David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer. He is a founder and current president of the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center; editor of the Center’s publication, FrontPage Magazine; and director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left. Horowitz also founded the organization Students for Academic Freedom. Horowitz has written several books. In this talk he talks about his new book “Big Agenda, Trump and The Left”. The talk is from 25.07.2017. Full video, quoted under fair use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8gXZ… —- This channel aims at extracting central points of presentations into short clips. The topics cover the problems of leftist ideology and the consequences for society. The aim is to move free speech advocates forward and fight against the culture of SJWs.
QUESTION: You have previously said that the Persian monetary system was based on gold, the Greeks used silver and the Romans began with bronze. That actually described the Biblical story of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar’s Statue interpreted by Daniel. Do you think your research into the world Monetary System confirms that interpretation?
WK
ANSWER: I have been asked that question before. Perhaps I have never answered it on this blog. The history of the world monetary system does appear to provide an accurate interpretation of that dream. However, I have my differences. The Persians had plenty of gold from Anatolia. The foundation of their monetary system began with gold. The first coins were actually issued by the Greeks who occupied Anatolia, (Turkey) which was conquered by the Persians who adopted their monetary system. The first coins were gold electrum, a natural alloy of gold and silver mixed. They eventually refined the electrum into gold and silver coins. That was the birth of the bimetal monetary system.
Mainland Greeks possessed silver mines. Athens was famous for its Athenian Owls. The only time we see Owls struck in gold was as an emergency issue during the Peloponnesian War. This is when we see the first debasement of the silver coinage. It was against this backdrop of war in a desperate fight for survival an emergency coinage was issued in gold. Gold was scarce in the Greek world which relied upon silver. Athens in the last decade of the fifth century was surrounded by the Spartans who cut off their supply of silver by denying them access to their silver mines.
Athens was brought to its knees in the midst of military defeat. At first, Athens survived the by tapping into a reserve treasury of some 1,000 talents of silver. This enabled them to produce about 1.5 million silver tetradrachms. Then by 407BC or 406BC, Athens was no longer able to issue silver coinage. This was when they were forced to coin silver plated tetradrachms. Aristophanes’ Frogs (718-33) indicate that the gold coins were struck in 407/406BC, and that silver-plated coins were struck in the year as well. The coinage confirms Aristophanes’ account. Some have argued that the Spartan forged the Athenian Owls to undermine their currency as a war tactic.
As for the rare gold coinage of Athens, the Athenians turned to the offerings stored on the Acropolis and the gold-covered statues of Nike. Perhaps this is when one of the Seven Wonder of the ancient world was stripped of her gold – Athena Parthenos. Most people have no clue that the famous Parthenon means ‘house of Parthenos’ meaning the house of Athena the Virgin. The Statute is said to have been taken during the 5th century AD. Some claim it was removed to Constantinople.
Athens had possessed an immense treasury, but it was completely depleted to defend in the war. These emergency funds were used to build and outfit a new fleet that in 405BC was defeated at Aegospotami in the Hellespont by the Spartan general Lysander. The Athenian gold from the war is uncommonly well documented for an ancient coinage. The bullion was stripped from seven of the eight golden Nikai on the Acropolis. Each statue was covered in about two talents worth of gold in the form of removable plates which perhaps could have produced 100,000 drachms weight in gold or 50,000 of the coin pictured here – Didrachm. What happened to this production is not known. Very few of these coins have survived and are worth up to $500,000 each. Perhaps the Spartans just melted down everything they could find.
The Monetary System of Rome began with bronze which traded at first in clumps known as Aes Rude and then took form in ingots and round coins all cast at first rather than struck from dies. The “brass” is Orichalcum which was a rare natural alloy. It was first introduced by Augustus (27BC-14AD). Nero (54-68AD) made use of Orichalcum to give higher value to certain denominations as the Sestertius and Dupondius.
If we are to address the legs of Iron, sorry that does not fit the monetary description of the Roman Empire. The only monetary system to use iron for coinage was China – not European. Here is an Iron coin made during the period of Emperor Che Tsung (1086 – 1100AD)(33 mm 13.30 grams). After the fall of Rome/Constantinople, the Financial Capital of the World migrated to Asia. So I fail to see where the legs of Iron can be fairly interpreted to be a European Empire.
As far as part clay and part Iron, there is such a use of clay in the production of paper. It was known as China Clay Paper. Even the United States used it in the production of postage stamps for a brief period. It tended to have a bluish cast or tint to the paper.
In 1909, the United States briefly experimented with printing stamps on paper with 20% China Clay added to the otherwise 100% wood pulp used to make paper. The paper had a faint grayish tone, and the stamps printed on it are known as “China Clay” stamps.
While many know that paper money was invented in China, what they usually do not know is that paper itself was invented in China. Ever since the invention of writing, people had been trying to come up with something easier to write on than clay tablets, sheep skins (parchment), or papyrus or. However, it actually took a very long time – some 3000 years to be closer to the notch in the timeline of human society. Paper was invented around 100 BC in China. In 105 AD, under the Han Dynasty emperor Ho-Ti, a government official in China named Ts’ai Lun was the first to start a paper-making industry. He made paper by mixing finely chopped mulberry bark and hemp rags with water. He then mashed pounding it flat. After pressing out the water and letting it dry in the sun, he discovered paper. To be fair, for centuries before people used the mulberry bark to make cloth. Consequently, Ts’ai Lun’s paper was a derivative of that process and turned out to be a huge success. With paper available, Buddhist monks in China began to work on ways of mass-producing prayers. By 650 AD they were block-printing prayers. Tang Dynasty (618-907AD) marks the birth of paper money.
Consequently, I believe that the prevailing interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream seems to be biased toward Western culture. There is no known use of iron being used for money outside of China in Europe. If we are going to use the monetary system to explain the empires, we should not omit China.
QUESTION: I am studying to become a lawyer. I find your legal writings fascinating. You provide a far deeper understanding of the rule of law that I am taught in school. I suppose that is becoming obvious in economics as well. Can you recommend and legal writing that may have influenced you greatly?
OH
ANSWER: That is a hard subject to reduce to a single work. It is the evolution of law that is also important to understand for only then do you see the corruption that we currently live under. The Biblical story of King Solomon deciding the month of a child illustrates the legal structure. You appeared before the king who was the judge and part of his duty was to settle disputes among the people. The state was not the prosecutor, it was the arbitrator. Today, governments profit from prosecutions and therein lies the problem.
Civil Asset forfeiture today is a distortion and abuse of the foundation of the law from which it is justified by even the Supreme Court against the foundation of liberty. Criminal forfeiture is justified when the property is some gain from an act that someone is found guilty of a crime. However, civil forfeiture is an abuse of every legal principle for it rests not on the person being guilty, but the property. Law enforcement officers they declare the cash in your pocket might be from a drug crime without having to prove you did anything so they just seize it. This is a complete distortion of the old legal foundation upon which it was based known as “deodand” from the Latin Deo dandum, “that which must be given to God.” If you owned a horse and wagon and the horse suddenly ran off and killed a person, then the horse and wagon were forfeit to pay for the funeral of the person. What the government has done is effectively declared itself to be God. Any asset that might have been involved in a crime is to be forfeited to not God but the State.
Governments have gone way too far with the law. I would say the one book that impressed me the most was something I read on my own – not in class. I fully agree with John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) whose work, On Liberty, is one of my classic favorites. This is what is wrong with socialism. He made it clear that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
The prisons are filled with people buying, selling, or using marijuana. There is absolutely no evidence of it creating some great harm. It is certainly of a scale of personal harm below smoking and drinking. Even people who use cocaine can just stop. Heroin is an opioid drug, which is a completely different class. They allowed pill-mills for things like OxyContin which is the brand name for oxycodone hydrochloride, an opioid, and then outlawed the pill-mills. The people were addicted to this stuff and then turned to Heroin and the death-toll mounts from overdoses. I have a friend who was injured in a car accidence and his back was seriously hurt. They put a pump in him that had to be refilled once a month. Now, because of the abuse with pill-mills, they simply come down on doctors and nobody wants to fill his pump with the same medicine he has had for 20 years all because of these policies.
Prohibition was another example of countless lives were lost all because of a law to abolish drinking. That funded the Mafia and created organized crime. It really does not matter what the issue is for once you make something illegal, you create an underground economy that is tax-free. NO LAW will ever change human behavior. The women’s movement to outlaw drinking blamed the booze for men who were abusive, to begin with. You can pass a law and declare death penalty to kill another. It will never work because that will never cross the mind in the heat of the moment or there will always be people who think they can get away with it.
Any Government can NEVER be trusted with the prosecution of crimes. Boston Strangler of 1965, is the classic case in point. The police could not catch the guy and Albert DeSalvo was a known mental case who would often confess to crimes he never committed. The police even knew that but were frustrated to be looking like fools in the press unable to catch the culprit. The police charged DeSalvo to satisfy the press who couldn’t describe a single crime scene and there was never any physical evidence to link him to any crime.
The government should NEVER be allowed to prosecute crimes. There MUST be a fully independent body that makes the charging decisions so it is never personal ego of a prosecutor involved. Laws should be prohibited that pretend to protect people from themselves. The only laws should be restricted to harm against another. On top of that, the Supreme Cout should rule on the constitutionality of any law BEFORE it is enforced.
Mr. Dan Bongino appears on Fox News Morning to discuss revelations about how the FBI conducted a politically motivated counterintelligence operation against Donald Trump.
.
Bongino also discussed more details on his podcast – SEE HERE
Knowing what we know now – how Stefan Harper (a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6), randomly reached out to contact Trump low-level campaign aide George Papadopoulos; and how that contact was likely part of a coordinated effort by political operatives within the U.S intelligence apparatus to start the counterintelligence operation against Trump; this prior interview with Chairman Devin Nunes is well worth re-watching.
About a month ago, April 22nd, 2018, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes appeared on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the origin of the counterintelligence operation (July 2016) against the Trump campaign.
This interview follows a mid-April FBI release of “some information” about the original “electronic communication” (EC) documents that underpinned the origin of the FBI operation. The first half of the interview contains stunning information about how the raw intelligence product within the EC did not come through official intelligence channels.
The origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation, which was specifically started by CIA Director John Brennan sharing his ‘raw intelligence product’ with the FBI, was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence -as an outcome of those relationships- to the FBI.
.
When we first watched this interview the initial questions were: if the EC is not based on official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the ‘five-eyes’ partners, then what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created it? And why?
We now know the originating structure involvedStefan Halper the foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor deeply connected to the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6.
We must also remember CIA Director John Brennan gave congressional testimony last year where he explained how he delivered the raw intelligence product itself. We spotted several issues, and Brennan’s obfuscation, a year ago, when Brennan first gave his testimony.
On May 23rd, 2017, Former CIA Director John Brennan gave very specific testimony to congress where he noted he provided the raw intelligence to FBI Director Comey – FULLSTOP. We now know Stefan Halper was part of the group assembling that raw intelligence. All of it was, as Nunes outlined, “through unofficial channels”.
Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan May 23rd, 2017, during his testimony to congress. Pay very close attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video of Brennan’s testimony:
Brennan: [13:35] “Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them.”
“Again, in consultation with the White House, I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between 11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members.”
“Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member.”…
In the last paragraph of the testimony above Brennan is describing raw intelligence gathered prior to the Carter Page FISA Application/Warrant (October 21st, 2016).
In hindsight, and against the known facts from research, we can clearly identify two central motives surrounding why the intelligence apparatus needed the FISA warrant. First, the FBI and larger team of co-conspirators needed to have a retroactive legal basis for political surveillance that was happening long before the warrant was issued. Second, this was all part of an insurance policy to create the illusion of a Russian Conspiracy – that would later be used -if needed- in an effort to eliminate President Trump.
The unlawful foundational FBI surveillance, which happened prior to October 2016, included the use of unauthorized FISA-702 queries of the NSA and FBI database for political opposition research by contractors. Again, much like the unofficial origin of the Stefan Halper raw intelligence that began the July 2016 counterintelligence op, the FISA(702) abuse was simply more ‘unofficial’ use of the intelligence apparatus.
Once the FBI Counterintelligence operation began, it was the FBI (Comey) and ODNI (Clapper) generating intel reports, likely included in the Presidents’ Daily Briefing (PDB), as evidenced by Page and Strzok messages saying: “POTUS wants to know what we’re doing”.
The CIA provided the false raw intel, via Stefan Halper, to start the operation, and the FBI and DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) generated the raw monitoring intelligence from the characters identified by the CIA, FBI, DOJ-NSD and approved by FBI FISA-Title 1 warrant submissions.
The FBI were running the counter-intelligence operation and generating the actual reports that were eventually shared with the White House, Susan Rice and the Dept of Justice. That’s why all the unmasking requests. Those reports, or interpretations of the report content, were leaked to the media by political operatives in the IC (and specifically FBI) throughout the deployment of the “insurance policy”, by Lisa Page, Mike Kortan, James Baker and Peter Strzok – with the guiding hand of Andy McCabe.
During the time James Comey’s FBI was generating the intelligence reports, Comey admitted he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: “because of the sensitivity of the matter“.
In his congressional testimony John Brennan was smartly (and intentionally) positioning himself out of the picture from the perspective of the illegal acts within the entire process. ODNI James Clapper while rubbing his face and scratching his head had taken the same route earlier. That approach would leave James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the small group within the DOJ-NSD and FBI.
The CIA and DNI wanted all traceable fingerprints to be from DOJ and FBI. And that’s exactly what happened…. so far.
In his May 2017 testimony, Director Brennan goes on to say the main substance of those Gang of Eight briefings (2016) was the same as the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified Russian intelligence assessments published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA (intelligence community).
The January reference was the infamous 17 agencies report, from CIA (Brennan), DNI (Clapper), FBI (Comey) and NSA (Rogers), all who had confidence -except Rogers- according to the report, that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2016 election. The intelligence report was finished January 4, 2017, the day before the White House meeting with Comey, Brennan, Clapper, etc. and documented by Susan Rice.
A skeptic might think John Brennan is informing congress on one thing (Russian investigation), and James Comey due to his March 20th admissions (Trump counterintelligence investigation), is NOT INFORMING congress on another.
However, that angle of obfuscation is rebuked by Brennan’s own testimony that his specific intelligence product (CIA) was given to the FBI who were exclusively in charge of the “counter-intelligence investigation“.
What Brennan was doing in May 2017 was actually creating his defense, and positioning James Comey as the primary person who is to blame for any outcome therein.
However, the central risk of sunlight from revelations aboutStefan Halper, cannot be assigned to James Comey – hence the current severity of angst from John Brennan.
In May 2017, while this testimony was happening, deploying the “insurance policy” was still plausible – but it was becoming less likely to succeed.
In May 2017 CIA Director John Brennan was making James Comey own the “Counter-Intelligence ‘Muh Russia’” claims about the Trump campaign. As a consequence, Brennan was trying to make Comey the fall-guy for a Robert Mueller investigative outcome in case everything fell apart and their deployment of the “insurance policy” failed.
Brennan knows there’s no ‘there’ there. However, the problem with Brennan’s approach is within Stefan Halper. Director James Comey used the raw intelligence provided to him by Brennan to start the investigation, but he did not originate it; Brennan did. That’s the risk to Brennan if Devin Nunes is successful in getting the information aboutStefan Halper into the investigative psyche.
The entire construct of the “Russian Investigation” was the political use of manufactured intelligence, used to create an investigation in order to eliminate, President-Elect Trump or President Trump. This was their “insurance policy”.
However, there simply was no ‘there’ there because there’s no substantive evidence to support a “Trump Campaign Collusion Narrative”. Eventually, all avenues to prove the existence of something, that doesn’t exist, hit a dead end.
Comey made a March 20th, 2017, admission to congress that the FBI intentionally kept congress in the dark during the construct of the counter-intel narrative.
Congress was kept in the dark during this phase because the narrative can only thrive with innuendo, rumor, gossip etc. The appearance of the investigation itself was the political need; the substance was non-existent and immaterial to the creation of the narrative.
If Comey notified congress, via the Gang of Eight oversight, the counter-intel narrative would have been harder to manufacture as details would have to be consistent; and people like Devin Nunes would know what was going on. That was the benefit to keeping any oversight away while creating the politically useful narrative.
In May 2017, CIA Director John Brennan, facing the underlying Russian ‘collusion evidence’ being non-existent, was trying to give the appearance that he briefed congress on larger Russian election interference issues. However, the trouble for Brennan is his own admissions. He is saying it was his raw intelligence that underlay the principle for the FBI counter-intelligence investigation.
Brennan specifically says he gave his raw intelligence product to the FBI. That raw intelligence product is now under scrutiny (along with what the FBI did with it).
There is something profoundly sanctimonious about Benjamin Witte and fired FBI Director James Comey sitting under a the banner of “Lawfare” and pontificating about the need to save beloved “institutions of government”. Even the terminology “Lawfare” describes the intentional use of the legal process to wage ideological war against your enemies; in this example, political enemies.
In this soundbite captures from a Brookings Institution symposium break-out session sponsored by Benjamin Witte and the Lawfare Blog, Witte interviews James Comey about the threats posed by the sunlight of House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.
.
The Lawfare group is mentioned several times in text messages between corrupt FBI Agent Peter Strzok and DOJ Special Counsel Lisa Page. The group of like-minded, politically motivate, lawyers was used frequently by Lisa Page to frame arguments within their investigative endeavors during the Clinton exoneration and Trump investigation.
Accordingly, recently resigned FBI Chief Legal Counsel James Baker announced after his departure he was going to work for Wittes at Lawfare. Birds of a feather.. etc.
The position espoused by James Comey in the video snippet is almost identical to the espoused motives of his friend Robert Mueller. Both officials reconcile allowing the politicization and weaponization of the FBI and DOJ around the premise of ‘defending the institutions’. It’s an absurdly circular framework of ideology.
There is no doubt Comey allowed, and at times promoted, the political use of the FBI in an effort to achieve goals based on his own corrupt standards and values. One only needs to look at the conduct of the upper-tier of officials within the agencies to see the breeding ground for agenda-based institutions.
FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Chief Legal Counsel James Baker, Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki, Director of Public Affairs Michael Kortan and embattled FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok are all clearly outlined as participating in some of the most corrupt internal schemes in the history of the agency.
This “tight group” as Comey describes, have all been fired -or demoted then resigned- with clear evidence of misconduct outlined by the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility.
The sole remaining person (on the FBI side) central to the “small group” endeavors is demoted FBI agent Peter Strzok; likely due to cooperation at some level with the ongoing internal investigations. We have yet to fully understand the scale of the corruption therein; but the parts we do know are astounding.
The mindset in this Wittes/Comey interview is bizarre to say the least. Corrupt the institution for political motives – then decry transparency demanded of the corruption therein in an effort to preserve the institution. To quote Emerson: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
Greg Lukianoff is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He previously served as FIRE’s first director of legal and public advocacy until he was appointed president in 2006. He graduated from American University (Washington) and Stanford Law School. In this clip, he talks about ridiculous cases of prohibited speech on university and how they are losing on free speech issues in court. Full clip, quoted under fair use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Autfo…
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
The Monetary System of Rome began with bronze which traded at first in clumps known as 
Centinel2012 