Griffin enrolled in the College for Financial Planning in Denver, Colorado, and became a Certified Financial Planner in 1989. He described the U.S. money system in his 1993 movie and 1994 book on the Federal Reserve System, The Creature from Jekyll Island. This popular book has been a business bestseller; it has been reprinted in Japanese, 2005, and German, 2006. The book also influenced Ron Paul during the writing of a chapter on money and the Federal Reserve in Paul's New York Times number-one bestseller, The Revolution: A Manifesto, which recommended Griffin's book on its

"Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America".

The title refers to the November 1910 meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia, of seven bankers and economic policymakers, who represented the financial elite of the Western world. The meeting was recounted by Forbes founder B. C. Forbes in 1916, and recalled by participant Frank Vanderlip as "the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System". Griffin states that participant Paul Warburg describes the Jekyll Island meeting as "this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy".

Griffin's work stresses the point which Federal Reserve chair Marriner Eccles made in Congressional testimony in 1941: "If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money." Griffin advocates against the debt-based fiat money system on several grounds, stating that it devours individual prosperity through inflation and it is used to perpetuate war. He also described a framework of central bankers underwriting both sides of an ongoing war or revolution. Griffin says that the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the World Bank are working to destroy American sovereignty through a system of world military and financial control, and he advocates

for United States withdrawal from the United Nations.

Edward Flaherty, an academic economist, characterized Griffin's description of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island as "conspiratorial", "amateurish", and "suspect". Griffin's response was that Flaherty had miscategorized the book with other publications and had labeled all criticisms of the Federal Reserve as the results of conspiracy theory.

Griffin's advocation of a free-market, private-money system superior to the Fed caused economist Bernard von NotHaus to deploy such a system in 1998. Griffin states that von NotHaus's private silver certificates, known as Liberty Dollars,

are "real money".



 

 


PREFACE
 

Does the world really need another book on the Federal Reserve System?


I have struggled with that question for several years. My own library is mute testimony to the fact that there has been no shortage of writers willing to set off into the dark forest to do battle with the evil dragon. But, for the most part, their books have been ignored by the mainstream, and the giant snorter remains undaunted in his lair.

 

There seemed to be little reason to think that I could succeed where so many others have failed.


Yet, the idea was haunting. There was no doubt in my mind that the Federal Reserve is one of the most dangerous creatures ever to stalk our land. Furthermore, as my probing brought me into contact with more and more hard data, I came to realize that I was investigating one of the greatest "who-dunits" of history. And, to make matters worse, I discovered who did it.


Someone has to get this story through to the public. The problem, however, is that the public doesn't want to hear it. After all, this is bad news, and we certainly get enough of that as it is.


Another obstacle to communication is that this tale truly is incredible, which means unbelievable. The magnitude by which reality deviates from the accepted myth is so great that, for most people, it simply is beyond credibility. Anyone carrying this message is immediately suspected of paranoia. Who will listen to a madman?


And, finally, there is the subject matter itself. It can become pretty complex. Well, at least that's how it seems at first. Treatises on this topic often read like curriculum textbooks for banking and finance. It is easy to become ensnared in a sticky web of terminology and abstractions. Only monetary professionals are motivated to master the new language, and even they often find themselves in serious disagreement.

 

For example, in a recent letter circulated by a group of monetary experts who, for years, have conducted an ongoing exchange of ideas regarding monetary reform, the editor said:

"It is frustrating that we cannot find more agreement among ourselves on this vital issue. We seem to differ so much on definitions and on, really, an unbiased, frank, honest, correct understanding of just how our current monetary system does function".

So why am I now making my own charge into the dragon's teeth?

 

It's because I believe there is a definite change in the wind of public attitude. As the gathering economic storm draws nearer, more and more people will tune into the weather report - even if it is bad news. Furthermore, the evidence of the truth of this story is now so overpowering that I trust my readers will have no choice but to accept it, all questions of sanity aside. If the village idiot says the bell has fallen from the steeple and comes dragging the bell behind him, well,...


Lastly, I have discovered that this subject is not as complicated as it first appeared to be, and I am resolved to avoid the pitfall of trodding the usual convoluted path. What follows, therefore, will be the story of a crime, not a course on criminology.


It was intended that this book would be half its present size and be completed in about one year. From the beginning, however, it took on a life force of its own, and I became but a servant to its will. It refused to stay within the confines prescribed and, like the genie released from its bottle, grew to enormous size. When the job was done and it was possible to assess the entire manuscript, I was surprised to realize that four books had been written instead of one.


First, there is a crash course on money, the basics of banking and currency. Without that, it would be impossible to understand the fraud that now passes for acceptable practice within the banking system.


Second, there is a book on how the world's central banks -  the Federal Reserve being one of them - are catalysts for war. That is what puts real fire into the subject, because it shows that we are dealing, not with mere money, but with blood, human suffering, and freedom itself.


Third, there is a history of central banking in America. That is essential to a realization that the concept behind the Federal Reserve was tried three times before in America. We need to know that and especially need to know why those institutions were eventually junked.


Finally, there is an analysis of the Federal Reserve itself and its dismal record since 1913. This is probably the least important part of all, but it is the reason we are here. It is the least important, not because the subject lacks significance, but because it has been written before by writers far more qualified and more skilled than I. As mentioned previously, however, those volumes generally have remained unread except by technical historians, and the Creature has continued to dine upon its hapless victims.


There are seven discernible threads that are woven throughout the fabric of this study. They represent the reasons for abolition of the Federal Reserve System. When stated in their purest form, without embellishment or explanation, they sound absurd to the casual observer. It is the purpose of this book, however, to show that these statements are all-too-easy to substantiate.


The Federal Reserve System should be abolished for the following reasons:

  • It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives. (Chapter 1.)

  • It is a cartel operating against the public interest. (Chapter 3.)

  • It is the supreme instrument of usury. (Chapter 10.)

  • It generates our most unfair tax. (Chapter 10.)

  • It encourages war. (Chapter 14.)

  • It destabilizes the economy. (Chapter 23.)

  • It is an instrument of totalitarianism. (Chapters 5 and 26.)

This is a story about limitless money and hidden global power. The good news is that it is as fascinating as any work of fiction could be, and this, I trust, will add both pleasure and excitement to the learning process.


The bad news is that every detail of what follows is true.


G. Edward Griffin

Back to Contents

 

 

 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A writer who steals the work of another is called a plagiarist.

 

One who takes from the works of many is called a researcher. That is a roundabout way of saying I am deeply indebted to the efforts of so many who have previously grappled this topic. It is impossible to acknowledge them except in footnote and bibliography. Without the cumulative product of their efforts, it would have taken a lifetime to pull together the material you are about to read.


In addition to the historical facts, however, there are numerous concepts which, to the best of my knowledge, are not to be found in prior literature. Primary among these are the formulation of certain "natural laws" which, it seemed to me, were too important to leave buried beneath the factual data. You will easily recognize these and other editorial expressions as the singular product of my own perceptions for which no one else can be held responsible.


I would like to give special thanks to Myril Creer and Jim Toft for having first invited me to give a lecture on this subject and, thus, forcing me to delve into it at some depth; and to Herb Joiner for encouraging me, after the speech, to "take it on the road."

 

This book is the end result of a seven-year journey that began with those first steps. Wayne C. Rickert deserves a special medal for his financial support to get the project started and for his incredible patience while it crawled toward completion. Thanks to Bill Jasper for providing copies of numerous hard-to-locate documents.

 

Thanks, also, to Linda Perlstein and Melinda Wiman for keeping my business enterprises functioning during my preoccupation with this project And a very personal thanks to my wife, Patricia, for putting up with my periods of long absence while completing the manuscript, for meticulous proofreading, and for a most perceptive critique of its development along the way.


Finally, I would like to acknowledge those readers of the first three printings who have assisted in the refinement of this work.

 

Because of their efforts most of the inevitable errata have been corrected for the second edition. Even so, it would be foolhardy to think that there are no more errors within the following pages. I have tried to be meticulous with even the smallest detail, but one cannot harvest such a huge crop without dropping a few seeds.

 

Therefore, corrections and suggestions from new readers are sincerely invited. In my supreme optimism, I would like to think that they will be incorporated into future editions of this book.

 

Back to Contents

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION


The following exchange was published in the British humor magazine, Punch, on April 3, 1957. It is reprinted here as an appropriate introduction and as a mental exercise to limber the mind for the material contained in this book.
 

Q. What are banks for?
A. To make money.


Q. For the customers?
A. For the banks.
 

Q. Why doesn't bank advertising mention this?
A. It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money that they have made.
 

Q. Out of the customers?

A. I suppose so.
 

Q. They also mention Assets of $500,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A. Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.
 

Q. I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A. Not at all. They lend it to customers.
 

Q. Then they haven't got it?

A. No.
 

Q. Then how is it Assets?
A. They maintain that it would be if they got it back.
 

Q. But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A. Yes, usually $500,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.
 

Q. But if they've got it, how can they be liable for it?
A. Because it isn't theirs.
 

Q. Then why do they have it?
A. It has been lent to them by customers.
 

Q. You mean customers lend banks money?
A. In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.
 

Q. And what do the banks do with it?
A. Lend it to other customers.
 

Q. But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A. Yes.
 

Q. Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A. You can't really say that.
 

Q. But you've just said it. If I put $100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else, and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Assets. It's the same $100, isn't it?
A. Yes. But...
 

Q. Then it cancels out. It means, doesn't it, that banks haven't really any money at all?
A. Theoretically....
 

Q. Never mind theoretically. And if they haven't any money, where do they get their Reserves of $249,000,000 or thereabouts?
A. I told you. That is the money they have made.
 

Q. How?
A. Well, when they lend your $100 to someone they charge him interest.
 

Q. How much?
A. It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half per cent. That's their profit.
 

Q. Why isn't it my profit? Isn't it my money?
A. It's the theory of banking practice that...
 

Q. When I lend them my $100 why don't I charge them interest?
A. You do.
 

Q. You don't say. How much?
A. It depends on the Bank Rate. Say half a per cent.
 

Q. Grasping of me, rather?
A. But that's only if you're not going to draw the money out again.
 

Q. But of course, I'm going to draw it out again. If I hadn't wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden, couldn't I?
A. They wouldn't like you to draw it out again.
 

Q. Why not? If I keep it there you say if s a Liability. Wouldn't they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A. No. Because if you remove it they can't lend it to anyone else.
 

Q. But if I wanted to remove it they'd have to let me?
A. Certainly.
 

Q. But suppose they've already lent it to another customer?
A. Then they'll let you have someone else's money.
 

Q. But suppose he wants his too ... and they've let me have it?
A. You're being purposely obtuse.
 

Q. I think I'm being acute. What if everyone wanted their money at once?
A. It's the theory of banking practice that they never would.
 

Q. So what banks bank on is not having to meet their commitments?
A. I wouldn't say that.
 

Q. Naturally. Well, if there's nothing else you think you can tell me...?
A. Quite so. Now you can go off and open a banking account.
 

Q. Just one last question.
A. Of course.
 

Q. Wouldn't I do better to go off and open up a bank?

Back to Contents