International Banking and the Capitalist Conspiracy

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 11-21-2011, 05:27 PM by sumishi.)

They say that when the US sneezes, the world catches cold!

The Wall Street and the Federal Reserve directly affect the US economy, and indirectly the economies of the entire world.

For those in the know, there is a much darker secret behind the Federal Reserve and the Fractional Reserve System of Banking!

I will try to disseminate information and knowledge taken from books/documentaries of those who have much deeper insights than we have.

[color="#008080"]Table of Contents[/color] (only of posts related to books/documentaries):

The Money Masters [1996], by Bill Still Ã¢â¬âÃ¢â¬â pg. 1, posts: #2 - #19
The Capitalist Conspiracy [1969], by G. Edward Griffin Ã¢â¬âÃ¢â¬â pg. 2-3, posts: #26 - #43

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:19 PM by sumishi.)

What follows is a [size="2"]summarised and adapted transcript of a 1996 US documentary[/size] (credits later) as a series of posts. Note that the year of this documentary was 1996.

My comments in these posts are [color="#ff00ff"]{ like this }[/color]

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part I[size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] : The Economic Conundrum[/color][/size]

Why are we Americans over our heads in debts?

Are we headed into an economic crash of unprecedented proportions, one which will make the crash of 1929 and the great depression which followed, look like a Sunday school picnic?

[indent][font="Courier New"]"I can tell you right now, that there is going to be a crash of unprecedented proportions. A crash like we never seen before in this country.

The greatest shock of this decade is that [color="#000000"]more people are about to lose more money than any time before in our history.[/color]

But the second greatest shock will be [color="#000000"]the incredible amount of money just a relatively small group of people will make at exactly the same time.[/color]

You see, [color="#ff0000"]in periods of economic upheaval and economic crisis wealth is not destroyed. It's merely transferred.[/color]"

[/font][/indent]-- Larry Bates (Bank president for 11 years; As a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives he chaired The Committee On Banking And Commerce; Professor of Economics; Author of the best-selling book 'The New Economic Disorder')

[color="#ff00ff"]{ Note: [/color][color="#ff00ff"]{Timeline: Present} [/color][color="#ff00ff"]The crash started with Lehman Brothers in 2008, and the depression is deepening, contrary to what the US government and media reports. Right now the Euro is heading towards a collapse }[/color]

The problem is that since 1864, we've had a debt-based banking system. All our money is based on government debt.

We cannot extinguish government debt without extinguishing our money supply.

The solution lies in reforming our banking system.

[color="#008000"]

[font="Arial"][color="#008080"][size="3"]# The Federal Reserve Ã¢â¬â is it Federal?[/size][/color][/color]

Is it really part of the United States Government?

[color="#8b0000"] [color="#ff0000"]There is nothing federal about the Federal Reserve and there are no reserves. The name is a deception[/color][/color] created back before the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 to make Americans think, that their central bank operates in the public interest.

The truth is that the [color="#ff0000"]Federal Reserve is a private bank, owned by private stockholders, and run purely for their private profit.[/color]

[/font] [indent][font="Courier New"]"The Federal Reserve is neither federal and has doubtful reserve. It's a private bank, that is owned by member banks, and it was charted under the guise of deceit by an Act of Congress in 1913. December the 23rd, 1913, when most members of the congress had gone home for the holidays, the House of Representatives had passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

But it was having difficulties in getting out the Senate. And most people had gone home. But one of the things I used to make sure and check is when we had a recess in legislating circles, you want to make sure that you adjourned what is called sine die without date. The Senate had not adjourned sine die without date. It was still technically in session.

So you had 3 members of the Senate, according to the Senate journal, present on that day, December the 23rd, 1913. And they passed the Federal Reserve Act in the Senate on an unanimous consent voice vote. There was no objection. Had there been one person there to object, and say in contest, the absence of a quorum, than it would not have passed."

[/font][/indent]-- Larry Bates

[color="#000000"]Even the US court has ruled time and time again that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation![/color]

Why can't congress do something about the FED?

Most members of congress just don't understand the system. And the few who do, are afraid to speak up. But a few others in congress have been bolder over the years, like the following three.

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The financial system ... has been turned over to ... the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of ... a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest profit from the use of other people's money."[/font]

[/indent]--1923, Charles E. Lindberg, a republican from Minnesota, and father of the famed aviator, Lucky Lindy

[indent][font="Courier New"]"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board.... This evil institution has impoverished ... the people of the US ... and has practically bankrupted our Government.It has done this through ... the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."[/font]

[/indent]--1932, Lewis T. McFadden, republican of Pennsylvania, the former chairman of The House of Banking Currency Committee during the depression years

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international moneylenders .... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and ... manipulates the credit of the US."[/font]

[/indent]-- Senator Barry Goldwater

According to Larry Bates:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The Federal Reserve really, even though it is not part of the federal government, it is more powerful than the federal government. It's more powerful than the president, the congress and the courts.

The Federal Reserve determines what the average persons car payment is going to be, what their house payment is going to be, and whether they have a job or not.

And I submit to you that that's total control.

And the Federal Reserve is the largest single creditor of the US government.

What does proverbs tell us? That the borrower is servant to the lender."

[/font][/indent]

From the day the constitution was adopted the folks who profit from privately owned banks (James Madison, the main author of the constitution, called them The Money Changers) had fought a running battle for control of who gets to print America's money.

Why is who prints the money so important?

Think of money as just another commodity.

If you have a monopoly on a commodity that everyone needs, everyone wants, and nobody has enough of, there are lots of ways to make a profit and also exert tremendous political influence.

[color="#000000"]The Founding Fathers knew the evils of a privately owned central bank.[/color]

First of all they had seen how the privately owned British central bank, The Bank of England, had run up the British national debt to such an extent that parliament had been forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies.

Benjamin Franklin claimed that this was the real cause of the American Revolution.

[indent][font="Courier New"]"I sincerely believe that [color="#ff0000"]banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.[/color]

The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

[/font][/indent][color="#000000"]--Thomas Jefferson

[/color][indent][font="Courier New"]"History records that [color="#ff0000"]the Money Changers used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money, and its issuance.[/color]"

[/font][/indent]--James Madison (main author of the constitution)

The battle over who gets to issue our money has been the pivotal issue throughout the history of the United States.

[color="#8b0000"][color="#ff0000"]Wars are fought over it.

[/color][color="#ff0000"]Depressions are caused to acquire it[/color][/color][color="#ff0000"].[/color] <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

Yet after WWI, this battle was rarely mentioned in the news papers or history books. Why?

Because by WWI, The Money Changers with their dominant wealth had seized control of most of the nations press.

Though the Federal Reserve is now the most powerful bank in the world, it was not the first. So where did this idea come from?

To really understand the magnitude of the problem, we have to travel back to Europe.

[left]Stay tuned...

[/left]

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2010, 12:54 AM by sumishi.)

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part II[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][size="4"] [/size][size="4"][color="#008080"]The Money Changers[/color]

[size="2"]

[/size][/size]Just who are these Money Changers James Madison spoke of?

[font="Arial"][size="3"][color="#008080"]# Jesus![/color][/size]

In the Bible, 2000 years ago, Jesus drove The Money Changers from the temple -- it was the only time Jesus used force during his ministry.

What were Money Changers doing in his temple?

In Jerusalem, the Jews would pay temple taxes with a special coin, the half-shekel of the sanctuary -- a half ounce of pure silver of assured weight, without the image of pagan emperor, and so, acceptable to God.

But these coins were not plentiful, because The Money Changers had cornered the market on them (read hoarding).

Then they raised the price, just like any other commodity to whatever the market would bear, making exorbitant profits because they held a virtual monopoly.

To Jesus this totally violated the sanctity of gods house.

[size="3"][color="#008080"]# The Roman Empire[/color][/size]

But even earlier, two hundred years before Christ, Rome was having trouble with Money Changers.

Two early Roman Emperors had tried to diminish the power of The Money Changers by reforming usury laws and limiting landownership. They were both assassinated.

In 48 BC Julius Caesar took back the power to coin money from The Money Changers and minted coins for the benefit of all. With this new plentiful supply of money he build great public works projects, winning the love of the common man.

Some believe this was an important factor in Caesars assassination.

With the death of Caesar, came the demise of plentiful money in Rome. Taxes increased, as did corruption.

Just as in the case of America today, usury and debased coin became the rule.

Eventually the Roman money supply was reduced by 90%. The common people lost their lands and their homes.

Just as it is about to happen soon in America.

The masses lost confidence in the Roman government and refused to support it. Rome plunged in the gloom of the dark ages.

[size="3"][color="#008080"]# Medieval England - The Goldsmiths[/color][/size]

A thousand years after the death of Christ, Money Changers were active in medieval England, loaning out and manipulating the quantity of money. In fact, they were so active, that acting together they could manipulate the entire English economy.

These were not bankers per se. The Money Changers generally were the Goldsmiths. They were the first bankers, because they started keeping other peoples gold for safe keeping in their vaults.

The first paper was merely a receipt for gold left at the goldsmith. Paper money caught on because it was more convenient

Eventually goldsmiths noticed that only a small fraction of the depositors ever came in and demanded their gold at any one time.

They started cheating on the system.

They discovered that they could print more money then they had gold and usually no one would be the wiser. Than they could loan out this extra money and collect interest on it.

[/font] [color="#ff0000"]The Fractional Reserve Banking was born!![/color]

[color="#ff0000"]The system means loaning out many times more money than you have assets on deposit.[/color]

So if a 1000 dollars in gold was deposited with them, they could loan out about 10,000 in paper money and draw interest payments on it and no one would ever discover the deception.

By this means, goldsmiths gradually accumulated more and more wealth and used this wealth to accumulate more and more gold.

Today, under fractional reserve banking, every bank in the US is allowed loaning out at least 10 times more money than they actually have.

That's why they get rich on charging, let's say 8% interest, because:

It's not really 8% per year which is their income. It's 80%.<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />

In the middle ages, canon law, the law of the catholic church, forbade charging interest on loans.

This concept followed the teachings of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

They taught that the purpose of money was to serve the members of society, to facilitate the exchange of goods, needed to lead a virtuous life. Interest, in their belief, was contrary to reason and justice.

Reflecting church law in the middle ages, Europe forbade charging interest on loans and made it a crime called usury.

As commerce grew, and therefore opportunities for investment arose in the middle ages it came to be recognised that to loan money had a cost for the lender, both in risk and in lost opportunity. So some charges were allowed, but not interest per se.

As we will see, [color="#ff0000"]fractional reserve lending is rooted in a fraud, results in widespread poverty, and reduces the value of everyone else's money.[/color]

[size="3"][color="#008080"]

[font="Arial"]# The enigmatic Business Cycle[/color][/size][/font]

Ancient goldsmith discovered that [color="#ff0000"]extra profits could be made by cycling the economy between easy money and tight money.[/color]

When they made money easier to borrow, then the amount of money in circulation expanded. People took out more loans to expand their businesses.

But then The Money Changers would tighten the money supply. They would make loans more difficult to get.

What would happen?

Just what happens today.

A certain percentage of people could not repay their previous loans. And could not take out new loans to repay the old ones.

Therefore they went bankrupt and had to sell their assets to the goldsmiths for pennies on the dollar.

The same thing is still going on today.

[color="#ff0000"]Only today we call this the cycling of the economy, up and down, the business cycle.[/color]<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

[font="Arial"][size="3"][color="#008080"]# Talley Sticks[/color][/size]

About 1100 AD, King Henry I of England finally resolved to take the money power away from the goldsmith.

He invented one of the most unusual money systems in history -- the Talley Sticks system.

This form of British money which lasted 726 years until 1826.

The Talley system was adopted to avoid monetary manipulation of the goldsmiths.

Talley sticks were money fabricated of long sticks of polished wood. Notches were cut along one edge of the stick to indicate the denominations. Then the stick was split lengthwise trough the notches, so that both peaces still had a record of the notches. The king kept one half to protect against counterfeiting.

Than he would span the other half into the economy and they would circulate as money.

Why did the people accept sticks of wood for money?

You see, the secret is that money is only what people agree on to use as money.

What's our paper money today? It is really just paper.

But here is the trick. King Henry ordered that Talley stick had to be used to pay the king's taxes. This build in demand for Talley stick, immediately made them circulate and be accepted as money.

In fact, no other form of money has worked so well and for so long as Talley Sticks. The British empire was build under the Talley Stick system.

The Talley Stick system succeeded despite the fact that The Money Changers constantly attacked it, by offering the metal coin system as competition. But Talley Sticks hung on, because they were good for the payment of taxes.

[size="3"][color="#008080"]# Return of the Money Changers[/color][/size]

Finally, in the 1500th, King Henry VIII, relaxed the [/font]usury laws.

The Money Changers quickly made their golden and silver money plentiful for a few decades.

But when queen Mary took the throne and tightened the usury laws again, they renewed the hoarding of golden and silver coins, forcing the economy to plummet.

When queen Mary's sister, Elizabeth I took the throne, she was determined to regain control over English money from The Money Changers. Her solution was to issue golden and silver coins from the public treasury.

Although control over money was not the only cause of the English Revolution in 1642 (religious differences fuelled the conflict), monetary policy played a mayor role.

Financed by The Money Changers, Oliver Cromwell overthrew King Charles, purged the parliament, and put the King to death.

The Money Changers started to consolidate their financial power. For the next 50 years they plunged great Britain into a series of costly war.

They took over a square mile of property in the centre of London, known as The City of London.

This area is still known today as one of the predominant financial centres of the world.

Conflicts with the Stuart kings lead The Money Changers in England to combine with those in the Netherland's, to finance the invasion of William of Orange, who overthrew the Stuart in 1688 and took the English throne.

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:24 PM by sumishi.)

[color="#008080"][size="4"]Part III[/size][/color][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][color="#008080"][size="4"] The Bank of England[/size][/color]

By the end of the 1600 England was in financial ruin -- 50 years of more or less continuous war with France and Holland had exhausted her.

Frantic government officials met with The Money Changers to beg for the loans necessary to pursuit their political purposes. The prize was high -- A government sanctioned privately owned bank which could issue money out of nothing.

It was to be the world's first privately owned central bank, The Bank of England. [color="#000000"]Although it was deceptively called The Bank of England, to make the general population think it was part of the government, it was not.[/color]

Like any other private corporation, The Bank of England sold shares to get started.

The bank was duly charted in 1694 and started out the business of loaning out several times the money it supposedly had in reserves, all at interest.

The bank would loan the British politicians as much of the new currency as they wanted, as long as they secured the debt by direct taxation of the British people.

So, [color="#ff0000"]legalisation of The Bank of England amounted to nothing less than the legal counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain.[/color]<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[color="#000000"] Unfortunately, nearly every nation has now a privately controlled central bank, using The Bank of England as their basic model.[/color]

Such is the power of this central banks, that they soon take total control over a nation's economy.

It soon amounts to [color="#000000"]nothing less than a plutocracy, ruled by the rich.[/color]

Yes, we need central banks, but we do not need them in private hands. [color="#ff0000"]The central bank's scam is really a hidden tax.[/color]

[color="#8b0000"][color="#000000"]Here's how central banking works:[/color]<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />[/color]

[size="3"][color="#ff0000"]The nation sells bonds to the central bank to pay for things that does not have the political will to raise taxes to pay for.[/color][/size]
[size="3"][color="#ff0000"] But the bonds are purchased with money the central bank creates out of nothing.[/color][/size]
[size="3"][color="#ff0000"]More money in circulation makes your money worth less.

[/color][/size]
[size="3"][color="#ff0000"] The government gets as money as it needs and the people pay for it in inflation[/color][/size]

The beauty of the plan, is that hardly anyone can figure it out, because it's usually hidden behind complex sounding economics gibberish.

With the formation of the Bank of England, the nation was soon awash in money. Crisis throughout the country doubled. Massive loans were granted for just about any wild scheme. By 1698 government debt grew from the initial 1,250,000 pounds to 16,000,000 pounds. Naturally taxes were increased and then increased again to pay for all of this.

With the British money supply firmly in their grip, the British economy began a wild roller coaster series of boom and depressions, exactly the sort of things a central bank claims it is determined to prevent.

We will now take a look at the role of the Rothschilds' family, the family said to be the wealthiest in the world.

[size="2"]Stay tuned...[/size]

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2010, 12:54 AM by sumishi.)

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part IV[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"] The rise of the Rothschilds[/color][/size]

Frankfurt, Germany. 50 years after the bank of England opened it's doors, a goldsmith named Amshel Moses Bauer, opened a coins shop. And over the door he placed a sign to depicting roman eagle on a red shield. The shop became known as the red shield firm, or in German Rothschild.

When his son, Amshel Mayer Bauer, inherited the business, he decided to change his name to Rothschild. Amshel soon learned that loaning money to governments and kings, was more profitable, than loaning money to private individuals, because not only were the loans bigger, but the were secured by the nations taxes.

Mayer Rothschild had five sons. He trained them all in the skills of money creation, and spread them out to the major capitals of Europe (Frankfurt, Vienna, London, Naples & Paris), to open branch offices of the family banking business.

In 1785 Mayer Rothschild moved his entire family to this larger house, a five store dwelling he shared with the Schiff family. The Rothschilds and the Schiffs would play a central role in the rest of the European financial history, and in that of the United States.

The Rothschilds broke into dealings with European royalty. They soon grew unbelievably wealthy. By the mid 1800 they dominated all European banking, and were certainly the wealthiest family in the world.

They financed Cecil Rhodes, making it possible for him to establish, a monopoly over the diamond and goldfield of the South African. In America they financed the Harriman in railroad, the Vanderbilt in railroads and the press, and Carnegie in the steel industry among many others.

In fact, during WWI, J.P. Morgan was thought to be the richest man in America. But after his death, it was discovered that he was only a lieutenant of the Rothschilds. He owned only 19% of J.P. Morgan companies.

There is no evidence that their predominant standing in European or world finance has changed.

Now let's take a look at the effects The Bank of England had produced on the British economy, and how this later became the root cause of the American Revolution.

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2010, 12:55 AM by sumishi.)

[color="#008080"][size="4"]Part V[/size][/color][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][color="#008080"][size="4"] The American Revolution[/size][/color]

By the mid 1700th the British Empire was nearing its height of power around the world. But Britain had fought 4 costly wars in Europe since the creation of their privately owned central bank, The Bank of England. To finance this wars, the British parliaments had borrowed heavily from the bank. By the mid 1700th the governments debt in Britain was 140 million pounds Ã¢â¬â a staggering sum for those days.

Consequently, the British government embarked on a program of trying to raise revenues from their American colonies in order to make their interest payments to the bank.

But in America it was a different story. The scourge of a privately owned central bank had not yet hit.

In the mid 1700th, pre-Revolutionary America was still relatively poor. There was a severe shortage of precious metal coins to trade for goods.

Benjamin Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own paper money. The American colonies began to issue their own money, called Colonial Scrip. Colonial scrip was just paper money, debt-free money, printed in the public interest and not backed by gold or silver coins. In other words, it was a totally fiat currency. It provided a reliable medium of exchange and it also helped to provide a feeling of unity between the colonies.

One day, officials of The Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity of the colonies.

Franklin replied:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called the Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

[/font][/indent]

The Bank of England realised that America had learned the secret of money and that genie had to be returned to its bottle as soon as possible.

As a result, the Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. In other words, it forced the colonies on a gold or silver standard.

For those who still believe that a gold standard is the answer for America's current monetary problems, look what happened to America after that.

Writing in his auto-biography, Franklin said:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

[/font][/indent]Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for The American Revolution.

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.

The inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."

[/font][/indent]

By the time the first shots were fired in Lexington, Massachusetts, on April 19, 1775, the colonies had been drained of gold and silver coins by British taxation. As a result, the continental government had no choice but to print money to finance the war. At the start of the revolution, the US money supply stood at $12 million. By the end of the war it was nearly 500 million.

As a result the currency was virtually worthless.

Colonial Scrip had worked because just enough was issued to facilitate trade.

Today, those who support a gold back currency point to this period of revolution to demonstrate the evils of a fiat currency. But remember, the same currency had worked so well 20 years earlier during times of peace before The Bank of England had the parliament outlaw it.

Next, we will see how the Money Changers got their foothold into America.

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2010, 06:16 PM by sumishi.)

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part VI[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"] The Money Changers enter America[/color][/size]

[size="2"]

[/size]

[font="Arial"][size="3"][color="#008080"]# The Bank of North America[/color][/size]

Towards the end of the revolution the Continental Congress grew desperate for money. In 1781 they allowed Robert Morris, the financial superintendent, to open a privately owned central bank. Incidentally, Morris was a wealthy men, who had grown wealthy in the revolution by trading war materials.

Called The Bank of North America, the new bank was closely modeled after The Bank of England. It was allowed to practice Fractional Reserve Banking.

That is, it could lend out money it didn't have, then charge interest on it.

If you or I would do that, we would be charged with fraud, a felony.

The banks charter called for private investors to put up $400.000 worth of initial capital.

But when Morris was unable to raise the money, he brazenly used his political influence to have gold deposited in the bank which had been loaned to America by France . He then loaned this money to himself and his friends to reinvest in shares of the bank.

And like The Bank of England, the bank was given a monopoly over the national currency.

Soon the danger became clear. The value of American currency begun to plummet.

So 4 years later, in 1785, the bank charter was not renewed.

The leader of the effort to kill the bank, William Findley of Pennsylvania, explained the problem this way:[/font]

[indent]"This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be varied in its object ... to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state."

[/indent][size="3"][color="#008080"]

[font="Arial"]# The Constitutional Convention[/color][/size]

In 1787 colonial leaders assembled in Philadelphia to replace the articles of confederation.

As we saw earlier both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were unalterably opposed to a privately owned central bank.

As Jefferson later put it:[/font]

[indent][color="#000000"]"[color="#ff0000"]If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.[/color]"[/color]

[/indent] During the debate over the future monetary system another one of The Founding Fathers Gouverneur Morris (a defector from the ranks of the Bank) castigated the motivations of the owners of the Bank of North America.

Morris headed the committee that wrote the final draft of The Constitution. In a letter he wrote to James Madison on July 2nd 1787 Morris revealed what was really going on:

[indent][color="#000000"]"[color="#ff0000"]The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest.[/color] They always did. They always will.... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by [the power of] government, keep them in their proper spheres."[/color]

[/indent]

Hamilton, Robert Morris, Thomas Willing and their European bankers convinced the bulk of the delegates to the constitutional convention to not give congress the power to issue paper money.

Most of the delegates were still reeling from the wild inflation of the paper currency during the revolution. They had forgotten how well Colonial Scrip had worked before the war.

[size="2"]But The Bank of England had not. The Money Changers could not stand to have America printing their own money again.

[/size][color="#ff0000"]So the Constitution is silent on the matter.[/color]

This gravest defect left the door wide open for The Money Changers, just as they had planned.

[size="3"][color="#008080"]

[font="Arial"]# First Bank of the United States[/color][/size]

In 1790, less than 3 years after The Constitution had been signed, The Money Changers struck again. The newly appointed secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to the congress calling for a new privately owned central bank.

Coincidentally, this was the very year that Amshel Rothschild made his pronouncement from his flagship bank in Frankfurt:[/font] [indent][font="Courier New"][color="#000000"]"[color="#ff0000"]Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws[/color]"<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />[/color]

[/font] [/indent]

Interestingly one of Hamilton's first jobs after graduating from law school in 1782, was as an aid to Robert Morris, the head of the Bank of North America. In fact the year before Hamilton had written Morris a letter saying:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"A national debt, if not excessive will be to us a national blessing."

[/font][/indent]A blessing to whom?

After a year of intense debate in 1791, congress passed the bill and gave it a 20 year charter.

The new bank was to be called The First Bank of the United States, or BUS.

The men behind First Bank of the United States were the same -- Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris, and the bank's president Thomas Willing. Thus, only only 6 years after the Bank of North America ended, Hamilton, then Secretary of The Treasury, and his mentor Morris, had rammed the new privately owned central bank trough the new congress.

The players were the same, only the name of the bank was changed.

The bank was given a monopoly on printing US currency, even though 80% of it's stock would be held by private investors. The other 20% would be purchased by the US Government. But the reason was not to give the government a peace of the action, it was to provide the capital for the other 80% honours.

As with the old Bank of North America and The Bank of England before that, the stockholders never paid the full amount for their shares. The US Government put up their initial $2 million in cash.

Then the bank, through the old magic of fractional reserve lending, made loans to its charter investors, so they could come up with the remaining $8 million of capital needed for this risk free investment.

Like The Bank of England, the name of the Bank of the United States, was deliberately chosen to hide the fact that it was privately controlled.

And like The Bank of England, the names of the investors in the bank were never revealed.

Many years later it was a common saying that the Rothschilds were the power behind the old Bank of the United States.

The bank was sold to congress as a way to bring stability in the banking system and to eliminate inflation.

So what happened?

Over the first 5 years the US Government borrowed $8.2 million from the Bank of the US.

In the same 5 year period, prices rose by 72%.

Jefferson as the new Secretary of State watched the borrowing with sadness and frustration unable to stop it:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution .. taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."

[/font][/indent]

Millions of Americans feel the same way today.

They watch in helpless frustration as the federal government borrows the American economy into oblivion.

[color="#ff0000"]As with The Bank of North America the government put up most of the cash to get this private bank going. Then the bankers loaned this money to each other, to buy the remaining stock in the bank.[/color]

[color="#ff0000"]It was a scam, plain and simple.[/color]

We again travel back to Europe, to see how a single man was able to manipulate the entire British economy, by obtaining the first news about Napoleon's final defeat.

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2010, 12:56 AM by sumishi.)

[color="#008080"][size="4"]Part VII[/size][/color][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][color="#008080"][size="4"] Waterloo, Rothschild, and the Second Bank of the US[/size][/color]

[font="Arial"][size="3"][color="#008080"]# Rise of Napoleon[/color][/size]

[/font]

In Paris, the Bank of France was organised in 1800, modeled on the Bank of England.

But Napoleon never trusted the Bank of France. He knew that when a government is dependent upon bankers for money, the bankers, not the leaders of the government, are in control. According to him:

[indent][font="Courier New"][color="#000000"]"The hand that gives is above the hand that takes.[color="#ff0000"] Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency: their sole object is gain.[/color]"[/color][/font]

[/indent]

Back in America, in 1800, Thomas Jefferson became the 3rd president of the United States. By 1803 Jefferson and Napoleon had struck a deal. The U.S. would give Napoleon $3 million in gold, in exchange for a huge chunk of territory west the Mississippi river, the Louisiana purchase. With that $3 million Napoleon quickly forged an army and set off across Europe, conquering everything in his path.

But The Bank of England quickly rose to oppose him. They financed every nation in his path reaping the enormous profits of war. Prussia, Austria and finally Russia, all went heavenly into debt in a futile attempt to stop Napoleon.

Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, 30 year old Nathan Rothschild, the head of the London office of the Rothschild family, personally took charge of a bold plan, to smuggle a much needed shipment of gold right through France to finance an attack by the Duke of Wellington, from Spain. Nathan later bragged at a dinner party in London that it was the best business he had ever done. Little did he know he would do much better business in the near future.

Wellingtons attacks from the South and other defeats, eventually forced Napoleon to abdicate and Louis XVIII was crowned king. Napoleon was exiled from France.

[font="Arial"][size="3"][color="#008080"]# Death of First Bank of America[/color][/size]

While Napoleon was in exile, temporarily defeated by England and with the financial help of the Rothschilds, America was to trying to break free of its central bank as well.

In 1811 a bill was put before congress to renew the charter of The Bank of the United States. The debate grew very heated. The press core of the day attack the bank openly, calling it a great swindle.

Oh to have an independent press once again in America.<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' Sad

' />

Some writers have claimed that Nathan Rothschild warned that the U.S. would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the banks charter would not be renewed.

The renewal was defeated by a single vote in the house and was deadlocked in the senate. But by now, America's 4th president James Madison, was in the White House. His vice president, George Clinton, broke the tie in the senate and sent the bank into oblivion.

Within 5 months, England attacked the U.S. and the war of 1812 was on. But the British were still busy fighting Napoleon. And so the war of 1812 ended in a draw in 1814.

The Money Changers were temporary down, but it would take them only another 2 years to bring back their bank, bigger and stronger than ever.

[/font] [color="#008080"][size="3"]# Waterloo & Rothschild[/size][/color]

Nothing else in history more accurately demonstrates the ingenuity of the Rothschild family, then their control of the British stock market after Waterloo.

In 1815, a year after the end of the war of 1812 in America, Napoleon escaped his exile and returned to Paris. French troops were send out to capture him, but such was his charisma that the soldiers rallied around their old leader and hailed him as their emperor once again.

In march of 1815 Napoleon equipped an army which Britain's Duke of Wellington, defeated at Waterloo.

Some writers claimed Napoleon borrowed 5 million pounds from the Bank of England to rearm. But it appears these funds actually came from Hubbard Banking House in Paris.

Nevertheless, [color="#ff0000"]from about this point on, it was not unusual for privately controlled central banks to finance both sides in a war.[/color]

Why would a bank finance opposing sides in a war?

[color="#ff0000"]Because war is the biggest debt generator of them all.[/color]<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

A nation will borrow any amount for victory. The ultimate loser is loaned just enough to hold out the vain hope of victory and the ultimate winner is given enough to win. Besides such loans are usually conditioned upon the guarantee that the victor will honour the debts of the vanquished.

In the Waterloo battlefield, Napoleon suffered his final defeat. But no matter who won or lost, back in London, Nathan Rothschild planned to use the opportunity, to try to seize control over the British stock and bond market and possibly even The Bank of England.

Rothschild had stationed a trusted agent, a man named Rotworth, on the north side of the battlefield, closer to the English channel. Once the battle had been decided, [color="#000000"]Rotworth delivered the news of Waterloo to Nathan Rothschild, a full 24 hours before Wellington's own courier.[/color]

Rothschild hurried to the stock market. All eyes were on him. The Rothschilds had a legendary communications network.

Suddenly [color="#000000"]Nathan [/color][color="#000000"]Rothschild [/color][color="#000000"] began selling[/color]. Nervous investors saw that. It could only mean one thing: Napoleon must have won, Wellington must have lost. This meant that Napoleon was loose on the continent again and the British financial situation would become grave indeed.

[color="#ff0000"]The market plummeted.[/color]

Everyone was selling their consols, their British government bonds and prices dropped sharply. But [color="#000000"]then Rothschild started secretly buying up the consols through his agents for only a fraction of their worth hours before.[/color]

Myths, legends you say?

One hundred years later, the New York Times ran the story that Nathan Rothschild grandson had tempted to secure a court order to suppress a book with that stock market story in it. The Rothschild family claimed that the story was untrue and libelous.

But the court denied the Rothschilds request and ordered the family to pay the courts costs. Some authors claim that the day after the battle of Waterloo in a matter of hours, Nathan Rothschild came to dominate not only the bond market but The Bank of England as well.

Whether or not the Rothschild family seized control of The Bank of England, one thing is certain -- by the mid 1800th, the Rothschilds were the richest family in the world. They dominated the new government bond markets, and branched in other banks and industrial concerns. In fact, the rest of the 19th century was known as the age of the Rothschilds.

Despite this overwhelming wealth, the family has generally cultivated an aura of invisibility. Although the family controls scores of industrial, commercial, mining and tourist corporations, only a handful bear the Rothschild name. By the end of the 19th century, one expert estimated that the Rothschild family controlled half the wealth of the world.

But since the turn of the century (1900) the Rothschild have cultivated the notion that their power has somehow weaned even as their wealth increases.

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# The Second Bank of the United States[/color][/size]

Back in Washington in 1816, just one year after Waterloo and Rothschild's alleged takeover the Bank of England, the American congress passed a bill committing yet another privately own central bank. This bank was called The Second Bank of the United States. The new banks charter was a copy of the previous banks. The U.S. Government would own 20% of the shares of the bank. Of course the federal share was paid by the treasury up front into the bank coffers.

[color="#ff0000"]Then through the magic of fractional reserve lending, it was transformed into loans to private investors who then bought the remaining 80% of the shares. Just as before the primary stockholders remained a secret.[/color] The largest flock of shares, about 1/3 of the total, were sold to foreigners.

So some authors claim that [/font]by 1816 the Rothschilds had taken control over The Bank of England and backed a new privately owned central bank in America as well.

Next: Andrew Jackson's & Abraham Lincoln's war against central banking

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:17 PM by sumishi.)

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part VIII[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"] Andrew Jackson and the central bank[/color][/size]

After 12 years of manipulation of the U.S. economy by the Second Bank of The U.S., the American people had had just about enough. Opponents of the bank nominated a dignified senator from Tennessee, Andrew Jackson to run for president.

The bank had long ago learned how the political process could be controlled with money, but to the surprise and dismay of the Money Changers, Jackson was swept into office in 1828.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# Jackson's War[/size][/color]

Jackson was determined to kill the bank at the first opportunity. But the bank's 20 years charter didn't come up for renewal until 1836, the last years of his second term, if he could survive that long.

During his first term, Jackson contented himself with the rooting out the banks many minions from government service. He fired 2000 of the 11.000 employees of the federal government.

In 1832, with his re-election approaching, the bank struck an early blow, hoping Jackson would not want to stir up controversy. They asked congress to pass a renewal bill four years early. The congress complied, than send it to the president for signing.

But Jackson vetoed the renewal bill. His veto message is one of the great American documents. It clearly lays out the responsibility of the American government toward its citizens rich and poor.

[/font][indent]"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government.

More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners ....

[color="#ff0000"] Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?...

Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence.... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. [/color][font="Courier New"]

If [government] would confine itself to equal protection, and as Heaven does its rains, shower its favour alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles"

[/font][/indent]Congress was unable to override Jackson's veto. Now Jackson had to stand for re-election. Jackson took his argument directly to the people. For the first time in the U.S. history Jackson took his campaign on the road. His campaign slogan was "Jackson and no bank." The National Republican Party ran senator Henry Clay against Jackson. Despite the fact that the bankers put over $3 million into Clays campaign, Jackson was re-elected by a landslide in November of 1832.

Jackson ordered his new secretary of the treasury, Lewis McLane, to start removing the governments deposits from The Second Bank and start placing them in state banks.

But McLane refused to do so. Jackson fired him and appointed William James Duane as the new secretary of the treasury. Duane also refused to comply with the presidents request and so Jackson fired him as well and then appointed Robert B. Taney to the office. Taney did withdraw Governments funds from the banks, starting on October 1st 1833.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The Bank strikes back[/size][/color]

But the bank was not yet done fighting. Its head, Nicholas Biddle, used his influence to get the senate to reject Taney nomination. Then in a rare show of arrogance, [/font][color="#ff0000"]Biddle threatened to cause a depression if the bank was not re-chartered[/color]. In an unbelievable fit of honesty for a banker, Biddle admitted that the bank was going to make money scarce to force congress to restore the bank.[indent][font="Courier New"]"This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken ... Nothing but widespread suffering will produce an effect on Congress.... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank."

[/font] [/indent]

What a stunning revelation!!<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

Here was the pure truth, revealed with shocking clarity.

Biddle intended to use the money contraction power of the bank to cause a massive depression until America gave in.

[color="#ff00ff"]{ Note: {Timeline: Present} [/color][color="#ff00ff"]Senator James Inhofe had revealed that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, had threatened martial law and a new great depression if the $700 billion bailout bill was not passed. It was eventually passed by the senate in[/color][color="#ff00ff"] Oct 3, 2008 }[/color]

Unfortunately, this has happened time and time again throughout U.S. history and is about to happen again in today's world.

Nicholas Biddle made good on his threat.

The bank sharply contracted the money supply by calling in all loans and refusing to extend new ones. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep depression.

Naturally Biddle blamed Jackson for the crash, saying it was caused by the withdrawal of federal funds from the bank. Unfortunately, his plan worked well. Wages and prices sacked, unemployment soared along with business bankruptcies. The nation quickly went into an uproar. Newspapers editors blasted Jackson in editorials. The bank threatened to withhold payments which then could be made directly to key politicians to support.

Within only months, congress assembled at what was called the panic session. Six months after he had withdrawn funds from the bank Jackson was officially censured by a resolution which passed the senate by a vote of 26 to 20. If congress could muster enough votes to override Jackson's veto, the bank would be granted another 20 years monopoly or more over America's money. Time enough to consolidate its already great power.

[font="Arial"][size="3"][color="#008080"]# 'I killed the bank'[/color][/size]

The governor of Pennsylvania came out supporting president Jackson and strongly criticised the bank. On top of that, Biddle had been caught boasting in public about the banks plan to crash the American economy.

Suddenly the tide shifted.

In April of 1834 the House of Representatives voted 134-82 against rechartering the bank. This was followed up by an even more lopsided vote to establish a special committee to investigate what if the bank had caused the crash.

When the investigating committee arrived at bank store in Philadelphia, armed with a subpoena to examine the books, Biddle refused to give them up. Nor would he allow inspection of correspondence with congressman relating to their personal loans and advances he made to them. He also refused to testify before the committee back in Washington.

On January the 30th 1835, an assassin by the name of Richard Lawrence tried to shoot president Jackson. But by the grace of God both pistols misfired. Lawrence was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. After his release he bragged to friends that powerful people in Europe had put him up to the task and promised to protect him if he were caught.

The following year when its charter ran out The Second Bank of The United States ceased functioning as the nations central bank. Biddle was later arrested and charged with fraud. He was put on trial and acquitted, but died shortly thereafter, while still tied up in civil suits.

After his second turn as president, Jackson retired. He is still remembered for his determination to kill the bank. In fact he killed it so well that it took The Money Changers 77 years to undo the damage. When asked what his most important accomplishment had been, Jackson replied: "I killed the bank!"

Stay tuned...[/font]

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:16 PM by sumishi.)

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part IX[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"] Abraham Lincoln, the Bankers and the Civil War[/color][/size]

Although Jackson had killed the central bank, the most insidious weapon of The Money Changers, fractional reserve banking, remained in use by the numerous state charted banks.

This fuelled economic instability in the years before the civil war. However, since the central bankers were out, America still thrived. The Money Changers struggled to regain their lost centralized power but to no avail.

Then finally they referred to the old [color="#ff0000"]central bankers formula: war to create debt and dependency[/color].

If they couldn't get their central bank any other way, America could be brought to its knees by plunging it into a civil war just as they had done in 1812 after The First Bank of The United States was not rechartered.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The Civil War and its reasons[/size][/color]

[/font]One month after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the first shots of the American Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.

Certainly slavery was a cause for the civil war, but not the primary cause.

Lincoln knew that the economy of the south depended upon slavery and so before the civil war he had no intention of eliminating it. Lincoln had put it this way in his inaugural address only one month earlier:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists.

I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

[/font][/indent]

Even after the first shots were fired, Lincoln insists that the civil war was not about the slavery: [indent][font="Courier New"]"My paramount objective is to save the Union, and it is 'not' either to save or destroy slavery.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it."

[/font][/indent]

So what was the civil war all about?

There were many factors at play.

Northern industrialist had used protective tariffs to prevent the southern states from buying cheaper European goods. Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the south. The southern states were in a double financial bind. They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while their income from cotton export plummeted.

But there were more divisive forces at work.

The Money Changers were still stunned, by Americans withdrawal from their control, 25 years earlier. Since then America's wildcat economy had made the nation rich, a bad example for the rest of the world.

[color="#ff0000"]The central bankers now saw an opportunity to split the rich new nation, to divide and conquer by war.[/color]

Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German states a few years later, said:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"[color="#ff0000"]The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe[/color]. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained as one block, and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world."

[/font] [/indent]

Within months after the first shots here at Fort Sumter, the central bankers loaned Napoleon III of France, the nephew of the Waterloo Napoleon, 210 million francs to seize Mexico and station troops along the southern border of the U.S., taking advantage of their war, to violate the Monroe doctrine and return Mexico to colonial rule.

No matter what the outcome of the civil war, a weakened America, heavily indebted to The Money Changers would open up central and south America again to European colonisation and domination.

The very thing, America's Monroe doctrine had forbade in 1823.

At the same time, Great Britain moved 11.000 troops into Canada and positioned them menacingly along America's northern border. The British fleet went to war alert.

There was a lot more to the Civil War than just differences between the north and the south. That's why Lincoln's emphasis was always on 'union', and not merely the defeat of the south.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# Lincoln's Greenbacks[/size][/color][/font]

Lincoln needed money to win. In 1961, He and his secretary of the treasury, Salmon T. Chase, went to New York to apply for the necessary loans. The Money Changers anxious to see the Union fail, offered loans at 24 to 36% interest. Lincoln declined, sent for an old friend colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago, and put him on the problem of financing the war.

Taylor advised Lincoln thus: [indent][font="Courier New"]"Ã¢â¬Â¦just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes ... and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."[/font]

[/indent]

When Lincoln asked if the people of United States would accept the notes, Taylor said:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The people or anyone else will not have any choice in the matter, if you make them full legal tender. They will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."[/font]

[/indent]

In 1862-63, Lincoln printed up $450 million worth of the new bills, at no interest to the federal government. In order to distinguish them from other bank notes in circulation he printed them in green ink on the back side. That's why the notes were called greenbacks. With this new money Lincoln paid the troops and bought their supplies. He explained thus:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers.

The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but is the Government 's greatest creative opportunity.

By the adoption of these principles... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

[/font][/indent]

A truly incredible editorial in The London Times explained the central bankers attitude towards the greenbacks:<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[indent][color="#000000"]"[color="#ff0000"]If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.[/color]"

[/color] [/indent] [color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The unfortunate infusion of debt-based banking[/size][/color][/font]

With federal and confederate troops beginning to mass for the decisive battle of the war, the treasury in need of further congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, which was not forthcoming. Lincoln allowed the bankers to push through the National Bank Act.

These new national banks would operate under a virtual tax-free status and collectively have the exclusive monopoly power to create the new form of money banknotes.

[color="#ff00ff"]{ This Act was a compromise with the Money Changers, but a necessary step towards national sovereignty. A lot of restrictions were sought to be in place to hold the banks in check }[/color]

Though greenbacks continued to circulate, their numbers were not increased. But most importantly, [color="#000000"]from this point on, the entire U.S. money supply would be created out of debt, by bankers buying U.S. bonds and issuing them for reserves for banknotes.[/color]

As historian John Kenneth Galbraith explained it:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"In numerous years following the war, the federal government ran a heavy surplus. It could not [however] pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."

[/font][/indent] [color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The Russian Tsar[/size][/color][/font]

In 1863, Lincoln got some unexpected help from tsar Alexander II of Russia. The tsar, like Bismarck in Germany, knew what the international Money Changers were up to and had stead vastly refused to let them set up a central bank in Russia.

If America survived and was able to remain out of their clutches, the tsar's position would remain secure.

Yet if the bankers were successful, by dividing America and giving the peaces back to Britain and France, both nations under the control of their central banks, eventually they would threaten Russia again.

So the tsar gave order that if either England or France actively intervened and gave aid to the south, Russia would consider such action as a declaration of war. He did the same with part of his pacific fleet and sent them to port in San Francisco.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# Lincoln's Assasination[/size][/color][/font]

Lincoln was re-elected in 1864. On November 21, 1864 he wrote a friend the following:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy."

[/font][/indent]

Shortly before Lincoln was murdered, his former secretary of treasury, Salmon P. Chase, bemoaned his role in helping secure the passage of the national banking act only one year earlier:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country."

[/font][/indent]

[color="#ff0000"][color="#000000"]On [/color]April 14th, 1865, Lincoln was shot[color="#000000"] by John Rock Booth[/color][/color] at Ford's theater.

Had he lived, he would surely have killed the national banks money monopoly extracted from him during the war.

Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of Germany, commented the death of Abraham Lincoln:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots.... [color="#ff0000"]I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks, will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance.[/color]"

[/font][/indent]

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# Fast Forward -- fingers pointing to International Bankers[/size][/color]

Allegation that international bankers were responsible for Lincoln's assassination surfaced in Canada 70 years later in 1934. Gerald G. McGeer, a popular and well respected Canadian attorney, revealed the stunning charge in a 5 hour speech before the Canadian House of Commons blasting Canada's debt-based money system.

This was 1934, the height of the great depression, which was ravaging Canada as well.

McGeer said evidence showed that Booth was a missionary, working for the international bankers.

According to an article in the Vancouver Sun of May 2nd 1934:

[/font][indent][font="Courier New"]"Abraham Lincoln, the martyred emancipator of the slaves, was [color="#ff0000"]assassinated through the machinations of a group representative of the international bankers[/color] who feared the United States President's national credit ambitions - and the plot was hatched in Toronto and Montreal... There was only one group in the world at that time ....who had any reason to desire the death of Lincoln. they were the men opposed to his national currency program and who had fought him throughout the whole of the civil war on his policy of greenback currency."

[/font][/indent]

Interestingly, McGeer claimed that Lincoln was assassinated not only because international bankers wanted to re-establish a central bank in America, but because they also wanted to base America's currency on gold.

[font="Verdana"]Gold they controlled!

[/font]But by issuing U.S. notes, greenbacks, which were base purely on the good faith and credit of the United States, Lincoln had done just the opposite of what the Money Changers wanted.

The article quoted McGeer as saying:

[indent]"They were the men interested in the establishment of the Gold Standard money system and the right of bankers to manage the currency and credit of every nation in the world. With Lincoln out of the way, they were able to proceed with that plan and did proceed with it in the United States. Within 8 years of Lincoln's assassination silver was demonetised and the Gold Standard money system set up in the United States."

[/indent]Not since Lincoln has the U.S. issued debt free U.S. notes. These red sealed bills which were issued in 1963 were not a new issue from president Kennedy, but merely the old greenbacks, reissued year after year.

In another act of folly and ignorance, the 1994 Regal Act actually authorized the replacement of Lincoln's greenbacks with debt-based notes. In other words, greenbacks were in circulation in the United States until 1994.

However, back to the past...

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:22 PM by sumishi.)

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part X[size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] : The Noose Tightens -- The return of the gold standard[/color][/size]

Why was silver bad for the bankers and gold good?

Simple because silver was plentiful in the United States, it was very hard to control.

Gold was, and always has been, scarce. Throughout history it has been relatively easy to monopolize gold, but silver has historically been 15 times more plentiful.

With Lincoln out of the way, The Money Changers next objective was to gain complete control over America's money. They wanted two things: (1) the reinstitution of a central bank under their exclusive control, and (2) an American currency backed by gold.

[size="3"][color="#008080"]# Contraction of the Greenbacks[/color][/size]

This was no easy task. With the opening of the American West, silver had been discovered in huge quantities. On top of that, Lincoln's greenbacks were generally popular.

Despite the European central bankers deliberate attacks on greenbacks, they continued to circulate in the United States.

According to historian W. Cleon Skouson:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money trust intervened, if would have no doubt become an established institution."

[/font][/indent]

It is clear that the concept of America printing her own debt-free money, sent shockwaves throughout the European central banking elite.

They watched with horror as Americans clammered for more greenbacks.

They may have killed Lincoln, but support for his monetary ideas grew.

On April 12 1866, at the bidding of European central banking interest, congress passed the Contraction Act authorizing the secretary of the treasury to begin to retire some of the greenbacks in circulation and thereby contract the money supply.

Authors Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Warner explain the result of the money contraction in their classic book on the subject 'The truth in Money':

[indent]"The hard times which occurred after the civil war could have been avoided if the greenback legislation had continued as president Lincoln has intended it. Instead, there were a series of money panics, what we call recessions, which put pressure on the congress to enact legislation the banking system under centralized control. Eventually the federal reserve act was passed on December 23rd 1913."

[/indent]

[color="#008080"][size="3"]# Post Civil War Depression

[/size][/color]

The Money ChangersÃ¢â¬â¢ strategy was twofold:

(1) [color="#ff0000"]cause a series of panic to try to convince the American people that only centralized control of the money supply could provide economic stability[/color], and

(2) [color="#ff0000"]remove so much from the system that most Americans would be so desperately poor that they either wouldn't care or would be too weak to oppose the bankers.[/color]

[color="#ff00ff"]{ Note: {Timeline: Present} For those who have noticed, in the current depression sweeping the West, the point (2) above is being effected in US as well as progressively in the PIIGS countries of Europe. Techniques to do so have just gotten sophisticated with time. For example, you pay for the fraudulent derivatives, which the bankers created out of thin air in the first place, through devaluations and taxation }[/color]

In 1866, there was $1.8 billion in currency in circulation in the US, about $50.46 per capita.

In 1867 alone, $500 million was removed from the money supply.

Ten years later, in 1876, America's money supply was reduced to only $6 billion. In other words 2/3 of America's money had been called in by the bankers. Only $14.60 per capita remained in circulation.

Ten years later, in 1886, the money supply had been reduced to only 4 million dollars, even though the population had boomed. The result was that only $6.67 per capita remained in circulation.

A 700% loss in buying power over 20 years.

[color="#ff0000"]

Today economist try to sell the idea that recessions and depressions are a natural part of something they call the business-cycle.[/color]

[size="3"]The truth is our money supply is manipulated now just as it was before and after the civil war.[/size] [size="3"] How did this happen? How did money become so scarce?

Simple.[/size] [size="3"] Bank loans were called in, and no new ones were given.

In addition, silver coins were melted down.[/size]

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The mauling of Silver[/size][/color]

[/font]

In 1872 a man named Ernest Seyd, was given 100,000 pounds by The Bank of England, and sent to America to bribe necessary congressman to get silver demonetised. He was told if that was not sufficient, to draw as much more as was necessary.

The next year congress passed The Coinage Act of 1873, and the minting of silver abruptly stopped.

In fact representative Samuel Hooper who introduced the bill in the house, acknowledged that Mister Seyd actually drafted the legislation.

Worse, In 1874 Seyd himself admitted who is behind the scheme:

[indent]"I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of the bill demonetising silver. [color="#ff0000"]It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of The Bank of England - to have it done[/color]. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."

[color="#008080"] [/color][/indent][color="#008080"][size="3"]# Silver Commission & Riots[/size][/color]

By 1876, with 1/3 of America's workforce unemployed, the population was growing restless.

People were clammering for a return to the greenback money system of president Lincoln or a return to silver money.

Anything that would make money more plentiful.

That year congress created the United States Silver Commission to study the problem.

Their [color="#ff0000"]report clearly blame the monetary contraction on the national bankers.[/color]

The report is interesting, because it compares the deliberate money contraction by the national bankers after the civil war to the fall of the Roman Empire:

[indent]"The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices.... Without money, civilization could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish and unless relieved, finally perish."

"At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,000.000. By the end of the Fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200,000.000... History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages"

[/indent] Despite this report by the Silver Commission, congress took no action.

The next year 1877, riots broke out from Pittsburgh to Chicago.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# Subversion of congress and press[/size][/color]

Now that the Money Changers were back into control to a certain extent, they were not about to give it up.

At the meeting of the American Banking Association that year, they urged their membership to do everything in their power to put down the notion of a return to greenbacks.[/font]

The ABA secretary James Buel offered a letter to the members which blatantly called on the bank to subvert not only the congress but the press:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"It is advisable to [color="#ff0000"]do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money[/color] and that you will also [color="#ff0000"]withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money[/color]."

[/font] [font="Courier New"] "... [color="#ff0000"]To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders.[/color]"

[/font] "[color="#ff0000"]See your Congressman at once and engage him to support our interests that we may control legislation[/color]"

[/indent]As political pressure mounted in congress for change, the press tried to turn the American people away from the truth.

The New York Preview put it this way on January 10th 1878:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The capital of the country is organized at last and we will see whether the congress will dare to fly in its face"

[/font][/indent]

But it didn't work entirely.

On February 28th 1878 congress passed the Sherman law, allowing the minting of limited number of silver dollars.

This did not end gold backing the currency however, nor did it completely free silver.

Previous to 1873 anyone who brought silver to the US mint could have it struck into silver dollars free of charge. No longer.

But at least some money began to flow back into the economy again.

With no further threat to their control, the bankers loosened up loans and the post civil war depression finally ended.

[color="#008080"][size="3"]# Assassination of James Garfield[/size][/color]

Three years later the American people elected republican James Garfield president.

Garfield understood how the economy was being manipulated.

As a congressman he had been chairman of the appropriations committee and was a member of banking and currency.

After his inauguration he slammed The Money Changers publicly in 1881:

[indent]"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."

[/indent]

Unfortunately within a few week of making the statement on July 2nd of 1881 [color="#ff0000"]he was assassinated[/color].

[size="3"][color="#008080"]# The 'periodic fleecing of the flock'[/color][/size]

The Money Changers began a [color="#ff0000"]'periodic fleecing of the flock', as they called it, by creating economic booms followed by further depressions,[/color] so they could buy up thousands of homes and farms for pennies on the dollar.

In 1891 The Money Changers prepared to take the American economy down again and their methods and motives were laid out with shocking clarity in a memo send out by the American Bankers Association, the ABA, an organisation in which most bankers were members.

Notice that this memo called for bankers to create a depression on a certain day 3 years in the future.

According to the congressional record here is how it read in part:

[indent]"[color="#ff0000"]On Sept. 1st 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept. 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgages in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price.... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England....[/color]"

[/indent]These depressions could be controlled because America was on the gold standard.

Since gold is scarce, it is one of the easiest commodities to manipulate.

People wanted silver money legalized again so they could escape the stranglehold The Money Changers had on gold money.

[size="3"][color="#008080"]# William Jennings Bryan[/color][/size]

By 1896 the issue of more silver money had become the central issue in the presidential campaign.

William Jennings Bryan a senator from Nebraska ran for president as a democrat on the free silver issue.

At the democratic national convention in Chicago he made an emotional speech widely regarded as they most famous oration ever made for a political convention. In the dramatic conclusion Bryan said:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."[/font]

[/indent]

The bankers lavishly supported the republican candidate William McKenley who favoured the gold standard.

The resulting contest was amongst the most fiercely contested presidential races in American history.

The McKenley campaign got manufacturers and industrialists to inform their employees that if Bryan was elected, all factories and plants would close and there would no work.

The ruse succeeded.

McKenley beat Bryan by small margin.

Bryan ran for president again in 1900 and 1908 but felt short each time.

During the 1912 democratic convention Bryan was a powerful figure who helped Woodrow Wilson win the nomination. When Wilson became president he appointed Bryan as secretary of state.

But Bryan soon became disenchanted with the Wilson administration.

Bryan served for only 2 yrs under the Wilson administration before resigning in 1915 over the [color="#ff0000"]highly suspicious sinking of the Lucitania, the event which was used to drive America into WWI.[/color][color="#ff0000"]

[/color]

Although William Jennings Bryan never gained the presidency, his efforts delayed The Money Changers for 17 years from attaining their next goal, a new privately owned central bank for America.

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:14 PM by sumishi.)

[color="#008080"][size="4"]Part XI[/size][/color][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][color="#008080"][size="4"] JP Morgan and the Crash of 1907[/size][/color]

Now it was time for The Money Changers to get back to the business of a setting up a new private central bank for America.

One final panic would be necessary to focus the nationÃ¢â¬â¢s attention on the supposed need for a central bank, the rational being that only a central bank can prevent bank failures.

J.P. Morgan was the most powerful banker in America and a suspected agent for the Rothschilds.

Morgan had helped finance John D. Rockefeller Standard Oil empire.

He also had helped finance the monopolies of Edward Harriman in railroads, of Andrew Carnegie in steel and of others in numerous industries.

On top of that J.P. Morgan father, Junius Morgan had been America's financial agent to the British.

After his fathers death J.P. Morgan took on a British partner, Edward Grenfell, a long time director of The Bank of England.

In 1902, president Theodore Roosevelt allegedly went after Morgan and his friends by using the Chairman Antitrust Act to try to break up their industrial monopoly.

But in actuality, Roosevelt did very little to interfere with the growing monopolisation of American industry by the bankers and their surrogates.

For example, Roosevelt supposedly broke up the Standard Oil monopoly. But it wasn't really broken at all. It was merely divided into 7 corporations all still controlled by the Rockefellers.

The public was aware of this thanks to political cartoonists like Thomas Nast who referred to the bankers as The Money Trust.

By 1907, the year after Teddy Roosevelt's re-election, Morgan decided it was time to try for a central bank.

Using their combined financial muscle, [color="#ff0000"]Morgan and his friends were secretly able to [/color][color="#ff0000"]crash the stock market[/color].

Thousands of small banks were vastly overextended. Some had reserves of less than 1%, thanks to the fractional reserve principle. Within days bank runs were commonplace across the nation.

Now Morgan stepped into the public arena and [color="#ff0000"]offered to prop up the faltering American economy by supporting failing banks with money he manufactured out of nothing[/color].

It was an outrageous proposal, far worse than even fractional reserve banking, but congress let him do it.

Morgan manufactured $200 million worth of this completely reserveless private money and bought things with it, paid for services with it and sent some of it to his branch banks to lent out at interest.

His plan worked.

Soon the public regained confidence in money in general.

But as a result banking power was further consolidated into the hands of a few large banks.

[color="#ff00ff"]{ Note: {Timeline: Present} In the current manufactured financial crisis beginning with Lehman Bros, the consolidation of banking power was effected with the 'Too Big to Fail' logic ploy. Oligopoly is now just a step away }[/color]

By 1908 the panic was over and Morgan was hailed as a hero by the president of Preston university, a man by the name of Woodrow Wilson:

[indent] [font="Courier New"]"All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."[/font]

[/indent] [color="#000000"]Economic textbooks would later explain that the creation of the Federal Reserve System was the direct result of the panic of 1907:[/color]

[indent] [font="Courier New"]"With its alarming epidemic of bank failure, the country was fed up once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking."[/font][/indent]

But Minnesota congressman Charles A. Lindbergh senior, the father of the famous aviator Lucky Lindy, later explained that the panic of 1907 was really just a scam:

[indent] [font="Courier New"]"Those not favourable to the money trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws, which the Money Trust would frame."[/font][/indent]

So, since the passage of The National Bank Act of 1863 The Money Changers had been able to create a series of booms and busts.

The purpose was not only to fleece the American people of their property but later claim that the banking system was basically so unstable that it had to be consolidated into a central bank once again.

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:13 PM by sumishi.)

[color="#008080"][size="4"]Part XII[/size][/color][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][color="#008080"][size="4"] Jekyll Island[/size][/color]

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# National Monetary Commission[/size][/color]

After the crash Teddy Roosevelt, in response to the panic of 1907, signed into law a bill creating the National Monetary Commission.

The Commission was to study the banking problem and make recommendations to congress.

Of course the Commission was packed with Morgan's friend and cronies.

The chairman was a man named senator Nelson Aldrich from Rhode Island.

Aldrich represented the Newport Rhode Island homes of America's richest banking families. His daughter married John D. Rockefeller junior and together they had 5 sons. John, Nelson who would become vice-president in 1974, Lawrence, Winthrop, and David, the head of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and former chairman of Chase Manhattan banking.

Senator Aldrich immediately embarked on a 2 years tour of Europe, where he consulted at length with the private central bankers in England, France and Germany. The total cost of his trip alone to the taxpayers was $300,000, an astronomical sum in those days.

[color="#008080"][size="3"]# Conspiracy for the final takeover[/size][/color]

Shortly after his return on Nov. 22, 1910, some of the wealthiest and most powerful men in America boarded president Aldrich private railcar, and in the strictest secrecy journeyed to Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia.

With the group came Paul Warburgh.

Warburgh had been given a $500,000 salary to lobby for the passage of a privately owned central bank in America, by the investment firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

Warburgh partner in this firm was a man named Jacob Schiff, the grandson of the man who shared the green shield house with the Rothschild family in Frankfurt.

[color="#ff0000"](These 3 European banking families the Rothschilds, the Warburghs and the Schiffs, were interconnected by marriage down through the years, just as their American counterparts the Morgans, Rockefellers and the Aldriches were.)[/color]

Years later, one participant Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank of New York and a representative of the Rockefeller family, confirmed the Jekyll Island trip in a Feb. 9th, 1935 edition of the Saturday Evening Post:

[/font][indent][font="Courier New"]"I was as secretive indeed as furtive as any conspirator.... Discovery, we knew simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted. If it were to be exposed that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by congress." [/font]

[/indent] [color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The Jekyll island deliberations[/size][/color][/font]

The participants came here to figure out how to solve their major problem:

How to bring back a privately owned central bank.

But there were other problems that needed to be addressed as well.

First of all, the markets share of the big national bank was shrinking fast.

In the first 10 years of the century the number of U.S. banks had more than doubled to over 20,000. By 1913 only 29% of all banks were national banks and they held only 57% of all deposits.

As senator Aldrich later admitted in a magazine article:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Before passage of this Act, the New York Bankers could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now, we are able to dominate the bank reserves of the entire country."[/font]

[/indent]

Therefore something had to be done to bring this new banks under their control.

As John D. Rockefeller put it:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"[color="#ff0000"]Competition is sin.[/color]"[/font]

[/indent]

Secondly, the nation's economy was so strong that corporations started to finance their expansions out of profits instead of taking out huge loans from large banks.

In the first 10 years of the new century 70% of corporate funding came from profits.

In other words American industry was becoming independent of The Money Changers and that trend had to be stopped.

But perhaps their biggest problem was a public relations problem: the name of the new bank.

Aldrich believed that the word bank should not even appear in the name.

The idea here was to give the impression that the purpose of the new central bank was to stop bank runs, and also to conceal its monopoly character.

Aldrich insisted the bill be called the Aldrich bill.

After 9 days on Jekyll Island the group dispersed.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The planned central bank[/size][/color][/font]

The new central bank would be similar to the old Bank of the United States. [color="#ff00ff"]{ [/color][color="#ff00ff"]Later, it came to be be informally called the Fed after establishment }[/color]

It would be given a monopoly over U.S. currency and create that money out of nothing.

In order [color="#ff0000"]to fool the public into thinking the government retained control, the plan called for the the central bank to be run by a board of governors appointed by the president and approved by the senate.[/color]

But [color="#ff0000"]all the bankers had to do was to make sure their man got appointed to the board of governors[/color].

That wasn't hard.

Bankers have money, and money buys influence over the politicians.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The Fed, Money and Economy[/size][/color][/font]

First a word on bonds.

Bonds are simply promises to pay or government IOU's.

People buy bonds to get a secure rate of interest.

At the end of the term of the bond the government repays the bond plus interest, and the bond is destroyed.

How does the Fed create money out of nothing?

It is a 4 step process.

1. [color="#ff0000"]The Federal Open Market Committee approves the purchase of US Bonds.[/color]

2. [color="#ff0000"]Bonds are purchased by the Fed[/color] by whoever is offering them for sale on the open market.

3. [color="#ff0000"]The Fed pays for the bonds with electronic credits to the seller's bank, which in turn credits the seller's bank account. The trick is these credits are based on nothing. The Fed just creates them.[/color]

4. [color="#ff0000"]The bank uses this deposits as reserves They can loan out over 10 times the amount of their reserves to new borrowers, all at interest.[/color]

In this way a Fed purchases up say $1 million worth of bonds gets turned in to over $10 million in bank accounts. The Fed in effect creates 10% of this totally new money and the bank create the other 90%.

How does the Fed reduce the amount of money in the economy?

To reduce the amount of money in the economy the process is just reversed.

The Fed sells bonds to the public and the money flows out of the purchasers locale bank.

Loans must be reduced by 10 times the amount of the sell.

So a Fed's sell of $1 million dollars in bonds results in $10 million less money in the economy.

How does this benefit the bankers who's representatives huddled in the Jekyll Island?

1. - It totally misdirected banking reform efforts from proper solutions.

2. - It prevented a proper debt-free system of government finance like Lincolns greenbacks from making a comeback. The bond based system of government finance was now cast in stone.

3. - It delegated to the bankers the right to create 90% of our money supply based on only fractional reserves which they then loan out at interest.

4. - It centralized overall control of our nation's money supply in the hands of a few men.

5. - It established a central bank with a high degree of independence from effective political control. [color="#ff0000"]Soon after its creation the FedÃ¢â¬â¢s great contraction in the early 1930's would cause the Great Depression.[/color]

This independence has been enhanced since then through additional laws

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The game's afoot[/size][/color][/font]

Once the participants left Jekyll Island the public relations blitz was on.

The big New York banks put together an educational bond of $5 million to finance professors at respected universities to endorse the new bank.

Woodrow Wilson at Princeton was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon.

But the bankers subterfuge didn't work.

The Aldrich Bill was quickly identified as the bankers bill.

A bill to benefit only what became known as the money trust.

As congressman Lindbergh put it during the congressional debate:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"[color="#ff0000"]The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It means another panic, if necessary; to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead.[/color]"[/font]

[/indent]

Seeing they didn't have the votes to win in congress, the republican leadership never brought the Aldrich Bill to a vote.

The bankers quietly decided to move to track 2: the democratic alternative.

They begin financing Woodrow Wilson as the democratic nominee.

As respected historian James Perloff put it:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Wall Street financier Bernard Baruch was put in charge of Wilson's education."[/font]

[font="Courier New"]"Baruch brought Wilson to the Democratic Party Headquarters in New York in 1912, 'leading him like one would a poodle on a string'. Wilson received an 'indoctrination course' from the leaders convened there...."[/font]

[/indent]

So now the stage was set.

The Money Changers were poised to install their privately owned central bank once again.

The damage president Andrew Jackson had done 76 years earlier had been only partly repaired with the passage of the National Bank Act during the civil war.

The Jacksonians became the greenbackers who became the hardcore supporters of William Jennings Bryan. With Bryan leading the charge, these opponents of The Money Changers, ignorant of Baruch tutelage, now threw themselves behind Woodrow Wilson.

[color="#ff0000"]But the greenbackers and Bryan would soon be betrayed.[/color]

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2010, 01:02 AM by sumishi.)

[color="#008080"][size="4"]Part XIII[/size][/color][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][color="#008080"][size="4"] The Creature from Jekyll Island[/size][/color]

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# The Fed Act of 1913[/color][/size]

During the presidential campaign the democrats were careful to pretend to oppose the Aldrich Bill.

As representative Louis McFadden, himself a democrat, as well as chairman of the House of Banking and Currency committee, explained it 20 years after the facts:

[/font][indent][font="Courier New"]"The Aldrich bill was condemned in the platform ... when Woodrow Wilson was nominated.... The men who ruled the Democratic party promised the people that if they were returned to power, there would be no central bank established here while they held the reins if government.... Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the 'king's bank' to control us from the top downward and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave."[/font]

[/indent]

Once Wilson was elected Morgan, Warburg, Baruch & company advanced a new plan which Warburg named the federal reserve system.

The democratic leadership then opened a new bill called The Glass Owen Bill as something radically different from The Aldrich Bill.

But in fact the bill was virtually identical in every important detail.

In fact so vehement was the democratic denials of similarities that Paul Warburg, the father of both bills, had to step in to reassure paid friends in congress that the two bills were virtually identical:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Brushing aside the external differences affecting the 'shells,' we find the 'kernels' of the two systems very closely resembling and related to one another."[/font]

[/indent]

But that admission was for private consumption only!

Publicly, the money trust trotted out senator Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip, the president of Rockefeller National Citibank of New York and one of the Jekyll Island's seven, to oppose the new federal reserve system.

Years later however Vanderlip admitted in the Saturday Evening Post that the two measures were virtually identical:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was defeated when it bore the name Aldrich, nevertheless its essential points were all contained in the plan that finally was adopted."[/font]

[/indent]

As congress neared a vote they called Ohio attorney Alfred Crozier to testify.

Crozier noticed the similarities between the Aldrich bill and the Glass-Owen bill:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The ... bill grants just what Wall Street and the big banks for twenty-five years have been striving for - private instead of public control of currency. It [the Glass-Owen bill] does this as completely as the Aldrich Bill. Both measures rob the government and the people of all effective control over the public's money, and vest in the banks exclusively the dangerous power to make money among the people scarce or plenty."[/font]

[/indent]

During the debate senators complained that the big banks where using their financial muscles to influence the outcome.

Despite the charges of deceit and corruption, [color="#ff0000"]the bill was finally snuck through the senate on December 22nd 1913, after most senators had left town for the holidays, after having been assured by the leadership, that nothing would be done until long after the Christmas recess.[/color]

On the day the bill was passed, congressman Lindbergh prophetically warned his country that:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed.... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill."[/font]

[/indent][size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# Legalizing Income Tax[/color][/size][/font]

On top of all this, only weeks earlier congress had finally passed a bill legalizing income tax.

Why was the income tax law important?

Because bankers finally had in place a system which would run up a virtually unlimited federal debt.

How would the interest on this debt be repaid, never mind the principle?

Remember a privately owned central bank creates the principle out of nothing.

The federal government was small then. Up to then it had subsisted merely on tariffs and excise taxes.

Now just as with The Bank of England, interest payments had to be guaranteed by direct taxation of the people.

The Money Changers knew that if they had to rely on contributions from the states, eventually the individual state legislators would revolt, and either refuse to pay the interest on their own money, or at least bring political pressure to bear to keep the debt small.

It is interesting to know that in 1895 the supreme court had found a similar income tax law to be unconstitutional. The supreme court even found a corporate income tax law unconstitutional in 1909.

As a result, senator Aldrich hustled the bill for a constitutional amendment allowing income tax through the congress in October of 1913. The proposed 16th amendment to the constitution was then send to the state legislators for approval.

But some critics claim that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the necessary three quarters of the states.

In other words the [color="#ff0000"]16th amendment may not be legal.[/color]

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# 'I have unwittingly ruined the government'[/color][/size][/font]

A year after the passage of the federal reserve bill, congressman Lindbergh explained how the Fed created what we have come to call the [color="#ff0000"]business-cycle[/color] and how they use it to their advantage:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"To cause high prices, all the federal reserve board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check... prosperity in mid-career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest.... [color="#ff0000"]It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down[/color]... This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any government that ever existed.... The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of the other people's money....They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage. They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance..."[/font]

[/indent]

Congressman Lindbergh was correct on all points.

What he didn't realize was that most European nations had already fallen prey to the central bankers decades or centuries earlier.

But he also mentions the interesting fact that only one year later the Fed had cornered the market in gold.

Congressman Louis McFadden, the chairman of The House Banking and Currency Committee, from 1920 to 1931, remarked that the Federal Reserve Act brought about:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"... a super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure."[/font]

[/indent]

Notice how McFadden saw the international character of the stockholders of the federal reserve.

Another chairman of The House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960's, Wright Patman from Texas, put it this way:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"In the United States today we have in effect two governments... We have the duly constituted government... Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution."[/font]

[/indent]

Even the inventor of the electric light, Thomas Edison, joined the fray in criticizing of the system of the Federal Reserve:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, where as the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.... It is absurd to say our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."[/font]

[/indent]

Three years after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, even president Wilson began to have second thoughts about what had been unleashed during his first term in office :

[indent][font="Courier New"]"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world - [color="#ff0000"]no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by ... a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men....[/color] [color="#ff0000"]Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak[/color] above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."[/font]

[/indent]

Before his death in 1924, president Wilson realized the full extend of the damage he done to America when he confessed:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"I have unwittingly ruined my government".[/font]

[/indent]

So finally The Money Changers, those who profit by manipulating the amount of money in circulation, have their privately owned central bank installed again in America.

The major newspapers, which they also owned, hailed passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 telling the public that now depressions could be scientifically prevented.

The fact of the matter was, that [color="#ff0000"]now depressions could be scientifically created.[/color]

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2010, 01:02 AM by sumishi.)

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part XIV[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][size="4"][color="#008080"] World War I[/color][/size]

Power was not yet centralized to a tremendous extent. The Money Changers wanted more.

Now it was time for a war, a really big war.

In fact, the First World War.

Of course, to the central bankers the political issues of war don't matter nearly as much as the profit potential.

And [color="#ff0000"]nothing creates debts like warfare.[/color]

England was the best example at that time.

During the 119 year period between the founding of The Bank of England and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years and much of the remaining time she'd been preparing for war.

In WWI, the German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French.

In America, J.P. Morgan was the sales agent for war materials for both the British and the French. In fact 6 months into the war Morgan became the largest consumer on earth spending $10 million a day. His office at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and salesman trying to cut a deal. It got so bad that the bank had to pose guards at every door and at the partners homes as well. Many other New York bankers made out as well from the war.

President Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head The War Industries Board.

According to historian James Perloff, both Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by some $200 million during the war.

But profits were not the only motive.

There was also revenge.

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# The Bankers, Russia and Communism[/color][/size]

The Money Changers never forgave the tsars for the support of Lincoln during the civil war.

Also, Russia was the last major European nation to refuse to give into the privately owned central bank scheme.

Three years after WWI broke out, the Russian Revolution toppled the tsar and installed the scourge of communism.

Jacob Shciff from the Kuhn, Loeb & Co. bragged from his deathbed that he spent $20 million towards the defeat of the tsar.

Money was funded from England to support the revolution as well.

Why would some of the richest men of the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so called capitalism that made them wealthy?

Researcher Gary Allen explained it this way:

[/font][indent][font="Courier New"]"[color="#ff0000"]If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.... Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite[/color]" [/font]

[/indent]

As W. Cleon Skousen put it in his 1970 book 'The Naked Capitalist':

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Power from any source tends to create an appetite for additional power.... [color="#ff0000"]It was almost inevitable that the super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the whole world[/color]... To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship." [/font]

[/indent]

But what if these revolutionaries get out of control and try to seize power from the super-rich?

After all it was Mao Tse Tung who in 1938 stated his position concerning power: "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun".

The Wall-Street London axis elected to take the risk.

The master planners attempted to control revolutionist communist group by feeding them vast quantities of money when they obeyed, and contracted supply or even financing their opposition if they got out of control.

Vladimir Lenin [color="#ff0000"]began to understand that, although he was the absolute dictator of the new Soviet Union, he was not pulling the financial strings.[/color] Someone else was silently in control:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes."[/font]

[/indent]

Who is behind it ?

Representative Louis T. McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, (throughout the 1920's and into the great depression years of the 1930's), explained it this way:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"[color="#ff0000"]The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by the operations of international bankers[/color].... The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board... acting through the Chase Bank..... England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government... The Dnieperstory Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks."[/font]

[/indent]

In other words, the Fed and The Bank of England, at the behest of the international bankers who control them, were creating a monster, one which would fuel seven decades of unprecedented communist revolution, warfare, and most importantly, death.

In case you think, there is some chance that The Money Changers got communism going and then lost control, in 1992 the Washington Times reported that Russian president Boris Yeltsin was upset that most of the incoming foreign aid was been siphoned off [font="Courier New"]"straight back into the coffers of western banks in debt service"

No one in his right mind would claim that a war as large as WWI had a single cause. Wars are complex things with many causative factors.

But on the other hand it would equally foolish to ignore as a prime cause of WWI those who would profit the most from the war.

[/font][color="#ff0000"]The Money Changers[/color][color="#ff0000"] had a motive, a short range self-serving motive, as well as a long range political motive of advancing totalitarian governments, with them maintaining the financial ploughs to control whatever politician might emerge as the leader.[/color]

Next, we'll see what The Money Changers ultimate political goal is for the world.

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:09 PM by sumishi.)

[color="#008080"][size="4"]Part XV[/size][/color][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][color="#008080"][size="4"] The Great Depression[/size][/color]

Shortly after WWI, the overall political agenda of The Money Changers began to be clear. Now that they controlled national economies individually, the next was the ultimate form of consolidation: World Government.

[color="#ff00ff"]{ Note: {Timeline: Present} This is what is nowadays being referred to as the New World Order }[/color]

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# The League of Nations[/color][/size]

The new world government proposal was given top priority at the Paris peace conference after WWI. It was called The League of Nations.

But much to the surprise of Paul Warburg and Bernard Baruch, who attended the peace conference with president Wilson, the world was not yet ready to dissolve national boundaries. Nationalism still beat strong in the human breast.

For example Lord Curson, the British foreign secretary, called the League of Nations a good joke, even tough it was the British policy to support it. To the humiliation of president Wilson, the U.S. congress wouldn't the ratify the League either.

Despite the fact that it had been ratified by many other nations, without money flowing from the U.S. treasury, the League died.

[/font][size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# The Roaring Twenties, and the genesis of the Crash[/color][/size][/font]

After WWI, the American public had grown tired of the internationalist policies of the democrat Woodrow Wilson.

In the presidential election of 1920, republican Warren Harding won a landslide victory. Harding was a ardent follower of both bolshevism and the League of Nations.

His election, which opened a 12 year run of republican presidency in the White House, led to an unprecedented prosperity known as The Roaring Twenties. Despite the fact that the war had brought America a debt ten times larger than its civil war did, still the American economy surged. Gold had poured into the country and continued to do so afterwards.

After his inauguration, Harding moved quickly to formally kill the League of Nations. Then he quickly moved to reduce domestic taxes while raising tariffs to records heights.

Now, this was a revenue policy of which most of the founding fathers would certainly have approved.

His second year in office Harding took ill on a train trip in the west and suddenly died. Although no autopsy was performed the cause was said to be, either pneumonia or food poisoning.

When Calvin Coolidge took over, he continued Harding's domestic economic policy of high tariffs on imports while cutting income taxes.

During the the presidencies of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the huge federal debt built up during WWI was cut by 38% down to $16 billion , the greatest percentage drop in U.S. history.

As a result the economy grew at such a rate that net revenue still increased.

Now that had to be stopped!!

In the early 1920s, the governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Benjamin Straw, met frequently with the secretive and eccentric governor of The Bank of England, Montague Norman. Norman was determined to replace the gold England had lost to the US during WWI, and return The Bank of England to its former dominance in world finance.

On top of that, rich with gold the American economy might get out of control again, just as it had done just after the civil war.

So just as they had done so frequently before, The Money Changers decided it was time to crash the American economy.

The Federal Reserve began flooding the country with money.

They increased the money supply by 62% during these years.

Money was plentiful.

This is why it is know as The Roaring Twenties.

Before his death in 1919, former president Teddy Roosevelt warned the American people what was going on. As reported in the March 27th 1922 edition of The New York Times Roosevelt said:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"[color="#ff0000"]These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of the papers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.[/color]"[/font]

[/indent]

Just one day before in the New York Times the mayor of New York, John Hylan, quoted Roosevelt and blasted those he saw as taking control over America, its political machinery and its press:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for [color="#ff0000"]the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation.... It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection[/color].... To depart from mere generalizations, let me say at [color="#ff0000"]the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers[/color]. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.... They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make cats paws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.... These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in the country."[/font]

[/indent]

Why did people not listen to such strong warnings and demand that congress reverse its 1913 passage of the Federal Reserve Act?

Because, remember it was the 1920's. A steady increase in bank loans contributed to a rise in market.

In other words, just as it is today, in times of prosperity no one wants to worry about economic issues.

But there was a dark side to all this prosperity.

Business was expanded and became strung out on credit. Speculation on the booming stock market became rapid.

Although everything looked rosy, it was a castle made of sand.

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# The Crash[/color][/size][/font]

When all was in readiness in April 1929, Paul Warburg, the father of the Federal Reserve, sent out a secret advisory, warning his friends that a collapse and nation wide depression was certain.

In August of 1929, the Fed began to tighten money.

[color="#ff0000"]It is not a coincidence that the biography of all the Wall Street giants of that era -- John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Joseph Kennedy, Bernard Baruch etc -- all marvelled that they got out of the stock market just before the crash and put all their assets in cash or gold.

[/color]

Henry Pasquet:

[indent][font="Courier New"] "In 1970 I was assigned the Elgie Hasken(???) field near Boston, Massachussetts in Bedford; and one of the oldest civilian mechanics was working for me as aircraft inspector, his name was Ed Carrigon, and Ed had grown up in that area and he and his father had gone to the same church with Jo Kennedy. And Ed related to me in 1971 that he remembered a knock at the door, he went over, opened the door and it was Jo Kennedy. So he ushered Jo Kennedy in his house, and he and his father talked and Ed sat between the two of them. This was in 1929, the summer of 1929. And Jo Kennedy told Ed's father, sell all of your stock, now, don't ask any questions. That was the quote of Jo Kennedy. And Ed related that to me and his said it was still crystal clear in his mind and it really struck him: why would Jo say this? So Jo left, His father asked no questions, He went out and sold all his stock in the summer of 1929 and we all know what happened that October."[/font]

[/indent]

On October 24th 1929, the big New York bankers called in their 24-hours broker call loans. This meant that both stock brokers and customers had to dump their stocks on the market to cover loans, no matter what price they had to sell them for.

As a result the market tumbled and that day was known as Black Thursday.

According to John Kenneth Galbraith, riding in the great crash 1929, at the height of the selling frenzy, Bernard Baruch brought Winston Churchill into the businesses gallery of New York stock exchange chair to witness the panic and impress him with his power over the wild events down on the floor.

Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of The House Committee on Banking and Currency, 1920 to 1931, knew who was to blame. He accused the Fed and the international bankers of orchestrating the crash:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence.... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."[/font]

[/indent]

But McFadden went even farther. He openly accused them of causing the crash in order to steel America's gold. In February 1931, in the midst of the depression, he put it this way:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"I think it can hardly be disputed that the statesman and financiers of Europe are ready to take almost any means to reacquire rapidly the gold stock which Europe lost to America as the result of World War I".[/font]

[/indent]

Curtis Dall, a broker for the Lehman brothers, was on the floor of the New York stock exchange the day of the crash. In his 1970 book 'FDR, My exploited father in law' he explain that the crash was triggered by the planned sudden shortage call money in the New York money market:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Actually, it was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World-Money powers triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York Money Market."[/font]

[/indent]

And what did the Federal Reserve do?

Instead of moving the help the economy out, by quickly lowering interest rates, to stimulate economy, the Fed continued to brutally contract the money supply further, deepening the depression.

Between 1929 and 1933 the Fed reduced the money supply by an additional 33%.

Although most Americans have never heard that the Fed was the cause of the depression, this is well known amongst the top economists.

Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize winning economist, now of Stanford University, said the same thing in a national public radio interview in 1969:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."[/font]

[/indent][size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# Money - whence it came, where it went[/color][/size][/font]

In the Crash, within a few weeks $3 billion of wealth simply seemed to vanish.

Within a year $40 billion had been lost.

But did it really disappear?

Or was it simply consolidated in fewer hands?

Joseph P. Kennedy's worth for example grew from $4 million in 1929 to over $100 million by 1935.

But [color="#ff0000"]the money lost by most Americans during the depression didn't just vanish. It was just redistributed[/color] into the hands of those who had gotten out just before the crash and had purchased gold, which is always a save place to put your money just before a depression.

But America's money also went overseas.

Incredibly, as president Hoover was heroically trying to rescue banks and proper businesses, with millions of Americans starving as the great depression deepened, millions of dollars were being spent rebuilding Germany from damage sustained during WWI.

Eight years before Hitler would invade Poland.

Representative Louis McFadden warned congress that Americans were paying for Hitler's rise to power.

[indent][font="Courier New"]"After WWI, Germany fell into the hands of the German international bankers. Those bankers bought her and they now own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production, they control all her public utilities.[/font]

[font="Courier New"]The international German bankers have subsidized the present Government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolph Hitler has used in his lavish campaign to build up a threat to the government of Bruening.[/font]

[font="Courier New"]When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission...[/font]

[font="Courier New"]Through the Federal Reserve Board ... over $30 billions of American money ... has been pumped into Germany .... You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany... modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories. All this was done on our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board.[/font]

[font="Courier New"]The Federal Reserve Board ... has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare not name the total."[/font]

[/indent]

In his last year in office, president Hoover desperately put forward a plan to bail out the failing banks. But he needed support from the democratic congress and that was not to be had.

That same year Franklin D. Roosevelt was swept into office during the 1932 presidential election. Once Roosevelt was in office, however, [color="#ff0000"]sweeping emergency banking measures were immediately announced, which did nothing but increase the Fed's power over the money supply.[/color]

Then, and only then, did the Fed finally begin to loosen the purse-strings and feed new money out to the starving American people.

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-05-2010, 10:53 AM by sumishi.)

[color="#008080"][size="4"]Part XVI[/size][/color][size="4"][color="#008080"][size="2"] (of XVIII)[/size] :[/color][/size][color="#008080"][size="4"] The rip-off of the ages and WWII[/size][/color]

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The NWO draft plan[/size][/color][/font]

It was finally time for the central bankers to embark in earnest on their 3 step plan to centralize the economic systems of the entire world and finally bring about their global government or New World Order. The phases of the NWO plan were:

Step 1: [color="#ff0000"]central bank domination of national economies worldwide.[/color]

Step 2: [color="#ff0000"]centralize regional economies to organisations such as the European Monetary Union, and regional trade unions, such as NAFTA[/color]

Step 3: [color="#ff0000"]centralize the world economy to a World Central Bank, a world money, and ending national independence to abolition of all tariffs, treaties like GATT[/color]

[color="#ff0000"]Step 1 was completed long ago.

Steps 2 and 3 are far advanced and nearing completion.[/color]

What about gold?

Amongst central banks, the largest holder of gold is now the IMF.

It and central banks now controls two-thirds of the worlds gold supply, giving them the ability to manipulate the gold market.

Remember The Money Changers golden rule: [color="#ff0000"]he who has the gold, makes the rules.[/color]

So, back to history...

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# Roosevelt and gold confiscation[/size][/color]

At first F.D. Roosevelt railed against The Money Changers as being the cause of the depression. This was what he said on March 4th, 1933, in his inaugural address:

[/font][indent][font="Courier New"]"Practices of the unscrupulous Money Changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men... The Money Changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization."[/font]

[/indent]

But two days later Roosevelt declared a bank holiday and closed all banks.

Later that year, Roosevelt outlawed private ownership of all gold bullion and all gold coins with the exception of rare coins.

Most of the gold in the hands of the average American was in the form of gold coins. [color="#ff0000"]The new decree was in affect a confiscation.[/color] Those who didn't comply risk as much as 10 year in prison and a $10,000 fine, the equivalent of $100,000 today.

Out in small town America some people didn't trust Roosevelt's order. Many were torn between keeping their hard earned wealth or obeying the government. Those who did turn in their gold were paid the official price for it, $20.66 per ounce.

So unpopular was the confiscation order that no one anywhere in government would take credit for authoring it.

No congressman claimed it.

At the signing ceremony president Roosevelt made it clear to all present that he was not the author of it and publicly stated that he had not ever read it.

Even the secretary of the treasury said he never read it either, saying it was "what the experts wanted".

Roosevelt convinced the public to give up their gold by saying that pulling the nations resources was necessary to get America out of the depression.

With great fanfare he ordered a new bullion depository built to hold the mountain of gold the U.S. Government was illegally confiscating.

By 1936, the U.S. bullion depository Fort Knox was completed. And in January 1937, the gold began the flow into it.

[color="#ff0000"]The rip off of the ages was about to proceed.[/color]

Once the gold had all been turned in, the official price of gold was suddenly raised to $35 per ounce.

But the catch was only foreigners could sell their gold at the new higher prize.

The Money Changers, who had headed Baruch's note and gotten out of the stock market just before the crash and bought gold at $20.66, and then shipped it to London, could now bring it back and sell it to the government nearly doubling their money while American starved.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# World War II and the creation of the two economic camps[/size][/color][/font]

Now the stage was set for a really big war.

One which would pile up debt far beyond that of WWI.

For example, in 1944 alone the US national income was only $183 billion, yet $103 billion was spend on the war. This was 30 times the spending rate of WWI.

In fact the American taxpayer picked up 55% of the total allied cost of the war.

But equally important, virtually every nation involved in WWII greatly multiplied their debt.

In the U.S. for example, federal debt went from 43 billion in 1940 up to 275 million in 1950, an increase of 598%. Between 1940 and 1950 Japanese's debt swelled 1348%. French debt grew 583%. In Canadian's debt worth 417%.

After the war, the world was now divided in two economic camps: the communist command economies on the one hand versus the monopoly capitalist on the other, [color="#ff0000"]set to fight it out in a perpetual and highly profitable arms race.[/color]

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The Rip-off[/size][/color][/font]

Most Americans still believe that the gold is still there at Ford Knox.

At the end of WWII, Ford Knox contained over 7 million ounces of gold, an incredible 70% of all the gold in the world.

Who much remains? No one knows.

Despite the fact that federal law requires annual physical audits of the Ford Knox gold, the treasury has consistently refused to conduct an audit.

The truth is that a reliable audit at whatever remains here, has never been conducted since President Eisenhower ordered one in 1953.

Where did America's gold in Ford Knox go?

Over the years it was sold off to European Money Changers at the $35 per ounce prize.

Remember this was during the times that it was illegal for Americans to buy any of their own gold from Ford Knox.

In fact there was a very infamous case, were the Firestone family set up a string of dummy corporations to purchase Ford Knox gold and keep it in Switzerland, never hitting U.S. shores. They were eventually caught however and successfully prosecuted.

Finally, by 1971, all the pure gold had been secretly removed from Ford Knox, drained back to London.

Once the gold was gone from Ford Knox, president Nixon closed the gold window by repealing Roosevelt's gold reserve act from 1934, finally making it legal once again for Americans to buy gold.

Naturally gold prices immediately began to soar. Nine years later, gold sold for $880 per ounce, 25 times what the gold in Ford Knox was sold for.

One would think that eventually someone in the government would get wind of what was happening and blow the whistle.

The largest fortune of the history of the world stolen!!

Shades of the old James Bond film Goldfinger. Well, as a matter of fact, Ian Fleming, the author of James Bond series, was head of the British Counter-Intelligence Service, MI5. Some believe in the intelligence community that he wrote much of his fiction as a warning as many authors of fiction do. Yet, the removal of all the good delivery gold from Ford Knox, can be viewed as a deliberate raid on the U.S. treasury, and such an operation might well had been years in the making, namely 40 years, certainly enough time for Fleming to get wind of it and try to prevent it.

So, just how did the story of the Ford Knox gold robbery get out ?

It all started with an article in a New York periodical in 1974.

The article charged that the Rockefeller family was manipulating the Federal Reserve to sell off Ford Knox gold at bargain based prices to anonymous European speculators.

Three days later, the anonymous source of the story, Louise Arcanclass Boyer, mysteriously fell to her death, from the window of her 10 floor apartment in NY.

How had Boyer had known of the Rockefeller connection to Ford Knox gold heist ?

She was the long time secretary of Nelson Rockefeller.

For the next 14 years, Ed Durell, a wealthy Ohio industrialist, devoted himself to a quest for the truth concerning the Ford Knox gold.

He wrote thousands of letters to over one thousand government and banking officials, trying to find out how much gold was really left and were the rest of it was gone.

Edith Roosevelt, the granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, questioned the acts of the government in a march 1975 edition of The New Hampshire Sunday News:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"Allegations of missing gold from our Fort Knox vaults are being widely discussed in European financial cycles. But what is puzzling is that the Administration is not hastening to demonstrate conclusively that there is no cause for concern over our gold treasure - if indeed it is in a position to do so."[/font]

[/indent]

Unfortunately Ed Durell never did accomplish his primary goal -- a full audit of the gold reserve in Ford Knox.

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# The Gold Commission report[/size][/color][/font]

It 's incredible that the world greatest treasure has had little accounting or auditing.

This gold belongs to the American people, not the Federal Reserve and their foreign owners.

One thing is certain, the government could blow all this speculation away in a few days, with a well publicized audit, under the lights of media cameras.

It has chosen not to do so.

One must conclude that they are afraid of the truth, such an audit would reveal.

What is the government so afraid of?

Here is the answer.

When president Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, his conservative friends urged him to study his ability of returning to a Gold Standard, as the only way to curb government spending. It sounded like a reasonable alternative.

So president Reagan appointed a group of men, called the Gold Commission, to study the situation and report back to congress.

What Reagan's Gold Commission reported back to congress in 1982 was the following shocking revelation concerning: "The U.S. treasury owned no gold at all."

[color="#ff0000"]All the gold that was left in Ford Knox was now owned by the Federal Reserve, a group of private bankers as collateral against the national debt.[/color]

The truth of the matter is, that never before had so much money been stolen from the hands of the general public and put into the hands of small group of private investors, The Money Changers.

For a lowdown on the IMF and the World Bank,

Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 12-04-2011, 08:07 PM by sumishi.)

[size="4"][color="#008080"]Part XVII (of XVIII) : The IMF/World Bank Ogre[/color][/size]

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is located in Washington DC. Across the street is the headquarters of the World Bank.

What are these organisation and who controls them, and most importantly are they about to create a huge worldwide depression?

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# World Government scheme[/color][/size]

Let us step back in time for a moment to the aftermath of WWI.

People were tired of war.

So under the guise of peacemaking, the international bankers devised a plan to consolidate power even further.

[color="#9932cc"][color="#ff00ff"]{ Note: The problem-reaction-solution paradigm (The Hegelian Dialectic) Ã¢â¬â (1) The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others (2) The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights (3) The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis }[/color]

[/color]

Claiming that only an international government would stem the tied of world wars, The Money Changers pushed forward a proposal for world government which stood on three legs:

(1) a world central bank to be called the Bank of International Settlements (BIS);

[/font](2) a world judiciary to be called the World Court located in The Hague in the Netherlands;

(3) a world executive legislator to be called The League of Nations.

As president Clinton's mentor, Georgetown historian Carroll Quigley, wrote in his 1966 'Tragedy and Hope' :

[indent][font="Courier New"]"[color="#ff0000"]The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands[/color] able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.[/font]

[font="Courier New"]This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.[/font]

[color="#ff0000"][font="Courier New"]The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.[/color][/font]

[font="Courier New"]Each central bank ... Sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."[/font]

[/indent]

Despite intense pressure from the international bankers and the press, a handful of US senators lead by senator Henry Cabot Lodge, kept the U.S. out of these schemes. Without US participation the League was doomed.

Incredibly, even though US rejected the world central bank, BIS, the New York Federal Reserve ignored its government, and arrogantly sent representatives to Switzerland to participate in the central bankers meeting right up until 1994, when the US was finally officially dragged into it.

With their world government scheme being thwarted, the bankers resorted to the old formula.

Another war to wear down the resistance to world government while reaping handsome profits. That is, WWII.

To this end Wall Street helped resurrect Germany through the Thyssen Banks which were affiliated with the Harrimans Interest in NY, just as the Chase Bank had assisted in the financing of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia during WWI.

Chase Bank was controlled by the Rockefeller family. Subsequently it was merged with the Warburgh's Manhattan Bank and formed the Chase-Manhattan Bank. Now this has merged with the Chemical Bank of NY making it the largest Wall Street bank.

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# Domination complete[/color][/size][/font]

Their strategy worked.

Even before WWII was over world government was back on track.

In 1944, at Bretton Wood, New Hampshire, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were approved with full US participation.

The second League of Nations, renamed the United Nations, was approved in 1945.

Soon a new international court system was functioning as well.

All affective opposition to these international bodies before the war had evaporated in the heat of the war, just as planned.

These new organisations simply repeated on a world scale, what the National Banking Act in 1864, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, had established in the US.

They created a banking cartel composed of the world Central Banks, which gradually assumed the power to dictate credit policies to the banks of all nations.

For example, just as the Federal Reserve Act authorized the creation of a new national fiat called Federal Reserve Note, the IMF has been given the authority to issue a world fiat money called Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). To date the IMF has created an excess of $30 million worth of SDR's.

Member nations are been pressured to make their currencies fully exchangeable for SDR's.

In 1968, congress approved laws authorizing the Fed to accept SDR's as reserves in the US, and to issue Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for SDRs.

What does that mean?

In means that in the US, SDRs already a part of our lawful money.

And what about gold?

SDR's are already partially backed by gold and with two-thirds of gold now in the hands of central banks, The Money Changers can go about structuring the world economic future, in which ever way they deem most profitable.

Keep in mind, just as the Fed. is controlled by its board of governors, the IMF is controlled by its board of governors, which are either the heads of the different central banks or the heads of the national treasury departments dominated by their central banks.

Voting power in the IMF gives the US and the UK, that is to say the Fed. and the Bank of England, affective control.

[size="3"][color="#008080"][font="Arial"]# World money and credit control -- nations in trouble[/color][/size][/font]

Just as the Fed controls the amount of money in the US, the BIS, IMF, and World Bank control the money supply for the world.

So we see the repetition of the old goldsmith's fraud.

Replicated on the national scale, with central banks like the Fed and on the international scale by the three arms of the world central bank.

Is this organisation of the BIS, the IMF and the World Bank, which we refer to collectively as the World Central Bank, presently expanding and contracting world credit?

Yes.

Regulations put into effect in 1988 by the BIS, required the world bankers to raise their capital and reserves to 8% of liabilities by 1992.

Increased capital requirement put an upper limit to the fractional reserve lending similar to the way cash reserve requirements do.

What is this seemingly insignificant regulation made 8 years ago meant to the world?

[color="#ff0000"]It means our banks can not loan more and more money to buy more and more time, before the next depression, as a maximum loan ratio is now set.

[/color]

It means those nations with the lowest bank reserve in their systems have already felt the terrible effects of this credit contraction as their banks scramble to raise money, to increase their reserves to 8%.

To raise the money they had to sell stocks which depressed their stock market and began the depression first in their countries.

Japan, which in 1988 had amongst the lowest capital in reserve requirements and thus was the most effected by the regulation, has experienced the financial crash which began almost immediately in 1989 which has wiped out a staggering 50% of the value of its stock market since 1990 and 60% of the value of its commercial real-estate.

The bank of Japan has lowered its interest rates to 0.5% practically giving away money to resurrect the economy but still the depression worsens.

Due to the $20 billion bail out of Mexico the financial collapse in that nation is already known here.

Yet despite the bail out the economy continues to be a disaster.

One huge debt after another is rolled over as new loans are been made simple to enable Mexico to pay the interest on the old loans.

In the south of Mexico the poor had been in open revolt as every spare peso is been siphoned out of the country to make interest payments.

It is important to note that [color="#ff0000"]a radical transfer of power is taking place as nations become subservient to a supra-national world central bank controlled by a handful of the world richest bankers.[/color]

As the IMF creates more and more SDR's by the stroke of a pen on IMF ledgers, more and more nations borrow them to pay interest on their debts and gradually fall under the control of the faceless bureaucrat of the worlds central bank.

As the worldwide depression worsens and spreads this will give the world central bank the power of economic life and death over these nations.

It will decide which nations will permitted to receive further loans of SDR's and which nations will starve.

Despite all the rhetoric about the development and elevation of poverty, the result is [color="#ff0000"]a steady transfer of wealth from the debtor nations to The Money Changers central banks[/color] which control the IMF and the World Bank.

For example in 1992 the third world debtor nations which borrowed from the World Bank paid $198 million more to the central banks of the developed nations for world bank funded purposes than they received from the World Bank.

All this increases their permanent debt in exchange for temporary relief of poverty caused by prior borrowings.

Already these repayments exceed the amount of the new loans.

By 1992 Africa's external debt had reached $290 billion, two and a half times greater than 1980 resulting in skyrocketing infant mortality rates and unemployment, deterioration of schools, housing and the general help of the people.

The entire world faces the immeasurable suffering already destroying the third world and now Japan, all for the benefit of The Money Changers.

As one prominent Brazilian politician put it:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The Third Word War has already started. It is a silent war. Not, for that reason, any less sinister. The war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America, and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying, there are children. It is a war over the Third World debt, one which has as its main weapon, interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam."[/font]

[/indent]Stay tuned...

sumishi · (This post was last modified: 07-07-2010, 02:01 PM by sumishi.)

[color="#ff8c00"] [/color][size="4"][color="#008080"]Part XVIII (of XVIII) : Conclusion[/color][/size]

[font="Verdana"]

[/font]

Although it would be absurd to ignore the pivotal role played by the influential families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburghs, the Schiffs, the Morgans and the Rockefellers, keep in mind, however, that by now central banks and the large commercial banks are up to three centuries old and deeply entrenched in the economic life of many nations.

These banks are no longer depending on clever individuals, such as a Nathan Rothschild.

Years ago the question of ownership was important, but no longer.

For example, The Bank of England and The Bank of France were nationalized after WWII, and nothing changed, nothing at all.

They endure and [color="#ff0000"]continue to grow now protected by numerous laws, paid politicians and mortgaged media[/color], untouched by the changing of generations.

Three centuries have given them an aura of respectability. The old school tie is now worn by the sixth generation son, who has been raised in a system that he may never question, as he is named to serve on the governing boards of countless philanthropic organisations.

To focus attention today on individuals or families, or to attempt to sort out the current holders of power, serves little useful purpose and would be a distraction from the cure.The problem is far bigger than that.

It is the corrupt banking system that was and is being used to consolidate vast wealth into fewer and fewer hands that is out current economic problem.

Likewise, among the bureaucrat working in the World Bank, central banks an international banks, only a tiny fraction have any idea what's really going on. No doubt they would be horrified to learn that their work is contributing to the terrible impoverishment and gradual enslavement of mankind to a few incredibly rich plutocrats.

So really, there is no use in emphasizing the role of individuals any more. The problem even transcends the normal spectrum of political right or left. Both communism and socialism, as well as monopoly capitalism have been used by The Money Changers.

Today, [color="#ff0000"]they profit from either side of the new political spectrum[/color] -- the big government welfare-state on the so called left wing, versus the neo-conservative laissez-faire capitalists who want big government totally out of their lives, on the right wing.

Either way the bankers win.

Monetary reform is the most important political issue facing this nation.

Some will argue that the Federal Reserve system is a quasi governmental agency.

But the president appoints only two of the seven members Federal Reserve Board governors every four years.

And he appoint them to 14 years terms, far longer than his own.

The senate does confirm those appointments, but the whole truth is, that the president would not dare to appoint anyone into that board of whom Wall Street is not approve.

Of course this does not preclude the possibility that some honourable men may be appointed to the board of governors. But the fact is that the Fed is specifically designed to operate independently of our government as are nearly all other central banks.

Some argue that the Fed promote monetary stability.

We saw the current head of The Bank of England, Eddy George, claim this was the most important role of a central bank.

In fact the Fed's record of stabilizing the economy shows it to be a miserable failure in promoting monetary stability.

[color="#ff0000"]Within the first 25 years of its existence the Fed caused three major economic downturns including the Great Depression, and for the last 30 years has shepherded the American economy into a period of unprecedented inflation.[/color]

This is a well known fact among top economists. As Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman put it:

[indent][font="Courier New"]"The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before. The most dramatic period of instability in output was, of course, the period between the two wars, which includes the severe [monetary] contractions of 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38. No other 20-year period in American history contains as many as three such severe contraction,[/font]

[font="Courier New"]This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System... and that the severity of each of the major contractions -- 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38 -- is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by then Reserve authorities....[/font]

[font="Courier New"]Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes -- excusable or not -- can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. If is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any affective check by the body politic -- this is the key political argument against an independent central bank....[/font]

[font="Courier New"]to paraphrase Clemencea: money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers."[/font]

[/indent]

[color="#ff0000"]We must learn from our history before it is to late.[/color]

Why cannot politician control the federal debt?

Because all our money is created out of debt. Again: its a debt-money system.

Our money is created initially by the purchase of US bonds. The public buys bonds, like saving bonds; the banks buy bonds, foreigners buy bonds and when the Fed wants to create more money in the system, it buys bonds, but pays for them with a simple bookkeeping entry which it creates out of nothing.

Then this new money created by the Fed is multiplied by a factor of 10, by the bank, thanks to the fractional reserve principle.

So although the banks don't create currency, they do create cheque book money, or deposits by making new loans. They even invest some of this created money.

In fact, over $1 trillion of this privately created money has been used to purchase US bonds on the open market, which provides the banks with roughly $50 billion in interest, risk free, each year, less the interest the pay to some of the depositors.

In this way [color="#ff0000"]through fractional reserve lending banks create over 90% of the money, and therefore cause over 90% of our inflation.[/color]

[color="#008080"][font="Arial"][size="3"]# Proposed solution[/size][/color]

What can we do about all this?

Fortunately there is a way to fix the problem fairly easily, speedily and without any serious financial problem. We can get our country totally out of debt in one to two years by simply paying off those US bonds, with debt-free US notes, just as Lincoln issued.

Of course that by itself would create tremendous inflation since our currency is currently multiplied by the fractional reserve system.

But here is the ingenious solution advanced in part by Milton Friedman, to keep the money supply stable and avoid inflation and deflation, while the debt is retired.

[/font]

As the treasury buys up its bonds on the open market with US notes, the reserve requirements of your hometown local bank, will be proportionally raised so the amount of money in circulation remains constant.
As those holding bond are paid off in US notes, they will deposit this money thus making available the currency then needed by the bank to increase their reserves.
Once all the US bonds are replaced with US notes, banks will be at 100% reserve banking instead of the fractional reserve system currently in use.
From this point on the former Fed buildings will only be needed as a central clearing house for cheques and those vaults for US notes.
The Federal Reserve Act will no longer be necessary and could be repealed.
Monetary power can be transferred back to the treasury department.

There would be no further creation or contraction of money by banks.

By doing it this way our national debt can be paid off in a single year or so, and the Fed and the fractional reserve banking abolished, without national bankruptcy, financial collapse, inflation or deflation, or any significant change in the way the average American goes about his business.

To the average person the primary difference would be that for the first time since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, taxes would begin to go down

----------------------------------END----------------------------------

[size="3"][color="#ffa500"]

[font="Arial Black"][color="#2e8b57"]CREDITS: [/color][/color][/size]

The above set of posts was [/font]a summarised and adapted transcript of a 1996 Documentary film [color="#008000"]"The Money Masters -- How International Bankers gained control of America"[/color] by [color="#008000"]Bill Still[/color]

[color="#008000"]The Website is :[/color] [url="http://www.themoneymasters.com/"]The Money Masters[/url]

sumishi · 07-05-2010, 02:36 PM

Now that "The Money Masters" is all out in text, I request forum members to discuss, dissect, and argue for and against, with emphasis on how these factors have a bearing on the Indian economy.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?