37 votes

G. Edward Griffin on Quick Fixes, the Looming Great War and Loss of Elite Moral Authority

Sunday, September 30, 2012 – with Anthony Wile
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with G. Edward Griffin.

Introduction: G. Edward Griffin is a film producer, author and political lecturer. He is the founder of Freedom Force International, a libertarian-oriented activist network focused on advancing individual freedom. First released in 1994, Mr. Griffin's best-selling financial book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, is a no-holds-barred look into the inner workings of the Federal Reserve banking system, or cartel if you will. Mr. Griffin's literary contributions are especially noteworthy given the validity of his vision and the exciting and troublesome nature of the times in which we live.

Daily Bell: Let's jump right in. Are we seeing significant price inflation now?

G. Edward Griffin: It depends on how you define significant, I suppose. I think it's significant. My personal feeling is the price index is greatly distorted. They keep fiddling with the formula to make it look as good as possible but real inflation, at least here in the States, in terms of the major components of what people buy to live day to day, such as groceries, gasoline and clothing, my feeling is that inflation is already at the double digits. I think it's ten percent if not more. That I think is significant but then again it's nothing compared to what I think we are going to see.

It seems to me that probably within the next two years we will be experiencing 15, 20, 25, 30 percent and so forth. It may be much higher because I have a feeling there is a certain tipping point coming when people finally realize – and they always do – in any country where the currency is grinding down. There comes to be a point, like in Russia or in Germany, for example, when inflation was modest and then within a period of a few weeks inflation was way, way out of proportion. It was a psychological factor that made the difference. Nothing else changed except the awareness level that the money was no good. So I kind of think we are going to see similar psychological influence like that here and probably we will catch up with all the inflation that should have been in the market very quickly.

Daily Bell: Are the elites running scared?

G. Edward Griffin: I don't think the power elites are running scared, no. I think they are very confident that everything is under control. I think they are not worried about the crisis because they want the crisis; the crisis is part of the plan. The monetary crisis, the military crisis, social crisis, racial tensions, crime crisis, environmental crisis – those things all feed into their plan because that's what frightens people and what makes them passive to accept all these programs that they offer to expand government and increase taxes. So I don't think they are running scared. I think they're saying to themselves very comfortably that 'everything is on track and things are going according to plan and exactly as we wanted.'

Daily Bell: Is the central banking economy breaking down?

Much more here:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Big Fan

Mr. Griffin is certainly someone to admire.

good article; I'm going to . . .

bookmark it--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

What About Rand Paul?

Daily Bell: Rand Paul?

G. Edward Griffin: I don't have too many thoughts about him. I like everything Rand Paul stands for and I know he's been greatly influenced by his father. I don't like everything about Rand Paul. I didn't care for his decision to support the Romney campaign but I can understand that maybe he feels that's necessary to garner some kind of niche in the Republican Party. So I might disagree with his strategy. In fact, that's probably a good reason I am not in politics. I would just stand on principal on everything and be shot down over some little minor issue where if I had compromised on something minor I might still be standing for the major issues. But nevertheless, I like Rand Paul and I hope he will become the rallying point for continuation of the Ron Paul Revolution.

Griffin interview does connect all the dots!

Thanks for posting, Katherine. This is a wonderful interview. I couldn't help but think how his synopsis of each issue summed up so many posts and comments here at the DP - and pretty much tied them together. In short, on a global scale we're seeing the "predators" gradually bring all the "assets" under their control.

It was depressing, but I'm grateful he ended on an optimistic note, well sort of. I think he's right that this will take a couple of generations to turn around, that is, IF the activists don't let up. We need to continue to get ourselves better educated as we continue to educate others. He's right: the ideas are out there. The movements are in place. Seeds have been planted. What grows will only produce more seeds. "We've started a process now that within a generation or two has to mature and cannot be stopped. Freedom is assured."

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Great interview!


"Another important issue is US sovereignty. Are we going to stay as an independent nation, will Canada remain an independent nation, will all countries remain independent, or will they become submerged and lose their sovereignty in the UN? Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama are in agreement on that. They both favor the UN."

Wow. This guy doesn't pull any punches!

"government becomes a magnet, a magnet that draws to it the predator class, people who want to run your life and mine and want to do it legally. They want to take our stuff but they don't want to go to jail for it so they go to work for the government."

"the possibility of a great world conflict is tailor-made to the agenda of the new world order people because they want to scare the daylights out of the people – ..."

"They will convince people that we are at war and we can't tolerate this kind of stuff anymore. We only have one thing to worry about now and that's how to save our lives. Everyone will panic and say we have to close down dissent, we have to rally behind our leaders and we must have unity if we are going to survive. So I can see on a more subtle level that this great, horrible catastrophe that we all fear might be desirable to that maniacal group that is trying to put together what is called the new world order."

Powerful stuff.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

I thought so too!

and I thought of you as well when I read the words by Mr. Griffin having to do with Legal Crime:
"G. Edward Griffin: I don't think there is any one person behind all of this. I think it's a fact of the system we live in. I come back and use the word collectivism. The world is in the grip of this ideology called collectivism, the concept that the state is more important than the individual and that the individual must be sacrificed, if necessary, for the greater good of the greater number. That concept has taken over the world. As long as we have that concept we have the concept that follows it, which is that government must be the solver of all problems, government is the source of all good, government provides the leadership and we must do what the government says because it's for our own good. That's the theory. Now, as long as that exists then government becomes a magnet, a magnet that draws to it the predator class, people who want to run your life and mine and want to do it legally. They want to take our stuff but they don't want to go to jail for it so they go to work for the government.

Now they can do it legally and they come up with all kinds excuses – they're going to fight crime, they can fight terrorism and they are going to fight the destruction of the planet. They are going to do all these things that everyone applauds them for but in reality what they are really doing is they want our stuff and they want to control our lives. This becomes their excuse for doing that. So in order to really bring about change we have to change the system itself so that the magnet is turned off.

As long as we accept the philosophy of collectivism, this concept that big government has the solution for everything, we will never solve our problems. They will just get worse because the magnet that draws to it all this predator class will stay and the predators will stay. They will come, they will grow in number and we will be preyed upon."
I am hoping the fact that they "want to do it legally" clarifies what is legal crime and are legal criminals. Do you understand now what I was trying to explain? The terms Legal Crime and Legal Criminals carry much weight when using those terms in your language to speak about the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves. People take note of those words. Then you can explain just like Mr. Griffin did what those words mean. When I understood, it was an eye-opener.


If they're doing it "legally" in what way is it crime?

It's a contradiction in terms!(Bangs head against brick wall) ; ) It may be morally wrong but by definition it is not criminal.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Crime against Humanity

If a government decides it is lawful to torture, rob, kill, and cheat the innocent does that make the offence any less criminal?




from above link CRIME, n.

from above link
CRIME, n. [L., Gr. , to separate, to judge, to decree, to condemn.]

1. An act which violates a law, divine or human; an act which violates a rule of moral duty; an offense against the laws of right, prescribed by God or man, or against any rule of duty plainly implied in those laws. A crime may consist in omission or neglect, as well as in commission, or positive transgression. The commander of a fortress who suffers the enemy to take possession by neglect, is as really criminal, as one who voluntarily opens the gates without resistance.
But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offense, or violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offenses against the laws made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c. The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors. Crimes and misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured. But in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.
2. Any great wickedness; iniquity; wrong.
No crime was thing, if tis no crime to love.
Capital crime, a crime punishable with death.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

"divine or human"

Thank you MaxK for your input, it lead me on this journey:

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt lovethy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hangall the law and the prophets
The first law being love...Any law violating love of God or love of neighbor as one loves self becomes Criminal.

Golden Rule anyone?

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Wait, wasn't Ron Paul laughed at for quoting the golden rule? It is indeed a sad day we live in when we talk about "social justice" and scoff The Gold Rule. God will be the final judge and legal crime will crumble when held against divine law.


Isaiah 9 says that of the

Isaiah 9 says that of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.

It doesn't just say at the end, says the increase never ends.

Isaiah 9:6-7
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Wonderful Promises!

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple there in: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. 27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Revelation 22:20 KJV He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.


It does make it less 'criminal'. It is still evil, morally wrong and against God's commandments. But not a crime, if it does not break the law.


I have no issue with your meaning, Bear, only with the linguistics you are using. I think that phrases like that are imprecise and inaccurate, and so unhelpful. For instance it could mean:

a) Illegal according to a state, but legal according to some other, natural law (which is subjective and often depends on who is using the term),
b) Legal according to a state, but illegal according to other law.

'Crime against humanity' is a journalistic phrase that does not usually refer to 'an' actual crime. Something may be a 'crime against humanity' without being a crime. If for instance the laws in that state are evil. Do you see the linguistic distinction between law and morality?

Terms like 'legal murder' or 'legal theft' are more accurate. Because 'murder' and 'theft' have clearly understood conceptual meanings distinct from their legal prohibition. Whereas crime is generally defined as being what is prohibited by law.


Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

Hi Willl,

If you might indulge me this last time, please consider these words below as I have considered your words above.
1. an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

I understand completely that crime and legality have a reciprocal relationship. However, one should also note definition number 4 at the same given link:

4. any offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin.
The point being that the legal criminals have only made their offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin legal; but that does not mean that it is no longer an offense, a serious wrongdoing, or sin as it has only become unpunishable by law, which is why legal criminals have resorted to writing law.
Hitler wrote laws, but that did not make the Nazi crimes less punishable. However, one might also note according https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials , that those doing the punishing seemed to somewhat resort to some of those same atrocities and also overlooked Soviet purges without penalty since they were allies.

Thus with Legal Criminals in charge, justice is no longer blind, but is subjected to the Legal Criminals wielding the most power at that precise moment in time. One might then ask…what is law…if it is not just? It may be semantics, but my supposition is that it is no longer law, but crime made legal enforced by criminals made legal, and that until we acknowledge this we will continue to provide for the means by which we suffer…Jury Nullification?
“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.” –Thomas Paine



I can't agree, Bear

I still say that the phrase 'legal crime' is an oxymoron which is not helpful and renders your excellent argument hard to understand, because you're using the same term for two opposing meanings.

"The point being that the legal criminals have only made their offense, serious wrongdoing, or sin legal; but that does not mean that it is no longer an offense, a serious wrongdoing, or sin as it has only become unpunishable by law.."

Completely agree! So that would be 'legal sin', 'legal wrongdoing', etc.

I think it would be better if you used these terms to get your point across.

All the best, Will

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.


I'll have to agree to disagree. Thank you for a kind exchange.

This is where realizing that

This is where realizing that People didn't just swear oaths on the Holy Bible, but it was (and is) part of the law, and common law tradition comes in.

There is no government that can possible declare murder isn't murder or the ten commandments don't exist.

The Holy Bible has been part of common law ever since english common law started.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Read Ingo Bischoff's feedback.

The feedback from Ingo Bischoff at the bottom of the page is well worth reading. Personally I believe he has hit the nail on the head. He reflects the thinking of Professor Antal Fekete on the subject of the FRS banks and how they are consolidating banks and destroying capital with their QE issuances. In short they are destroying industry not themselves. He also provides the solution to the quandary that looks a lot like Dr. Paul's solution although he does embrace the concept of Real Bills which the American Austrians do not.

It is likely I believe that the madness of the private equity funds like Bain Capital that generated efficient (i.e. debt laden) balance sheets for so many companies during the Clinton and Bush I and II years have greatly contributed to this destruction of capital. This, it appears to me, was a deliberate strategy to set companies up for take-over by larger corporations.

Because this kind of thinking is not accepted by the American Austrian School Ron Paul has missed the contribution that Romney has made to the collapse of the American economy. I believe Professor Fekete has described the difference between the two Austrian Schools rather well in this article:


"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

The Solution per G. Edward Griffin

"...So what is the solution then? Well, you've got to make sure in the next election, or the one after that, that we do have some options. Now, that's a long-range process. People have to get up off their couches and out where the masses are. They have to do some education, they have to do some activism, they have to run for office and they have to replace those collectivists that are in positions of power so that the next time the election rolls around you will have some options. That, nobody one wants to hear, because it represents a lot of work, a lot of time and a lot of personal sacrifice."

Actually what we have to give up is the practice of human ..

Sacrifice. Notice how politicians and pundits all call for more sacrifice. But human beings are not sacrificial animals. Sure they have been treated as if they were, enslaved throughout history, sacrificed to the rain gods in prehistoric tribal societies.

It was not until the practice of human sacrifice was given up, first by Abraham, the first Jewish man, who refused to sacrifice his son Jacob.

Boy was I glad to hear that when I was a little boy!

Men may have died while fighting for their freedom as is true of those who fought the British with George Washington, but that was not an act of self sacrifice.

Read Atlas Shrugged and see the second of the trilogy of Atlas Shrugged the movie in theaters October 12th. Read Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness and For The New Intellectual.

It is the practice of human sacrifice which must be forbidden and given up once and for all.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.

In part, your argument is one of semantics.

It depends on what time frame one is considering, for one. In a sense, much as this phrase is normally anathema to me, it's a matter of "the ends justify the means" - or put another way, "delayed gratification." Still within the realm of "selfishness," what I might regard as being in my best interest NOW might not be in my best interest in the longer run. It takes some amount of wisdom to be able to judge things considering the longer term and also the bigger picture. In fact, at issue is even how one defines "self." Obviously, at the very least, "I" am my self. But for various reasons and in various contexts, one's sense of self can be far broader than that; perhaps anywhere one might think to use the possessive pronoun "my." I did read The Virtue of Selfishness, though I am not an objectivist. It's unclear what you are criticizing here - the use of the TERM "sacrifice?" Or are you saying that we have to give up the actual IDEA of sacrifice on behalf of anyone/anything outside of our own skin? It's confusing because the issue at hand is not unlike your own example of fighting the British, which you yourself do not regard as self sacrifice.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

I am talking about this type of sacrifice


"An especially sore point for anyone who spent untold hours becoming a delegate was the GOP's purge of many duly-elected Paul delegates in the weeks before the national convention. They disqualified them for various reasons, but mainly so they wouldn't be so numerous as to cause a ruckus at the convention, or God forbid, try to nominate Ron Paul for president.

In Tampa, the Maine delegates walked out at one point because the GOP refused to seat half of Paul's delegates from Maine. The state's governor, a Romney supporter, boycotted the convention to express solidarity with the unseated delegates.

So Romney hasn't exactly been "a uniter."

Many Paulians remain in the GOP at various levels, working to inject into the party the principles of civil liberties, free markets, sound money, and a just foreign policy. They have taken over the state GOP in Iowa, Minnesota and Nevada, states where Ron Paul won the lion's share of the delegates to the national convention.

These Paul-inspired activists are energetic, philosophically consistent and mostly young.

If they succeed in reshaping the GOP into Ron Paul's image in the years to come, they will have paid the dismissive GOP leaders — and the pundits — a most deserved comeuppance. "
I spent some time last night looking at Rand, I was not impressed. In her interview with Mike Wallace she appeared somewhat strange. I have never seen someone's eyes dart around in the manner hers did. She even destroyed her "lover" and his work in Objectivity when he no longer wanted to sleep with her. In all reality, I question whether she defected from the Soviet Union, or she was a Soviet plant here in these United States to subvert a certain population. And now you are telling me that Griffin is wrong about sacrifice to engage in the political process. I would rather follow Ron Paul's example of self sacrifice for Liberty than sitting on the couch waiting for everything to turn out OK by default.

Good interview.

Thanks for posting.

Griffin speaks well.