Talk:The Money Masters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request for removal of the Google links

The authors of the Money Masters have contacted myself and requested that i remove the Google links as they are technically "bootlegs" I'm just making people aware so that the original poster of the links does not think I’m just taking action of my own accord. thank you -Theblackbay 19:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure its the author and not someone pretending to be him? The money masters web site claims that the Money Masters are released to the public domain. There other DVD isn't and does not appear on google video.--Dacium 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] can we find sources to key claims in internet?

I think if we can find historical proof of a few key points, it would pretty much wrap it up for "them". --87.193.30.60 16:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

is there a contract on record where Rothschild or earlier asks the winner of the war to pay the loosers debts, while he financed both sides?
is there a quote of Bidle (the top banker opposing Pres. Andrew Jackson) where he threatens to bring on a depression?
if not 3 congressmen, how many voted for the 1913 Warburg law?
Where is the source that told Reagan, that the Fort Knox Gold is owned by a private bank, the Fed ?
Were there 8500 tons od gold initially, and now 5000 tons or how many tons exactlay ?

[edit] Money Masters Article Structure

I'd think that if one is to quote the website, it's only fair that the story is quoted in full, and not only the middle of it.

The list of topics in the video is over two dozen items with no hierarchy, and is taller than my screen by several items. IMO, it should be moved here to Talk:The Money Masters unless it can be given some structure, preferably 5 to 9 headings with 5 to 9 topics each, e.g. based on the relationship among topics if that can be discerned from the Nexus article. --Jerzy 19:38, 2004 Jan 3 (UTC)

I will organise this -Theblackbay 22:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Eventually I might consider expanding the segments, but I don't really think its that bad as it is, especially since almost all of the topics now cover wikipedia links. Finlander 18:18, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you don't mind Finlander , if you are the original creator i'd like to contribute to this Article, so feel free to make any corrections - also i just fixed the Freedom to Fascism link it leads to the homepage now, the trailer was not playing. perhaps better to link to a Google vid trailer? I’ll consider this.-Theblackbay 05:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Have Added Historical References, and some more headings set it out, and the logo will be added soon. -Theblackbay 08:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC) The Money masters has meant a lot to myself through my education it was one of my first points of reference, this doc needs a lot of respect in my opinion.-Theblackbay 08:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

  • The Money Masters—not important enough to warrant an encyclopedia article in itself. I perceive it as an effort to promote this documentary and, indirectly, its point of view. Dpbsmith 13:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree -- Delete. -- The Anome 14:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Who do you think you are to decide this and that movie or documentary is not known-enough for wikipedia? IMDB score? It's source for- and information package for people wandering into fractional-reserve banking. I've made it initially into a stub, but I'm planning to extend it to mention the issues it covers. Would removing the external link make you happy in the mean time or should I remove the quote that I did not include in the first place? Finlander 14:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, I looked for it on imdb and couldn't find it at all. Where is it? Closest thing I could find was a 1915 silent movie, a drama called "The Money Master" which is characterized as a "drama" and no description other than "keywords: ambition, anarchist, based-on-play, industrialist, moral-reformation, new-york-city, nurse, poverty, revenge" Dpbsmith 15:05, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, it is not in the imdb and I didn't say it is (does imdb cover documents?). Finlander 15:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
        • You might like to review the changes I made to the page and also, as you so allege that I'm advertising a small time document for my own benefit and not because it seems to be recognized and also I personally found it very enjoyable and informative, check out the "Reviews and Comments" page on the document's homepage and you will see that it has been recognized by several institutions, economic magazines and publishers and whatnot. Finlander 15:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge with another article (but I can't suggest any atm). I see no reason to delete this article. It seems encyclopedic to me and the production named "Money Masters" and the concept it discusses are well-known among people who study similar topics. It is possible that somebody may search wikipedia for this thing, so we should list it, as long as it does not cause any harm to Wikipedia and its readers (and as it is now, it doesn't). However, I have no problem to merge the contents with another page if you think this is better, but certainly do not delete. Optim 17:58, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Three issues here - Is it advertising? Is it NPOV? Is it important enough for a Wikipedia article? The link is to a Web site that has a page that advertises the product, but this is not serious enough for deletion IMO. The article is a bit NPOV but this could be fixed easily enough. Is this documentary more important than hundred of other documentaries that can be seen on the History channel, PBS, BBC, etc.? Probably not. So how high do we set the bar when decideing whether an article is warranted? We have articles on Star Trek episodes, episodes of childrens show, chapters of books, verses of the Bible. If this is where we set the bar then the documentary should stay. - Keep, unless we are prepared to consistently implement a tighter inclusion policy. mydogategodshat 03:06, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Optim, are you sure the Nexus magazine notice is needed? I looked at it, and while there are some interesting articles there, mostly its just wacked conspiracy stuff IMO. If you want to preserve the link and the notice, please make a wikipedia addition of it and then link to it. Finlander 11:45, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem to delete the link if you like. I just added it as a form of extra information; and to show that The Money Masters have some publicity outside their website. Feel free to change whatever you like or delete the link and/or the sentence about nexus, I dont consider this information necessary and I dont have any reason to insist on its inclusion. I could write a stub on nexus but I dont have time and I prefer not to fill wikipedia with stubs. With Best Wishes for Peace Profound, Optim 11:54, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I guess I beat you to it. I already made a semi-stub of nexus magazine and changed to link to point to it. I hope you have interest enough to extend and quite possibly, correct it. Finlander 12:53, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
no prob, I will expand it after I finish with my exams. With Best Wishes for Peace Profound, Optim 13:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Why is this article in Wikipedia? It does not have NPOV and it's only references are references to the film or reviews of the film. The whole thing is based on a house of cards without any supporting documentation. The fact that this article has no criticism section should be evidence enough that this is just marketing. Maintainers should look to Loose Change (video) as an example of how conspiracy videos can be handles in a wikipedia friendly manner. There is also no reason this should not be categorized as "Conspiracy theories". With dozens of other "conspiracy" documents this video would be right at home there ( including Military-Industrial Complex Nazi gold New World Order (conspiracy) and many more. Eric 169.226.89.86 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep the Article

Wikipedia is an open source, free to the public pool of knowledge. And, as such, it is the reader's prerogative to draw conclusions from the article. To advocate the removal of an entry discussing The Money Masters is tantamount to petitioning Wikipedia to remove all independent documentaries from the database. After all, they must be nothing more than free advertisements; they could not possibly be informative listings helping people understand the content, right?

Discovery, PBS, and History channels' documentaries have an intrinsic advantage over independent studies: the latter lack the media campaigns and corporate sponsorship that the former possess.

I first learned of the documentary on this site and honestly forgot about it until a few weeks later I saw the DVD. If anything, there should be an expanded article because I know of no other piece that is so well produced and researched pertaining to monetary reform. Furthermore, asks questions that no corporately sponsored investigation would dare conjure. The Money Masters website is not a mere advertisment for the video but rather contains many informative kernals discussing the Federal Reserve and the making of the documentary. There are articles giving details per lewd sex acts so why should there not be a page devoted to an important and popular documentary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingTheoden (talk • contribs) 23:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC).

I have just finished watching this movie and I am very suprised no one has pointed out the extreme anti-semitism that is contained within it. I must admit, that they are subtle and sophisticated as to cloak it, and only reffering directly that when they say "Money Changers" they really mean "Jews" at the very beginning of the film very quickly. They also quote very well known anti semites like Henry Ford and Linburgh who were overtly and quite publicly vociferously anti-semitic.
While this film does have some good historical value, you must realize what it is at its core - anti-jewish propoganda where the "money changers" are blamed for WW1, WW11, and even the assasination of Lincoln.

Caveat emptor. - Daniel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.25.35 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC).

  • So in your opinion, what other word or phraze should they have used instead of "Money Lenders"? knutars 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

To claim anti-semitism for exposing the (in my opinion, but thats irrelevant) shamefull activities of a particular group of people, simply because some happen to be jewish, without disputing the truth of such claims, and without any reference in the video to this being a jewish problem, is rediculous, and yet I see similar abuses of the term anti-semite all the time. It is akin to claiming racism if someone exposes frauds perpetrated by an african american family, without disputing the fraud claims, when no mention of their race was made. If you have evidence that conflicts with things presented as facts in this movie, present it to the creators of the video, or perhaps discuss it here. Not liking bankers/rothschilds/any other group because of their actions is not anti-semitic, regardless of whether a large proportion of those bankers happen to be jewish. - ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diablomonic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

  • This film is a serious historical account. There are many verifiable, extended quotations used in progressing its argument, enough to warrant at least a serious authenticated discreditiation in order to cast aspertions, as such I've given the article a rewrite in order to redress the 'cynical' nature of the original. --JaseFace 10:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am 54 and have been re-educating myself in American economics and history at the non-partisan Ludwig von Mises Instute - mises.org, and I have also watched this irrefutably accurate documentary. This is nothing less than the story of how five sons became the world's largest nations banks in concert, and eventually our own after the third deception. A 1932 dollar worth 1/20th per oz. gold, is today worth 1/650th per oz., IOW a 97% depreciation of American's buying power has occured for the sole purpose of unlimited funds for the further welfare/warfare interventionism that enriches elites.

I bought a new VW in 1972 for $1,998.00. Is it the costs of production inputs that have skyrocketed in 35 years that make a new Bug cost $20K? It has never been; free market incented innovation has continuously reduced production costs such that we have $500 computers, that by comparison, are infinitely more powerful and productive than a like priced Atari of the 80's.

No, the crux is that creating ever more dollars out of thin air, and paying interest to a private int'l corp on every dollar owed in the total debt borrowed, is but a mere wealth siphon with absolutely no good purpose for taxpayers, but rather profits accrued entirely to Fed owners and those benefitting elite borrowers in Govt, and their co-dependent cheerleaders in academe, media and Big Biz.

Did those who watched it to then dismiss it not hear the culprit's very own admissions of their purpose and guilt, the exactitude of the events outlined and the interlocks of power and influence it revealed - all in their very own words?

The Federal Reserve does exactly what it's creation was declared to prevent, and proved it with the coercive and vindictive contraction of monetary liquidity that acted as the impetus for Leviathan's growth during the great depression the Fed'l Reserve created, and every "business cycle" since.

The Banker's creations Marx & Keynes yet live strong as the albatross around the US Govt's neck.

In Keynes' own words on Lenin:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency - "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some....The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose."

Leave the Money Masters alone to be seen or America will eventually perish!

marxbites 2/4/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.153.9.123 (talk • contribs). on 4 February 2007.

[edit] "Quotes by political & social figures"

I've added a "self-published" tag to the "Quotes by political & social figures" section of this article. The only source cited for the "quotations" is the Money Masters web site itself. A primary source's own claims about its veracity do not constitute a reliable source.

I suspect the entire set of quotes consists of endorsements from fellow conspiracy theorists accompanied by fabricated quotes from individuals the authors think sound impressive. The purported quote from Milton Friedman is particularly in need of verification, since it is so incredibly unlikely. Are we really supposed to believe Milton Friedman supports legislation[1] that would effectively eliminate all banks in the U.S.? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote could be entirely true, the author could have easily provoked Milton into a response. If you look at the quote in question it offers no endorsement of the Film or it's theories. It's also been "cut down" so drastically probably to prevent the true tone of the response from spoiling the quotation. -Eric 169.226.89.86 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Dead wrong Mateo, your statement reveals just how propagandized you and most Americans are, as I once was as a child of the sixties.

There is no reason banks can't compete by building customer trust in it's services like all other industry must to survive, like stock brokers or insurance cos. Govt subsidized, regulated and protected interests at taxpayer expense, like big AG, energy, academe, unions, defense, and the grand untaxed foundations created solely to perpetuate elite wealth and shelter it from the taxation it's status defers to taxpayers, all while they propagate and promote the ever bigger Govt they become ever more in control of just cheat taxpayers and usurp their remaining power.

None of it is conspiracy, it is the historical truth that Int'l Banking has seized control of all major banks in the world via the central banks they either created, or state banks they took over by first becoming the bankers to governments, and the holders of their debt only by virtue of guaranteed interest payments via taxation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.153.9.123 (talk • contribs). on 4 February 2007.

Unsigned, your argument is not relevant to Mateo's point. Whether or not the allegations put forward by this documentary are accurate, Mateo is concerned that its quotes cannot be sourced. I have been researching these quotes, many of which have been added to the wikiquote listing of their attributed source, and can find no listing for the majority of them that refers to anything but this video. (Or are themselves unsourced quotations on websites with themes similar enough to the themes of this video that their authors, it could be fairly reasoned, have probably encountered it.) Lastly, many of them are written in cadences dissimilar to other quotes by the same figure, or seemingly surprising considering other, sourced opinions rendered by that figure.

These quotes should be either properly sourced, or at the least tagged as unverified. --Vincent the Vain 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to get more and more concerned about these quotes and the general significance of this video within Wikipedia. These quotes appear in the Charles August Lindbergh entry on Wikipedia, and are otherwise unsourced and not marked as self-published or circumspect.

Second, the Money Masters is the only documentary/book/text or any media at all that is not an online article referenced to in the 'see also' section of the entry for fractional reserve banking! Is this really the single most significant source to link, and so much more significant than any given text book or popular book on the subject? This work seems disproportionately referenced on the Wikipedia as a whole, considering its relative insignificance and questionable accuracy. Vincent the Vain 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The money masters sites lists all the sources for the quotes. I really don't see why people don't believe them. Remember politicians have huge swings often when it suits there office and party.--Dacium 21:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I just went over the entire Money Masters website and did not find a single source for any of the offered quotes. They were all attributed to a famous figure, but there were no sources. Please provide links for the pages that contain the sourcing information. Vincent the Vain 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Money_Masters_5499.html"