The EyeOpener- What is Money?

BFP VideoIn this age of panic over the sovereign debt crisis and the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling negotiations, we are bombarded with talk of government money printing and images of the printing press, but how many people know that only a tiny fraction of money in the economy is actually in the form of bills or coins? And if money isn't, for the most part, literally printed into existence, then where does it come from?

In a system where money is created by bankers out of our own promise to pay them back, at interest, it is self-evidently always the case that more and more of the hard assets and real value of the economy will be transferred from the working, productive classes to the financial speculators at the top of the system who literally create the money and toy with the credit that is our economy's lifeline. Given all of this, is it at all surprising that we have arrived at this situation where economic crises are followed by multi-trillion dollar bailouts of financial institutions while more and more people fall into debt, foreclosure and unemployment?

It is enough to note that at times it is the simplest questions that turn out to be the most difficult for many to answer, and if we are being told not to ask such questions as what money is or where it comes from, perhaps there is a reason that the powers that be don't want these questions being contemplated.

Watch the Preview Here:

Watch the Full Video Report Here:


*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVD .

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. jschoneboom says:

    Thanks for this James, what a great idea for a series of Eye Openers. I have to admit this is an issue area that I have trouble feeling that my head is securely around. Even watching this video, I got a bit lost. This is no doubt largely due to my own mental cobwebs, but there seems to be a sort of intuitive leap going on towards the end of the video, where one moment we’re talking about money always being debt (so far so good) and the next moment it’s words like “fraud” and “expose” and how it’s obvious that this all must inevitably result in a huge siphoning of wealth from the masses of people to the pockets of a few high flying bankers.

    I sense the connection, I feel the truth, but I think you’d do some of us a great service while you’re on this topic if you could make more explicit the process by which this wealth siphoning happens and why it is inevitable. I can understand the general idea that, if all money is debt, then we’re all constantly paying back loans, and the people we’re paying are the ones making out on the deal. But somehow that still feels a bit vague to me. I’d like a firmer grip on the whole system! If you could help connect those dots between “debt” and “fraud” I for one would be grateful. I mean lay it out step by painfully obvious step, like you’re talking to a five year old, which is sort of how I feel grappling with monetary systems.

  2. @jschoneboom: As a follow-up to James’ good piece, you might be interested in Chapter 4, “Deposit Banking”, from “The Mystery of Banking” by Murray Rothbard. This chapter describes the creation of money out of nothing under fractional reserve backing.

    The book is available for free at

  3. James,

    I just watched a vid which had your own closing remarks at Kuala Limpur Conference. I did not watch the entire conference. As a follower and a someone independent armchair technical researcher I’ve closely followed as much of the research and reports out there… official and truther as well as the political commentaries swirling around 9-11. I’ve been listening to alternative media from the early 60s probably well before you were even born. We’ve seen a steady progression since that time of the destruction of accurate reporting by the MSM as it’s has become to be known.

    With the advent of inexpensive hand held video recording devices every has, as you pointed out, the capacity to be a teller of truth, of being a reporter on the ground providing raw feed of what actually happens before the MSM can spin the event. I refer you to the case in Berkely where a black man was murdered on the BART platform which was captured by citizens with a hand held recording device. The Police could not testilie. They were caught. And this is happening allover and the police immediately try to destroy cameras at the scene where a confrontation is taken place. They want no evidence of their crimes.

    This however may be a lesson for all, but this should not be conflated with 9-11 and the problem of what actually happened that day.

    There were several citizens who recorded parts of the events… several security cameras as well. Like the Zapruder film most of these were confiscated by the authorities.. most never seen by the public. What we were left with was the visual record of what was seen on TV and captured on MSM cameras. We have as well the testimony of FDNY witnesses which were taken as transcripts and perhaps audio recordings.

    The problem is… INTERPRETATION and understanding OBSERVABLES… and the very complex physics and engineering which applies… and this MUST include all the technical drawings and specifications of those structures. I would argue what we have is… mickey mouse, cartoon conceptions of the event rarely supported by detailed technical evidence. The *science* of the truth movement is not credible, sloppy, inaccurate and has not been repeated. Yet it is presented by people who are referred to as experts, or who present themselves as experts to give gravitas to their pronouncements. *APPEAL TO EXPERTS* not to their work. I say this because lots of their work has been shown to be INCORRECT. Some like Gage have not done a shred of technical work themselves and are simply talking heads… presenting other *experts*.

    This is a dangerous *house of cards*… people repeating and referring to unproven work as science and fact and truth. Gage, for example, who claims to call for a new investigation… seems to have made stunning conclusions. Is he planning to prejudice the investigation with his conclusions? Or expect the investigators to interpret the evidence as his experts have? Is he even willing to admit that other *experts* have very different interpretations to those very same *observables*/ evidence?

    I accuse YOU James of doing very much what the MSM does and what ALL media is engaged in… reported what others SAY and not the actual event. I am not saying all reporters do this all the time. I am saying that it appears that you are closed to or apparently unaware of any other technical research about 9-11 aside from the flawed NIST, FEMA and 9-11 Commission reports. There IS technical work which finds BOTH the official account and the various *truther* accounts…that is the technical findings WRONG

    This is a false dichotomy… OCT v Truther (MIHOP, LIHOP, LIHOOI). I must say I give credit to DemocracyNow! when the at least ASK the other side of a story to comment or participate in the interview/story and give their side. There is an attempt to or a tacit acknowledgement that there are often nuance and multiple interpretations to events… especially when witnesses are conveying the *facts*. There is way too much false certainty coming from both sides of the 9-11 story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I became deeply troubled by 9-11 *science* when I learned what Steven Jones did with a single photo of a core column cut during clean up. He promoted this photo as evidence of the use of tharmite cutter devices. This was wrong and irresponsible. He’s also made a number of bizarre statements about the hurricane in Haiti and cold fusion.

    Then there’s Graham MacQueen who is/was a peace activist and a retired professor of religious studies (I believe). He’s a likeable and seeming stand up guy. I’ve spoken with him a few times. He’s was/is passionate about the official lies and the wars they were based on re 9-11 and began to do research… his own. I’ve read his papers and listened to him being interviewed. His work on Anthrax is very compelling. But when he ventures into seismology and physics he’s really not qualified to take this on for any number of reasons. Nice try… What really disturbed me was his work on *foreknowlege* of the collapse of bldg 7… Waiting for Seven. I attended his Hartford Presentation. What I find amazing in his study if FDNY witness testimony is that as a researcher he did NOT examine explosions… all explosions… what they look and sound like… what *things* in buildings can explode…what THEY would look and sound like from various distances. What do various bombs look and sound like detonated in buildings?

    All bombs explode… but not all explosions are bombs.

    This is such a basic flaw in reasoning I was appalled. But perhaps the FDNY are experts… surely they would be able to know? REALLY? How many of them have experiences with IDing explosions.. close up? I did not see any attempt my Graham to look at any other possible explanation for the reports of explosions. And there was one deputy fire commissioner who said he believed electrical equipment was exploding (I believe in the south tower).

    There is a sound explanation for the William Rodriguez witnessed sub basement explosion in tower 1. Have you heard or read any other explanations for this than that it was a bomb? The alternate explanation may not be correct. It may have been a bomb. But the fact remains that the alternate is completely plausible and perfectly logical and is supported by the equipment in the sub basement which COULD explode. And William told me directly that he heard an explosion and never used the word BOMB.

    There is a problem in citizen reporting at times… they don’t know what they are seeing. Not always… but this IS a concern.

Speak Your Mind