3 Comments

  1. John Gelles
    March 30, 2009 @ 12:00 pm

    Dear Richard,

    The six past video is both a work of great genius and effort — and too much in total: great for 4 parts, but it fails to seem doable by the end.

    We must visualize a conversation between Cook, Obama, and a perfect representative of “what we should REALLY do”.

    We cannot do ALL the changes you seek. The greenback principle and direct basic income dividend, more or less YOUR bottom line summary judgment, help to simplify and make things doable: but are they plain and simple enough by the time you finally finish.

    I believe we must go in reverse order: start with the END and list a very few simple silver bullet changes: what we could do that would (a) solve our deficit in demand (relative to supply) and (b) our deficit in supply (relative to need).

    You have made one terrible error: you have given coherence and purpose to the victory of the money power over common sense.

    You have created an anthropomorphic caricature out of the force of greed, the lure of wealth, the possession of goodies.

    The connections between Alexander Hamilton, Rothschild, Morgan, Greenspan, YOU and Myself, are not akin to a monster able to fight like a man.

    They are the same as the connections between good guys: they do NOT actually exist.

    If you and I are wedded to the Golden Rule, along with Jesus Christ, we are NOT, nevertheless, connected to Him. The Deciples were.

    So the banking interests (anywhere and anytime) do not normally form an oligarchy.

    They form a set of separately motivated bastards who do not have a conscious plan to monopolize all the money.

    They did not create the money system — they took advantage of it. History created it. It evolved. Like modern medicine.

    The problem is the money system is flawed: the change you want to see made is the same as the one I want to see made and that should be made.

    But no one has yet articulated a simple enough change to convince a reader that such change is possible.

    Money, today, is as entrenched as language. Change it does. Change it we can. But only a little bit at a time.

    We need therefore to change it the very least we can for the most favorable effect in our age old war on poverty, scarcity, and ignorance.

    I have spent all night with your powerful video: thanks

  2. Joseph Danison
    April 1, 2009 @ 12:00 pm

    I enjoyed the presentation and I hope it gets wide viewing. I particularly appreciate Richard Cook’s effort to integrate his own development of Douglass social credit with the greenback theory of Stephan Zarlenga’s American Monetary Institute.

    Credit as a “public utility” is a brilliant insight that provides an easy way for people to understand the social nature of money & credit.

    I have a disagreement with the historical overview in the first video regarding the role of Populism and William Jennings Bryan in the election of 1896. As I consider the cause of monetary reform a true Populist endeavor, I think it is important to get the historical facts straight. Those of us who call for popular control of the monetary system are Populists, descendants of the 19th Century movement that championed the same cause.

    Richard asserts the the Populists took over the Democratic Party and that Bryan was essentially a Populist candidate, representing the Populist agenda. This is not true. The definitive account of the Populist movement in the US is provided by Lawrence Goodwyn in his 1976 book, “Democratic Promise, The Populist Moment in America”, Oxford U. Press.

    William Jennings Bryan was not a Populist and did not deign to grace the July, 1896 St Louis nominating convention of the People’s Party with his presence. He was nominated earlier as the Democratic candidate for president when he delivered his famous “cross of gold” speech. The People’s Party sought to promote its agenda within the Democratic Party in the “fusion” politics of the day. The Democratic Party took over the People’s Party, not the other way around, and the greenback platform, the monetary reform agenda that was the core of the Peoples Party platform, was displaced by the “free silver” agenda that Bryan and the Democrats advocated.

    Bryan’s VP running mate in 1896 was Arthur Sewall, an eastern national banker and railroad magnate. One is known by the company one keeps, as Obama is known by his affiliation with Timothy Geithner and other private monetary monopolists.

    William Jennings Bryan was an opportunist who used his oratorical gift to win over the Populist constituency. When the Peoples Party sought to fuse its agenda with the Democratic Party, it collapsed because the greenbackism that was its core identity was abandoned in the name of “free silver” that was ersatz monetary reform at best.

    Furthermore, as Secretary of State in the Wilson administration, Bryan was instrumental in allaying the doubts surrounding the 1913 legislation that established the private financial monopoly. He argued in favor of the Federal Reserve and helped to get it passed.

    Those of us who advocate creating a public monetary utility from a private monopoly are Populists. We should be familiar with our own history and honor our antecedents. William Jennings Bryan is not among them.

  3. Anonymous
    April 22, 2011 @ 7:02 am

    […] Richard C. Cook » Blog Archive » SIX-PART VIDEO NOW AVAILABLE … […]

    Pingback by cash-for-clunkers-hit-and-run | AutoInsuranceGalaxy.info on March 17, 2010