GRIFFIN, MISES, FAKE GREAT AWAKENING

All Frauds

CONTENTS

.1. MATHIS ON THE GREAT AWAKENING MOVIE
.2. MITCHELL V. MISES & GOLD STANDARD

.1. MATHIS ON THE GREAT AWAKENING MOVIE

BEWARE!

The Great Awakening? http://mileswmathis.com/awake.pdf
by Miles Mathis - First published June 5, 2023

Infowars and many other alternative sites are pushing the premier of Mikki Willis' new film The Great Awakening. He is the one that also created the Plandemic films. But while all these films seem to be on the right side, I warn you once again they are not what they seem. Yes, the message now is mostly correct, but there is something else going on here, and we will try to figure out what that is.
The first thing we notice is that Willis builds his film around G. Edward Griffin. Griffin's film from 50 years ago is shown extensively, and it should put everyone on alert. Griffin, now 91, also appears in the film in the present looking about 71, which may indicate he has taken great care of himself or it may indicate editing. The film is heavily edited in that way, so we don't know. Willis pastes himself into some old films, so all the technology is being used here. That in itself is a red flag, since we have never been told exactly who is behind Willis. It has to be a very powerful and wealthy entity, since he could not have done all these films on his own. He is an ex-model now on PEDs, looking way too slick, so there is lot of mystery even there. But back to Griffin. Griffin is a clue to who is behind Willis, since all we have to do is go to Wikipedia for a lot of quality information. And why would I want to question Griffin here, since he is saying many of the right things? Well, because his whole “Communists are behind it all” sounds very familiar. Willis has colorized the old film of Griffin, but in its original black and white it looks and sounds eerily like Joseph McCarthy and his red scare. Those of us old enough remember this has all been done before. “All your problems are due to Communists.” Back then it was Russia and now it mostly China. But its the same old government wag-the-dog schtick. They propagandize you while appearing to oppose propaganda.
Griffin is mainly an actor himself, having been in the media since he was ten. He was a child voice actor from 1942. He was Army then worked for the Wallace campaign in 1968. So, like Alex Jones and these other people, he comes from the right side of American politics: not a revolutionary of any kind. A G-man from the start. So when he claimed to become a conspiracy theorist in the 1970s, everyone should have been VERY suspicious. Especially since they admit his books were published by the John Birch Society. Yes, JBS has turned out to be right about a lot of things, including fluoride, but that doesn't make them good guys.
Even worse, Griffin was closely linked to Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, OSS and founding member of the CIA. Also to British peer and major spook John Rees. ... In the 1970s Rees moved to DC and became a spy there, again working as a police informant. Wiki admits Rees' had a network of spies on college campuses at that time that was superior to that of the FBI. Which again links us to the film we are looking at, since in it Griffin blackwashes hippies and college students as Communists. Same thing they were doing back in the 1960s and 1970s. Except that it wasn't true: most of the hippies and progressive college students in that period weren't Communists. They were anti-war demonstrators and other peaceniks. They were good environmentalists pushing back against big polluting corporations. They were old-style liberals, trying to protect the little guy against an ever-growing government and exploding Intelligence apparatus. In fact, we have seen the {so-called} hippies promoting Communism at that time were actually government plants, sent in to infiltrate and blackwash the hippie movement by any means necessary. Making them look like Communists was the best way to do it at the time. Think of the Manson family, sold as dangerous hippies. The only way to blackwash them worse than through Communism was to make them cult murderers, so they did that, too. So it is very strange to find Griffin working with Rees in the 1970s.
... Another strange person to see in this film is Nizza Islam, of Nation of Islam. I have shown you that NOI is a CIA front and has been from the beginning. It's main goal was to split blacks from Christianity, which made them easier to split as families
... We should take a closer look at the John Birch Society. Like Alex Jones, the JBS has indeed turned out to be right about a lot of things, but that is what a controlled opposition is: it leads with a lot of pretty lights to hide a darker background. Like Griffin, JBS came out of OSS and CIA, and candy billionaire Robert Welch wasn't the only rich guy behind it. Harry Lynde Bradley was another, being connected to Rockwell through his company Allen-Bradley. Through Rockwell we link back to Mellon Bank again. Another billionaire was Fred Chase Koch, whose sons you probably know about. It goes without saying that the Koch's and Chase's have never been interested in individualism — except maybe their own. So, as with Communism, it is all just another smokescreen of nice words.
... So what is this film really about? The terminally naive might think this is a sign of a split in the {Ruling Class}, with one arm really interested in the rights of the individual and the Constitution. I used to think that, but I no longer do. It is possible some faction of the {Ruling Class} is against the WEF/Mordor future, seeing it as less profitable in the long run. That seems like a best-case scenario. But more likely is that this film is part of a stalling tactic, a method to control the opposition and prevent a lastminute revolution while Mordor is being installed. {This} is a final round of propaganda, where we are assured ... China is behind it {all}. ... I would say there is no possibility any of these people care anything about the Constitution or the rights of the people, but it may be possible some faction of the {Ruling Class} isn't onboard with the WEF, due to the fact that if we have a one-world government of that sort based on the Chinese model, the war economy will go right out the window. If everyone is already subjugated by Emperor Schwab, living in their 200 sq ft flats and eating bugs, how are they going to fake all the wars? Without wars, you don't need bankers to fund them. Without wars, you don't need military contractors. Without wars, you don't need diplomats and conferences and embassies. And if everyone is imprisoned in their little cells, they also aren't buying cars and gas and a million other things. The whole modern economy will tank. Many billionaires don't want the US and Europe to become like China, since the Chinese people don't have the excess wealth to steal and tax that we have. It is hard to get rich stealing from people whose greatest possessions are a bag of rice and a couple of goats. How much credit card debt can a person like that run up? How many B1 bombers can they fund with their taxes? With a population five times ours, China steals about 1/10th what {our politicians} do for the military, and that is because they {the Chinese rulers} are already maxxed out at that level. They have stolen everything and there is nothing left to steal. So the Chinese model is actually about 50 times less efficient as a model of treasury theft. Billionaires aren't too bright, but some of them may have noticed that. Sure, they have some new schemes to **** the earth and soak the masses, but those schemes can only work in the very short term, {if} they are workable at all. Stealing all the middle-class wealth of the US and Europe will generate new profits for a few years, but once those sources are tapped out, you are left with a world of poor peasants and “super-intelligent” machines. But they have not thought that through either, since you cannot tax machines. AI will not sign up for credit card debt. AI will not need banks. AI will not buy products. AI will not fund fake wars or show up to pretend to fight them either. AI doesn't need uniforms. AI doesn't need housing. AI doesn't need food. AI needs lots of electricity, but cannot pay for it. That, not the idea it will take over the world, is the real disaster of AI.
... {Griffin} also became a member of the Mises Institute, which closes yet another circle. I remind you that Alex Jones republishes multiple articles from the Mises Institute everyday. They have their own section at Infowars.

.2. MITCHELL V. MISES & GOLD STANDARD

Mitchell is naive re politics, climate & Covid science, but he's brilliant re economics, IMO. So here's an example of his replies to a Mises-like gold bug. He also argues well elsewhere against the Mises austerity promotion, which means austerity for the lower classes, but not for the rich. Maybe I'll write on that sometime. - Len

What is the purpose of a gold standard?
https://mythfighter.com/2014/07/22/what-is-the-purpose-of-a-gold-standard/
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell - July 22, 2014
I just read a 2011 article in Forbes Magazine, titled, “What is the purpose of a gold standard?” (O.K., so I’m a bit late.)
Although the author, Nathan Lewis {NL}, has an axe to grind (he wrote the book: “Gold: the Once and Future Money”), he makes some interesting points:

{NL:} If you ask the typical academic Keynesian economist this question, he would probably say that there was no purpose at all.
If you ask the typical gold standard advocate this question, he would probably respond with some vague platitudes like “gold is honest money,” or perhaps would argue that a gold standard prevents government debt issuance, or some such thing. They have, I would say, only an imprecise grasp of the purpose of a gold standard system.
[I agree, with {those}. - RMM]
The purpose of a gold standard system is to produce a currency of stable value.

.Agreed. That is the stated purpose. Of course, a gold standard does not fulfill that purpose. And it begs the questions: What is a stable value and what is its purpose?

{NL:} Now we can say what a gold standard does not do: It does not prevent panics, crashes, depressions and so forth, caused by various factors unrelated to currency value. It does not prevent government debt issuance – although it does prevent printing-press finance of government expenditures.

.A gold standard doesn’t prevent, panics, crashes and depressions, but it produces a currency of stable value???
I’m not sure how that is possible, and not sure why anyone would want a currency of “stable value” during a depression, panic or crash, even if it were possible.

{NL:} A gold standard system does not put some sort of artificial limit on the supply of money. You can have as much currency as your economy needs, within the constraint that the currency must be stable in value. In other words, you cannot over-issue money to the point that it loses value.

.What does stable in value really mean? Does “stable value” mean no inflation? Or does “stable value” mean stable exchange rate? Two very different goals, neither of which can be accomplished with gold.
The Fed already controls inflation to it’s annual goal of 2.5%-3%, without gold.

{NL:} Is there another, even better method of creating a currency of stable value? No, there is not.

.Yes there is. Interest rates. Raising rates “strengthens” the dollar. It increases the demand for dollars, which increases their value.

{NL:} That is why, when people desire a stable currency, they have used gold again and again over hundreds of years.

.And they have gone off gold standards, “again and again.” The author doesn’t explain why. (It’s because limiting your nation’s money supply, by the accident of gold discovery and inventories, causes national insolvency — that is the “instability” the author preaches about.)
Is there some deficiency in the gold standard, such that we would be motivated to find another, better system? In other words, did gold’s value ever change so much that it caused some sort of significant economic problem? Did it fail in its role as a benchmark of stable value?
It is quite difficult to find evidence of any example, in the last three hundred years, of a major gold-instability event. It pretty much worked as advertised.
Yes, those gold-instability events are so-o-o-o-o hard to find — except right under our noses:

And we have had many, many recessions, as well as the Great Depression, while we were on gold standards. (See graph)
“Worked as advertised”?

{NL:} (Today’s) currency manipulation leads only to economic stagnation and decline. A capitalist economy simply works better with a stable currency than with an unstable one.

.Again, he gives no definition of “a stable currency.” Is he talking about inflation or is he talking about foreign exchange. A currency can be stable in one and not stable in the other.
And what does he mean by “works better”? Is there some measure of this criterion?
The article demonstrates the usual gold-bug, vague generalities.

{NL:} We are now on the path of currency decline, which will eventually end in hyperinflation if it is not arrested at some point.

.Ah, the old hyperinflation myth, which always includes the words, “eventually” and “at some point.”
Of course “eventually” and “some point” may be centuries away. After all, we already have gone more than two centuries, through wars, depressions, recessions and yes, inflations, without hyperinflation — sometimes on a gold standard, sometimes not.

{NL:} The U.S. federal government is being funded in large part with printed money, a red flag if there ever was one.

.Dollars are not printed. The U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. The dollar (not the printed dollar bill) is its sovereign currency.
The U.S government not only can create as many or as few dollars as it wishes, but it can change the dollar/gold exchange ratio any time it wishes.
So, how is this freedom to change the dollar/gold ratio at will, any more or less “stable” than the ability to create dollars at will?
It isn’t.

{NL:} We don’t have to put up with the endless chaos, punctuated by disasters and crises, characteristic of the floating currency arrangement.
When people are ready to return to a system of stable currencies, they will look for a way to do so, and discover once again that a gold standard system remains the best path to this goal.

.Let’s get this straight. A Monetarily Sovereign nation is sovereign over its currency. It can do whatever it wishes with that currency.
It can run larger or smaller deficits. It can spend more or less. It can peg to another currency or to a precious metal, like gold or silver. It can “unpeg” at any time. It can set and revise its currency’s exchange rate with any other currency, a basket of currencies or with any element in nature.
A gold standard does not force a Monetarily Sovereign nation to do anything it can’t do when not on a gold standard. When a nation on a gold standard runs short of gold, it merely changes the money/gold ratio, as Nixon did on August 15, 1971.
So how can a gold standard be a path to a system of stable currencies?
It’s a path to one thing, and one thing only: Big profits for the brokers who hawk gold to the suckers who guess future prices.
Place your bets, folks. The wheel is spinning.
Monetary Sovereignty https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/monetarily-sovereign-the-key-to-understanding-economics/