PDA

View Full Version : How deep does the Rabbit Hole Go?




InterestedParticipant
02-18-2010, 06:04 PM
In this interview with Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media, Eustace Mullins, the last living protégé of Ezra Pound, joins Jan for this explosive two part series on the history of the Federal Reserve, WWI, WWII, the Rothschilds, JP Morgan, the New World Order, banking, Zionism, farming, G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island, Ron Paul, the gold standard, and the state of world affairs.


Interview Part 1
http://gnosticmedia.podOmatic.com/entry/2009-09-27T21_26_42-07_00

Interview Part 2
http://gnosticmedia.podOmatic.com/entry/2009-10-04T23_41_53-07_00

About the Interviewee

Eustace Mullins is a veteran of the United States Air Force, with thirty-eight months of active service during World War II. A native Virginian, he was educated at Washington and Lee University, New York University, Ohio University, the University of North Dakota, the Escuelas des Bellas Artes, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, and the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Washington, D.C.

The original book, published under the title Mullins On The Federal Reserve, was commissioned by the poet Ezra Pound in 1948. Ezra Pound was a political prisoner for thirteen and a half years at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. (a Federal institution for the insane). His release was accomplished largely through the efforts of Mr. Mullins.

The research at the Library of Congress was directed and reviewed daily by George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club in Washington, whom The New York Times on September 28, 1952 called, "A highly regarded reference source in the capitol. Government officials, Congressmen, and reporters went to him for information on any subject."

Published in 1952 by Kasper and Horton, New York, the original book was the first nationally-circulated revelation of the secret meetings of the international bankers at Jekyll Island, Georgia, 1907-1910, at which place the draft of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was written.

During the intervening years, the author continued to gather new and more startling information about the backgrounds of the people who direct the Federal Reserve policies. New information gathered over the years from hundreds of newspapers, periodicals, and books give corroborating insight into the connections of the international banking houses.*

While researching this material, Eustace Mullins was on the staff of the Library of Congress. Mullins later was a consultant on highway finance for the American Petroleum Institute, consultant on hotel development for Institutions Magazine, and editorial director for the Chicago Motor Club’s four publications.


http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/34/04/66c181b0c8a09f8a7650c110.L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: the London Connection (http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=lgR0Q1iep01vtVE,d7hAaav8kD4_8741571646_1:238:13 10&bq=author%3Deustace%2520mullins%26title%3Dsecrets% 2520of%2520the%2520federal%2520reserve%2520the%252 0london%2520connection)

Read the book Online (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm)


Book Foreword

In 1949, while I was visiting Ezra Pound who was a political prisoner at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. (a Federal institution for the insane), Dr. Pound asked me if I had ever heard of the Federal Reserve System. I replied that I had not, as of the age of 25. He then showed me a ten dollar bill marked "Federal Reserve Note" and asked me if I would do some research at the Library of Congress on the Federal Reserve System which had issued this bill. Pound was unable to go to the Library himself, as he was being held without trial as a political prisoner by the United States government. After he was denied broadcasting time in the U.S., Dr. Pound broadcast from Italy in an effort to persuade people of the United States not to enter World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had personally ordered Pound’s indictment, spurred by the demands of his three personal assistants, Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, and Alger Hiss, all of whom were subsequently identified as being connected with Communist espionage.

I had no interest in money or banking as a subject, because I was working on a novel. Pound offered to supplement my income by ten dollars a week for a few weeks. My initial research revealed evidence of an international banking group which had secretly planned the writing of the Federal Reserve Act and Congress’ enactment of the plan into law. These findings confirmed what Pound had long suspected. He said, "You must work on it as a detective story." I was fortunate in having my research at the Library of Congress directed by a prominent scholar, George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club, who was described by The New York Times of September 28, 1952: "Beloved by Washington newspapermen as ‘our walking Library of Congress’, Mr. Stimpson was a highly regarded reference source in the Capitol. Government officials, Congressmen and reporters went to him for information on any subject."

I did research four hours each day at the Library of Congress, and went to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in the afternoon. Pound and I went over the previous day’s notes. I then had dinner with George Stimpson at Scholl’s Cafeteria while he went over my material, and I then went back to my room to type up the corrected notes. Both Stimpson and Pound made many suggestions in guiding me in a field in which I had no previous experience. When Pound’s resources ran low, I applied to the Guggenheim Foundation, Huntington Hartford Foundation, and other foundations to complete my research on the Federal Reserve. Even though my foundation applications were sponsored by the three leading poets of America, Ezra Pound, E.E. Cummings, and Elizabeth Bishop, all of the foundations refused to sponsor this research. I then wrote up my findings to date, and in 1950 began efforts to market this manuscript in New York. Eighteen publishers turned it down without comment, but the nineteenth, Devin Garrity, president of Devin Adair Publishing Company, gave me some friendly advice in his office. "I like your book, but we can’t print it," he told me. "Neither can anybody else in New York. Why don’t you bring in a prospectus for your novel, and I think we can give you an advance. You may as well forget about getting the Federal Reserve book published. I doubt if it could ever be printed."

This was devastating news, coming after two years of intensive work. I reported back to Pound, and we tried to find a publisher in other parts of the country. After two years of fruitless submissions, the book was published in a small edition in 1952 by two of Pound’s disciples, John Kasper and David Horton, using their private funds, under the title Mullins on the Federal Reserve. In 1954, a second edition, with unauthorized alterations, was published in New Jersey, as The Federal Reserve Conspiracy. In 1955, Guido Roeder brought out a German edition in Oberammergau, Germany. The book was seized and the entire edition of 10,000 copies burned by government agents led by Dr. Otto John.

The burning of the book was upheld April 21, 1961 by judge Israel Katz of the Bavarian Supreme Court. The U.S. Government refused to intervene, because U.S. High Commissioner to Germany, James B. Conant (president of Harvard University 1933 to 1953), had approved the initial book burning order. This is the only book which has been burned in Germany since World War II. In 1968 a pirated edition of this book appeared in California. Both the FBI and the U.S. Postal inspectors refused to act, despite numerous complaints from me during the next decade. In 1980 a new German edition appeared. Because the U.S. Government apparently no longer dictated the internal affairs of Germany, the identical book which had been burned in 1955 now circulates in Germany without interference.

I had collaborated on several books with Mr. H.L. Hunt and he suggested that I should continue my long-delayed research on the Federal Reserve and bring out a more definitive version of this book. I had just signed a contract to write the authorized biography of Ezra Pound, and the Federal Reserve book had to be postponed. Mr. Hunt passed away before I could get back to my research, and once again I faced the problem of financing research for the book.

My original book had traced and named the shadowy figures in the United States who planned the Federal Reserve Act. I now discovered that the men whom I exposed in 1952 as the shadowy figures behind the operation of the Federal Reserve System were themselves shadows, the American fronts for the unknown figures who became known as the "London Connection." I found that notwithstanding our successes in the Wars of Independence of 1812 against England, we remained an economic and financial colony of Great Britain. For the first time, we located the original stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks and traced their parent companies to the London Connection.

This research is substantiated by citations and documentation from hundreds of newspapers, periodicals and books and charts showing blood, marriage, and business relationships. More than a thousand issues of The New York Times on microfilm have been checked not only for original information, but verification of statements from other sources.

It is a truism of the writing profession that a writer has only one book within him. This seems applicable in my case, because I am now in the fifth decade of continuous writing on a single subject, the inside story of the Federal Reserve System. This book was from its inception commissioned and guided by Ezra Pound. Four of his protégés have previously been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature, William Butler Yeats for his later poetry, James Joyce for "Ulysses", Ernest Hemingway for "The Sun Also Rises", and T.S. Elliot for "The Waste Land". Pound played a major role in the inspiration and in the editing of these works--which leads us to believe that this present work, also inspired by Pound, represents an ongoing literary tradition.

Although this book in its inception was expected to be a tortuous work on economic and monetary techniques, it soon developed into a story of such universal and dramatic appeal that from the outset, Ezra Pound urged me to write it as a detective story, a genre which was invented by my fellow Virginian, Edgar Allan Poe. I believe that the continuous circulation of this book during the past forty years has not only exonerated Ezra Pound for his much condemned political and monetary statements, but also that it has been, and will continue to be, the ultimate weapon against the powerful conspirators who compelled him to serve thirteen and a half years without trial, as a political prisoner held in an insane asylum a la KGB. His earliest vindication came when the government agents who represented the conspirators refused to allow him to testify in his own defense; the second vindication came in 1958 when these same agents dropped all charges against him, and he walked out of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, a free man once more. His third and final vindication is this work, which documents every aspect of his exposure of the ruthless international financiers to whom Ezra Pound became but one more victim, doomed to serve years as the Man in the Iron Mask, because he had dared to alert his fellow-Americans to their furtive acts of treason against all people of the United States.

In my lectures throughout this nation, and in my appearances on many radio and television programs, I have sounded the toxin that the Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system at all, but rather, a criminal syndicate. From November, 1910, when the conspirators met on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to the present time, the machinations of the Federal Reserve bankers have been shrouded in secrecy. Today, that secrecy has cost the American people a three trillion dollar debt, with annual interest payments to these bankers amounting to some three hundred billion dollars per year, sums which stagger the imagination, and which in themselves are ultimately unpayable. Officials of the Federal Reserve System routinely issue remonstrances to the public, much as the Hindu fakir pipes an insistent tune to the dazed cobra which sways its head before him, not to resolve the situation, but to prevent it from striking him. Such was the soothing letter written by Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors in response to an inquiry by a Congressman, the Honorable Norman D. Shumway, on March 10, 1983. Mr. Winn states that "The Federal Reserve System was established by an act of Congress in 1913 and is not a ‘private corporation’." On the next page, Mr. Winn continues, "The stock of the Federal Reserve Banks is held entirely by commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System." He offers no explanation as to why the government has never owned a single share of stock in any Federal Reserve Bank, or why the Federal Reserve System is not a "private corporation" when all of its stock is owned by "private corporations".

American history in the twentieth century has recorded the amazing achievements of the Federal Reserve bankers. First, the outbreak of World War I, which was made possible by the funds available from the new central bank of the United States. Second, the Agricultural Depression of 1920. Third, the Black Friday Crash on Wall Street of October, 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. Fourth, World War II. Fifth, the conversion of the assets of the United States and its citizens from real property to paper assets from 1945 to the present, transforming a victorious America and foremost world power in 1945 to the world’s largest debtor nation in 1990. Today, this nation lies in economic ruins, devastated and destitute, in much the same dire straits in which Germany and Japan found themselves in 1945. Will Americans act to rebuild our nation, as Germany and Japan have done when they faced the identical conditions which we now face--or will we continue to be enslaved by the Babylonian debt money system which was set up by the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 to complete our total destruction? This is the only question which we have to answer, and we do not have much time left to answer it.

Because of the depth and the importance of the information which I had developed at the Library of Congress under the tutelage of Ezra Pound, this work became the happy hunting ground for many other would-be historians, who were unable to research this material for themselves. Over the past four decades, I have become accustomed to seeing this material appear in many other books, invariably attributed to other writers, with my name never mentioned. To add insult to injury, not only my material, but even my title has been appropriated, in a massive, if obtuse, work called "Secrets of the Temple--the Federal Reserve". This heavily advertised book received reviews ranging from incredulous to hilarious. Forbes Magazine advised its readers to read their review and save their money, pointing out that "a reader will discover no secrets" and that "This is one of those books whose fanfares far exceed their merit." This was not accidental, as this overblown whitewash of the Federal Reserve bankers was published by the most famous nonbook publisher in the world.

After my initial shock at discovering that the most influential literary personality of the twentieth century, Ezra Pound, was imprisoned in "the Hellhole" in Washington, I immediately wrote for assistance to a Wall Street financier at whose estate I had frequently been a guest. I reminded him that as a patron of the arts, he could not afford to allow Pound to remain in such inhuman captivity. His reply shocked me even more. He wrote back that "your friend can well stay where he is." It was some years before I was able to understand that, for this investment banker and his colleagues, Ezra Pound would always be "the enemy".

EustaceMullins
Jackson Hole, Wyoming

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 10:37 AM
Mullins "outs" G. Edward Griffin as a plagiarist, saying Jekyll Island was stolen from Secrets of the Federal Reserve, which was published decades before Griffin's book and was suppressed. It took Mullins decades of research at the Library of Congress to assemble the content of his book. How did Griffin's do his "independent" research, where, and how long did it take him? Mullins points out that Griffin's conclusion to push the Gold Standard simply maintain elite power, and so Griffin changed that part of Mullins' thesis when he published Jekyll Island. Mullins also asks why Ron Paul is pushing Griffins' book instead of Mullins', which is the original work.

What's also ironic, is Griffin only mentions Mullins once, and that can be found on page 413 with footnote on 414, but then quickly discounts Mullins' quote.

YouTube - Eustace Mullins' on FED, Ron Paul, Rockefeller & G. Edward Griffin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiUGrlLccDc)

erowe1
02-19-2010, 10:44 AM
Can you show me where in Griffin's book he plagiarizes from Mullins?

I remember hearing Mullins claim that, but he didn't back it up with any evidence.

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 10:53 AM
Eustace Mullins connections to White Power groups makes people nervous to promote him. Plus he's friends with Revilo P. Oliver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revilo_P._Oliver), a racist associated with the National Alliance - A White Nationalist organization.

Eustace Mullins is a loose cannon who makes tons of anti-Jewish / antisemitic remarks.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 10:55 AM
Eustace Mullins connections to White Power groups makes people nervous to promote him. Plus he's friends with Revilo P. Oliver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revilo_P._Oliver), a racist associated with the National Alliance - A White Nationalist organization.

Eustace Mullins is a loose cannon who makes tons of anti-Jewish / antisemitic remarks.

That's definitely true.

But I still want to know what the basis is for this charge of plagiarism. I've encountered it before, but never seen the evidence. Does evidence actually exist? Or is Mullins just lashing out because he's jealous that Griffin's book sold more copies than his?

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 11:02 AM
That's definitely true.

But I still want to know what the basis is for this charge of plagiarism. I've encountered it before, but never seen the evidence. Does evidence actually exist? Or is Mullins just lashing out because he's jealous that Griffin's book sold more copies than his?
It's true that Eustace Mullins wrote the first anti-Federal Reserve book, but he slams the Jews pretty hard in the book.

G. Edward Griffin wrote a more academic anti-Federal Reserve book for main stream circulation.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 11:05 AM
It's true that Eustace Mullins wrote the first anti-Federal Reserve book, but he slams the Jews pretty hard in the book.

G. Edward Griffin wrote a more academic anti-Federal Reserve book for main stream circulation.

That's not plagiarism. I've heard Mullins go so far as to claim that Griffin took his book and just put a different cover on it and called it his own, which is obviously nothing close to the truth, since Griffin's book is probably three times as long as Mullins. But is there anything at all to the charge of plagiarism? Is there a single passage anywhere in all of Griffin's book that was lifted from Mullins' book without attribution?

In this video the entire basis they use for saying that Ron Paul is bought and paid for by "THEM" (whoever "THEY" are), is that he promotes Griffin's book instead of Mullins'. I'm trying to figure out why anybody would take this Mullins clown seriously. Yet I've seen people go gaga over him here before. So I feel like maybe there's just something out there I'm not getting.

theclip
02-19-2010, 11:05 AM
interesting...

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 11:17 AM
That's not plagiarism.

Eustace Mullins was mad that he didn't get the glory and the fame that G. Edward Griffin got.


You can read the book online.

Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins

http://www.barefootsworld.net/fedsecrets_00.html


Chapter One — Jekyll Island
Chapter Two — The Aldrich Plan
Chapter Three — The Federal Reserve Act
Chapter Four — The Federal Advisory Council
Chapter Five — The House of Rothschild
Chapter Six — The London Connection
Chapter Seven — The Hitler Connection
Chapter Eight — World War One
Chapter Nine — The Agricultural Depression
Chapter Ten — The Money Creators
Chapter Eleven — Lord Montagu Norman
Chapter Twelve — The Great Depression
Chapter Thirteen — The 1930's
Chapter Fourteen — Congressional Expose

erowe1
02-19-2010, 11:22 AM
Eustace Mullins was mad that he didn't get the glory and the fame that G. Edward Griffin got.


You can read the book online.

Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins

http://www.barefootsworld.net/fedsecrets_00.html


Chapter One — Jekyll Island
Chapter Two — The Aldrich Plan
Chapter Three — The Federal Reserve Act
Chapter Four — The Federal Advisory Council
Chapter Five — The House of Rothschild
Chapter Six — The London Connection
Chapter Seven — The Hitler Connection
Chapter Eight — World War One
Chapter Nine — The Agricultural Depression
Chapter Ten — The Money Creators
Chapter Eleven — Lord Montagu Norman
Chapter Twelve — The Great Depression
Chapter Thirteen — The 1930's
Chapter Fourteen — Congressional Expose

I really don't want to read the book. My initial impression of Mullins is that he was not an intelligent person and it would be a waste of my time. I just want anybody who thinks Griffin plagiarized from him to present the evidence. So far it looks to me like a bunch of bunk.

Deborah K
02-19-2010, 11:31 AM
I really don't want to read the book. My initial impression of Mullins is that he's not an intelligent person and it would be a waste of my time. I just want anybody who thinks Griffin plagiarized from him to present the evidence. So far it looks to me like a bunch of bunk.

It IS bunk. If he plagiarized, then why wasn't a lawsuit brought? And IP... I realize that I am supposedly on your ignore list, (even though you always respond to me with the caveat that I am on it :rolleyes:), but where is your evidence that Griffin suppressed Mullins' book, hmmmm???? My guess is that Mullins' book was ahead of its time. That happens.

IP, you're over the top. Really. Stop making false assumptions and accusations. Back your shit up with facts.

theclip
02-19-2010, 11:40 AM
Is it possible to rediscover Newton's 1st law of motion?

Griffin did something similar.

Deborah K
02-19-2010, 11:44 AM
Just listened to that clip. Sounds like anti-Ron Paul propaganda to meeeee......

Deborah K
02-19-2010, 11:45 AM
Is it possible to rediscover Newton's 1st law of motion?

Griffin did something similar.

A scientific discovery is not the same thing as uncovering criminal activity in the govt. Are you suggesting no one else is allowed to write about the FED because Mullins did it first?

erowe1
02-19-2010, 11:46 AM
Is it possible to rediscover Newton's 1st law of motion?

Griffin did something similar.

Let's pretend for the sake of argument that it's not possible.

Got any evidence for the claim that Griffin did something similar to that?

Deborah K
02-19-2010, 11:48 AM
Mullins "outs" G. Edward Griffin as a plagiarist, saying Jekyll Island was stolen from Secrets of the Federal Reserve, which was published decades before Griffin's book and was suppressed. It took Mullins decades of research at the Library of Congress to assemble the content of his book. How did Griffin's do his "independent" research, where, and how long did it take him? Mullins points out that Griffin's conclusion to push the Gold Standard simply maintain elite power, and so Griffin changed that part of Mullins' thesis when he published Jekyll Island. Mullins also asks why Ron Paul is pushing Griffins' book instead of Mullins', which is the original work.

What's also ironic, is Griffin only mentions Mullins once, and that can be found on page 413 with footnote on 414, but then quickly discounts Mullins' quote.

YouTube - Eustace Mullins' on FED, Ron Paul, Rockefeller & G. Edward Griffin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiUGrlLccDc)

He isn't asking that at all. He accuses RP of having the opportunity to promote his book and chosing not to. He then accuses him of protecting the Rockefellers et al.

theclip
02-19-2010, 11:49 AM
Let's pretend for the sake of argument that it's not possible.

Got any evidence for the claim that Griffin did something similar to that?

what kind of evidence do you want?

Mullins already uncovered everything that Griffin did in his book. The narration is different but the facts he uncovers were already in Mullin's book.

theclip
02-19-2010, 11:54 AM
A scientific discovery is not the same thing as uncovering criminal activity in the govt. Are you suggesting no one else is allowed to write about the FED because Mullins did it first?


Of course they are similar, if Griffin is not plagiarizing then he should have admitted that what he's saying has already been said before. If a scientist realizes that his discovery has already been discovered by someone else before then he must acknowledge it.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 11:55 AM
what kind of evidence do you want?

Mullins already uncovered everything that Griffin did in his book. The narration is different but the facts he uncovers were already in Mullin's book.

I haven't seen where Mullins uncovered that. I've only heard him make the assertion without giving evidence. If you know of the evidence, please present it. Something that would qualify as evidence of plagiarism is a passage that is lifted from Mullins' book and used in Griffin's without attribution.

You can't charge someone with plagiarism just because he mentions facts that someone else had also previously mentioned. If these facts are, indeed, facts, then by definition they exist as facts independently of either Mullins or Griffin, and neither of those authors can claim ownership of those facts.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 11:56 AM
if Griffin is not plagiarizing then he should have admitted that what he's saying has already been said before.

You mean like all the times throughout his book where Griffin footnotes the sources for his claims?

Deborah K
02-19-2010, 11:58 AM
Of course they are similar, if Griffin is not plagiarizing then he should have admitted that what he's saying has already been said before. If a scientist realizes that his discovery has already been discovered by someone else before then he must acknowledge it.

That's tantamount to saying that every historian who has ever written about the Roman Empire (for example) needs to admit it's already been written about. :confused: Should Ron Paul do the same - since he wrote End the Fed??

jmdrake
02-19-2010, 11:59 AM
what kind of evidence do you want?

Mullins already uncovered everything that Griffin did in his book. The narration is different but the facts he uncovers were already in Mullin's book.

The legal definition of plagiarism is not that book A uncovers the same facts as book B. Plagiarism is using a source without attribution. Say if Griffin read Mullins book, said "Hmm...that's interesting", then went back to the same initial sources that Mullins used and cited them without citing Mullins? That would not be plagiarism.

theclip
02-19-2010, 12:07 PM
You can't charge someone with plagiarism just because he mentions facts that someone else had also previously mentioned. If these facts are, indeed, facts, then by definition they exist as facts independently of either Mullins or Griffin, and neither of those authors can claim ownership of those facts.

You seem to be basically agreeing with me that Griffin re-investigated and found the exact same result as Mullins did, and then you're making a stance that it's not plagiarism. We have an agreement on part I, do we?

Krugerrand
02-19-2010, 12:08 PM
The legal definition of plagiarism is not that book A uncovers the same facts as book B. Plagiarism is using a source without attribution. Say if Griffin read Mullins book, said "Hmm...that's interesting", then went back to the same initial sources that Mullins used and cited them without citing Mullins? That would not be plagiarism.

If that indeed is what happened (sadly, I have not yet had a chance to read Griffin's book) ... it would be intellectually dishonest to not attribute the footwork to the soldier who blazed the trail.

Plus, while I do not know the legal definition of plagiarism, it would probably fail an academic definition of plagiarism. A person would lose any shot of a PhD for submitting a thesis like that.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 12:10 PM
You seem to be basically agreeing with me that Griffin re-investigated and found the exact same result as Mullins did, and then you're making a stance that it's not plagiarism. We have an agreement on part I, do we?

I'm not agreeing with you. I don't know anything about what Mullins actually said, so I'm in no position to agree or disagree on that point. But for the sake of argument, if that were what happened, then it wouldn't be plagiarism.

Is that all you're claiming? Just that they both mentioned some of the same facts? And it's on that basis that you're charging Griffin with plagiarism? Seriously?

theclip
02-19-2010, 12:10 PM
The legal definition of plagiarism is not that book A uncovers the same facts as book B. Plagiarism is using a source without attribution. Say if Griffin read Mullins book, said "Hmm...that's interesting", then went back to the same initial sources that Mullins used and cited them without citing Mullins? That would not be plagiarism.

We seem to have an agreement on what Griffin did, only thing remains to be debated is whether it is within legal definition of plagiarism or not.

jmdrake
02-19-2010, 12:11 PM
We seem to have an agreement on what Griffin did, only thing remains to be debated is whether it is within legal definition of plagiarism or not.

Ummm....no we don't. I raised a hypothetical. I didn't present it as fact.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 12:13 PM
If that indeed is what happened (sadly, I have not yet had a chance to read Griffin's book) ... it would be intellectually dishonest to not attribute the footwork to the soldier who blazed the trail.


I agree on that point. But do we even have any evidence that that happened? What trail did Mullins blaze that Griffin then followed without giving credit to Mullins? If the charge is worth anything, then there has to be an answer to this question, and it has to be backed up with specifics, not just that they both wrote anti-fed books.

theclip
02-19-2010, 12:15 PM
I'm not agreeing with you. I don't know anything about what Mullins actually said, so I'm in no position to agree or disagree on that point. But for the sake of argument, if that were what happened, then it wouldn't be plagiarism.

Is that all you're claiming? Just that they both mentioned some of the same facts? And it's on that basis that you're charging Griffin with plagiarism? Seriously?


Can the same crime be exposed twice?

I'm not willing to step into your jargon trap. You are asserting that Griffin did expose something that was already exposed, by someone else; and he did hell of a job.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 12:18 PM
Can the same crime be exposed twice?

Of course.



You are asserting that Griffin did expose something that was already exposed, by someone else; and he did hell of a job.

No I'm not. I'm asking for evidence for the charge that Griffin plagiarized. And the people claiming he did, don't seem to have any.

jmdrake
02-19-2010, 12:19 PM
If that indeed is what happened (sadly, I have not yet had a chance to read Griffin's book) ... it would be intellectually dishonest to not attribute the footwork to the soldier who blazed the trail.

Plus, while I do not know the legal definition of plagiarism, it would probably fail an academic definition of plagiarism. A person would lose any shot of a PhD for submitting a thesis like that.

Are you kidding? The academic definition of plagiarism is exactly the same. Look at in another way. Alex Jones breaks interesting stories all of the time. And often he has more mainstream sources linked. That's nice as a shortcut, but if you want to be taken seriously it makes more since to go to the source Alex linked to. Now I know nothing about this "Mullins" character. But if he is seen as a fringe, why do you need to poison your own body of work by citing him when you could go to a more authoritative source? I guarantee you that your suggestion is a good way to NOT get a PhD!

Or take another example. Why quote someone else citing the constitution why you can cite directly to the constitution itself?

Now, if Mullins put together some unique analysis independent of the facts themselves and Griffin used that then that would be dishonest and plagiarism. But if Griffin used facts that are already freely available in the public domain then that's not plagiarism, legally, academically or otherwise.

jmdrake
02-19-2010, 12:22 PM
Here's a better question. Why does Mullins even care? Did he write the book for fame or money? Or did he write it to get the word out? I also submit that the market for "truth about the federal reserve" is not at all saturated. Outside the "little pound" of the Liberty Movement G. Edward Griffin isn't even that famous.

Krugerrand
02-19-2010, 12:23 PM
Of course.

No I'm not. I'm asking for evidence for the charge that Griffin plagiarized. And the people claiming he did, don't seem to have any.

I agree here. Based on the charge ... there would be the possibility of something shaky. However ... the charge means nothing ... the proof is in the evidence.

Also, if something is cited numerous times by various authors it can be taken as common knowledge. (side note: that can lead to some inaccurate common knowledge - which abounds aplenty.)

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 12:24 PM
Did Ron Paul plagiarize G. Edward Griffin or Murray N. Rothbard by writing "End the Fed" ??

End the Fed by Ron Paul (Hardcover - Sept. 16, 2009)
http://mises.org/images/EndTheFedCover.jpg

The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard (Paperback - Sept. 4, 2007)
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/410kB9hpiNL.jpg

theclip
02-19-2010, 12:29 PM
LOL

Members are deliberately twisting the comparison here.

Ron Paul and Griffin are people who used information disclosed/compiled --first by Mullins. Everybody came after him. Imagine Ron Paul and Sarah Palin wrt the Liberty Movement.

theclip
02-19-2010, 12:32 PM
And I think IP can better describe this phenomenon of repeat exposures with his 'cointel vectoring' theory.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 12:33 PM
Ron Paul and Griffin are people who used information disclosed/compiled --first by Mullins.

What information are you talking about? Please be specific.

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 12:34 PM
I really don't want to read the book. My initial impression of Mullins is that he's not an intelligent person and it would be a waste of my time. I just want anybody who thinks Griffin plagiarized from him to present the evidence. So far it looks to me like a bunch of bunk.


what kind of evidence do you want?

Mullins already uncovered everything that Griffin did in his book. The narration is different but the facts he uncovers were already in Mullin's book.
This is like writing an entire book about Relativity and failing to mention Einstein.

The original book, published under the title Mullins On The Federal Reserve, was commissioned by the poet Ezra Pound in 1948. The research at the Library of Congress was directed and reviewed daily by George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club in Washington, whom The New York Times on September 28, 1952 called, "A highly regarded reference source in the capitol. Government officials, Congressmen, and reporters went to him for information on any subject." Mullins book was first published in 1952 by Kasper and Horton, New York.

So, the question then becomes, why are people here so vested in this man, G. Edward Griffin?

Look at the two books, compare them. I think an objective analysis is warranted, and reveal a conclusion.

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 12:35 PM
I guess some people completely overlook the fact that G. Edward Griffin made anti-Federal Reserve information mainstream.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 12:37 PM
This is like writing an entire book about Relativity and failing to mention Einstein.


Really? What exactly did Mullins accomplish? Was the existence of the Federal Reserve a secret up until he wrote his book?

Why do you think any other later writers were so dependent on Mullins? What's the evidence?


Look at the two books, compare them. I think an objective analysis is warranted, and reveal a conclusion.

Have you taken your own advice and done that? If so, did you on that basis conclude that Griffin really did plagiarize? What evidence led you to that conclusion? If any exists, it shouldn't be hard to present.

Krugerrand
02-19-2010, 12:41 PM
Are you kidding? The academic definition of plagiarism is exactly the same. Look at in another way. Alex Jones breaks interesting stories all of the time. And often he has more mainstream sources linked. That's nice as a shortcut, but if you want to be taken seriously it makes more since to go to the source Alex linked to. Now I know nothing about this "Mullins" character. But if he is seen as a fringe, why do you need to poison your own body of work by citing him when you could go to a more authoritative source? I guarantee you that your suggestion is a good way to NOT get a PhD!

Or take another example. Why quote someone else citing the constitution why you can cite directly to the constitution itself?

Now, if Mullins put together some unique analysis independent of the facts themselves and Griffin used that then that would be dishonest and plagiarism. But if Griffin used facts that are already freely available in the public domain then that's not plagiarism, legally, academically or otherwise.

I disagree. If I take a persons research and simply repeat it as a recipe and do not give that person credit, then that is academically dishonest. If I take a thesis somebody wrote and simply re-use their same sources to write the same basic story and ignore his/her work, that is academically dishonest.

Now, if I take those sources and use them to explain why the original conclusion is correct or incorrect, that would be different.

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 12:43 PM
I disagree. If I take a persons research and simply repeat it as a recipe and do not give that person credit..

Dude. You can read Mullins book online and see how different it is from G. Edward Griffin's book.


Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins

http://www.barefootsworld.net/fedsecrets_00.html

theclip
02-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Have you taken your own advice and done that? If so, did you on that basis conclude that Griffin really did plagiarize? What evidence led you to that conclusion? If any exists, it shouldn't be hard to present.

What kind of evidence do you want???

Evidence is in the books!! Read Mullins' book & you will see it is the same as Griffin's alleged expose.

jmdrake
02-19-2010, 12:45 PM
This is like writing an entire book about Relativity and failing to mention Einstein.

Not true. It's more like reading a book about Einstein, then going and doing your own research and writing a book about Einstein that doesn't include the book you read. (And that is assuming Griffin even read Mullins book). Let's say someone decides to write a book today about the federal reserve who's never read any of the books listed in this thread. Maybe he heard about the Fed from a documentary or through casual conversation. Let's say he goes back to the library of congress, does his own original research, and writes an entirely knew work. Is that plagiarism?

By contrast it's unlikely that anyone could come up with the theory of relativity on their own without reference to Einstein. If I go to Africa and write a book on Victoria Falls I don't need to cite Dr. Livingston unless I actually use his work.



The original book, published under the title Mullins On The Federal Reserve, was commissioned by the poet Ezra Pound in 1948. The research at the Library of Congress was directed and reviewed daily by George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club in Washington, whom The New York Times on September 28, 1952 called, "A highly regarded reference source in the capitol. Government officials, Congressmen, and reporters went to him for information on any subject." Mullins book was first published in 1952 by Kasper and Horton, New York.

So, the question then becomes, why are people here so vested in this man, G. Edward Griffin?

Look at the two books, compare them. I think an objective analysis is warranted, and reveal a conclusion.

Sure. Great. Wonderful idea. I think people are simply rejecting the a priori thesis that just because one book was written first on a subject, the second book has to be plagiarism.

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 12:46 PM
What kind of evidence do you want??

Evidence is in the books!! Read Mullins' book & you will see it is the same as Griffin's alleged expose.

I'll call your bluff. Reading it will prove you wrong.


Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins

http://www.barefootsworld.net/fedsecrets_00.html

Krugerrand
02-19-2010, 12:48 PM
Dude. You can read Mullins book online and see how different it is from G. Edward Griffin's book.


Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins

http://www.barefootsworld.net/fedsecrets_00.html

Not interested. I'd put the time to reading Griffin's book first.

First of all, I'm agreeing with erowe that unless somebody puts forth evidence, the charge of plageirusm is hallow.

I am also advocating that it is a serious charge ... so it either should be supported or not thrown around willy-nilly.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 12:49 PM
Read Mullins' book & you will see it is the same as Griffin's alleged expose.

Have you done what you're saying I should do? If so, what evidence lead you to that conclusion? If you really did base your conclusion on the evidence, rather than just repeating the assertion someone else made, then it should be easy for you to present whatever evidence you found so compelling.

theclip
02-19-2010, 12:51 PM
I'll call your bluff. Reading it will prove you wrong.


Secrets of the Federal Reserve
by Eustace Mullins

http://www.barefootsworld.net/fedsecrets_00.html

Are you claiming that both these books present two different structures of the banking system?

erowe1
02-19-2010, 12:53 PM
Are you claiming that both these books present two different structures of the banking system?

That's a strange question.

It seems to imply that what you think Mullins accomplished was to discover for the very first time what the structure of the banking system is. Please tell me that's not what you mean.

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 12:56 PM
Are you claiming that both these books present two different structures of the banking system?
Two or more different authors are allowed to write about the same subject. They provide different details and aspects to the same story.

jmdrake
02-19-2010, 12:57 PM
I disagree. If I take a persons research and simply repeat it as a recipe and do not give that person credit, then that is academically dishonest. If I take a thesis somebody wrote and simply re-use their same sources to write the same basic story and ignore his/her work, that is academically dishonest.

Now, if I take those sources and use them to explain why the original conclusion is correct or incorrect, that would be different.

You don't "disagree". You are simply arguing something different.

Consider 3 different scenarios. I'll use an Alex Jones article as an example to keep it simple.

1) I go to PrisonPlanet.com, cut and paste an article to my blog and report it as my own without attribution. Clearly plagiarism.

2) I go to PrisonPlanet.com, see analysis of one of their writers about a story in the New York times. I go to the New Times and re-read the article for myself. I write my own analysis on my blog without attributing Alex Jones. That is clearly NOT plagiarism. I do not need to give attribution to do that.

3) (Your example) I read someone else work, write my own piece agreeing or criticizing it, not only do I have to attribute it in order for it not to be plagiarism but if I don't attribute it I'll look stupid!

Takeaway point. Plagiarism is using someone ideas without attribution. It is NOT using someone else's sources without attribution! At this point I don't know if Griffin used either Mullins ideas or sources. But if he just used the sources, went back and read them for himself, and attributed the original sources it is NOT plagiarism and it is NOT dishonest! As long as the original work is cited then subsequent works do not have to be cited. You cannot have intellectual property on a bibliography.

Krugerrand
02-19-2010, 01:03 PM
You don't "disagree". You are simply arguing something different.
That's the story of my life. :D


3) (Your example) I read someone else work, write my own piece agreeing or criticizing it, not only do I have to attribute it in order for it not to be plagiarism but if I don't attribute it I'll look stupid!

Takeaway point. Plagiarism is using someone ideas without attribution. It is NOT using someone else's sources without attribution! At this point I don't know if Griffin used either Mullins ideas or sources. But if he just used the sources, went back and read them for himself, and attributed the original sources it is NOT plagiarism and it is NOT dishonest! As long as the original work is cited then subsequent works do not have to be cited. You cannot have intellectual property on a bibliography.

I'm going to have to run this by some of my professor friends and see what they think.

theclip
02-19-2010, 01:03 PM
That's a strange question.

It seems to imply that what you think Mullins accomplished was to discover for the very first time what the structure of the banking system is. Please tell me that's not what you mean.

Yes, he uncovered the private connection to Federal Reserve, how it was founded, where and who did it...everything, Griffin only repeated after him.

Is there any argument about it? :confused:

I think-- whether doing so was plagiarism or not-- is the argument at hand.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 01:14 PM
Yes, he uncovered the private connection to Federal Reserve, how it was founded, where and who did it...everything.

What are you talking about? You think the Federal Reserve was some secret up until 1952? It was created by an act of Congress, and its nature and public-private structure is a matter of public law and has been since 1913.

Krugerrand
02-19-2010, 01:17 PM
Yes, he uncovered the private connection to Federal Reserve, how it was founded, where and who did it...everything, Griffin only repeated after him.

Is there any argument about it? :confused:

I think-- whether doing so was plagiarism or not-- is the argument at hand.

I'm wavering at this point ... and leaning towards jmdrake.

I'm thinking if this were a book on gardening.... what would I say if somebody did a great job of researching gardening methods and put together a crappy book that was hard to make sense of. Then, somebody realized that the author may have been on to something ... but wrote a crappy useless book. So, that second person goes back to the sources and writes a good book. Now, lots of people learn how to garden. Need that first book be referenced? I wouldn't think so. Should the second author acknowledge that the first author wrote a crappy book based on the sources? Perhaps common decency would say 'no.'

Somehow ... on an intellectual piece, it still seems dishonest to me. It is as if the "research" is stolen.

That said ... the onus would not be on me to read both and decide. The onus is on the person who claims to have been dissed to present evidence. I'm not sure what that evidence would look like in this case.

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 01:23 PM
Sure. Great. Wonderful idea. I think people are simply rejecting the a priori thesis that just because one book was written first on a subject, the second book has to be plagiarism.
Why would people reject this thesis out-of-hand like this? That doesn't seem very objective to me. What knowledge are they using to make said rejection?

As far as the personal attacks against Mullins, I am unable at this time to defend or confirm the claims on Mullins, but I am very cognizant of the fact that those who reveal the system are ruthlessly attacked by all sides so that they can be discredited and marginalized. This is an old tactic. I think people should move above this sorts of efforts, and research the claims for themselves and make there own independent assessments.

That being said, my first question to Griffin would be, where and when did he do his research, and what materials did he use to write his book. Can those here who are close to Griffin ask him that question and get him to respond publicly?

erowe1
02-19-2010, 01:25 PM
I am very cognizant of the fact that those who reveal the system are ruthlessly attacked by all sides so that they can be discredited and marginalized.

When you say "reveal the system," what exactly do you mean? Didn't the Federal Reserve Act already reveal the system in 1913? It is, after all, a law that anybody can read. And there were people who opposed that act and spoke out against it since before it was even passed.

theclip
02-19-2010, 01:26 PM
What are you talking about? You think the Federal Reserve was some secret up until 1952? It was created by an act of Congress, and its nature and public-private structure is a matter of public law and has been since 1913.


It Was. Remember the name of his book? "Secrets of the Federal Reserve"

If someone discloses the composites of B-2 to the public, imho it won't be a good argument to say that since it was all known to the makers of B-2 it isn't a real disclosure after all...

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 01:28 PM
I'm wavering at this point ... and leaning towards jmdrake.

I'm thinking if this were a book on gardening.... what would I say if somebody did a great job of researching gardening methods and put together a crappy book that was hard to make sense of. Then, somebody realized that the author may have been on to something ... but wrote a crappy useless book. So, that second person goes back to the sources and writes a good book. Now, lots of people learn how to garden. Need that first book be referenced? I wouldn't think so. Should the second author acknowledge that the first author wrote a crappy book based on the sources? Perhaps common decency would say 'no.'

Somehow ... on an intellectual piece, it still seems dishonest to me. It is as if the "research" is stolen.

That said ... the onus would not be on me to read both and decide. The onus is on the person who claims to have been dissed to present evidence. I'm not sure what that evidence would look like in this case.
Reveal the sources! It's not like there were hundreds of books out there on the conspiracy behind the FED, there was only one book available at the time that Griffin wrote Jekyll Island, and it was Mullins book. So, if it was Griffin's goal to write a better book on the subject, I would certainly think that Griffin would have made that clear in his Acknowledgments, thanking Mullins for the inspiration and the initial research.

This looks to me to be simple Vector Co-option, which I've discussed here before. I can't prove it as this point. But the circumstantial evidence is strong.

Circumstantial evidence can be loosely defined as one concluding that it snowed last night because they woke-up in the morning and saw snow on the ground when they looked outside. While the person was asleep while it was snowing, and did not actually see the snow fall from the sky, one can reasonably conclude that it must have snow during the night if one sees snow on the ground in the morning that was not there when they went to bed.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 01:29 PM
It Was. Remember the name of his book? "Secrets of the Federal Reserve"


No it wasn't. It was a matter of public law that anybody could read and that was subjected to criticisms since before it's passage. If the reason Mullins called his book "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" is that he honestly thought that the structure of the Federal Reserve was a secret until he discovered it, then that confirms my suspicion that he was an idiot not worth reading.

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 01:30 PM
Eustace Mullins plagiarized Charles August Lindbergh!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_August_Lindbergh#Political_career


In 1913, [Lindbergh] wrote Banking, Currency, and the Money Trust, and in 1917 he wrote "Why is Your Country at War?," attributing high finance as America's involvement in World War I. According to Eustace Mullins, plates of this book were confiscated and destroyed by Government agents. Also in 1917 Lindbergh brought articles of impeachment against members of the Federal Reserve Board including Paul Warburg and W.P.G Harding. Lindbergh charged that the Federal Reserve Board members were involved "...in a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States..."


Charles August Lindbergh wins?

theclip
02-19-2010, 01:31 PM
When you say "reveal the system," what exactly do you mean? Didn't the Federal Reserve Act already reveal the system in 1913? It is, after all, a law that anybody can read. And there were people who opposed that act and spoke out against it since before it was even passed.

LOL

Did you even care to read Griffin's book? Isn't that an expose of the system???

heavenlyboy34
02-19-2010, 01:33 PM
Say Griffin did "plagiarize" Mullins. Did this cost Mullins anything? No. In fact, it helped Mullins by making his ideas more popular. Baroque composers, for example, considered it a compliment when others copied their works. (imitation is the sincerest flattery, as the saying goes) Mullins should look at it from that perspective.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 01:33 PM
there was only one book available at the time that Griffin wrote Jekyll Island, and it was Mullins book.

Where did you get that crazy idea?

What about Paul Warburg's, The Federal Reserve System: It's Origin and Growth, providing Warburg's own inside account of it, published in 1930?

Or what about the article on the Jeckyll Island meeting that appeared in Leslie's Weekly in 1916, which included the following passage?

Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily hieing hundred of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written... The utmost secrecy was enjoined upon all. The public must not glean a hint of what was to be done. Senator Aldrich notified each one to go quietly into a private car of which the railroad had received orders to draw up on an unfrequented platform. Off the party set. New York's ubiquitous reporters had been foiled... Nelson (Aldrich) had confided to Henry, Frank, Paul and Piatt that he was to keep them locked up at Jekyll Island, out of the rest of the world, until they had evolved and compiled a scientific currency system for the United States, the real birth of the present Federal Reserve System, the plan done on Jekyll Island in the conference with Paul, Frank and Henry... Warburg is the link that binds the Aldrich system and the present system together. He more than any one man has made the system possible as a working reality.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 01:34 PM
Did you even care to read Griffin's book? Isn't that an expose of the system???

Yes, I read Griffin's book fairly recently. And no, it's not so much an expose of the system as it is a critique of it. Griffin isn't stupid enough to pretend that he discovered something no one else had discovered before.

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 01:34 PM
When you say "reveal the system," what exactly do you mean? Didn't the Federal Reserve Act already reveal the system in 1913? It is, after all, a law that anybody can read. And there were people who opposed that act and spoke out against it since before it was even passed.
No.


The Act does not explain its significance to the American people, namely, that the US Financial system was being privatized in an effort to steal the public's wealth through a myriad of techniques.

The Act does not reveal the Jekyll Island meeting, and who participated, and the conspiratorial goals of those who participated.


These had to be researched. Someone had to explain how monetary systems worked, and how the Act was a devious part of a larger plan that was consistent with monetary manipulation designed to enslave a population.

This was a tremendous research effort, with many dots having to be connected. Mullins claims he read 20-40 books per day for at least two years as part of his research effort. The Library of Congress gave him special access to protected archives. This was a mammoth task, which ultimately lead him to being hired by the Library of Congress (LOC), and later fired by the LOC (Walt Whitman was the only other person, supposedly, to be fired by the LOC). Mullins claims he was fired once it was discovered what he was writing about.

FrankRep
02-19-2010, 01:36 PM
Comments?


Eustace Mullins plagiarized Charles August Lindbergh!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_August_Lindbergh#Political_career


In 1913, [Lindbergh] wrote Banking, Currency, and the Money Trust, and in 1917 he wrote "Why is Your Country at War?," attributing high finance as America's involvement in World War I. According to Eustace Mullins, plates of this book were confiscated and destroyed by Government agents. Also in 1917 Lindbergh brought articles of impeachment against members of the Federal Reserve Board including Paul Warburg and W.P.G Harding. Lindbergh charged that the Federal Reserve Board members were involved "...in a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States..."


Charles August Lindbergh wins?

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 01:37 PM
Where did you get that crazy idea?

What about Paul Warburg's, The Federal Reserve System: It's Origin and Growth, providing Warburg's own inside account of it, published in 1930?

Or what about the article on the Jeckyll Island meeting that appeared in Leslie's Weekly in 1916, which included the following passage?
I should have said, the only "outsiders" account of what transpired. I don't consider those other sources "outsiders".

erowe1
02-19-2010, 01:39 PM
Charles August Lindbergh wins?

No. That article by Forbes in Leslie's Weekly came out a year before Lindbergh's book. So he wins. But there were probably others before that too. Like I said, opposition to the Federal Reserve Act goes back to before it was even passed.

If there was some specific new discovery these Mullins apologists think it was that Mullins made and that Griffin got from him without giving him credit, then it shouldn't be this difficult for them to say what that was.

theclip
02-19-2010, 01:44 PM
No. That article by Forbes in Leslie's Weekly came out a year before Lindbergh's book. So he wins. But there were probably others before that too. Like I said, opposition to the Federal Reserve Act goes back to before it was even passed.


If there was some specific new discovery these Mullins apologists think it was that Mullins made and that Griffin got from him without giving him credit, then it shouldn't be this difficult for them to say what that was.

No, my friend I wasn't trying to be a Mullins apologist, but it irked me to see Griffin worshipers ignoring the extent of information that was available beforehand. The Lindberg conn. and the Forbes thing you brought out are certainly worth researching.


And nobody wants to be a Mullins apologist, for obvious reasons.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 01:48 PM
I should have said, the only "outsiders" account of what transpired. I don't consider those other sources "outsiders".

I don't see how that helps your case any. If the Jeckyll Island meeting had been public knowledge since long before Mullins wrote his book because of these insider sources (which it had), and if the public-private structure and of the Federal Reserve and its powers had been public knowledge since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 (which they had), then what exactly did Mullins discover that Griffin was dependent on him for while failing to give him credit?

This is like pulling teeth.

jmdrake
02-19-2010, 02:03 PM
Why would people reject this thesis out-of-hand like this? That doesn't seem very objective to me. What knowledge are they using to make said rejection?

Because that thesis doesn't fit the common definition of plagiarism. Two people could even write two different books on the same subject without even knowing about the existence of the other. So you can't automatically say that a more recent book is necessarily plagiarism of the other. Could it be? Sure. That's what evidence from reading both books would reveal. If the 2nd book as unique ideas found only in the first and those ideas aren't attributed that's likely plagiarism. But if the second book merely contains facts that were in the first book and were also available in other sources that's not plagiarism. For example, I assume both books say the fed was created in 1913. But that's a fact that's available in other sources.



As far as the personal attacks against Mullins, I am unable at this time to defend or confirm the claims on Mullins, but I am very cognizant of the fact that those who reveal the system are ruthlessly attacked by all sides so that they can be discredited and marginalized. This is an old tactic. I think people should move above this sorts of efforts, and research the claims for themselves and make there own independent assessments.

That being said, my first question to Griffin would be, where and when did he do his research, and what materials did he use to write his book. Can those here who are close to Griffin ask him that question and get him to respond publicly?

Well I'm not concerned so much with the attacks on Mullins (although that might explain why someone might choose not to source him the same way people might choose not to source Alex Jones). If Griffin lifted unique ideas from Mullin that's plagiarism.

As for your question, does his book not contain a bibliography?

pacelli
02-19-2010, 02:07 PM
For those talking about Mullins in the present tense, he's dead.

LibertyEagle
02-19-2010, 02:20 PM
I own both books and have read them both. Both are good; although Griffin's is a bit easier to read.

CCTelander
02-19-2010, 02:22 PM
Takeaway point. Plagiarism is using someone ideas without attribution. It is NOT using someone else's sources without attribution! At this point I don't know if Griffin used either Mullins ideas or sources. But if he just used the sources, went back and read them for himself, and attributed the original sources it is NOT plagiarism and it is NOT dishonest! As long as the original work is cited then subsequent works do not have to be cited. You cannot have intellectual property on a bibliography.

Point of correction. This definition of plagerism is inaccurate. Ideas are not subject to copyright in any way, shape or form. ONLY actual presentation, the actual words written down are. Therefore one commits plagerism ONLY if one reproduces the exact text of another work, or significant portions thereof, without proper attribution or permission.

CCTelander
02-19-2010, 02:28 PM
Why would people reject this thesis out-of-hand like this? That doesn't seem very objective to me. What knowledge are they using to make said rejection?

Sorry IP, but this question is actually a bit absurd. It attempts to reverse the burden of proof.

The burden of proof ALWAYS falls upon the one making a positive claim. ALWAYS.

In this case, Mullins has positively claimed that Griffin plagerized his work. The burden of proof is on him, or anyone else attempting to advance such a claim, not the reverse.

Skepticism of such a claim, lacking any proof offered on the part of those advancing it, is in no way inappropriate. It is, in fact, the proper way to approach the matter.

He who asserts must prove.

CCTelander
02-19-2010, 02:48 PM
Sorry IP, but this question is actually a bit absurd. It attempts to reverse the burden of proof.

The burden of proof ALWAYS falls upon the one making a positive claim. ALWAYS.

In this case, Mullins has positively claimed that Griffin plagerized his work. The burden of proof is on him, or anyone else attempting to advance such a claim, not the reverse.

Skepticism of such a claim, lacking any proof offered on the part of those advancing it, is in no way inappropriate. It is, in fact, the proper way to approach the matter.

He who asserts must prove.

Just to be clear, I'm no big fan of Griffin's. But to attempt to smear the guy as a plagerist without providing significant evidence in support is not only irresponsible, it's flat out wrong.

I've read several of Griffin's works, many years ago now, and from memory I seem to recall several serious issues I had with him. None of them had anything to do with plagerism though.

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 03:28 PM
Sorry IP, but this question is actually a bit absurd. It attempts to reverse the burden of proof.

The burden of proof ALWAYS falls upon the one making a positive claim. ALWAYS.

In this case, Mullins has positively claimed that Griffin plagerized his work. The burden of proof is on him, or anyone else attempting to advance such a claim, not the reverse.

Skepticism of such a claim, lacking any proof offered on the part of those advancing it, is in no way inappropriate. It is, in fact, the proper way to approach the matter.

He who asserts must prove.
The man who made the accusation passed-away earlier this month, so that man is not here to support his claims. Therefore, it is up to others to evaluate the evidence and draw their own conclusion. Is bringing this matter to the attention to others, for discussion, offensive in some way?

Here is what Griffin has to say about the issue in the Acknowledgment section of the book, Jekyll Island.

"A writer who steals the work of another is called a plagiarist. One who takes from the words of many is called a researchers. That is a roundabout way of saying I am deeply indebted to the efforts of so many who have previously grappled with topic. It is impossible to acknowledge them except in footnote an bibliography. Without the cumulative product of their efforts, it would have taken a lifetime to pull to the the material you are about to read."

Griffin's book includes 1-footnote on Mullins and 1-Bibliographical reference.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 03:30 PM
The man who made the accusation passed-away earlier this month, so that man is not here to support his claims. Therefore, it is up to others to evaluate the evidence and draw their own conclusion.

He had been making that accusation for years. As far as I can tell, he never once backed it up.

Now you're making the accusation, and you can't back it up either.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 03:31 PM
Here is what Griffin has to say about the issue in the Acknowledgment section of the book, Jekyll Island.

"A writer who steals the work of another is called a plagiarist. One who takes from the words of many is called a researchers. That is a roundabout way of saying I am deeply indebted to the efforts of so many who have previously grappled with topic. It is impossible to acknowledge them except in footnote an bibliography. Without the cumulative product of their efforts, it would have taken a lifetime to pull to the the material you are about to read."

That sounds about right to me. And acknowledging them in footnotes and the bibliography is exactly what Griffin did. What's the problem with that?

CCTelander
02-19-2010, 04:02 PM
The man who made the accusation passed-away earlier this month, so that man is not here to support his claims. Therefore, it is up to others to evaluate the evidence and draw their own conclusion. Is bringing this matter to the attention to others, for discussion, offensive in some way?


Not particularly. But in doing so you then become the one advancing a positive claim, and shouldn't be at all surprised to be met with skepticism. The burden of proof still rests with whomever is making the positive claim.

Then there's the presumption of innocence to consider. Griffin is entitled to be presumed innocent unless some compelling evidence to the contrary can be presented. Just throwing out Mullins' claim, sans such evidence, isn't very compelling. The fact that Mullins' book was published before Griffin's certainly doesn't qualify as any kind of evidence of wrongdoing.

I'm open to being convinced, but I'm not going to lose sleep over the issue either way. There are plenty of more substantial reasons to criticize Griffin. Like I said, I'm not exactly his biggest fan to begin with.

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 04:17 PM
I'll post a few excerpts from Mullins' book, which I don't believe were touched-upon or fully explained in Griffin's book. This is being provided as additional info, not as evidence to support any claim.

This first excerpt is very interesting, as my independent research finds many overlapping data points with Mullins' addendum, which it appears was provided as an afterthought in later publications, and was not central to the primary thesis of the book, but provides further insights.

By the way, this doesn't appear to be difficult reading to me, as was proclaimed by someone earlier in the thread.


Addendum: Psychological Warfare
Eustace Mullins' Secrets of the Federal Reserve
http://www.barefootsworld.net/fs_m_app.html

Few Americans know that almost every development in psychology in the United States in the past sixty-five years has been directed by the Bureau of Psychological Warfare of the British Army. A short time ago, the present writer learned a new name, The Tavistock Institute of London, also known as the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. "Human relations" covers every aspect of human behavior, and it is the modest goal of the Tavistock Institute to obtain and exercise control over every aspect of human behavior of American citizens.

Because of the intensive artillery barrages of World War I, many soldiers were permanently impaired by shell shock. In 1921, the Marquees of Tavistock, 11th Duke of Bedford, gave a building to a group which planned to conduct rehabilitation programs for shell shocked British soldiers. The group took the name of "Tavistock Institute" after its benefactor. The General Staff of the British Army decided it was crucial that they determine the breaking point of the soldier under combat conditions. The Tavistock Institute was taken over by Sir John Rawlings Reese, head of the British Army Psychological Warfare Bureau. A cadre of highly trained specialists in psychological warfare was built up in total secrecy. In fifty years, the name "Tavistock Institute’ appears only twice in the Index of the New York Times, yet this group, according to LaRouche and other authorities, organized and trained the entire staffs of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the Strategic Bombing Survey, Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces, and other key American military groups during World War II. During World War II, the Tavistock Institute combined with the medical sciences division of the Rockefeller Foundation for esoteric experiments with mind-altering drugs. The present drug culture of the United States is traced in its entirety to this Institute, which supervised the Central Intelligence Agency’s training programs. The "LSD counter culture" originated when Sandoz A.G., a Swiss pharmaceutical house owned by S.G. Warburg & Co., developed a new drug from lysergic acid, called LSD. James Paul Warburg (son of Paul Warburg who had written the Federal Reserve Act in 1910), financed a subsidiary of the Tavistock Institute in the United States called the Institute for Policy Studies, whose director, Marcus Raskin, was appointed to the National Security Council. James Paul Warburg set up a CIA program to experiment with LSD on CIA agents, some of whom later committed suicide. This program, MK-Ultra, supervised by Dr. Gottlieb, resulted in huge lawsuits against the United States Government by the families of the victims.

The Institute for Policy Studies set up a campus subsidiary, Students for Democratic Society (SDS), devoted to drugs and revolution. Rather than finance SDS himself, Warburg used CIA funds, some twenty million dollars, to promote the campus riots of the 1960s.

The English Tavistock Institute has not restricted its activities to left-wing groups, but has also directed the programs of such supposedly "conservative" American think tanks as the Herbert Hoover Institute at Stanford University, Heritage Foundation, Wharton, Hudson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Rand. The "sensitivity training" and "sexual encounter" programs of the most radical California groups such as Esalen Institute and its many imitators were all developed and implemented by Tavistock Institute psychologists.

One of the rare items concerning the Tavistock Institute appears in Business Week, Oct. 26, 1963, with a photograph of its building in the most expensive medical offices area of London. The story mentions "the Freudian bias" of the Institute, and comments that it is amply financed by British blue-chip corporations, including Unilever, British Petroleum, and Baldwin Steel. According to Business Week, the psychological testing programs and group relations training programs of the Institute were implemented in the United States by the University of Michigan and the University of California, which are hotbeds of radicalism and the drug network.

It was the Marquees of Tavistock, 12th Duke of Bedford, whom Rudolf Hess flew to England to contact about ending World War II. Tavistock was said to be worth $40 million in 1942. In 1945, his wife committed suicide by taking an overdose of pills.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 04:26 PM
I'll post a few excerpts from Mullins' book, which I don't believe were touched-upon or fully explained in Griffin's book. This is being provided as additional info, not as evidence to support any claim.


Before moving on to items that are mere additional info, and not evidence to support any claim, could we start with the material that actually is evidence to support the claim that Griffin plagiarized Mullins? Or even any evidence that supports the lesser claim that Mullins was the originator of some of the ideas Griffin included in his book, having gotten them from Mullins without giving him credit?

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 04:35 PM
Here is what Griffin has to say about the issue in the Acknowledgment section of the book, Jekyll Island.

"A writer who steals the work of another is called a plagiarist. One who takes from the words of many is called a researchers. That is a roundabout way of saying I am deeply indebted to the efforts of so many who have previously grappled with topic. It is impossible to acknowledge them except in footnote an bibliography. Without the cumulative product of their efforts, it would have taken a lifetime to pull to the the material you are about to read."

Griffin's book includes 1-footnote on Mullins and 1-Bibliographical reference.


That sounds about right to me. And acknowledging them in footnotes and the bibliography is exactly what Griffin did. What's the problem with that?

Interesting to see Griffin's acknowledgment compared to Mullins acknowledgment...


"I wish to thank my former fellow members of the staff of the Library of Congress whose very kind assistance, cooperation and suggestions made the early versions of this book possible. I also wish to thank the staffs of the Newberry Library, Chicago, the New York City Public Library, the Alderman Library of the University of Virginia, and the McCormick Library of Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia, for their invaluable assistance in the completion of thirty years of further research for this definitive work on the Federal Reserve System."


- Eustace Mullins


In general, what is problematic in this thread is the obstacles put forth to questioning things, and the resistance one finds in engaging in discussion about things considered off-limits. Who stipulates that these items that sought to be discussed are off-limits? Why is it some content can be openly discussed with virtually no burden of proof, while other content must have the highest burden of proof in order to be discussed here? Can we not simply have a discussion about the claims made by Mullins, and see where that discussion leads, rather than actively working to shut down that discussion?

erowe1
02-19-2010, 04:38 PM
In general, what is problematic in this thread is the obstacles put forth to questioning things, and the resistance one finds in engaging in discussion about things considered off-limits.

The only obstacles to questions that I have noticed in this thread has been when people have asked questions about what evidence exists for the assertion that Griffin plagiarized from Mullins, and those who seem to believe he did stubbornly refuse to answer them.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 04:42 PM
for their invaluable assistance in the completion of thirty years of further research for this definitive work on the Federal Reserve System."

Haha! Mullins actually called his own book the definitive work on the Federal Reserve System! That's rich! What a self-important fool. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 04:49 PM
The only obstacles to questions that I have noticed in this thread has been when people have asked questions about what evidence exists for the assertion that Griffin plagiarized from Mullins, and those who seem to believe he did stubbornly refuse to answer them.
If people wanted to discuss and explore the claim, they would discuss it in an adult-like manner and research the hypothesis to see if the hypothesis can be proved. Instead, we have total dismissal of the hypothesis with absolutely no respect being given to the fact that there is ample evidence to support that vector-leaders are regularly and frequently dispatched in order to usurp and co-opt vectors that are threats to the system of control. Mullins information, especially the timing of its release, would have been enormously problematic for those in control of the monetary system.

Given the fact that there are other strong data points, for which I have written about here previously, that would put into question Griffin's real allegiance, an open discussion on, and further research into Mullins' claim is warranted. Is it a high priority, not necessarily.

But to merely dismiss these claims, and to not view these claims within context of the larger system of control, and taking into consideration the techniques that are used, is to remain hopelessly in Platos Cave.

Obviously, there is a contingent of highly vocal people here who wish to remain facing the wall of shadow. The good news is that there is a larger contingent of silent people here who wish to turn their head to see what is really causing those shadows. We're going to do that, and see what we find, irrespective of how much noise the highly vocal wall-facing contingent makes. (yes, I am segmenting the group here just for illustrative and demonstrative purposes... so I acknowledge use of Delpi/Alinsky methods here, just to let everyone know that I'm being transparent about it.)

erowe1
02-19-2010, 04:54 PM
If people wanted to discuss and explore the claim, they would discuss it in an adult-like manner and research the hypothesis to see if the hypothesis can be proved. Instead, we have total dismissal of the hypothesis with absolutely no respect being given to the fact that there is ample evidence to support that vector-leaders are regularly and frequently dispatched in order to usurp and co-opt vectors that are threats to the system of control. Mullins information, especially the timing of its release, would have been enormously problematic for those in control of the monetary system.

Given the fact that there are other strong data points, for which I have written about here previously, that would put into question Griffin's real allegiance, an open discussion on, and further research into Mullins' claim is warranted. Is it a high priority, not necessarily.

But to merely dismiss these claims, and to not view these claims within context of the larger system of control, and taking into consideration the techniques that are used, is to remain hopelessly in Platos Cave.

As far as I can tell, the question posed to you as to whether there exists evidence for the claim that Griffin plagiarized from Mullins is still open, and has been since the first page of this thread. The ball is still in your court.

If you actually ever decided to get serious enough about your beliefs to back them up, you just might find others here willing to engage you in an adult-like discussion about them.

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 04:57 PM
As far as I can tell, the question posed to you as to whether there exists evidence for the claim that Griffin plagiarized from Mullins is still open, and has been since the first page of this thread. The ball is still in your court.

If you actually ever decided to get serious enough about your beliefs to back them up, you just might find others here willing to engage you in an adult-like discussion about them.
I would surmise that you have not read any of the material that I have posted about Information Operations or Full Spectrum Dominance techniques. Perhaps some study in propaganda techniques will assist in the identification of methods of manipulation employed the information actors. Perhaps then we can have a serious adult-like conversation.

erowe1
02-19-2010, 05:01 PM
I would surmise that you have not read any of the material that I have posted about Information Operations or Full Spectrum Dominance techniques. Perhaps some study in propaganda techniques will assist in the identification of methods of manipulation employed the information actors. Perhaps then we can have a serious adult-like conversation.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Is that the stuff about which you said, "This is being provided as additional info, not as evidence to support any claim."

If so, then no, I didn't read it. I'm going to wait until you present something that is evidence for something before I waste any time reading something that, by your own admission, isn't.

InterestedParticipant
02-19-2010, 05:26 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Is that the stuff about which you said, "This is being provided as additional info, not as evidence to support any claim."

If so, then no, I didn't read it. I'm going to wait until you present something that is evidence for something before I waste any time reading something that, by your own admission, isn't.
Added to my ignore list.
If people are going to blatantly ignore the body of work that I have posted and referred to, explaining techniques of control and managed persuasion, then I'm not going to invest any time with them.

There is ample reason for why a vector-leader would want to co-opt Mullins book. Given the similarities between the two books, given that Mullins made the claim after investing 30-years of research into the matter, and given what Griffin left-out of his version, I'd say that the evidence is already very strong to support the claim. If you want to understand, then ask question and join the learning curve, if you're here to create noise and frivolous attack with no understanding of context, then you'll be ignored.

adamant
02-20-2010, 02:21 AM
Has anyone (besides IP) actually listened to the gnosticmedia interviews?


Circumstantial evidence can be loosely defined as one concluding that it snowed last night because they woke-up in the morning and saw snow on the ground when they looked outside. While the person was asleep while it was snowing, and did not actually see the snow fall from the sky, one can reasonably conclude that it must have snow during the night if one sees snow on the ground in the morning that was not there when they went to bed.

Why weren't any of G's books burned? Guess the rewrite fixed the errors.

revolutionisnow
02-20-2010, 04:12 AM
Eustace Mullins plagiarized Charles August Lindbergh!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_August_Lindbergh#Political_career


In 1913, [Lindbergh] wrote Banking, Currency, and the Money Trust, and in 1917 he wrote "Why is Your Country at War?," attributing high finance as America's involvement in World War I. According to Eustace Mullins, plates of this book were confiscated and destroyed by Government agents. Also in 1917 Lindbergh brought articles of impeachment against members of the Federal Reserve Board including Paul Warburg and W.P.G Harding. Lindbergh charged that the Federal Reserve Board members were involved "...in a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States..."


Charles August Lindbergh wins?

Lindbergh was called "antisemitic" in his days also. His son was even kidnapped and murdered. I am sure that is just a coincidence though. :rolleyes:

YouTube - 9 11 1941 - Charles Lindbergh speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5HjRbIC6-g)

Seems like the same nonsense that is going on now.

Eustace Mullins connections to White Power groups makes people nervous to promote him. Plus he's friends with Revilo P. Oliver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revilo_P._Oliver), a racist associated with the National Alliance - A White Nationalist organization.

Eustace Mullins is a loose cannon who makes tons of anti-Jewish / antisemitic remarks.

Kinda like the 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon right?

But seriously, how is someone being against the Jewish crime network anti Jewish? If someone said, I don't like the MS-13 or the Crips because they do xyz, would that offend all Hispanics or Blacks? Its ok for a politician to talk about Muslims and suicide bombers, or the Italians and the mafia, but if you say Jewish and banking, politics or crime in the same sentence you are the devil reincarnated.

Why is zionism acceptable, but white nationalism not?

moostraks
02-20-2010, 08:39 AM
Lindbergh was called "antisemitic" in his days also. His son was even kidnapped and murdered. I am sure that is just a coincidence though. :rolleyes:

YouTube - 9 11 1941 - Charles Lindbergh speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5HjRbIC6-g)

Seems like the same nonsense that is going on now.


Kinda like the 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon right?

But seriously, how is someone being against the Jewish crime network anti Jewish? If someone said, I don't like the MS-13 or the Crips because they do xyz, would that offend all Hispanics or Blacks? Its ok for a politician to talk about Muslims and suicide bombers, or the Italians and the mafia, but if you say Jewish and banking, politics or crime in the same sentence you are the devil reincarnated.

Why is zionism acceptable, but white nationalism not?

You are thinking of his son (the pilot) who had their son (the third) kidnapped and murdered. The Lindbergh's story is what really woke me up to the Federal Reserve. I definately think the whole hoaky kidnapping/murder was related as they (elder and junior) were very vocally opposed to tptb and the way Roosevelt used the gold certificate turn in to aid in finding the of the child as well as the federalization of the whole case. It stinks to high heaven to me...

Google books has his book online (the elder's):

Banking and currency and the money trust By Charles August Lindbergh

http://books.google.com/books?id=B9IZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=charles+august+lindbergh+quotes&source=bl&ots=TWcgoiklup&sig=vWS0zpqVJ1ExN0ZObVJIuMrhTJw&hl=en&ei=UyTMSYylGtfMlQemsbzeCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false

People can judge for themselves as to how it predates anything Mullins wrote. Did Mullins cite Lindbergh I wonder?:)

moostraks
02-20-2010, 08:46 AM
Added to my ignore list.
If people are going to blatantly ignore the body of work that I have posted and referred to, explaining techniques of control and managed persuasion, then I'm not going to invest any time with them.

There is ample reason for why a vector-leader would want to co-opt Mullins book. Given the similarities between the two books, given that Mullins made the claim after investing 30-years of research into the matter, and given what Griffin left-out of his version, I'd say that the evidence is already very strong to support the claim. If you want to understand, then ask question and join the learning curve, if you're here to create noise and frivolous attack with no understanding of context, then you'll be ignored.

Hey erowe1 welcome to the club :D

First rule of IP law is do not question IP as IP does not have to prove anything to anyone because they are always right:rolleyes:. Pretty soon the troll will run out of people to engage in conversation and maybe they shall take the paranoid, patronizing ramblings elsewhere.

FrankRep
02-20-2010, 08:46 AM
People can judge for themselves as to how it predates anything Mullins wrote. Did Mullins cite Lindbergh I wonder?:)
Eustace Mullins plagiarized Charles August Lindbergh! :D
In either case, I'm just glad the public is waking up to the Federal Reserve.

pcosmar
02-20-2010, 08:50 AM
How deep does the Rabbit Hole Go?

15.8 miles

but the end is only a few feet from the beginning
;)

ScoutsHonor
02-20-2010, 12:54 PM
First rule of IP law is do not question IP as IP does not have to prove anything to anyone because they are always right:rolleyes:. Pretty soon the troll will run out of people to engage in conversation and maybe they shall take the paranoid, patronizing ramblings elsewhere.

Your malicious remarks are unfair and not true. They do not reflect well on you and it would be better if you apologized to IP for being such an obvious
troll yourself.

Sheesh. :(

moostraks
02-20-2010, 01:41 PM
Your malicious remarks are unfair and not true. They do not reflect well on you and it would be better if you apologized to IP for being such an obvious
troll yourself.

Sheesh. :(

:rolleyes: Try again dear. Calling a spade a spade is hardly malicious. I am quite frankly fed up with IPs insulting threads and attempts to portray the moderators and forum as being closeminded loons who are perpetuating the bondage of the general public due to their ignorance because we willful enjoy the tyrany being wrought upon us.

Especially when anyone who attempts to counter balance any of the nonsensical notions he/she/it may embrace is than posited as a sabotuer or a dupe.

InterestedParticipant
02-20-2010, 02:25 PM
Hey erowe1 welcome to the club :D

First rule of IP law is do not question IP as IP does not have to prove anything to anyone because they are always right:rolleyes:. Pretty soon the troll will run out of people to engage in conversation and maybe they shall take the paranoid, patronizing ramblings elsewhere.
Actually, my first rule is to think for oneself, which means not getting stuck in any particular vector or mindless following or idolizing other men.

Now, back to the OP...

ScoutsHonor
02-20-2010, 02:37 PM
:rolleyes: Try again dear. Calling a spade a spade is hardly malicious. I am quite frankly fed up with IPs insulting threads and attempts to portray the moderators and forum as being closeminded loons who are perpetuating the bondage of the general public due to their ignorance because we willful enjoy the tyrany being wrought upon us.

Especially when anyone who attempts to counter balance any of the nonsensical notions he/she/it may embrace is than posited as a sabotuer or a dupe.

Sorry, but anyone who can call IP's posts "ramblings" needs to go back and study the English language. There is nothing at all rambling about them, since they are precise, pointed and logical.

Your accusation that he portrays anyone here at RPF as "loons" is another of your gross exaggerations..Again, simply not true, a nasty smear.

If you don't like his topics or threads, stay away. How's that for a better solution, better than all of your ad hominems. It's my experience that it's only the intellectually inadequate who resort to *those.*.

Finally, if you can't see that IP is a valuable *teacher* who offers insight and understanding to those who are seeking those very things, then it's understandable that you are bored by these threads - and best then to just avoid them. But it's my opinion that many here would disagree with you intensely.

moostraks
02-20-2010, 02:44 PM
Actually, my first rule is to think for oneself, which means not getting stuck in any particular vector or mindless following or idolizing other men.

Now, back to the OP...

So why the investment in Mullins? Did he cite Lindbergh when he wrote his book? You seem to have dismissed this argument. If the point was to dismiss Griffin why blanket every other work as insider? Was Lindbergh an insider? Seriously???

You don't want people to think for themselves or you would engage in conversation with them. These threads are more like some sort of training operation of yours where the 'good' students are those that agree and parrot your talking points while the 'bad' students are those that get villified and relegated to ignore lists for having the audacity of pointing out the lack of logic in your train of thought.

moostraks
02-20-2010, 03:12 PM
Sorry, but anyone who can call IP's posts "ramblings" needs to go back and study the English language. There is nothing at all rambling about them, since they are precise, pointed and logical.

Your accusation that he portrays anyone here at RPF as "loons" is another of your gross exaggerations..Again, simply not true, a nasty smear.

If you don't like his topics or threads, stay away. How's that for a better solution, better than all of your ad hominems. It's my experience that it's only the intellectually inadequate who resort to *those.*.

Finally, if you can't see that IP is a valuable *teacher* who offers insight and understanding to those who are seeking those very things, then it's understandable that you are bored by these threads - and best then to just avoid them. But it's my opinion that many here would disagree with you intensely.

So the only ad hominems are the ones you allow? Thanks for clearing that up for me as you seem quite competant at practicing that which you preach. I think it is quite on target to provide solidarity to those who are so flippantly dismissed by the thread tyrant here when they have a legitimate question to one who posts a string of accusations.

Apparently you missed out on a few of the zingers that IP has been throwing out there lately. Or you are well aware of them and have an invested interest in his/her/it's protection. Whichever 6 of one half a dozen of another...

As for IP being a valuable teacher, it benefits no one if the person relaying the information hides every time anyone points out failings in logic. If the information was so solid then IP should have no problem backing up their ramblings (see longwinded monologues since you need clarification regarding my use of the English language). Instead he resorts to character assassination.

It appears his small cadre of sycophants feel his work to be valuable. But as he seems intent on undermining attempts at real change in society by preaching the utter hopelessness of any coalition of efforts amongst the liberty minded due to his all pervasive sense of paranoia, then consider me a sworn enemy to anyone who wants to sing his praises.

jkr
02-20-2010, 03:15 PM
deep, true, and real you

YouTube - Roy Shivers - Maze (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbCLUGLhD-o&feature=related)

InterestedParticipant
02-20-2010, 04:30 PM
n/m