How deep does the Rabbit Hole Go?

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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

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, 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?
 
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

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=B9...sult&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?:)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :(
 
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.
 
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...
 
Back
Top