is For Control

Money now equals debt, and debt equals control.

Do you not think you are in debt if you have money?

Take a dollar out of your wallet right now and have a look at the bill. At the very top, in big block letters it reads "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE." A note, dear reader, is a debt. Do you think that it means the government owes you $1 or $5 worth of gold or silver? Surely not, although it used to.

Possessing that bank note means you are being controlled.

It began in 1913 of course, but ramped up 50 years ago with the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act (the Bank Secrecy Act) which was supposed to stop "criminal" activity. It made financial institutions report to the government on any transactions involving substantial sums of money. Even private transactions between American citizens.

Isn't it interesting that these laws with such impressively important names — the Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act — always purport to stop the bad guys, yet end up being used against the people?

Not just Americans. These laws have infected every financial institution around the world. I used to recommend Swiss Annuities as vehicles for privacy and investment. Now I can't because they are not private.

How did the money creators bamboozle even the Swiss, the guardians of private banking for 250 years?

"Money as a System of Control," is a speech, available on YouTube, by Andreas M. Antonopoulos, a technologist, bitcoin expert and serial entrepreneur. It is an excellent explanation of how the government began to use money to control the population.

Mr. Antonopoulos explains it all very well in his talk. Here are the most relevant remarks:

"In 1970, Richard Nixon signed the bank secrecy act and turned money into a system of control.

"A system of control that attempts to use money as a political tool in order to control who is able to send and receive it, who they are able to send money to, and aims for the complete surveillance of all financial transactions worldwide.

"In 1970, Richard Nixon deputized the financial services field and turned it into a branch of law enforcement beyond borders, beyond jurisdiction, beyond due process, beyond political control, beyond recourse.

"There are tiers of access and control within the financial system. Some people who have better access, better recourse and some people who have complete immunity. Some can commit crimes against millions — robo-foreclosures, LIBOR fraud, rigging the gold markets — and no one will ever go to jail.

"Why? Because when money becomes a system of control, financial services companies become deputies in the system and get some perks. One is that they never go to jail, with a few exceptions — as long as you never break a fundamental rule of society. Bernie Madoff went to jail because he made the fundamental mistake of stealing from rich people. Foreclose on 10 million poor people? No problem. Create 3.5 million fake bank accounts at Wells Fargo? No problem. Lose 143 million private records at Equifax? How many executives will go to jail? None.

"Because a system of control corrupts the basis of money until it can no longer function as a medium of exchange and breeds exclusion. Entire countries are being cut off from financial access. You don't act in the best interests of the U.S., you lose your SWIFT code. You are no longer part of the wire transfer network. You must submit to the universal jurisdiction of American courts, like Switzerland had to do, or you lose access to international banking and the reserve currency.

"Money does not flow freely.

"You can't store value in a currency that can be confiscated at whim, frozen by any cop or banker at any time. That's not a stable store of value. You can't use it as your currency reserve or exchange reserve to buy oil if you're a country because if you cross the superpowers they will cut off your access and you will not be able to use oil. You can't use money as a medium of exchange if you can't exchange it freely with whomever you want.

"Gradually, the corruption spreads. The banks now play cop for the worlds superpowers. They're stuck in their gilded cage, offering economic services to a tiny fraction of the human population, sacrificing 4 billion people on the altar of poverty in order to create a nice fake bourgeois sense of security among the middle class by selling them lies.

"The FDIC: 'Don't worry, your money is insured.' How many Greeks had insurance on their bank accounts? All of them. What happened to that? Poof! In one afternoon, vanished.

"You don't 'have money in a bank.' It's not your money. You have an account, which is a legal construct that they give you in exchange for an unsecured loan of your money so that they can finance credit to their customers. You don't own the money in your account. You have a construct that maybe entitles you to withdraw at the pace they want. Unless you associate with the wrong people, go to the wrong protest, vote for the wrong party. This is every dictator's dream because it ensures political dissent can be snuffed out at the bank very effectively." -- end quote

In case you don't believe Mr. Antonopoulos, recall that in the late night hours, congress recently passed a rule that protects Equifax, credit-card companies, banks and other financial institutions from being sued via class action by customers who feel they've been wronged or harmed.

So you see, money supersedes political party. It is now outside the law, as is also evident with the current state of civil asset forfeiture and "cop shopping."

The only way the dollar — or any currency that replaces it — will lose the power of control is if a currency exists outside of the corruption of the state and government.

Gold and silver have always been rare and precious to humans, and they have the quality of a store of value and medium of exchange built in, which is why they will always be of use as money. Yes, the government always seeks to control everything around these non-central bank currencies, tries to confiscate them and often attempts to rig the market for them. But gold and silver themselves can't be corrupted, so they are ideal as stores of value.

Will bitcoin, or some other cryptocurrency, take hold as a medium of exchange?

You should now also be aware of why the Chinese government is so adamant about making its currency, the yuan, legitimate on the world stage. Not because the Chinese wish economic viability. They have that already. No, the communist government craves money's new function as a system of law enforcement, surveillance and controlling the people.

This is why the Chinese people are piling into bitcoin. They desperately want to get away from government control of them through the yuan, the dollar, or any other central bank money.

Bitcoins, the most popular crypto-currency, live in their own world that makes them half commodity, like gold, and half currency. They're mined like gold and there's a limited number of them, just like there's a limited amount of gold.

Unlike a commodity, there is a market for them where they are traded and used as currency. And it isn't backed by a nation.

Of course governments are finding ways to regulate even bitcoin, and it's not as anonymous as once thought. And the financial industry is already looking for ways to "financialize" bitcoin, with ETF offerings, so that you can "invest" your fake money in fake paper that purports to track the ups and downs of the crypto-currency.

I still believe in gold. I always will. But I am also for any currency that enables freedom of trade and a free economy. That is obviously not the dollar, although you need to hold some cash as long as the U.S. is still a world power. The dollar is there to control you, through debt, restrictions and surveillance, as you have just read. I am truly sorry if this makes you feel less free, but it's up to you to protect yourself and your loved ones. The government does not wish to do it for you. On the contrary... as the recent senate vote shows, they are working against you.

I always start someone off on The Century of the Self to get them accustomed to the fact that what they've been perceiving as reality has been constructed for their consumption to produce predictable political and economic results.

I like The Quigley Formula a lecture by G. Edward Griffin who wrote "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve"

That's why I am a cryptocurrency developer! Manipulation of money has enabled some of humanity's most awful behavior: wars, colonization, the quiet theft of slow inflation, and the devastation of hyperinflation. People are clearly not capable of handling that much concentrated power; it must be distributed widely enough that nobody can twist the system into serving their interests at others' expense.

The entire argument of democracy vs communism hinges on the fact that money is the determinant of a free market...now imagine the implications if money is biased or controlled even in the smallest way. You wouldn't have a democracy, you'd have feudalism where certain authorities control resources.