The Federal Reserve and the New World Order

At this point in time, almost everyone in the U.S. and in Europe, has heard of the Federal Reserve, due to the regular news stories discussing interest rates and quantitative easing.

What many people still don’t know, however, is how, or the real reason why, the Federal Reserve came into existence, or how it fits into the creation of a One World Order, famously referred to by George Bush Senior as the “New World Order.”

“The Federal Reserve is what’s known as a Central Bank, which is an institution that manages a state’s currency, money supply, and interest rates. Central banks also usually oversee the commercial banking system of their respective countries. In contrast to a commercial bank, a central bank possesses a monopoly on increasing the monetary base in the state, and usually also prints the national currency, which usually serves as the state’s legal tender.

The primary function of a central bank is to control the nation’s money supply (monetary policy), through active duties such as managing interest rates, setting the reserve requirement, and acting as a lender of last resort to the banking sector during times of bank insolvency or financial crisis.

Central banks usually also have supervisory powers, intended to prevent bank runs and to reduce the risk that commercial banks and other financial institutions engage in reckless or fraudulent behavior.

Central banks in most developed nations are institutionally designed to be independent from political interference. Still, limited control by the executive and legislative bodies usually exists.”(1)

History of Banking

“The history of banking begins with the first prototype banks of merchants of the ancient world, which made grain loans to farmers and traders who carried goods between cities. This began around 2000 BC in Assyria and Babylonia. Later, in ancient Greece and during the Roman Empire, lenders based in temples made loans and added two important innovations: they accepted deposits and changed money.

Archaeology from this period in ancient China and India also shows evidence of money lending activity.

Babylonia

The king makes an animal offering to Shamash

In Babylonia of 2000 B.C., people depositing gold were required to pay amounts as much as one sixtieth of the total deposited. Both the palaces and temple are known to have provided lending and issuing from the wealth they held—the palaces to a lesser extent. Such loans typically involved issuing seed-grain, with re-payment from the harvest. These basic social agreements were documented in clay tablets, with an agreement on interest accrual. The habit of depositing and storing of wealth in temples continued at least until 209 B.C.

Greece

Before the destruction of Athens by Persians during the 480 invasion, the Athenian Acropolis temple dedicated to Athena stored money; Pericles rebuilt a depository afterward contained within the Parthenon.

During the reign of the Ptolemies, state depositories replaced temples as the location of security-deposits, records exist to show this having occurred by the end of the reign of Ptolemy I (305–284).

Thirty five Hellenistic cities included private banks during the 2nd century (Roberts – p. 130).

Of the settlements of the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century AD, three were of pronounced wealth and centres of banking, Athens, Corinth and Patras.

Rome

Denarius of Marcus Aurelius

Roman banking activities were an economic situation which had a crucial presence within temples, for instance the minting of coins occurred within temples, most importantly the Juno Moneta temple, though during the time of the Empire, public deposits gradually ceased to be held in temples, and instead were held in private depositories.

The Roman empire at some time formalized the administrative aspect of banking and instituted greater regulation of financial institutions and financial practices.

Charging interest on loans and paying interest on deposits became more highly developed and competitive. The development of Roman banks was limited, however, by the Roman preference for cash transactions.

During the reign of the Roman emperor Gallienus (AD 260–268), there was a temporary breakdown of the Roman banking system after the banks rejected the flakes of copper produced by his mints.

With the ascent of Christianity, banking became subject to additional restrictions, as the charging of interest was seen as immoral. After the fall of Rome, banking temporarily ended in Europe and was not revived until the time of the crusades.

Religious Restrictions On Interest

Christ drives the Usurers out of the Temple

 

Most early religious systems in the ancient Near East, and the secular codes arising from them, did not forbid usury. These societies regarded inanimate matter as alive, like plants, animals and people, and capable of reproducing itself. Hence if you lent ‘food money’, or monetary tokens of any kind, it was legitimate to charge interest. Food money in the shape of olives, dates, seeds or animals was lent out as early as c. 5000 BCE, if not earlier. Among the Mesopotamians, Hittites, Phoenicians and Egyptians, interest was legal and often fixed by the state.

 

 

Judaism

The Torah and later sections of the Hebrew Bible criticize interest-taking, but interpretations of the Biblical prohibition vary. One common understanding is that Jews are forbidden to charge interest upon loans made to other Jews, but obliged to charge interest on transactions with non-Jews, or Gentiles. However, the Hebrew Bible itself gives numerous examples where this provision was evaded.

Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.

Deuteronomy 23:20 Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.

Israelites were forbidden to charge interest on loans made to other Israelites, but allowed to charge interest on transactions with non-Israelites, as the latter were often amongst the Israelites for the purpose of business anyway, but in general, it was seen as advantageous to avoid debt at all, to avoid being bound to someone else. Debt was to be avoided and not used to finance consumption, but only when in need. However, laws against usury were among many the prophets condemn the people for breaking.

It was the interpretation that interest could be charged to non-Israelites that would be used in the 14th century for Jews living within Christian societies in Europe to justify lending money for profit. As this conveniently side stepped the rules against usury in both Judaism and Christianity as the Jews could lend to the Christians as they are not Israelites and the Christians were not involved in the lending but were still free to take the loans.

Christianity

Originally, the charging of interest, known as usury, was banned by Christian churches. This included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. However over time the charging of interest became acceptable, the term came to be used for interest above the rate allowed by law.

The rise of Protestantism in the 16th century weakened Rome’s influence, and its dictates against usury became irrelevant in some areas. That would free up the development of banking in Northern Europe.

Islam

In Islam it is strictly prohibited to take interest; the Quran strictly prohibits lending money on Interest. “O you who have believed, do not consume usury, doubled and multiplied, but fear Allah that you may be successful” (3:130) “and Allah has permitted trade and has forbidden interest” (2:275).

Holy Quran states that taking of interest and making money through unethical means is not prohibited for Muslims only but were prohibited for earlier communities as well. Two verses (Al Quran – 4:160–161) clearly states that “Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah’s way, And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people’s wealth by false pretences, We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom.”

Despite the prohibition of charging interest, during the 20th century a number of developments took place that would lead to an Islamic banking model where no interest is charged but banks would still operate for profit. This would be done through charging for loans in different ways such as through fees and using method of risk sharing and different ownership models such as leasing.

Medieval Europe

Banking, in the modern sense of the word, is traceable to medieval and early Renaissance Italy, to rich cities in the north such as Florence, Venice, and Genoa.

The original banks were “merchant banks” that Italian grain merchants invented in the Middle Ages. Originally intended to finance long trading journeys, they applied these methods to finance grain production and trading.

Jews could not hold land in Italy, so they entered the great trading piazzas and halls of Lombardy, alongside local traders, and set up their benches to trade in crops. They had one great advantage over the locals. Christians were strictly forbidden the sin of usury, defined as lending at interest (Islam makes similar condemnations of usury). The Jewish newcomers, on the other hand, could lend to farmers against crops in the field, a high-risk loan at what would have been considered usurious rates by the Church; but the Jews were not subject to the Church’s dictates. In this way they could secure the grain-sale rights against the eventual harvest. They then began to advance payment against the future delivery of grain shipped to distant ports. In both cases they made their profit from the present discount against the future price. This two-handed trade was time-consuming and soon there arose a class of merchants who were trading grain debt instead of grain.

The Jewish trader performed both financing (credit) and underwriting (insurance) functions. Financing took the form of a crop loan at the beginning of the growing season, which allowed a farmer to cultivate (through seeding, growing, weeding, and harvesting) his annual crop. Underwriting in the form of a crop, or commodity, insurance guaranteed the delivery of the crop to its buyer, typically a merchant wholesaler. In addition, traders performed the merchant function by making arrangements to supply the buyer of the crop through alternative sources—grain stores or alternate markets, for instance—in the event of crop failure. He could also keep the farmer (or other commodity producer) in business during a drought or other crop failure, through the issuance of a crop (or commodity) insurance against the hazard of failure of his crop.

Merchant banking progressed from financing trade on one’s own behalf to settling trades for others and then to holding deposits for settlement of “billette” or notes written by the people who were still brokering the actual grain. And so the merchant’s “benches” (bank is derived from the Italian for bench, banca, as in a counter) in the great grain markets became centers for holding money against a bill (billette, a note, a letter of formal exchange, later a bill of exchange and later still a cheque).

These deposited funds were intended to be held for the settlement of grain trades, but often were used for the bench’s own trades in the meantime. The term bankrupt is a corruption of the Italian banca rotta, or broken bench, which is what happened when someone lost his traders’ deposits. Being “broke” has the same connotation.

Crusades

In the 12th century, the need to transfer large sums of money to finance the Crusades stimulated the re-emergence of banking in western Europe. In 1162, Henry II of England levied a tax to support the crusades—the first of a series of taxes levied by Henry over the years with the same objective. The Templars and Hospitallers acted as Henry’s bankers in the Holy Land. The Templars’ wide flung, large land holdings across Europe also emerged in the 1100–1300 time frame as the beginning of Europe-wide banking, as their practice was to take in local currency, for which a demand note would be given that would be good at any of their castles across Europe, allowing movement of money without the usual risk of robbery while traveling.

Italian Bankers

The first bank to be established was established in Venice with guarantee from the State in 1157.

In the middle of the 13th century, groups of Italian Christians, particularly the Cahorsins and Lombards, invented legal fictions to get around the ban on Christian usury; for example, one method of effecting a loan with interest was to offer money without interest, but also require that the loan is insured against possible loss or injury, and/or delays in repayment (see contractum trinius). The Christians effecting these legal fictions became known as the pope’s usurers, and reduced the importance of the Jews to European monarchs; later, in the Middle Ages, a distinction evolved between things that were consumable (such as food and fuel) and those that were not, with usury permitted on loans that involved the latter.

Coat of arms for the Medici family

The most powerful banking families came from Florence, including the Acciaiuoli, Mozzi, Bardi and Peruzzi families, which established branches in many other parts of Europe. Probably the most famous Italian bank was the Medici bank, set up by Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici in 1397  and continuing until 1494.

By 1327, Avignon had 43 branches of Italian banking houses. In 1347, Edward III of England defaulted on loans. Later there was the bankruptcy of the Bardi (1343) and Peruzzi (1346). The accompanying growth of Italian banking in France was the start of the Lombard moneychangers in Europe, who moved from city to city along the busy pilgrim routes important for trade. Key cities in this period were Cahors, the birthplace of Pope John XXII, and Figeac.

By the later Middle Ages, Christian Merchants who lent money with interest were without opposition, and the Jews lost their privileged position as money-lenders.

Court Jew

Court Jews were Jewish bankers or businessmen who lent money and handled the finances of some of the Christian European noble houses, primarily in the 17th and 18th centuries. Court Jews were precursors to the modern financier or Secretary of the Treasury. Their jobs included raising revenues by tax farming, negotiating loans, master of the mint, creating new sources for revenue, floating debentures, devising new taxes. and supplying the military. In addition, the Court Jew acted as personal bankers for nobility: he raised money to cover the noble’s personal diplomacy and his extravagances.

Court Jews were skilled administrators and businessmen who received privileges in return for their services. They were most commonly found in Germany, Holland, and Austria, but also in Denmark, England, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Portugal, and Spain. According to Dimont, virtually every duchy, principality, and palatinate in the Holy Roman Empire had a Court Jew.

England

In the City of London there weren’t any banking houses operating in a manner recognized as so today until the 17th century, although the London Royal Exchange was established in 1565.

17th–19th centuries – The Emergence of Modern Banking

By the end of the 16th century and during the 17th, the traditional banking functions of accepting deposits, moneylending, money changing, and transferring funds were combined with the issuance of bank debt that served as a substitute for gold and silver coins.

New banking practices promoted commercial and industrial growth by providing a safe and convenient means of payment and a money supply more responsive to commercial needs, as well as by “discounting” business debt. By the end of the 17th century, banking was also becoming important for the funding requirements of the combative European states. This would lead on to government regulations and the first central banks. The success of the new banking techniques and practices in Amsterdam and London helped spread the concepts and ideas elsewhere in Europe.

Goldsmiths of London

Modern banking practice, including fractional reserve banking and the issue of banknotes, emerged in the 17th century. At the time, wealthy merchants began to store their gold with the goldsmiths of London, who possessed private vaults and charged a fee for their service. In exchange for each deposit of precious metal, the goldsmiths issued receipts certifying the quantity and purity of the metal they held as a bailee; these receipts could not be assigned, only the original depositor could collect the stored goods.

Gradually the goldsmiths began to lend the money out on behalf of the depositor, which led to the development of modern banking practices; promissory notes (which evolved into banknotes) were issued for money deposited as a loan to the goldsmith.

These practices created a new kind of “money” that was actually debt, that is, goldsmiths’ debt rather than silver or gold coin, a commodity that had been regulated and controlled by the monarchy. This development required the acceptance in trade of the goldsmiths’ promissory notes, payable on demand. Acceptance in turn required a general belief that coin would be available; and a fractional reserve normally served this purpose. Acceptance also required that the holders of debt be able legally to enforce an unconditional right to payment; it required that the notes (as well as drafts) be negotiable instruments. The concept of negotiability had emerged in fits and starts in European money markets, but it was well developed by the 17th century. Nevertheless, an act of Parliament was required in the early 18th century (1704) to overrule court decisions holding that the gold smiths notes, despite the “customs of merchants”, were not negotiable.

The Bank of England

The sealing of the Bank of England Charter (1694).

The first bank to begin the permanent issue of banknotes was the Bank of England in 1695. Initially hand-written and issued on deposit or as a loan, they promised to pay the bearer the value of the note on demand. By 1745, standardized printed notes ranging from £20 to £1,000 were being printed. Fully printed notes that didn’t require the name of the payee and the cashier’s signature first appeared in 1855.

The rise of Protestantism freed many European Christians from Rome’s dictates against usury. In the 18th century, services offered by banks increased. Clearing facilities, security investments, cheques and overdraft protections were introduced. Cheques were invented in the 1600s in England and banks settled payments by direct courier to the issuing bank. Around 1770, they began meeting in a central location, and by the 1800s a dedicated space was established, known as a bankers’ clearing house. The London clearing house used a method where each bank paid cash to and then was paid cash by an inspector at the end of each day. The first overdraft facility was set up in 1728 by the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Industrial Revolution and growing international trade increased the number of banks, especially in London. At the same time, new types of financial activities broadened the scope of banking far beyond its origins. The merchant-banking families dealt in everything from underwriting bonds to originating foreign loans. These new “merchant banks” facilitated trade growth, profiting from England’s emerging dominance in seaborne shipping. Two immigrant families, Rothschild and Baring, established merchant banking firms in London in the late 18th century and came to dominate world banking in the next century.

A great impetus to country banking came in 1797 when, with England threatened by war, the Bank of England suspended cash payments. A handful of Frenchmen landed in Pembrokeshire, causing a panic. Shortly after this incident, Parliament authorised the Bank of England and country bankers to issue notes of low denomination.”(2)

History of Central Banks

“Prior to the 17th century most money was commodity money, typically gold or silver. However, promises to pay were widely circulated and accepted as value at least five hundred years earlier in both Europe and Asia. The Song dynasty was the first to issue generally circulating paper currency, while the Yuan Dynasty was the first to use notes as the predominant circulating medium. In 1455, in an effort to control inflation, the succeeding Ming Dynasty ended the use of paper money and closed much of Chinese trade.

The Bank of Amsterdam (Dutch: Amsterdamsche Wisselbank

In 1609 the Amsterdam Wisselbank was founded as first institute of a network of public exchange banks in Central and Southern Europe. Further exchange banks were the Hamburg Bank, the Banco Giro in Venice and the Banco Publico in Nuremberg. The exchange banks offered a public infrastructure for cashless international payments. They aimed to increase the efficiency of international trade and to safeguard monetary stability. The exchange banks thus fulfilled comparable functions to modern central banks already.”(1)

“Thus, the first central bank was established by the Money Changers in Amsterdam, Netherlands, in the year 1609.  From that base of operations the Money Changers began to wage a psychological and physical war against the monarchies and people of Europe. The banking interests funded all forms of rebellion and agent provocateurs across the expanse of the continent with a special focus on England.

In 1642 the Money Changers began financing the agent Oliver Cromwell for the purpose of fomenting civil unrest and rebellion in England.  By 1649 Cromwell had succeeded in purging Parliament of the supporters of King Charles I and the king was subsequently put to death.

From that point the Money Changers consolidated power further and forced England to become involved in costly wars which further indebted the government.  One of these wars was the banker financed invasion of England by William of Orange from the Netherlands.  Being that the Netherlands was where the first central bank was established by the Money Changers, it is not difficult to see where the money came from for the invasion – the time and labor of the Dutch disorganized masses.

William III, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, 1689 – 1702

William of Orange of course was successful and ascended to the English throne as King William III in 1689.

After more than 50 years of banker financed wars the English government finally succumbed to the methodologies of the Money Changers and sanctioned the creation of the privately owned central bank which was misleadingly called the Bank of England.

Over the next 4 years the debt owed to the bankers by the English government increased by 1280%.  This debt is likely still being paid by the time and labor of the disorganized masses of England.  Our time and labor, being our wealth, is sum negative from the start because of fiat currency and is used to service the never ending debt of the Money Changers.

Though the Money Changers had consolidated their power in England by 1649 it would still take continued pogroms against the population in order to effect permanent changes to the social and geopolitical structure of the country.  One of these pogroms was the intentional spreading of bubonic plague within the old Roman walls of the medieval City of London.

Like Ebola is being used today to spread death and fear of death in problematic areas of interest to the modern manifestation of the Money Changers, the plague was used in 1665 England to cause death and fear of death within the desired old Roman walls of medieval London.

The city at that time was extremely overpopulated and polluted.  Though desired by the aristocracy for its symbolic history and esoteric location, it was also shunned because of the sociological cesspool which it had become.  The economics of the city were intentionally degraded by the banking interests which made it easier to spread a well-known disease like the bubonic plague within the confines of the old Roman walls.

Disease along with the social and economic problems were overwhelming.

The Great Fire of London in 1666

The Great Fire of London started on Sunday, September 2, 1666, within the Roman walls.  Suspicion immediately set in as rumors of foreigners starting fires throughout the City of London circulated amongst the disorganized masses.  Charles II, now fully in the control of the Money Changers, refused to help the citizens of London with the fire and over the next three days almost everything within the old Roman walls was gutted by the fire.

It is estimated that 13,200 homes and 87 parishes were destroyed by the fire, with 70,000 to 80,000 inhabitants left homeless.  Only 6 deaths were recorded but it is likely that the death toll was extremely high as the deaths of the poor and middle class were not counted.

Like all “false flags,” there was a patsy or place to shift blame.  The French watchmaker Robert Hubert was arrested and it is recorded that he confessed to starting the fire within a bakery on Pudding Lane.  It is written that Hubert said he was an agent of the Pope.  But it came out at a later date that Hubert didn’t even arrive in the city until at least September 4, 2 days after the fire had started.

This taken with the fact that rumors of foreigners starting multiple fires throughout the city, even leading to the lynching of foreigners, strongly suggests that the fire was staged and played a vital role within a larger methodology of establishing a major banking center on the esoteric grounds of old medieval London.

The poor and middle class were pushed of their lands with little compensation.  Though many plans for rebuilding the city were proposed the reconstruction was completed using the exact same street plan as was used before.

The City of London

It is curious that so many have avoided the connection between the Great Fire of London and the Money Changers, leading to the creation of the Bank of England in 1694.  Given the importance of the City State status of the City of London, (there are 3 city states, being Vatican City, Washington DC, and the City of London, these are cities with their own laws and policing, separate from the countries in which they are located), it is noteworthy that the city state of London, being the City of London, from which the international bankers have operated for centuries, was built on the remains of the old medieval City of London, which had been located within the Roman walls, which were built in the ancient world.

It has been the proposition of many astute researchers that the world is controlled from the three city states of Washington DC, Vatican City, and the City of London.

The Vatican Bank

“The Catholic Church is the only religion to have a social doctrine founded on the war on poverty and the demonisation of money, or “the Devil’s excrement”. The Gospel according to St. Matthew reads: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the
Kingdom of Heaven.” It is, however, the only religion to have its own bank to handle business affairs
and investments, called L’Istituto per le Opere di Religione (Institute for Religious Works) or IOR.
 
The headquarters of the IOR is a little stone box within the Vatican’s walls. A striking 14th century
tower built by Pope Nicholas V, it has walls which are often nine metres thick at the base. The entrance is by a discreet door with neither sign nor symbol upon it. It is only the round-the-clock
presence of a garrison of Swiss Guards which hints at its importance. Inside are a large computer
room, one single counter and one single ATM. Through this needle’s eye immense and often shady
fortunes pass. The most conservative estimates put it at 5 billion euros in deposit accounts. In return, account holders, some of whom “have had problems with the law” according to the bank’s president Angelo Caloia, receive higher returns than those offered by any hedge-fund and another inestimable advantage: complete secrecy.
 
More impenetrable to investigators than the Cayman Islands, more discreet than a Swiss bank, the IOR is indeed a (fiscal) paradise on Earth. There are no Vatican chequebooks. All deposits and transfers are made by transfer, in cash or in gold bullion. Untraceable.”(12)
 

Roberto Calvi


“The court case following the Banco Ambrosiano scandal closed twenty years ago now. Banco Ambrosiano was an Italian bank that collapsed in 1982. At the centre of the bank’s failure was its chairman, Roberto Calvi and his membership in the illegal Masonic Lodge Propaganda Due (aka P2). Vatican Bank was Banco Ambrosiano’s main shareholder, and the death of Pope John Paul I in 1978 is rumored to be linked to the Ambrosiano scandal. Vatican Bank was also accused of funneling covert United States funds to Solidarity and the Contras through Banco Ambrosiano.”(13)
 
Since then the IOR has been a black hole into which no one dare look. To extricate itself from the bank’s collapse which had ruined tens of thousands of families, the Vatican Bank paid out US$406 million to the receivers. According to the then Treasury Minister Beniamino Andreatta, this was less than a quarter of the US$1159 million owing. The scandal gave rise to innumerable legends and has left many noble corpses in its wake. Michele Sindona was found poisoned in Voghera prison, Roberto Calvi hanging under Blackfriars Bridge, investigating magistrate Emilio Alessandrini killed by left-wing terrorist group Prima Linea, lawyer Giorgio Ambrosoli silenced by an American mafia killer on his doorstep.
 
The most worrying mystery surrounds that of the death of Pope John Paul I after only 33 days in
office, on the eve of the decision whether to remove Paul Marcinkus and the other heads of the IOR
or Vatican Bank. Macabre rumours about his sudden demise surfaced, nourished by the Vatican’s
silence. There would be no autopsy to confirm the allegedly devastating heart attack and the pad
containing notes on the IOR that according to many he took to bed on his final night would never be
found.
 

Paul Casimir Marcinkus


This was the IOR of Paul Marcinkus, born in Cicero, Chicago, the son of a Lithuanian window cleaner two streets away from Al Capone’s headquarters, and the subject of one of the most sensational yet perplexing careers in the recent history of the Church. Tall and athletic, good at baseball and golf, he had been the man who had saved Pope Paul VI from assassination in the Philippines. It is perhaps not enough to explain why an intellectual such as Montini (author of the most progressive encyclical in history, the Populorum Progressio) would be attracted to this American priest with the perpetual Wall Street adventurer look, complete with golf clubs sticking out of his custom-built car, huge Havana between his teeth, beautiful blonde secretaries and poker friends from the P2 Masonic Lodge.
 
With Pope John Paul II, Marcinkus had an immediate rapport. The new Polish Pope Wojtyla liked this son of Eastern European immigrants very much. Marcinkus spoke good Polish, hated communists and seemed very sympathetic to the Polish Solidarity cause. When the Milanese magistrates issued an arrest warrant for Marcinkus, the Vatican closed up like a fortress to protect him, refusing any cooperation with the Italian legal system, waving their foreign passports in a show of diplomatic immunity. It would take another ten years before the Pope would decide to remove from the IOR presidency one of the main men responsible for the collapse of the Banco Ambrosiano. Without, though, uttering a word of condemnation or even veiled criticism: to the Vatican hierarchy,
Marcinkus was and still remains “a victim”, even “a naive victim”.
 
Many things changed at the Vatican Bank after 1989, with the arrival Angelo Caloia as president, a
gentleman of the “Catholic” bankers’ circle and friend and colleague of Gianni Bazoli (head of Banca Intesa San Paolo). Some things didn’t change. The role of “new broom” at the Vatican Bank given to the “lay” banker Caloia was much heralded by the Vatican hierarchy to outsiders, whilst inside the Vatican he faced many obstacles, at least in the first few years. He confided in his biographer, the Catholic journalist Giancarlo Galli (author of the fundamental but unavailable “Finanza bianca” Mondadori, 2003) that “the real power at the Vatican Bank remained in the hands of Monsignor Donato de Bonis, who was in contact with everyone in Rome who mattered, politically and otherwise.
 
Sometimes Monsignor De Bonis accompanied account holders and their cash or gold to the vault, up
the staircase and “closer to heaven” at the top of the tower. Clashes between bank president Caloia
and the theoretically subordinate De Bonis were frequent and bitter. Galli comments that “a golden
rule of management says, in the case of a conflict between a superior and a subordinate, that the

latter should give way. At the very peculiar organisation that is the IOR, however, when a suit clashes with a cassock it’s no longer a question of rank”.
 
Galoia’s period of financial “Glasnost” proceeds apace, but it doesn’t stop the shadow of the Vatican
Bank being implicated in just about every scandal of the last twenty years. From Tangetopoli
(Bribesville) and the judge murders of ’93, to the shady takeovers in the banking sector and the
recent football corruption scandals called Calciopoli. It seems, though, that the shadow is slowly
disappearing. Nobody wants nor knows how to look behind the impenetrable walls of the Vatican
Bank.
 
The Vatican Bank has no branches on Italian territory, doesn’t issue cheque books and, as a “foreign” entity based in the Vatican City, is protected by the Concordat treaty. Any request must therefore come from the Italian Foreign Office.
 
A shadowy episode occurred back in the mid-1990s during Marcello dell’Utri’s trial on charges of mafia involvement. In a video link from the United States, Mafia Supergrass Francesco Marino Mannoia revealed that “Licio Gelli was investing Palermo Mafioso Salvatore Riina’s money with the Vatican Bank.” The IOR offered the Sicilians investments and discretion”. Mannoia had been providing information at first hand, as head of all the heroin refineries in western Sicily, the principal source of profit for the mafia cells. They cannot be unaware of where mafia money ends up. Then he goes further, with a hypothesis: “When Pope John Paul II came to Sicily and ex-communicated the Mafiosi, the Mafia bosses felt aggrieved especially because they were putting their money into the Vatican. It was from this that the decision was taken to explode bombs outside two churches in Rome”. Mannoia is not just anybody.
 
According to murdered anti-mafia magistrate Giovanni Falcone, Mannoia was “the most reliable
prosecution witness”. Each of his claims has had objective verification, except for the claims about
the Vatican Bank, for which there has been no verification of facts. The magistrates working on the
Dell’Utri case didn’t look into the IOR connection because it didn’t concern Dell’Utri or the
Berlusconi group. They passed it on to their colleagues working on the case against Andreotti.
Palermo prosecutor Scarpinato and others were aware of the precedent set by Borelli and didn’t sign
the rogatory application [to be served on the Vatican Bank]. Someone high up at the Palermo Court
House remarked: “Go after the Vatican?? Haven’t we made enough enemies already??”
 
The curtain fell on the goings on at the IOR for ten years, until the scandal broke surrounding a series of shady takeovers in the Italian banking industry. On 10th July 2007, the imprisoned leader of the
takeover rogues, Giampero Fiorani, told a magistrate: “At the BSI Switzerland there are three Vatican accounts with, no exaggeration, €2 or €3 billion apiece.” He gave the Milan prosecutor
Francesco Greco a list of illegal payments made to the Vatican’s coffers: “I gave the first lot of money to Cardinal Castillo Lara (president of APSA, the Vatican’s Department of Administration) when I bought out the Cassa Lombarda bank. He asked me for €15.5 million, possibly in a foreign account”.
 
Of course not even Fiorani’s tales have opened the chamber of secrets at the IOR and the APSA,
whose links with Swiss banks and off-shore tax havens around the world are at the very least
peculiar. It is difficult, for example, to use “pastoral needs” to explain the Vatican’s decision to excise
the Cayman Islands from its natural Jamaican diocese of Kingston, in order to proclaim them “missio
sui juris” under the direct control of the Holy See and entrust them to Cardinal Adam Joseph Maida, a member of the IOR board.
 
The IOR’s secrets will perhaps forever remain sealed inside the tower of treasure. The Marcinkus era has drawn to a close but the fug which surrounds the Vatican Bank shows no sign of washing away in clear water. All we know is that the Vatican Bank’s vault has never bulged so much nor its tills rung so loudly and the deposits continue to flow in encouraged by interest rates of 12% p.a. or even higher. Getting precise figures is impossible, as we have said. The only verifiable figures are these: according to the excellent investigation published by Marina Marinetti in Panorama Economy magazine, with more than US$407 million in per capita GDP, the Vatican City is by far the “richest country in the world”.
 
No Italian authority has ever launched an enquiry into establishing the Vatican’s economic burden on
the country which houses it. It has enormous power, both direct and indirect and over the last few
decades the Catholic world has conquered the traditional bastion of the small liberal and secular
sections of Italian society: finance. After the decline of the banker’s banker and arch-enemy of the
IOR, Enrico Cuccia, “finanza bianca” or Catholic finance has moved into sector after sector. The
definition is very generic, and covers a disparate group of people, but they are all in a direct
relationship with the Church hierarchy, Catholic organisations and the Opus Dei prelature. In Italy
where politics now counts for less than finance, the Catholic Church has more power and influence
over the banks than it ever had even in the heyday of the Christian Democrats.”(12)
 

China Adds the Fourth City State

A fourth pillar, to add to the original three City States, is represented by China.

It was thought at one time that Japan could act as this fourth balancing pillar in the consolidation of world wide mandates by the Money Changers, but that moment changed with the attempt by the Japanese to hide gold hoards from the bankers who financed the rise of their Empire leading up to World War 2.

People’s Bank of China headquarters in Beijing

China, for its part, has been controlled by the Money Changers since the English led Opium Wars against the Chinese disorganized masses.  There were two Opium Wars, one in which spanned the years 1839 to 1842, and the second from 1856 to 1860.  The intent was to flood the Chinese mainland with large amounts of opium in order to make the Chinese population docile and complacent to the hidden rule of the Money Changers.  The same tactic is still used today in regards to both prescription drugs and street drugs, as well as alcohol, and all other forms of vice, be it gambling, shopping, or pornography.

China has been staged managed since that time and total control over the once-resistant population was fully realized with the establishment of communism during the revolution of 1949, after the population had been economically decimated and degraded by the Japanese invasion.  The Chinese revolution followed the same textbook methodology as the Bolshevik Revolution of Russia in 1917.

This is in fact the same methodology which was used in the 1600’s against England.

The Money Changers are so close to realizing their Great Work of the Ages. This is the consolidation of all macroeconomics and sociological structures of humanity, including the ongoing movement toward a multilateral financial system with the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) acting as the super-sovereign reserve currency.”(10)

“It’s absolutely crucial to understand that we have here a two-tier system.  The issuers of money have entirely different attitudes from normal banks, and normal people.  From the central bank viewpoint, inflation is good, and wars are good, because they offer more large-scale opportunity. They then print more money, and get more interest, provided their currency is accepted.  If governments waste money, that suits them.  If they can exchange their paper or electronic entries for any real assets—houses, businesses, utilities, colleges, factories, newspapers—they benefit; they’ve got them for nothing.  There are obvious hazards here: wars may be lost, for example.  But usually it’s not their problem.

The two-tier system means they have money in superabundance: any central bank therefore has huge power.  If they choose to support any special group, that group will thrive.  Historically, news suppliers and distributors (e.g. books, newspapers, Reuters, theatre, film, TV, advertising) have been points of attack by parasites against hosts, but control over education (primary, secondary, syllabuses, teachers, apprentices, universities), and control over law-making and law enforcement (parliaments, judges, police) have been and are important. 

As a simple example of the two-tier system, consider Google or Youtube.  These needed large amounts of equipment and expertise to set up, mediated by money.  The technical people are in their hands, though they have some power of fighting back.  Modern credit card money is in a similar position, with huge electronic networks of machinery and buildings, dominated by central banks.  Modern political parties are in a similar state, since central bank money can be used to swamp any opposition.”(8)

The Bank of International Settlements- BIS

“The US Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank (for the 12 European countries that adopted the single euro currency in 1999) are institutions with enormous power far beyond what most people everywhere can imagine.  These most dominant of all central banks, as well as most others, have a powerful influence on the financial conditions in virtually all countries including their own, of course, in an increasingly borderless financial world where a significant economic event in one nation can affect most others for better or worse.

Bank of International Settlements, Basel, Switzerland

One other powerful bank is also part of today’s financial world. It’s the secretive, inviolable and accountable to no one Bank of International Settlements (BIS) founded in 1930 and based in Basel, Switzerland.  This bank, most people never heard of, is the central banker to its member central banks – a sort of banking “boss of bosses” equivalent to what apparently exists in the shadowy world of Mafia dons.  Like most other central banks, including the Federal Reserve, it’s privately owned by its members.

It’s believed by some academicians and others who’ve studied the BIS that the ruling elite of financial capitalism established this bank of banks to be the apex of power to exercise authority over a world financial system owned and controlled by them.  It’s thought their plan was to use this bank to dominate the political system of every country and control the world economy in a feudalistic fashion.  In a word, the thinking goes that these super-elite want to rule the world by controlling its money, and they set up this supranational all-powerful bank of banks to do it.

The dominant central banks and BIS, together with most others, wield their influence in cartel-like alliance with each other to assure they all benefit more than they otherwise would without such a cozy arrangement.  With their immense power it’s no play on words to say these financial institutions do indeed rule the world.  Because they’re able to create money, they fund the needs of their governments, their military and all business activity that couldn’t function without a ready supply of that most needed of all commodities.  It’s money, not love, that makes the world go round, and central bankers have the power to create or remove from circulation as much or little of it as they choose and for whatever purpose they have in mind.  That kind of power can move mountains or destroy them.”(5)

“The mandates of the Money Changers has been consolidated within the institution known as the Bank for International Settlements.  Many assume that this “central bank for central banks” is controlled by the House of Rothschild.  This is an obvious conclusion but erroneous.

To understand this, one must consider how the House of Rothschild came to be.  It is recognized that the Rothschild empire came out of nowhere.  Along those lines it is interesting to consider that in 1760, 66 years after the establishment of the Bank of England, and 151 years after the establishment of the worlds first central bank in Amsterdam, a man by the name of Mayor Amschel Bauer suddenly changed his family name to Rothschild, meaning Red Shield, and started the House of Rothschild, from which he sent his 5 sons out into the capitals of Europe to set up additional central banks.  The story has all the hallmarks of a symbolic mystery play.  Readers should watch the 1936 movie titled The House of Rothschild.

The coat of arms of the City of London

The coat of arms of the City of London contains a red shield, or red Templar cross.  There is additional information and evidence available to the curious researcher to make solid connections between the Money Changers, Templars, and Rothschilds.  It is obvious that the Money Changers of the ancient world, the ones who Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ is supposed to have spoken out against, have hidden themselves behind the veneer of fronts like the House of Rothschild, while they have consolidated control over the wealth, time and labor, of humanity through a process of establishing central banks and implementing taxation on labor.

On November 1, 1996, the following financial institutions became shareholding members of the Bank for International Settlements:

The People’s Bank of China, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Reserve Bank of India, the Bank of Mexico, the Central Bank of the Russia Federation, the Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.

All central banks around the world, following the mandates of the Bank for International Settlements, have been implementing a process by which they become compliant with the Basel 3 Banking Regulations on Liquidity.  This also includes the People’s Bank of China and the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

There will be no overthrow of the Money Changers as envisioned and promoted by the “absurd conspiracy theories” of the controlled opposition of the disorganized masses.  Anyone who believes this is being lead astray by those whom they entrust with being sources of truthful knowledge.”(10)

The United States Federal Reserve

It All Began in 1910 On Jekyll Island

“It sounds like the title of a horror movie, but the real life events that happened at this privately owned island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 would have challenged even the Hollywood bad dream factory to come up with. 

It was here that seven very rich and powerful men met in secret for nine days and created the Federal Reserve System that came into being three years later on December 23, 1913 by an act of Congress.  Since that time, the nation and world would never be the same, but only the rich and powerful were the beneficiaries.  That was the whole idea, and it worked as planned.”(5)

The Jesuits and the Federal Reserve

“One of the greatest tragedies in the last two hundred years can be traced to the Jesuits.

Since the early 1830’s, America did not have a central bank. The Jesuits desperately wanted another central bank in America so that they would have a bottomless reservoir from which to draw money for their many wars and other hideous schemes around the world.

In 1910, seven men met on Jekyll Island just off the coast of Georgia to establish a central bank, which they called the Federal Reserve Bank. These men were Nelson Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip, both representing the Rockefeller financial empire; Henry Davison, Charles Norton, and Benjamin Strong, representing J.P. Morgan; and Paul Warburg, representing the Rothschild banking dynasty of Europe. The Rothschilds were the banking agents for the papacy’s Jesuits, holding “the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church.”

The Morgans were friendly competitors with the Rothschilds and became socially close to them. Morgan’s London-based firm was saved from financial ruin in 1857 by the Bank of England over which the Rothschilds held great influence. Thereafter, Morgan appears to have served as a Rothschild financial agent and went to great length to appear totally American.

Rockefeller’s entry into the field was not welcomed by Morgan, and they became fierce competitors. Eventually, they decided to minimize their competition by entering into joint ventures. In the end, they worked together to create a national banking cartel called the Federal Reserve System. — G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Opinion Publishing, p. 209.

These three financial families, the Rothschilds, Morgans, and Rockefellers, all do the bidding of the Jesuit Order because of Jesuit infiltration in their organizations. They do whatever is necessary to destroy constitutional liberty in America and to bring the pope to world domination. As we look back over the 20th century, we see how successful the Jesuits have been. They have continued to squander the wealth of America and continually attack its great constitution and civil liberties. Daily, the power of the pope in Vatican City increases. One day they will achieve total power again.

The building of the Titanic began in 1909 at a shipyard in Belfast, the capitol of Northern Ireland. Belfast was a Protestant haven and was hated by the Jesuits. World War One began just a few years later.

The Titanic was one of a fleet of ships owned by the White Star Line, an international shipping company.

Banking was not the only business in which Morgan had a strong financial interest. Using his control over the nation’s railroads as financial leverage, he had created an international shipping trust which included Germany’s two largest lines plus one of the two in England, the White Star Lines.

John Pierpont Morgan

There were a number of very rich and powerful men who made it abundantly clear that they were not in favor of the Federal Reserve System. J.P. Morgan was ordered by the Jesuits to build the Titanic. This ‘unsinkable’ ship would serve as the death ship for those who opposed the Jesuits’ plan for a Federal Reserve system. These rich and powerful men would have been able to block the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and their power and fortunes had to be taken out of their hands. They had to be destroyed by a means so preposterous that no one would suspect that they were murdered, and no one would suspect the Jesuits. The Titanic was the vehicle of their destruction. In order to further shield the papacy and the Jesuits from suspicion, many Irish, French, and Italian Roman Catholics immigrating to the New World were aboard. They were people who were expendable. Protestants from Belfast who wanted to immigrate to the United States were also invited on board.

All the wealthy and powerful men the Jesuits wanted to get rid of were invited to take the cruise. Three of the richest and most important of these were Benjamin Guggenheim, Isador Strauss, the head of Macy’s Department Stores, and John Jacob Astor, probably the wealthiest man in the world. Their total wealth, at that time, using dollar values of their day was more than 500 million dollars. Today that amount of money would be worth nearly eleven billion dollars. These three men were coaxed and encouraged to board the floating palace. They had to be destroyed because the Jesuits knew they would use their wealth and influence to oppose a Federal Reserve Bank as well as the various wars that were being planned.

RMS Titanic departing Southampton on 10 April 1912

Edward Smith was the captain of the Titanic. He had been traveling the North Atlantic waters for twenty-six years and was the world’s most experienced master of the North Atlantic routs. He had worked for Jesuit, J.P. Morgan, for many years.

Edward Smith was a ‘Jesuit tempore Co-Adjutor.’ This means that he was not a priest, but he was a Jesuit of the short robe. Jesuits are not necessarily priests. Those who are not priests serve the order through their profession. Anyone could be a Jesuit, and their identity would not be known. Edward Smith served the Jesuit Order in his profession as a sea captain.

Many interesting points about the Titanic are discussed in a videotape made by National Geographic in 1986. The videotape is entitled The Secrets of the Titanic. When the Titanic departed from Southern England on April 10, 1912, Francis Browne, the Jesuit master of Edward Smith, boarded the Titanic. This man was the most powerful Jesuit in all of Ireland and answered directly to the general of the Jesuit Order in Rome. The videotape declares :

A vacationing priest, Father Francis Browne, caught these poignant snapshots of his fellow passengers, most of them on a voyage to eternity. The next day Titanic made her last stop off the coast of Queenstown, Ireland. Here tenders brought out the last passengers; mostly Irish immigrants headed for new homes in America. And here, the lucky Father Browne disembarked…. Father Browne caught Captain Smith peering down from Titanic’s bridge, poised on the brink of destiny. — The Secrets of the Titanic, National Geographic, video tape, 1986.

Reverend Father
Francis Browne
SJ

Here is Jesuit treachery at its finest. The Provincial [Father Francis Browne] boards Titanic, photographs the victims, most assuredly briefs the Captain concerning his oath as a Jesuit, and the following morning bids him farewell.Eric J. Phelps, Vatican Assassins, Halycon Unified Services, p. 427.

Browne went over with Edward Smith one last time exactly what he was supposed to do in the North Atlantic waters. The Jesuit General told Francis Browne what was to happen; Browne then tells Smith and the rest is history. Edward Smith believed that the Jesuit General

. . . is the god of the [Jesuit] society, and nothing but his electric touch can galvanize their dead corpses into life and action. Until he speaks, they are like serpents coiled up in their wintry graves, lifeless and inactive; but the moment he gives the word of command, each member springs instantaneously to his feet, leaving unfinished whatsoever may have engaged him, ready to assail whomsoever he may require to be assailed, and to strike wheresoever he shall direct a blow to be stricken.R.W. Thompson, The Footprints of the Jesuits, Hunt and Eaton, pp. 72, 73.

Edward Smith was given an order to sink the Titanic and that is exactly what he did. By the command of God, [the Jesuit General] it is lawful to murder the innocent, to rob, to commit all lewdness, because he [the Pope] is Lord of life, and death, and of all things; and thus to fulfill his mandate is our duty.W. C. Brownlee, Secret Instructions of the Jesuits, American and Foreign Christian Union, p. 143.

There is no record in history of an association whose organization has stood for three hundred years unchanged and unaltered by all the assaults of men and time, and which has exercised such an immense influence over the destinies of mankind… ‘The ends justify the means,’ is his favorite maxim; and as his only end, as we have shown, is the order, at its bidding the Jesuit is ready to commit any crime whatsoever. — G. B. Nicolini, The History of the Jesuits, Henry G. Bohn, pp. 495, 496, emphasis added.

Let us remember the oath that every person takes to become a part of the Jesuit Order :

I should regard myself as a dead body, without will or intelligence, as a little crucifix which is turned about unresistingly at the will of him who holds it as a staff in the hands of an old man, who uses it as he requires it, and as it suits him best. — R. W. Thompson, The Footprints of the Jesuits, Hunt and Eaton, p. 54.

Captain
Edward John Smith
R.D. R.N.R.

When a person takes the Jesuit Oath, he is bound to his master until the day that he dies. Edward Smith had become a man without will or intelligence. He would commit any crime the Order wanted him to commit. Edward Smith had been required for martyrdom. On board the Titanic that night, Edward Smith knew his duty. He was under oath. The ship had been built for the enemies of the Jesuits. After three days at sea with only one pair of glasses for the bridge, Edward Smith propelled the Titanic full speed ahead, twenty-two knots, on a moonless dark night through a gigantic ice field nearly eighty square miles in area. Edward Smith did this despite at least eight telegrams warning him to be more cautious because he was going too fast.

Did Edward Smith need one caution? No, he had been traveling those waters for twenty-six years. He knew there were icebergs in that area. But eight cautions did not stop this man who was under the Jesuit oath, and under orders to destroy the Titanic.

The absurdity of warning veteran Captain Edward Smith repeatedly on Titanic’s tragic night to slow down is nothing short of preposterous. The fact that Smith never listened or heeded the warnings is insane. He had been given orders from his god in the Vatican, and nothing would turn him from his course. The encyclopedias paint a very tragic picture of Smith in his last hours. When it came time to give the order to load and lower the lifeboats, Smith wavered and one of his aids had to approach him for the order to be given. Smith’s legendary skills of leadership seem to have left him; he was curiously indecisive and unusually cautious on that fatal night. Are these words to describe a legendary sea captain with 26 years of experience, or are these words to describe a man who was struggling in his mind whether he should do his duty as a sea captain or obey his master who told him to sink the ship?

John Jacob Astor IV

John Jacob Astor’s wife got into a life boat and was saved, while John Jacob Astor perished in the waters of the North Atlantic. There were not enough lifeboats and many of them were only half full with only women and children. To prevent nearby freighters from responding with help, the distress flares were white when they should have been red. White flares to passing freighters state that everybody was having a party.”(6)

“J. P. Morgan, 33rd Degree and Shriner Freemason, canceled his reservation at the last minute due to a
supposed illness, and his art treasure unable to be loaded due to pretended difficulties at the pier, Morgan skillfully avoided the intended fate of his Deathship.

With the Order’s Jewish American adversaries out of the way, not forgetting the calculated murder of hundreds of “heretic” Scandinavian Lutherans and “liberal” Irish Roman Catholics in accordance with the Order’s Council of Trent, Morgan and his Illuminati-Masonic brethren, including King George V, John D. Rockefeller, Sr., and England’s Rothschild agent Jacob H. Schiff, could now create the Bank of England’s “American Cousin” to finance the Pope’s Second Thirty Years’ War and the creation of Labor Zionist Israel.

Nine months before the Order’s Federal Reserve Act became law, Morgan died in a $500-a-day suite of Rome’s Grand Hotel. Delirious with fever and a racing pulse, “heretic” Morgan was another victim of the Black Pope’s “poison cup.”(11)

“One of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century, the sinking of the Titanic, lies at the door of the Jesuit Order. The unsinkable ship, the floating palace was created to be the tomb for the wealthy, who opposed the Federal Reserve System.

By April, 1912, all opposition to the Federal Reserve was eliminated. In December of 1913, the Federal Reserve System came into being in the United States. Eight months later, the Jesuits had sufficient funding through the Federal Reserve bank to begin World War One.”(6)

The Federal Reserve Act that began it all must surely rank as one of the most disastrous and outrageous pieces of legislation to the public welfare ever to come out of any legislative body.  It may have also have been and still is illegal according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which happens to be the inviolable law of the land.  The article states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof.  In 1935, the US Supreme Court ruled the Congress cannot constitutionally delegate its power to another group or body.  The Congress thus acted in violation of the Constitution it’s sworn to uphold and in so doing created the Federal Reserve System that is a private for-profit corporation operating at the expense of the public welfare.  By its action, our lawmakers committed fraud against the people of the country and so far have gotten away with it without the public even knowing about the harm done.

The shameful result is that what should have arrived stillborn is now the most dominant institution on earth, and all because of what began on a privately owned island with a scary name.  But had the Congress acted responsibly, the act of Fed creation might never have happened. 

The legislation establishing it was so harmful to the public interest, it likely never would have  passed if it hadn’t been shepherded through a carefully prepared Congressional Conference Committee meeting scheduled for between 1:30 – 4:30 AM (when most members of Congress were asleep) on December 22, 1913.  The Act was then voted on the next day and passed although many members of the body had left for the Christmas holidays and most others who stayed behind hadn’t had time to read it or know its contents.  Sound familiar?  Still it passed (like a thief in the night) and was signed into law by an unwitting or complicit Woodrow Wilson who later admitted he made a terrible mistake saying “I unwittingly ruined my country.”  But it was too late for postmortems, and the American people have paid dearly ever since.  It’s about time the public understood that and began to demand an end to over 90 years of damage done.

This was the dawning of the age of powerful cartels when the seven financial titans meeting secretly in the island’s clubhouse decided no longer to compete with each other and wanted the power to arrange it. They were already colluding informally but knew it would all work better under a legally sanctioned cartel.  They wanted a banking cartel and got one that flourishes today below the public radar with the tool they wanted most – the ability to control the nation’s money supply that gave them almost unlimited power.  The cartel now works cooperatively with their governments and all other powerful transnational corporations in a dominant global alliance that allows them to control the world’s markets, resources, cheap labor and our lives.

Who Owns the Federal Reserve?

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building

It’s commonly, but falsely, believed the Federal Reserve System is a function of government and subject to its control.  False.  It’s often referred to as a quasi-governmental, decentralized central bank, but that’s just cover to disguise what, in fact, it really is: a privately held and operated cartel made to look like the government is in charge.  The fact that it’s headquartered in Washington in the formidable and impressive-looking Eccles building (named after a former Fed chairman) is just part of the clever subterfuge.  Here’s how it works:

The Fed is composed of a Board of Governors in Washington and 12 regional banks in major cities throughout the country.  The system also includes many and various member banks including all national banks that are required to be part of the system.  Other banks were also allowed to join and many did.  The Federal Reserve began operating in November, 1914, almost one year after the Congressional act creating the system the previous year as explained above.  It was mandated by law to have the greatest power of any institution in the country – the power to create and control the nation’s money supply. 

Most people know little or nothing about money and banking, likely never think about it, and have no idea how what the Fed and bankers do affect their lives. No one should ever imagine banks were established or intended to be run for our benefit.  They surely are not.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (the law of the land) stipulates that the Federal Reserve Banks of each region are owned by the member banks in it.  These Fed banks are privately owned corporations that make a great effort to hide the fact that they, in fact, own what the public largely thinks is part of the public treasury and government. 

It’s easy to think that, since Fed chairmen and seven of the twelve Governors are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.  As such, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) is a sort of quasi-government entity, but the fact is the System is a privately owned, for profit enterprise, just like any other business.  It has stockholders, like other public corporations, that are paid 6%, risk free interest every year on their equity holdings.  The public doesn’t know this, and it likely wouldn’t be good PR if it found out.  People might be even more upset if they learned some of the owners of our Federal Reserve are powerful foreign investors in the UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Italy.  They’re partners with giant US banks like JP Morgan Chase and Citibank as well as  powerful Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs in a new world order banking cartel that influences and affects business activity everywhere and our lives.

The issue of private ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks has been challenged several times in the federal courts to no avail.  Each time the courts upheld the current system under which each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. One such case was Lewis v. United States that was decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the Reserve Banks are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.”(5)

“The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates. The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate. Its duties have expanded over the years, and as of 2009 also include supervising and regulating banks, maintaining the stability of the financial system and providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.

The Federal Reserve System’s structure is composed of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors or Federal Reserve Board (FRB), partially presidentially appointed Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation, numerous privately owned U.S. member banks, and various advisory councils.

Map of the twelve Federal Reserve Districts, with the twelve Federal Reserve Banks marked as black squares, and all Branches within each district (24 total) marked as red circles. The Washington DC Headquarters is marked with a star.

The federal government sets the salaries of the board’s seven governors. Nationally chartered commercial banks are required to hold stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of their region, which entitles them to elect some of their board members.

The FOMC sets monetary policy and consists of all seven members of the Board of Governors and the twelve regional bank presidents, though only five bank presidents vote at any given time: the president of the New York Fed and four others who rotate through one-year terms.

Thus, the Federal Reserve System has both private and public components to give the impression that it serves the interests of the public and private banks. The structure is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that the United States Department of the Treasury, an entity outside of the central bank, prints the currency used.

The Federal Reserve System considers itself “an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”

The U.S. Government ostensibly receives all the system’s annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks’ capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. In 2015, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $100.2 billion and transferred $97.7 billion to the U.S. Treasury.

Current functions of the Federal Reserve System include:

  • To address the problem of banking panics
  • To serve as the central bank for the United States
  • To strike a balance between private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government
    • To supervise and regulate banking institutions
    • To protect the credit rights of consumers
  • To manage the nation’s money supply through monetary policy to achieve the sometimes-conflicting goals of
    • maximum employment
    • stable prices, including prevention of either inflation or deflation
    • moderate long-term interest rates
  • To maintain the stability of the financial system and contain systemic risk in financial markets
  • To provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation’s payments system
    • To facilitate the exchange of payments among regions
    • To respond to local liquidity needs
  • To strengthen U.S. standing in the world economy”(3)

How the Federal Reserve System Actually Works

“The Federal Reserve System is the result of the Congress and President having agreed to privatize the nation’s money system and relinquish the power that should have remained the government’s exclusive right.  That act was so outrageous the Fed had to be deliberately designed to look like a branch of the federal government to hide the fact that it’s really an all-powerful privately owned banking cartel whose member banks (including all the national ones) share in the vast profits earned from having the most important of all franchises governments alone should have – the right to print money in any amount, control its supply and price, and benefit hugely by loaning it out for a profit including to the government itself that must pay interest on the money it should never have to if it simply printed its own.  Think of what happened as the government having legalized the right to counterfeit the national currency for private gain.  It’s no exaggeration to claim this is the greatest ever of all financial scams causing incomprehensible harm with the public none the wiser.  Here’s how it works in simple terms:

The Fed was given the authority to conduct the nation’s monetary policy with the power to control the supply and price of money.  It has three ways to do it – through open market operations, the discount rate it charges member banks, and the reserve requirement percentage of member banks assets it requires them to hold and not loan out.  The Board of Governors is responsible for handling the discount rate and reserve requirements while the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is in charge of the open market operations of buying or selling bonds explained further below.  Using these tools, the Fed is able to influence the supply and demand for money and thus directly control the federal funds short-term rate that’s always fixed unless the Fed wishes to raise or lower it.  Longer rates are controlled by the powerful institutional traders in the bond market.

The FOMC and How It Works

Federal Reserve Bank of New York

The Federal Open Market Committee is really key to the whole process of money creation or contraction.  It consists of 12 members – seven members of the Board of Fed Governors, the president of the New York Fed Bank (the most important one of all) and four of the remaining 11 Reserve Bank presidents who serve one year terms on a rotating basis.  The FOMC holds eight regularly scheduled meetings a year to assess economic conditions and decide how loose or tight it wants monetary policy to be to further its stated goal of sustainable economic growth and price stability.

The FOMC literally has the power to create money out of nothing.  It does it in a four step process:

Step 1 – The FOMC first approves the purchase of US government bonds on the open market.

Step 2 – The New York Fed bank buys them from sellers (financial markets always have an equal number of buyers and sellers).

Step 3 – The Fed pays for its purchases with electronic credits to the sellers’ banks, which, in turn, credit the sellers’ bank accounts.  These credits are literally created out of nothing.

Step 4 – The banks receiving the credits can then use them as reserves to enable them to loan out as much as 10 times their amount (if their reserve requirement is 10%) through the magic (only banks have) of fractional reserve banking and, of course, collect interest on all of it.  What a business, and it’s all legal.  Imagine how rich we might all be if we as private individuals could do the same thing.  Borrow a million from the Fed and like magic it becomes 10 times as much, and we get to collect interest on all but the 10% of it we must hold in reserve.  This is the magic of fractional reserve banking money creation and explains how powerful an economic stimulus it is when the Fed wants to enhance economic growth.

When the Fed wishes to contract the economy by reducing the money supply, it simply reverses the above process.  Instead of buying bonds, it sells them so that money moves out of the buyers’ bank accounts instead of into them.  Bank loans must then be reduced by 10 times if the reserve requirement is 10%.

How the Fed Harms the Public Interest

The Federal Reserve System exists only to serve its owners and member banks and in doing so is hostile to the public interest.  That’s because it’s a banking cartel with the power to restrict competition for greater profits gained at our expense.  It goes from our pockets to theirs, and the public loses in at least four ways:

One – Through the invisible tax of inflation that results from the dilution of purchasing power caused by newly created money entering the system reducing the value of dollars already there.

Two – The public also loses because the banking cartel is able to practice usury – from it’s power over a flexible currency to artificially move rates up or down to any level it chooses which many small lenders in a truly free and open market can’t do.

In addition, the cartel’s market dominance forces most borrowers (especially smaller ones less able to issue their own debt instruments) to come to them for loans which it’s then able to make using what should be the peoples’ money available to them at the lowest possible cost from many highly government regulated small lenders competing for customers. 

Three –  Through the taxes, we, the public, must pay to cover the interest on the huge national debt accumulated from the money the Fed printed and loaned to the government.

Four –  Compounding the above abuse, the cartel is able to get the public to bail out the system with more of its tax dollars.  It happens whenever any of the too-big-to-fail banks need financial help to survive.  The same is true for big corporations like Chrysler or Lockheed, large investment firms or hedge funds like Long-Term Capital Management or even countries like Mexico.  It’s also true when a single bank goes out of business and depositors must be compensated or more seriously in the wake of a systemic financial meltdown like the one that wiped out many savings and loan banks in the 1980s.  Whether it’s a single bank or many dozens at a time, public tax dollars are used to save the system or just pick up the tab to repay depositors insured against losses through government insurance protection up to a stipulated amount per account.

An impoverished American family living in a shanty, 1936

Five – The Fed harms the public welfare in one other important way, and again most people are none the wiser about it.  Supposedly the Federal Reserve System was established to stabilize the economy, smooth out the business cycle, maintain a healthy rate of sustainable growth while holding prices steady and benefiting everyone.  So how well has it done its job?  Since its creation in 1913, and with them in charge, we had the crashes of 1921 and the most important and remembered one in 1929.  That was followed by The Great Depression that lasted until the onset of WW II that noted conservative economist Milton Friedman explained was caused and exacerbated because the Federal Reserve oddly decided to reduce the money supply at a time of economic contraction instead of increasing it.  We then had recessions in 1953, 1957, 1969, 1975, 1981, 1990 and 2001.  We also had inflation beginning in the 1960s which became quite severe through much of the 1970s and early 1980s.  And we had a major banking crisis in the 1980s at which time more banks and savings and loan associations failed than ever before in our history.  It happened in the wake of financial market deregulation when banks were allowed to pursue their own interests without government oversight to check their willingness to assume excess risk or stop them from trying to get away with deliberate fraud.

Along with the economic stability the Fed never achieved, we’ve also had soaring consumer debt; record high federal budget and trade deficits; a high level of personal bankruptcies and rising mortgage loan delinquencies; interest on a mounting national debt that’s a large and rising percentage of the federal budget; the loss of our manufacturing base and it’s high-paying jobs with good benefits because they’re being exported to low wage countries; an economy in which services now account for nearly 80% of all business that provide mostly lower paying, less skilled jobs with few or no benefits; and a widening income and wealth gap that continues to harm lower and middle income earners to benefit the rich and well-off privileged few and a government that encourages it.

Sum it all up and the conclusion is clear.  The one thing the Fed failed to accomplish above all else was what it was established to do in the first place.  But it’s much worse than that if we understand a cartel’s real motives.  It’s not to serve the public interest.  It’s to abuse it because that’s how it benefits most.  It’s able to do it with its legally sanctioned concentrated power and a friendly government in league with it as partners or facilitators.  It’s from that cozy hidden from view arrangement that it’s able to get away with the grandest of grand thefts.”(5)

“Created by an act of Congress in December 1913, the Federal Reserve was up and running by the middle of the following year, just before the outbreak of war in Europe. The money supply, and consequently consumer prices, doubled during the war to facilitate the financing of the war efforts of the Allies and, eventually, our own. While the United States was officially neutral, U.S. banks lent billions to England and France, creating a powerful vested interest in the United States in a victory by the Allies. U.S. entry into the war in 1917 helped to ensure that outcome. While leading bankers and arms manufacturers made vast fortunes, the burdens of the war were borne by soldiers on Europe’s battlefields and by consumers facing higher prices for the necessities of life. Woodrow Wilson’s “war to end all wars” was made possible by the vast expansion of the nation’s money supply.

“For those who believe the U.S. entry into World War I was one of the most disastrous events for the U.S. and for Europe in the 20th century,” wrote economist Murray Rothbard, “the facilitating of the U.S. entry into the war is scarcely a major point in favor of the Federal Reserve.”

Yet the Fed did, indeed, have its reputation enhanced by the war, as economist and author Lester Chandler noted: “A grateful nation now hailed it as a major contributor to winning the war, an efficient fiscal agent for the Treasury, a great source of currency and reserve funds, and a permanent and indispensable part of the banking system.”

The Fed still has its original mandate to preserve the value of the U.S. dollar. Its success in that mission can be measured by the fact that it would take 23 of today’s U.S. dollars to buy what one dollar bought in 1913. Nevertheless, Congress in 1977 created what is often described as the “dual mandate” by adding job creation to the Fed’s responsibilities. Members of Congress might have intended that the currency being protected or the jobs created would be the U.S. dollar and American jobs. But the Fed has a long history of acting in ways contrary to that mission, “rational expectations notwithstanding.”

The New York bank was the key member of the Federal Reserve System, due to the presence there of so many of the nation’s leading financiers. The most powerful of all bankers was J.P. Morgan, Jr., whose financial empire was rooted in London. His family business had been saved by the Bank of England. He insisted that his junior partners demonstrate a “loyalty to England.” Morgan was also a leading light in the Council on Foreign Relations. And Benjamin Strong was very much a Morgan man, having been head of Morgan’s Banker’s Trust Company and one of the half-dozen men at the secret meeting at Jekyll Island where the plans for the creation of the Federal Reserve were hatched.

England after World War I was beset with inflation, the inevitable offspring of war. Inflation had weakened the American currency as well, but not nearly as much as it had devastated the British pound. And the stockpile of gold in the United States was still large and growing.

The Fed would engender inflation in the United States to make American-made products less competitive in world markets than England’s. And by lowering interest rates, the central bank was encouraging investors to borrow money here at a low rate and invest it where it would bring a higher return. U.S. dollars and gold would flow to London.

Before he served on the board of the J.P. Morgan Company and later became chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan was an unabashed champion of the gold standard and a frequent critic of central bank policies. In 1966, he wrote about the Fed’s contribution to the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression that followed.

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 1987 – 2006

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us…. The “Fed” succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market — triggering a fantastic speculative boom…. As a result, the American economy collapsed.

As the depression deepened, according to liberal mythology, President Herbert Hoover clung foolishly and desperately to free market policies until Franklin Roosevelt came in and saved the nation with the New Deal. In fact, as Griffin pointed out, “Herbert Hoover launched a multitude of government programs to bolster wage rates, prevent prices from dropping, prop up failing firms, stimulate construction, guarantee home loans, protect the depositors, rescue the banks, subsidize the farmers, and provide public works.”

Roosevelt’s New Deal brought more of the same. The Fed attempted to “prime the pump” with fresh infusions of new dollars, but an economy burdened by new bureaucracies and more regulations, subsidies, and taxes remained in a drought. It was not until the end of the 1930s and the outbreak of another war in Europe that American industry geared up for wartime production and the depression came to an end.”(4)

“In the early forties, during World War II—nearing the end of the Second Thirty Years’ War—the Jesuits would again use their Rothschild Illuminati and 33rd Degree, Shriner Freemasonry to punish two nations having dared to expel the Order from their borders. In conjunction with the Rothschild Vatican bankers of England, they would use their “Federal Reserve Bank” to finance the building of a huge, British and American aerial war machine. The Lancaster Bombers, B-17s and B-29s would be used to destroy the peoples of these two nations, which countries after the war would be rebuilt according to the religious, commercial and military blueprints as implemented by the Masonic agents of their unseen master, the Black Pope.

General Douglas MacArthur

In carrying out the plan of destroying the peoples of these two nations, the Jesuits would again use high-level, 33 rd Degree and Shriner Freemasonry on both sides. Their tools on the American side were Masons General Douglas MacArthur in the firebombing of Japan and General George C. Marshall using Dwight D. Eisenhower in the annihilation of Germany.

On the Japanese side was the Masonic Emperor Hirohito who (along with the 33rd Degree, Masonic- Communist, Franklin D. Roosevelt, using his Office of Naval Intelligence) aided in the Order’s plot to bring Japan into a fratricidal war with America. The details of the Emperor’s criminal complicity have been provided by David Bergamini in his 1971, ground-breaking, two-volume masterpiece, Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy: How Emperor Hirohito Led Japan Into War Against the West.

On the German side was the Masonic Hyalmar “Horace Greeley” Schacht who, as the head of the
Warburg/Rothschild Reichsbank, financed the building of Hitler’s massive war machine—to the exclusion of long-range bombers!

American high-level Freemasons Henry Ford and Thomas J. Watson further aided Hitler, yet the Fuhrer’s Jesuitically deceptive, open policy was anti-Masonic, blaming the “International and Eternal Jew” as the secret master of World Freemasonry! Ford provided the plants to mechanize the German Army and Watson provided the IBM punch-card system so necessary in implementing the Order’s “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” throughout Europe and the USSR.

With the Order re-admitted into Japan in 1865 and Germany in 1917, the Jesuit General would centralize all political power in Tokyo via the Jesuit-advised court of the young Emperor Meiji, the grandfather of Emperor Hirohito. True to form, the Father General would later centralize all political power in Berlin, after the fall of the Constitutional Weimar Republic, via that Roman Catholic creation of Munich’s Papal Nuncio, Eugenio Pacelli. That creation would be the Masonic Adolf Hitler.

Pope Venerable Pius XII Papacy 1939 – 1958

These Armies would then be used as the initial, first strike, “Swords of the Church,” one in the Far East, the other in Western Europe, North Africa, Eastern Europe and the USSR. Once the “two Axis swords” of Pope Pius XII would finish their calculated killing pursuant to the Council of Trent, the Japanese and the German peoples, now hated by all nations for the murderous sins of their
governments, would be invaded, raped, killed, plundered and occupied.

This calculated punishment of the Japanese and German peoples would be due to the treachery and betrayal of their own fascist governments (controlled by Japanese and German Papal Knights subject to “the Vicar of Christ” and his Jesuit Curia), whose truthful doctrines of German and Japanese racial supremacy over other European and Oriental Gentiles (evidenced by their superior cultures in the cultivation of the arts, education and martial prowess), were perverted into a justification to murder Orthodox Slavs, Buddhist Chinese (along with White missionary Protestants in their midst), and the Jews—all these peoples being condemned by the wicked Council of Trent.

And why was this done? Japan had expelled the Jesuits for over two hundred and fifty years and Germany had banished them for forty-five years. This is called vengeance with a fury! This is called payback without mercy, without regret and without remorse!”(11)

“Near the end of World War II, 730 delegates from 44 nations spent three weeks in July 1944 at the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The financiers and politicians at the conference agreed to rules and procedures to regulate the international monetary system and created two new UN agencies: the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, now part of the World Bank. The delegates also agreed to maintain a unified exchange rate by tying their currencies to the U.S. dollar.

The agreement became the first step in an ongoing effort to create a single currency for a one-world government. The IMF and World Bank, James Perloff wrote in The Shadows of Power, were proposed years earlier by the Economic and Finance Group of the Council on Foreign Relations. Perloff noted British author A.K. Chesterton’s observation that the new agencies “were not incubated by hard-pressed Government engaged in waging war, but by a Supra-national Money Power which could afford to look ahead to the shaping of a post-war world that would serve its interests.” Socialist economist John Maynard Keynes of England, a leading figure at the conference, proposed a world currency, but the idea was rejected at the time.

Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States, 1969 – 1974

On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon closed “the gold window” to the world, declaring that foreign-held U.S. dollars would no longer be redeemable in gold. That made the dollar fully a “fiat currency” and effectively ended the system created at Bretton Woods. But a single world currency has remained a long-term goal of world economic planners. Johannes Witteveen, a former head of the International Monetary Fund, said in 1975 that the IMF should become “the exclusive issuer of official international reserve assets.” In the Fall 1984 issue of the CFR’s flagship publication, Foreign Affairs, Richard N. Cooper wrote:

A new Bretton Woods conference is wholly premature. But it is not premature to begin thinking about how we would like international monetary agreements to evolve in the remainder of this century. With this in mind, I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy…. How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body.

Cooper, who had been under secretary of state for economic affairs in the Carter administration, acknowledged that the American public would not likely accept the idea that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should have a hand in determining monetary conditions in the United States. But perhaps over time, Americans could overcome their aversion to autocracy and oppression. “For such a bold step to work at all,” he wrote, “it presupposes a convergence of values.”

Ronald Reagan, 40th President of the United States, 1981 – 1989

The idea of a one-world currency was even endorsed in the 1980s by conservative icon Ronald Reagan. At an economic summit in Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1983, Reagan declared: “National economies need monetary coordination mechanisms, and that is why an integrated world economy needs a common monetary standard…. But no national currency will do — only a world currency will work.”

An essential feature of national sovereignty is the ability of a nation to control its own currency. A world currency would strike at the heart of that sovereignty, as the member-states of the European Union must know and as former Federal Reserve Board Governor Mariner Eccles said long ago: “An international currency is synonymous with international government.”

In 1939, a prominent American lawyer and a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations called for the “establishment of a common money” that would “deprive our government of exclusive control over a national money…. The United States must be prepared to make sacrifices afterward in setting up a world politico-economic order that would level off inequalities of economic opportunity with respect to nations.”

Looking at that statement, one might think it came from a flaming liberal, if not a flat-out Marxist. Yet it was spoken by a man who became known as a fire-breathing anti-communist during his tenure as secretary of state in the 1950s, none other than John Foster Dulles.

Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States, 1977 – 1981

CFR member Zbigniew Brzezinski, who would become national security advisor to CFR member and U.S. President Jimmy Carter, wrote in 1970: “More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.”

As our nation spends as much or nearly as much on its military as the rest of the world’s nations combined, the continued expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve makes it possible for the United States to continue to maintain bases and military commitments around the globe, ostensibly to keep America and our allies safe. Yet there is also a growing awareness of the threat to our nation’s economy from a national debt of roughly $17 trillion. Two years ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that threat. “I’ve said many times that I believe the single, biggest threat to our national security is our debt, so I also believe we have every responsibility to help eliminate that,” Mullen said.

It remains to be seen if the American people will be sufficiently aroused to eliminate that threat before the bankers and planners of the new world order eliminate our nation’s sovereignty.

Obfuscation by Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board

As polished practitioners of the “dismal science,” Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board have mastered the economist’s art of making themselves obscure in their speeches and writings. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s skill at obfuscation has drawn comparisons to Hubert Humphrey and Casey Stengel. (“If you understood what I said,” Greenspan once told a senator, “I must have misspoken.”)

Stanley Fischer, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, 2014 – Present

Stanley Fischer, no slouch at rendering the mundane obscure, is famous for writing sentences such as the following: “This paper is concerned with the role of monetary policy in affecting real output and argues that activist monetary policy can affect the short-run behavior of real output, rational expectations notwithstanding.”

The Times’  Binyamin Appelbaum, supplying a helpful translation, wrote: “Central banks in other words have the power to stimulate economic activity. Monetary policy can help countries to recover from recessions.” That, indeed, is the policy and goal Chairman Bernanke was pursuing, “rational expectations notwithstanding.”

And Janet Yellen has done her fair share of tight-lipped obfuscation during her tenure.

Quantitative Uneasiness

Writing on Forbes.com on November 29, economic analyst Perianne Boring noted “a curious inconsistency” on the part of the three Republicans who voted to confirm Yellen when her nomination for Fed chairman was before the Senate Banking Committee. (The committee voted 14-8 in favor of confirmation.) All three issued statements later saying they opposed the Fed’s quantitative easing policy. Yet Yellen made clear in her testimony to the same committee a week earlier that she supports the policy and plans to continue it. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the only Democrat on the committee to vote against the nomination, said he did so because of “her views and beliefs to continue quantitative easing despite the failure to see any real gains…. You can’t spend your way to prosperity and borrow your way out of debt.”

Boring also noted the similarity between the Fed’s “QE” policy and the banking practices that led to the financial crisis and collapse of 2007-08:

This program has been conducted with virtually no oversight or transparency, so we don’t know the exact details, but the Fed is purchasing about $480 billion a year in mortgaged-backed securities directly from the big banks and putting the taxpayer on the hook for them. Excessive exposure to mortgage-backed securities is what had some banks in trouble in 2008, but given the Fed’s lack of transparency, it’s not clear how risky its purchases are.

Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives from Texas’s 14th district, 1997 – 2013

Oversight and transparency are precisely what the Federal Reserve does not want, which is why it has opposed legislation former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) promoted to have the Fed audited by the Government Accountability Office. The bill finally passed the House in 2012, but the Senate did not act on it.

Some aspects of Federal Reserve operations have been regularly audited by the GAO. But the three areas where the law currently does not allow auditing are the swap lines the Fed arranges with other central banks and international financing organizations, deliberations and decisions of monetary policy (i.e., how much to raise and lower interest rates), and purchase and sale of securities made under the Federal Open Market Committee’s direction. Bernanke has argued that audits of those activities would threaten the board’s independence.

“Because GAO reviews may be initiated at the request of members of Congress,” the Fed chairman told the House Financial Services Committee in 2009, “reviews or the threat of reviews in those areas could be seen as efforts to influence monetary decisions.”

Or they might be seen as evidence of how impervious the Fed is to any influence by Congress over how many federal dollars it spends or where it spends them. In 2008, for example, Congress authorized the spending of $700 billion to bail out failed U.S. financial institutions under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Yet a GAO audit of the Fed’s TARP purchases showed $16.2 trillion — an amount greater than the U.S. annual Gross Domestic Product — spent in bailing out banks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Switzerland.”(4)

“The Brits may have had a 219 year head start on the Fed, but central bankers are only as powerful as the countries they represent and their economies.  Today the former dominant Brits must settle for a far lesser role as being just one of many junior partners to a US hegemon that emerged post WW II as the world’s dominant economic power.  It still is today, even though some credible experts believe this country may have seen and past its peak and is now in decline.  Some go further and claim our decline has been accelerated by the disastrous policies of the Bush administration that irrationally believes waging war on the world without end is the way to rule it, promote endless economic growth and dominance, and thus preserve the nation’s preeminent position as the reigning economic champion.

Things were especially out of hand during the tenure of Alan Greenspan – a Fed chairman no one should have found much reason to cheer either before he headed the Fed when he was a presidential advisor or during the time he did.  It was only after his economic consulting firm failed that he went into government service likely because he needed a new line of work.  There he managed to become a larger than life seer of central banking who was elevated to near sainthood by the business pundits who thought under his tenure the skies were only blue and the few clouds in sight always had silver linings.  Now Alan is retired to the greener pastures of lucrative book contracts and speaking engagements, which shows when you do your job well for the rich and powerful (at the expense of the rest of us) who gave it to you, you’ll be well rewarded in the end.  It’s likely the new Fed chairman has taken note and will dutifully try to follow in the tradition that preceded him. 

Abraham Lincoln and the Money Powers

Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States, 1861 – 1865

But try imagining a different sort of Fed chairman, one who knew, believed in and practiced the words and wisdom of another American president of some note – Abraham Lincoln.  In 1886 Lincoln said the following: “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity.  It is more despotic than a monarch, more insolent than autocracy and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.  I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear.  Of the two, the one at the rear is my greatest foe.”

Lincoln also appears to have said (although some dispute it): “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country…..corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Given Lincoln’s sentiment about the bankers and money power of the country, it would seem to beg the obvious question: did it play a role in, or was it the reason for, his untimely death at the hands of John Wilkes Booth?  The international bankers clearly disliked Lincoln after he managed to get the Congress to pass the Legal Tender Act in 1862 that empowered the US Treasury to issue paper money called “greenbacks.”  Lincoln needed this legislation after he declined to pay the bankers the usurious 24 – 36% interest rates they demanded on the loans he needed to fund his war with the South.  With the new banking law, Lincoln was then able to print up the millions of dollars he needed which was debt and interest free.  Clearly this was not what the greedy bankers wanted as they can only profit when they get their pound of flesh from financial transactions they control.  Right after the war ended Lincoln was assassinated, and shortly thereafter the so-called Greenback law was rescinded, a new national banking act was passed, and all money became interesting-bearing again.”(5)

Louis T. McFadden and the Federal Reserve

Louis Thomas McFadden, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Pennsylvania’s 15th district, 1923 – 1935

“Some of the strongest opposition to the Federal Reserve came later, during the Great Depression. The source was Rep. Louis T. McFadden, a Republican representative from Pennsylvania who, as a former bank cashier and president, knew the financial system intimately.

McFadden was elected to Congress in 1914 and served until 1934. Though a Republican, he moved to impeach President Herbert Hoover in 1932 and introduced a resolution to bring conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.

In his June 10, 1932, address on the House floor, McFadden declared, as reported in the Congressional Record:

Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation’s debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.

This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the mal-administration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.

These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky’s passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors.

They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. “Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.

In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.

We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of 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 from the cradle to the grave.

The Federal Reserve Bank destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business. It discriminated against our 1-name commercial paper, the finest in the world, and it set up the antiquated 2-name paper, which is the present curse of this Country and which wrecked every country which has ever given it scope; it fastened down upon the Country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sough to save us.

Due to the statements made by Congressman McFadden there were many attempts on his life. His colleagues in the congress and few historians mentioned that Congressman McFadden died due to poison, from the “Jesuit’s Poison Cup”.

McFadden may have paid with his life for his outspokenness. After he lost his congressional seat in 1934, he remained in the public eye as a vigorous opponent of the financial system; that is, until his sudden death on October 3, 1936, of a “dose” of “intestinal flu” after attending a banquet in New York City.

Reporting his death in its October 14 issue, Pelley’s Weekly stated that it had “became known among his intimates that he had suffered two [previous] attacks against his life. The first attack came in the form of two revolver shots fired at him from ambush as he was alighting from a cab in front of one of the Capital hotels. Fortunately both shots missed him, the bullets burying themselves in the structure of the cab.”

Next, “He became violently ill after partaking of food at a political banquet at Washington. His life was only saved from what was subsequently announced as a poisoning by the presence of a physician friend at the banquet, who at once procured a stomach pump and subjected the congressman to emergency treatment.”

Evidently the third time the assassins succeeded, and the most articulate critic of the Federal Reserve and the financiers’ control of the nation was dead. He was 60 years old.”(7)

John F. Kennedy and the Federal Reserve

John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, 1961 – 1963

“Another president also decided to act on behalf of the people who elected him. That man was John Kennedy, who before his death planned to end the Federal Reserve System to eliminate the national debt a central bank creates by printing money and loaning it to the government.  That debt has now risen to over $10,000,000,000,000 ($10 trillion) which every taxpayer must pay for. This debt service is now an annualized amount exceeding two-thirds of a trillion dollars.  It’s made the bankers rich (which was the whole idea) and the public poorer because we’re taxed to pay the tab.  It’s no exaggeration to call this the greatest financial scam in world history and one that gets greater every day.

The debt was less onerous 40 years ago, but Kennedy understood its danger to the country and the burden it placed on the public.  Thus, on June 4, 1963, he issued presidential order EO 11110 giving the president authority to issue currency.  He then ordered the US Treasury to print over $4 billion worth of “United States Notes” to replace Federal Reserve Notes.  He intended to replace them all when enough of the new currency was in circulation so he could end the Federal Reserve System and the control it gave the international bankers over the US government and the public. 

Just months after the Kennedy plan went into effect, he was assassinated in Dallas in what was surely a coup d’etat disguised to look otherwise and may well have been carried out at least in part to save the Fed System and concentration of power it created that was so profitable for the powerful bankers in the country.  Those benefiting from it had good reason to be involved in the plot to save the special privilege they weren’t willing to give up without a fight.  It’s a plausible explanation that may explain who may have been behind the assassination and for what reason.  Whatever the truth is, the banking cartel was only in distress a short time.  Once Lyndon Johnson took office, he rescinded Kennedy’s presidential order and restored the cartel’s former power.  It’s kept it ever since and is now, of course, more powerful than ever.  Even presidents are unable to stop it and those who would try have a lesson from history to give them pause.

The predecessors of the possible Kennedy coup plotters were the men who met on Jekyll Island in 1910. They represented some of the richest and most powerful men in the world – the Morgans, Rockefellers, Rothschilds of Europe (who dominated all European banking by the mid-1800s and became and still may be the wealthiest and most powerful family of all) and others of great influence and power.  Included was a US senator, a high ranking Treasury official, the president of the largest bank in the country at the time, a leading Wall Street figure and the man who would later become the first chairman of the Federal Reserve System.  It was quite an assemblage, and they came to accomplish one thing.  They wanted to change the ideology and course of American business that up to then was based on marketplace competition and replace it with monopoly.  They also knew what Baron M.A. Rothschild understood when he once said: “Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.”  They knew the wisdom of what’s stated in Proverbs 22:7 as well: “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”(5) 

How the Fed is Being Integrated into the Multilateral Framework

“The Federal Reserve should be looked upon as the Napoleon of the 20th Century.  It was used to fund the growth of the military industrial complex and expand the central banking system all around the world.  And like Napoleon, the Federal Reserve performed its function as strategized and will now be modified to fit within the larger macro multilateral framework which it helped create.

This evolution took a leap forward in March of 1951 when the Fed gained broader independence from the US Treasury, executive branch, and Congress.  The Federal Reserve Treasury Accord ended the pressure on the Fed to peg long-term interest rates and minimize accountability to the US Congress.

This evolution of strategy and mandate allowed for the Fed to become the central bank of the world and indirectly set international monetary policy for other countries.  Not to mention expand funding for the military industrial complex and leverage both physical and economic influence on foreign countries.

The Fed is now operating in a vacuum and its mandates are no longer aligned with the domestic interests of the United States.  This inevitable discourse between domestic fiscal responsibility and the waning foreign responsibility to those central banks holding vast amounts of USD denominated securities is creating a situation which will need to be addressed sooner rather than later.  The inability of the Fed to raise interest rates is based primarily on the negative effect such a move will have on foreign countries.  This lack of movement on policy normalization by the Fed could very well act as the catalyst for Federal Reserve reform.

The BIS is considered the apex of the central banking system which the US funded military industrial complex helped establish around the world.  As such, it is the BIS which sets the international mandates on monetary reform and multilateral macroprudential policy.

A BIS and IMF affiliated economist and policy maker testifying before Congress on reforming the Federal Reserve Act is tantamount to Mayer Rothschild cutting off military funding to Napoleon during the Battle for Waterloo after the leadership of Europe had been consolidated under his loan mandates and terms.

The interesting part is that the suggestions on reforms to the Federal Reserve Act are strategically similar to what many Americans have been conditioned to demand of the Fed.  The engineering of an opposition to the Federal Reserve has been extremely effective.  Whether it’s Ron Paul or the Alex Jones network, opposition to the Federal Reserve has been directed and focused on a few key points.

These points were itemized by Paul H. Kupiec, formerly of the IMF and Bank for International Settlements, in his testimony before Congress on July 22, 2015.  The points of interests regarding the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 2015 are as follows:

  1. Requirement for Policy Rules of the Federal Open Market Committee – This point would give the General Accounting Office (GAO) the opportunity to validate FOMC policies and improve the transparency of the Fed process.
  2. FOMC Membership – This would put an end to favored voting rights within the FOMC as such rights are less important today now that the Fed has completed its initial mandate.
  3. Stress Test Transparency and Disclosure of Supervisory Correspondence – This would force the Fed to disclose stress test models used to determine and set specific monetary policies and mandates.
  4. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Review of New Regulations – The Fed has been exempt from regulations that require it to perform cost/benefit analysis of new regulations. This would change under the defined reforms.
  5. Notification of Intent to Engage in International Standard Setting Bodies – Congress and the public must be made aware of international standard meetings in which the Fed participates, as well as the material implications for the US. (Do not let this reform mislead you into thinking that American sovereignty will be protected.  As long as the Congress set has oversight, this reform will ensure that the Fed implements the multilateral mandates as designed. A new cheques and balances maintained by the leveraged politicians.)
  6. Federal Reserve Special Lending Powers – This reform will prevent the Fed from legally lending to a distressed and potentially insolvent financial firm. This was a big issue during the last financial crisis.
  7. GAO Audits – Ensures and validates that the FOMC’s policy directive is consistent with the directive policy rule reported to Congress. Most will recall the Ron Paul push to audit the Fed.  As long as the Congress is controlled and leveraged by international banking interests, the GAO audits will serve the purpose of the multilateral mandates.

This short list of Federal Reserve policy reforms accurately reflect the Cultural and Socioeconomic Interception (CSI) engineering which has taken place through the alternative media and Tea Party propaganda. The fact that these reforms are being promoted and testified before Congress by someone affiliated with the Bank for International Settlements, representing the international banking interests, should give all Americans pause.

Those who have been leading us down the garden path of liberty and conspiracy have failed to both recognize and educate the disorganized masses on the actual methodology of the multilateral transmutation of the international monetary system.  Reducing the power and influence of the Federal Reserve fits exactly into the mandates of the multilateral.

The same can be said of the political platform of Donald Trump.  The “Make America Great Again” pledge and mantra is the condensed talking point which is based on the depreciation of the dollar.  This multilateral depreciation will reduce the cost of US manufactured goods and increase exports.  This means higher GDP, reduced debt-to-GDP ratio, and more jobs for Americans.

The multilateral mandates are being sold to Americans through alternative media and establishment opposition. Readers and followers of those sites and personalities have been left more confused and less informed about everything that is taking place internationally.

Who would have thought that the Bank for International Settlements and the Tea Party, Ron Paul, and the Alex Jones network would all want the same thing?  Truth is definitely stranger than fiction, and conspiracy theory is not the conspiracy we thought it was at all.”(9)

A Needed Solution to A Huge Problem

“From the information presented above, it’s clear that the Federal Reserve System was established through stealth and deceit by a handful of corrupted politicians in service to their powerful banking and Wall Street allies.  They did it to defraud the public and without them being any the wiser about what, in fact, had been done or how harmful it was to be to their welfare and interests.  Those in the Congress and President Wilson (a man trained in the law, one-time practicing attorney, former esteemed academic and president of Princeton University) either knew or should have known that the act he and they approved establishing the Fed was in direct violation of the Constitution they were sworn to uphold. They didn’t, they broke the law, and the public paid dearly for their crime ever since to this day.

So what recourse is left, and can people be mobilized to pursue it.  There’s only one sensible and just solution to undo the damage done to so many for so long – abolish the Federal Reserve System and restore the power it now has to the federal government working for the public welfare.  Take it back from the powerful banking cartel working against it and never allow it to be in its hands again.  That alone is the only way.  The great German poet and playwright Bertolt Brecht would have agreed and once said it was “easier to rob by setting up a bank than by holding up (one).” 

Freeing us from the these powerful “Money Changers” would have enormous benefits for everyone.  It would establish a prudent policy of money creation that would minimize our most unfair tax – inflation which is caused by private for-profit bankers manipulating the nation’s money supply to enhance their profits.  It would stabilize the economy and smooth out the extremes in the business cycle exacerbated by the cartel working for its benefit and against ours.  It would lower the cost of money for borrowers because it would end the monopoly power the cartel now has to set the rates it chooses by opening the market to more competition.  It would reduce the growing and oppressive national debt freed eventually from the extra money supply growth needed to pay it off.  It would lower the public’s tax burden as less revenue would be needed for debt service.  It would be a momentous step toward reducing and hopefully one day eliminating the overwhelming power of all predatory corporate giants preying on us so they can grow and prosper.  It might even discourage wars which are only fought for wealth and power – never for glory or to make the world safe for democracy or other false motives.  Without a powerful corporate banking cartel and other industry giants that feed on the human misery they create, there would be less of a reason to pursue any.  Try to imagine that kind of world and a government working for the public welfare instead of harming it as it now must do in service to capital. That world is possible, and responsible people need to work for it as the one we now have has failed and must be changed before it’s too late.”(5)

“The same so-called “conspiracy and freedom sites” which promote a simplified version of the “false flag” term also push a false hope on a relatively small percentage of humanity.  Contrary to the beliefs of some, there has only ever been, and will only continue to be, a small and marginal segment of the disorganized masses which has the potential to awaken to the machinations of the Money Changers.

To ensure that this marginal segment does not grow in size it is further engineered as a controlled opposition which promotes both factual conspiracy theories and absurd conspiracy theories.

To discern which sites, personalities, and organizations are a part of this social and psychological engineering is not easy.  But one can attempt to clear the mine field by sticking to facts as much as possible and studying the occult mandates of the Money Changers.

There will be no overthrow of the Money Changers as envisioned and promoted by the “absurd conspiracy theories” of the controlled opposition of the disorganized masses.  Anyone who believes this is being lead astray by those whom they entrust with being sources of truthful knowledge.

The methodology of the Money Changers is broader in scope and definition than most conspiracy theories would suggest.  We are witnessing the same machinations of war, civil unrest, revolution, debt, and disease today that the populations were subjected too back in the 17th Century.  The reluctance of the masses, especially the marginally awakened segment of the population, to grasp the complexity and engineering behind what is actually taking place is disheartening.”(10)

The Federal Reserve Explained In Three Minutes:

 

Money As Debt- If you watched the video above on The Goldsmith, start at 7:10:

 

It’s all about the debt:

Cites:

(1) Wikipedia- Central Bank

(2) Wikipedia- History of Banking

(3) Wikipedia- Federal Reserve System

(4) The Federal Reserve: Bankers for the New World Order

(5) The US Federal Reserve Bank: Dirty Secrets of the Temple

(6) Federal Reserve: Jesuits Treachery at its Finest

(7) Louis T. McFadden (1876-1936): An American Hero

(8) Two Tiers of Money: Understanding Money, Banks, Jews, and Varieties of Capitalism

(9) De-Fang the Federal Reserve (FREEPOM)

(10) The First False Flags

(11) Vatican Assassins

(12) Scandal, intrigue and mystery The secrets of the Vatican Bank

(13) Wikipedia- The Banco Ambrosiano scandal

Comments are closed.