REMOTE CAUSES: US MILTARY BASE IN GHANA, 2 VIDEO DUCUMENTARIES

Fellow Citizens,

It is time for us to educate ourselves! To understand what is going on, I have selected two videos. The first one explains the power of the money changers. The second video is rather controversial. I am personally suspending judgement until Obama clearly asks for the establishment of AFRICOM in Ghana. Even if these were Ananse stories, we would do well with what we do with such stories, "We keep them, we don't believe them"! There are stunning amounts of historical accuracies and a lucid picture of several bits and pieces of facts that make the jig-saw puzzle of this military base which has been more than puzzling.

My intention here is to stimulate discussions that have been crucially lacking in such an all-important and very far-reaching decision. Please, feel free to leave your comments. Let us discuss this!

THE MONEY CHANGERS: How International Bankers Gained Control of America

The Money Masters

By Andrew Hitchcock, 26 Feb 2006. He also wrote the Rothschild timeline.

Economists continually try and sell the public the idea that recessions or depressions are a natural part of what they call the “business cycle”.

This timeline below will prove that is simply not the case. Recessions and depressions only occur because the Central Bankers manipulate the money supply, to ensure more and more is in their hands and less and less is in the hands of the people.

Central Bankers developed out of money changers and it is with these people we pick the story up in 48 B.C. below.


48 B.C. Julius Caesar took back from the money changers the power to coin money and then minted coins for the benefit of all. With this new, plentiful supply of money, he established many massive construction projects and built great public works. By making money plentiful, Caesar won the love of the common people.
But the money changers hated him for it and this is why Caesar was assassinated. Immediately after his assassination came the demise of plentiful money in Rome, taxes increased, as did corruption.

Eventually the Roman money supply was reduced by 90 per cent, which resulted in the common people losing their lands and homes.


1024 The money changers had control of Medieval England's money supply and at this time were generally known as goldsmiths. Paper money started out and this was simply a receipt you would get after depositing gold with a goldsmith, in their safe rooms or vaults. This paper started being traded as it was far more convenient than carrying round a lot of heavy gold and silver coins.
Over time, to simplify the process, the receipts were made to the bearer, rather than to the individual depositor, making it readily transferable without the need for a signature. This, also, broke the tie to any identifiable deposit of gold.

Eventually the goldsmiths recognized that only a fraction of depositors ever came in and demanded their gold at any one time, so they found out how they could cheat on the system. They started to issue more receipts than they had gold to back those receipts and no one would be any the wiser. They would loan out these receipts which were not backed by the gold they had in their depositories and collect interest on them.

This was the birth of the system we know today as Fractional Reserve Banking, and like this system of today this meant the goldsmiths were able to make astronomical amounts of money by loaning out, what was essentially fraudulent receipts, as they were for gold the goldsmiths didn't even possess. As they gradually got more confident they would loan out up to 10 times the amount they had in their deposits.

To simplify how they made money on this, let's give an example in which a goldsmith charges the same rate of interest to creditors and debtors. In this example a goldsmith would pay interest of 6% on gold you had deposited with them, and then charge 6% interest on money, I mean fraudulent receipts, you borrowed from them. As they would lend out ten times what you had deposited with them, whilst they're paying you 6% interest, they are making 60% interest. This is on your gold.

The goldsmiths also discovered that their control of this fraudulent money supply gave them control over the economy and the assets of the people. They exacted their control by rowing the economy between easy money and tight money.

The way they did this was to make money easy to borrow and therefore increase the amount of money in circulation, then suddenly tighten the money supply, taking it out of circulation by making loans more difficult to get or stopping offering them altogether.

Why did they do this? Simple, because the result would be a certain percentage of the people being unable to repay their previous loans, and not having the facility to take out new ones, so they would go bankrupt and be forced to sell their assets to the goldsmiths for literally pennies on the dollar.

This is exactly what happens in the world economy of today, but is referred to with words like, "the business cycle," "boom and bust," "recession," and "depression," in order to confuse the population of the money changers scam.

1100 King Henry I succeeds King William II to the throne of England. During his reign he decided to take the power the money changers had over the people, and he did this by creating a completely new form of money that took the form of a stick! This stick was called, a "talley stick," and ended up being the longest lasting form of currency, lasting 726 years until 1826 (even though other currencies came and went in that same period and ran alongside the talley sticks).

The talley stick was a stick of polished wood into which notches were cut along one side, to indicate the denomination of money the stick represented. The stick was then split lengthwise through the notches, so that both pieces had a record of the notches. The King kept one half to protect against counterfeiting and the other half was spent into the economy and circulated as money.

It was also one of the most successful money systems in history, as the King demanded that all the King's taxes had to be paid in, "talley sticks," so this increased their circulation and acceptance as a legitimate form of money. This system would work well in keeping the power away from the money changers in England.

1225 St. Thomas Aquinas is born, the leading theologian of the Catholic Church who argued that the charging of interest is wrong because it applies to "double charging," charging for both the money and the use of the money.

This concept followed the teachings of Aristotle that taught the purpose of money was to serve the members of society and to facilitate the exchange of goods needed to lead a virtuous life. Interest was contrary to reason and justice because it put an unnecessary burden on the use of money.

Thus, Church law in Middle Ages Europe forbade the charging of interest on loans and even made it a crime called, "usury."

1509 King Henry VIII succeeds King Henry VII to the throne in England. During his reign he relaxed the laws regarding usury, and and the money changers did not waste any time in re-asserting themselves over the population. They quickly made their gold and silver coin system plentiful again. It is interesting to note that under King Henry VIII the Church of England separated from Roman Catholicism, whose Church law prevented the charging of interest on money.
1553 Queen Mary I succeeds Lady Jane Grey's nine day reign to the throne in England. During her reign, Queen Mary I, a staunch Catholic, tightened the usury laws again. The money changers were not amused and in revenge they tightened the money supply by hoarding gold and silver coins and causing the economy to plummet.
1558 Queen Elizabeth I succeeds Queen Mary I, her half sister, to the throne in England. During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I decided that in order to wrest control of the money supply she would have to issue her own gold and silver coins. She did this through the public treasury and successfully took control of the money supply from the money changers.
1609 The money changers in the Netherlands establish the the first central bank in history, in Amsterdam.
1642 Oliver Cromwell is financed by the money changers for the purposes of fomenting a revolution in England, and allowing them to take control of the money system again. After much bloodshed, Cromwell finally purges the parliament, overthrows King Charles I and puts him to death in 1649.
The money changers immediately consolidate their power and for the next few decades plunge Great Britain into a costly series of wars. They also take over a square mile of property in the center of London which becomes known as the City of London.

1688 The money changers in England following a series of squabbles with the Stuart Kings, Charles II (1660 - 1685) and James II (1685 - 1688), conspire with their far more successful money changing counterparts in the Netherlands, who had already set up a central bank there.
They decide to finance an invasion by William of Orange of Netherlands who they sound out and establish will be more favorable to them. The invasion is successful and William of Orange ascends to the throne in England as King William III in 1689.

1694 Following a costly series of wars over the last 50 years, English Government officials go, cap in hand, to the money changers for loans necessary to pursue their political purposes. The money changers agree to solve this problem in exchange for a government sanctioned privately owned bank which could issue money created out of nothing.
This was deceptively named the, "Bank of England," for the sole purpose of duping the general public into believing it was part of the government, which it was not.

Like any other private corporation the Bank of England sold shares to get started. The private investors, whose names were never revealed, were supposed to put up £1,250,000 in gold coins to buy their shares in the bank, but only £750,000 was ever received. Despite that the bank was duly chartered and began loaning out several times the money it supposedly had in reserves, all at interest.

Although the Bank of England's private investors were never revealed, one of the Directors, William Paterson, stated,

"The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”

Furthermore the Bank of England would loan government officials as much of the new currency as they wanted, as long as they secured the debt by direct taxation of the British people. The Bank of England amounted to nothing less than the legal counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain, and thus any country that would fall under the control of a private bank would amount to nothing more than a plutocracy.

Soon after the Bank of England was formed it attacked the talley stick system, as it was money outside of the power of the money changers, just as King Henry I had intended it to be.

1698 Following four years of the Bank of England, their plan to control the money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from the initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years. That's an increase of 1,280%.
Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in circulation in a country is £5,000,000, and a central bank is set up and prints another £15,000,000, stage one of the plan, sends it out into the economy through loans etc, than this will reduce the value of the initial £5,000,000 in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5,000,000 is now only 25% of the economy. It will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy.

This also causes inflation which is the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person's money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan.

Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the debtors to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the dollar. Inflation never effects a central bank in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more.

1757 Benjamin Franklin travels to England and would spend the next 18 years of his life there until just before the start of the American Revolution.
1760 Mayer Amschel Bauer changes him name to Mayer Amschel Rothschild and sets up the, House Of Rothschild, and soon learns that if he loans out money to Governments and Royalty then this is far more profitable than loaning to individuals. This is because the loans made are bigger and backed by their nations' taxes. He trains his five sons in the art of money creation.
1764 Benjamin Franklin is asked by officials of the Bank of England to explain the prosperity of the colonies in America. He replies,

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

As a result of Franklin's statement, the British Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. Referring to after this act was passed, Franklin would state the following in his autobiography,

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed...The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.

The viability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war."

Control of America's money system will change hands 8 times since 1764.

1775 April 19th, start of the revolutionary war in Lexington, Massachusetts. By this time the colonies had been drained of silver and gold coins as a result of British taxation. As a result of this, the continental government had no choice but to print money to finance the war.
At the start of the revolution the American money supply stood at $12,000,000. By the end of the war it was nearly $500,000,000 and as a result the currency was virtually worthless. An example of this is that a pair of shoes now sold for $5,000 dollars. This also shows the danger of printing too much money. The reason Colonial Scrip had worked was because just enough was used to facilitate trade.

1781 Towards the end of the American Revolution the Continental Congress were desperate for money, so they allowed Robert Morris, their Financial Superintendent, to open a privately owned central bank, in the hope this would sort out the money problem.
Morris was a wealthy man who had grown wealthier during the revolution by trading in war materials. This first central bank in America was called the Bank of North America, which was set up with a four year charter, and was closely modeled after the Bank of England. It was allowed to practice the fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking, so it could create money it didn't have, then charge interest on it.

The bank's charter called for private investors to put up $400,000 of initial capital, which Morris found himself unable to raise. Nevertheless he unashamedly used his political influence to have gold deposited in the bank, which had been loaned to America by France. Morris then loaned the money he needed to buy this bank from this deposit of gold that belonged to the government, or rather the American people.

This Bank of North America, again deceptively named so the common people would believe it was under the control of the government, was given a monopoly over the national currency.

1785 Despite the promises of Robert Morris that his privately owned Bank of North America would solve the problem with the money supply, of course the economy continued to plummet, forcing the Continental Congress not to renew the bank's charter. The leader of the effort to kill this bank was William Findlay of Pennsylvania, who stated,

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

Mayer Amschel Rothschild moves his family home to a five storey home in Frankfurt, Germany, which he shares with the Schiff family, (a descendant of both Rothschild and Schiff, Jacob Schiff, who would be born in this house, would, some 128 years later, be instrumental in the setting up of the Federal Reserve).

1787 Colonial leaders assemble in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. Governor Morris headed the final draft of the Constitution and he knew the motivation of the bankers well as he had once worked for them. Governor Morris along with his former boss Robert Morris, and Alexander Hamilton had presented the original plan for the Bank of North America to the Continental Congress, in the final year of the Revolution.
Fortunately Governor Morris by this time had discovered his conscience, defected from Robert Morris, and in a letter to James Madison dated July 2nd of this year he stated,

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

James Madison was opposed to a privately owned central bank after seeing the exploitation of the people by the Bank of England. Thomas Jefferson was also against it, and Jefferson later made the following statement,

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

Sadly the words of wisdom of Governor Morris and Thomas Jefferson fell on deaf ears. Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris and Thomas Wyling, convinced the the bulk of the delegates to this Constitutional convention, not to give Congress the power to issue paper money.

They were aware that most of these delegates were still reeling from the wild inflation of the paper money during the revolution. These delegates also had short memories and didn't remember how well Colonial Scrip had worked before the war, or Benjamin Franklin's words of wisdom in 1764.

As a result the Constitution was silent on the issue of paper money by the Government for the citizens, leaving a wide open door for money changers in the future.

1790 Less than 3 years after the Constitution had been signed, the newly appointed First Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to the Congress calling for a new privately owned central bank. Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton's first job after graduating from law school in 1782 was as an aide to Robert Morris, a man who he had written to in 1781 stating, "a national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing."
1791 The three main players behind the Bank Of North America were: Robert Morris; Alexander Hamilton; and the Bank's President, Thomas Willing. These men did not give up and Alexander Hamilton, now Secretary of the Treasury, a man who described Robert Morris as his, "mentor," managed to get a new privately owned central bank through the new Congress.
This new bank was called the, "First Bank of the United States," and was exactly the same as the Bank of North America. Robert Morris controlled it, Thomas Willing was the Bank's President, only the name had changed.

This bank came into being after a year of intense debate and was given a 20 year charter. It was given a monopoly on printing United States currency even though 80% of it's stock was held by private investors. The other 20% was purchased by the United States government, but this was not to give it a piece if the action, but to provide the capital for the private investors to purchase the other 80%.

As with the Bank of England and the old Bank of North America, these private investors never paid the full agreed amount for their shares. What happened was through the fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking, the government's 20% stake which was $2,000,000 in cash, was used to make loans to its private investors to purchase the other 80% stake, £8,000,000, for this risk free investment.

Again like the Bank of England and the old Bank of North America, the name, "First Bank of the United States," was deliberately chosen to hide from the common people the fact that it was privately owned. The names of the investors in this bank were never revealed, although it is now widely believed that the Rothschilds were behind it.

Interestingly in 1790 when Alexander Hamilton proposed this bank in Congress, Mayer Amschel Rothschild made the following statement from his bank in Frankfurt, Germany, "Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."


1796 The First Bank of the United States has been controlling the American money supply for 5 years. During this time the American Government has borrowed $8,200,000 from this Central Bank, and prices in the country have increased by 72%. In relation to this, Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State stated,

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution taking from the Federal Government their power of borrowing."

1798 Mayer Amschel Rothschild sends his son, Nathan, at the age of 21, to England with a sum of money equivalent to £20,000, to set up a money changers there.
1800 In France, the Bank of France was set up. However Napoleon decided France had to break free of the debt and he therefore never trusted this bank. He declared that when a government is dependent on bankers for money, it is the bankers and not the government leaders that are in control. He stated,
"The hand that gives is among the hand that takes. Money has no motherland, financiers are without patriotism and without decency, their sole object is gain."

1803 Now President Thomas Jefferson, President Jefferson struck a deal with Napoleon in France. The United States would give Napoleon $3,000,000 of gold in exchange for a huge chunk of territory west of the Mississippi River. This was called the Louisiana purchase.
Napoleon used this gold to put together an army. He then used this army to set off across Europe where he began to conquer everything in his path. The Bank of England quickly rose to oppose Napoleon and financed every nation in his path, as usual profiteering from war. Prussia, Austria, and then finally Russia all went heavily into debt in a futile attempt to stop Napoleon.

1807 30 year old Nathan Rothschild, head of the English branch of the family in London, personally takes charge of a plan to smuggle a much needed shipment of gold through France to Spain to finance an attack by the Duke Of Wellington on Napoleon, from there.
1811 A bill was put before Congress to renew the charter of the First Bank of the United States. The legislatures of both Pennsylvania and Virginia pass resolutions asking Congress to kill the bank. The national press openly attack the bank calling it: a great swindle; a vulture; a viper; and a cobra.
Nathan Rothschild gets in on the act and makes the following revealing statement as to who was really behind the First Bank of the United States,

“Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.”

When the smoke had cleared the renewal bill was cleared by a single vote in the house and was deadlocked in the Senate. At this point America's fourth President, President James Madison was in the White House. He was a staunch opponent of the bank and he sent his Vice-President, George Clinton, to break a tie in the Senate which killed the bank.

1812 As promised by Nathan Rothschild, because the charter for the First Bank of the United States is not renewed, thousands have to die and the British attack America. However, as the British are still busy fighting Napoleon, they are unable to mount much of an assault and the war ends in 1814 with America undefeated.
1814 Wellington's attacks from the South and other defeats eventually forced Napoleon to abdicate and Louis XVIII is crowned King. Napoleon is exiled to the tiny island of Elba, off the coast of Italy.
1815 Napoleon escapes his exile and returns to Paris. French troops were sent to capture him, but he uses his charisma to convince these soldiers to rally round him, and they subsequently hail him as their emperor once again. In March, Napoleon assembles an army which England's Duke of Wellington defeated less than 90 days later at Waterloo.
Even though the outcome is predetermined, these bankers don't like to take any sort of risk, they're too used to a monopoly. Therefore Nathan Rothschild sent a trusted courier named Rothworth to Waterloo where he stayed on the edge of the battlefield. Once the battle was decided, Rothworth took off for the Channel, and delivered the news of Wellington's victory to Nathan Rothschild a full 24 hours before Wellington's own courier.

Nathan Rothschild hurried to the London Stock market and stood in his usual position. All eyes were on him as Rothschild had a legendary communications network. Rothschild stood there looking forlorn and suddenly started selling. The other traders believed that this meant he had heard that Napoleon had won so they all started selling frantically.

The market subsequently plummeted, soon everyone was selling their consuls (British Government Bonds), but then Rothschild secretly started buying them all up through his agents on the floor, for a fraction of what they were worth only hours before. A lot of these consuls were able to be converted to Bank of England stock, which is how Rothschild took over the control of the Bank of England and therefore the British money supply.

Interestingly, 100 years later, the New York Times ran a story stating that Nathan Rothschild's grandson had attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book with this, what we would call today, "insider trading," story in it. The Rothschild family claimed the story was untrue and libelous, but the court denied the Rothschilds request and ordered the family to pay all court costs.

Nathan Rothschild openly brags that in his 17 years in England he had increased his initial £20,000 stake given to him by his father, 2500 times to £50,000,000.

Some people ask, why do bankers want war? Simple, bankers finance both sides in a war. They do this because war is the biggest debt generator of them all. A nation will borrow any amount for victory, even though the banks have already predetermined the outcome. The ultimate loser is loaned just enough money to hold out a vain hope of victory and the ultimate winner is given enough to ensure that he does win.

How do the banks ensure they will get all their money back? Easy, such loans are given on the guarantee that the victor will honor the debts of the vanquished. Never mind the thousands of troops that give their lives on the pretext it is for the honor of their respective nations, when it is actually for the profits of bankers.

In fact, during the period between the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo this year, England had been at war for 56 years, with much of the remaining time spent preparing for war. If it's a good business for bankers' profits, then why change it.

1816 The American Congress passes a bill permitting yet another privately owned central bank. This bank was called the, "Second Bank of the United States," and it's charter was a carbon copy of that of its predecessor, the First Bank of the United States. The United States government would once again supposedly own 20% of the shares of the bank.
Their share was again paid up front into the bank and thanks to fraudulent fractional reserve lending, this was transformed into loans to the private investors who once again purchased the remaining 80% of the shares. Just as before the names of these investors was kept a secret.

1826 The talley stick is taken out of circulation in England.
1828 After 12 years during which the Second Bank of the United States, ruthlessly manipulated the American economy to the detriment of the people but to the benefit of their own money grabbing ends, the American people had unsurprisingly had enough. Opponents of this bank nominated Senator Andrew Jackson of Tennessee to run for President.
To the dismay of the money changers, Jackson won the Presidency and made it quite clear he intended to kill this bank at his first opportunity. He started out during his first term in office, to root out the banks many minions from government service. To illustrate how deep this cancer was rooted in government, he fired 2,000 of the 11,000 employees of the Federal Government.

1832 The Second Bank of the United States, ask Congress to pass a renewal of the bank's charter, four years early. Congress complied and sent the bill to President Jackson for signing. President Jackson vetoed this bill and in his veto message he stated the following,

"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our Government. More than eight millions of the stock of the Bank are held by foreigners...Is there no danger to out liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?

Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence ...would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy. If government would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower the favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

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

In July, Congress was unable to override President Jackson's veto. President Jackson then stood for re-election and for the first time in American history he took his argument directly to the people by taking his re-election campaign on the road. His campaign slogan was, "Jackson And No Bank!"

Even though the bankers poured over $3,000,000 into President Jackson's opponent, the Republican, Senator Henry Clays' campaign, President Jackson was re-elected by a landslide in November. President Jackson knew the battle was only beginning however, and following his victory he stated,

"The hydra of corruption is only scotched, not dead!"

1833 President Jackson appoints Roger B. Taney as Secretary of State for the Treasury, with instructions to start removing the government's deposits from the Second Bank of the United States. President Jackson's previous two Secretaries of State for the Treasury, William J. Duane and Louis McLane had both refused to comply with President Jackson's request and were fired as a result.
However the head of the, Second Bank of the United States, Nicholas Biddle, used his influence to get the Senate to reject Roger B. Taney's nomination and even threatened to cause a depression if the Bank was not re-chartered. Biddle stated,

"This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken."

Biddle then went on to brazenly admit that the bank was intending to make money scarce in order to force the hand of Congress into re-chartering the bank. He stated,

"Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress...Our only safety is pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and re-charter of the Bank."

What Biddle has done with that statement is prove to the world what central banks were really about. He made good on his word, and the Second Bank of the United States, sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to issue new ones. Naturally a financial panic ensued, followed by America being plunged into a deep depression.

Biddle then unashamedly blamed President Jackson for the crash, claiming that it was Jackson's withdrawal of federal funds that had caused it. This crash plunged wages and prices, unemployment soared along with business bankruptcies. The United States was in uproar and newspaper editors blasted the President in editorials.

1835 Congress assembled what was called the, "Panic Session," and on 27 March President Jackson was officially censured by Congress for withdrawing funds from the Second Bank of the United States, in a vote which passed the Senate by 26 to 20. It was the first time a President had ever been censured by Congress and Jackson stated of the Bank,

"You are a den of thieves vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."

However, Pennsylvania Governor, George Wolf, came out in support of President Jackson and strongly criticized the Bank. This, coupled with the fact that Nicholas Biddle had been caught boasting in public about the bank's plan to crash the American economy, caused a shift in opinion of President Jackson's action.

In a complete about turn on April 4, the House of Representatives voted 134 to 82 against re-chartering the bank. This was followed by another strong vote which established a special committee to investigate whether the Bank had caused the crash.

However, when the investigating committee arrived at the bank's door in Philadelphia with a subpoena authorizing them to inspect the books, Nicholas Biddle refused to give them up, or allow inspection of correspondence with Congressmen relating to their personal loans and advancements he had made to them. He also refused to testify before the committee back in Washington.

1836 The Charter for the Second Bank of the United States expires, and the Bank ceases functioning as America's central bank. Nicholas Biddle was later arrested and charged with fraud. He was tried and acquitted but died in 1844 still battling civil suits.
1838 On January 8th President Jackson pays off the final installment of the national debt, which had been necessitated by allowing the banks to issue currency for government bonds, rather than simply issuing treasury notes without such debt. He was the only President to ever pay off the debt.
On January 30th an assassin called Richard Lawrence tried to shoot President Jackson, but both pistols misfired. Lawrence was later found not guilty by reason of insanity. However, after his release he openly bragged that powerful people in Europe had put him up to the task and promised to protect him if he were caught.

When asked what his most important accomplishment had been in life, President Jackson stated without hesitation,

"I killed the Bank!"

It would take the money changers 75 years to establish the next central bank, the Federal Reserve. This time they would take no chances and use one of their own, Jacob Schiff, from the Rothschild bloodline, to undertake this.

1850 Jacob (James) Rothschild in France is said to be worth 600 million francs, which at the time was 150 million francs more than all the other bankers in France put together.
1852 Future British Prime Minister, William Gladstone, stated the following about when he became Chancellor of the Exchequer this year,

"From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I began to learn that the State held, in the face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to finance. The Government itself was not to be a substantive power, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned."

1861 One month after the inauguration of President Abraham Lincoln, the American Civil War got underway at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, after South Carolina left the Union. Slavery has always been cited as the cause of the war but this was simply not the case, as President Lincoln himself stated,

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the state where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so...My paramount objective is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it."

The real reason for the war is that the Southern States were in an a dire economic situation due to the actions of the Northern States. Northern industrialists had used trade tariffs to prevent the Southern States from buying cheaper European goods. Europe subsequently retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the South. Thus the South were being forced to pay more for goods whilst having their income slashed.

This is when the money changers saw the opportunity to divide and conquer America by plunging it into Civil War. This is confirmed by Otto Von Bismarck when he was Chancellor of Germany (1871 - 1890), who stated,

"The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe, these bankers were afraid that the United States if they remained as one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence which would upset their financial domination over the world."

Only months after these first shots in South Carolina, the Central bankers loaned, Napoleon III of France (the Napoleon of the battle of Waterloo's nephew), 210 million francs to seize Mexico and then station troops along the Southern border of the United States, by taking advantage of the American Civil War to return Mexico to colonial rule.

This was in violation of the, "Monroe Doctrine," which was issued by President James Monroe during his seventh annual State of the Union address to Congress, in 1823. This doctrine proclaimed the United States' opinion that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, and others.

In return, the United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers and in wars between a European power and its colonies. However, if these latter type of wars were to occur in the Americas, the U.S. would view such action as hostile toward itself.

Whilst the French were breaching the, Monroe Doctrine in Mexico, the British followed suit by moving 11,000 troops into Canada and positioning them along America's Northern border. President Lincoln knew he was in trouble, so he went with his Secretary To The Treasury, Salomon P. Chase, to New York to apply for the loans necessary to fund America's defense.

The money changers had engineered the war to make the Union fail, and were not about to save it now, so they offered loans at 24% to 36% interest. President Lincoln declined this as they knew he would and returned to Washington, where he sent for Colonel Dick Taylor of Chicago, who he put in charge of the problem of how he should finance the war.

During one meeting President Lincoln asked Colonel Taylor what proposals he had come up with to finance the war. Colonel Taylor stated,

"Why Lincoln, that is easy, just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes...and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also."

President Lincoln asked Colonel Taylor if the people of the United States would accept the notes, Colonel Taylor said,

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

1862 President Lincoln began the printing of $450,000,000 worth of new bills. These bills were printed in green ink on the reverse side, in order to distinguish them from other bills in circulation, and were called, "Greenbacks." These were printed at no interest to the Federal Government and were used to pay the troops and purchase their supplies. President Lincoln would be the last President to issue debt free United States notes, and on this subject he stated,

"The Government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is in the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles...the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity."

In response to this statement, The Times of London publishes a propaganda piece obviously put out by the bankers, containing the following statement,

"If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce.

It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

1863 The bankers struck back. With President Lincoln needing further congressional authority to issue more Greenbacks, Lincoln was forced into allowing the bankers to push their, "National Banking Act," through Congress.
The most important part of this Act was that from now on, the entire United States money supply would be created out of debt by the National Banks buying United States Government Bonds and issuing them for reserves for banknotes. On top of this monopoly, the National Banks were allowed to operate under a virtual tax free status. This banking scam is best explained by historian, John Kenneth Galbraith, who stated,

"In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not however pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."

Later this year, Tsar Alexander II gave President Lincoln some unexpected help. The Tsar issued orders that if either England or France actively intervened in the American Civil War, and help the South, Russia would consider such action a declaration of war. To show that he wasn't messing about, he sent part of his Pacific Fleet to port in San Francisco.

This wasn't because the Tsar was benevolent towards America, instead he was very clever. He, like Otto Von Bismarck in Germany, could clearly see what the money changers were up to, indeed he had already refused to let them set up a Central Bank in Russia. He understood if America was to come under the control of Britain or France, then America would be under the control of Central Bankers once again, and such an expansion of the bankers empire, would mean they would eventually threaten Russia.

1864 President Lincoln is re-elected on November 8th and on November 21 he wrote a friend the following,

"The money power preys upon the nations in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy."

Salomon P Chase, now President Lincoln's Former Secretary To The Treasury, stated,

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

1865 On April 14th, 41 days after his second inauguration, and just 5 days after General Lee surrendered to General Grant at Appomattox, President Lincoln is shot by John Wilkes Booth, at Ford's Theater. He would later die of his injuries. Subsequent allegations that international bankers were responsible for President Lincoln's assassination, would be made in the Canadian House of Commons, nearly 70 years later in 1934.
The person who revealed this was a Canadian Attorney, Gerald G. McGeer. He had obtained evidence deleted from the public record provided to him by Secret Service Agents at the trial of John Wilkes Booth, after Booth's death. McGeer stated that it showed that John Wilkes Booth was a mercenary working for the international bankers. His speech would be reported in an article in the Vancouver Sun, dated, 2nd May 1934, which stated,

"Abraham Lincoln, the murdered emancipator of the slaves, was assassinated through the machinations of a group representative of the International Bankers, who feared the United States President's National Credit ambitions. There was only one group in the world at that time who had any reason to desire the death of Lincoln. They were the men opposed to his national currency program and who had fought him throughout the whole Civil War on his policy of Greenback currency."

Gerald G. McGeer also stated that Lincoln's assassination was not purely because the International Bankers wanted to re-establish a central bank in America, but also because they wanted to base America's currency on gold, which they of course controlled. They wanted to put America on a Gold Standard. This was in direct opposition to President Lincoln's policy of issuing Greenbacks, based solely on the good faith and credit of the United States.

The Vancouver Sun article also quoted Gerald G. McGeer with the following statement,

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

1866 The European central bankers wanted the re-institution of a central bank under their control and an American currency backed by gold. They chose gold as gold has always been relatively scarce and therefore a lot easier to monopolize, than, for example, silver, which was plentiful in the United States, and had been found in huge quantities with the opening of the American West.
So, on April 12th, Congress went back to work at the bidding of the European central bankers. It passed the, "Contraction Act," which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to contract the money supply by retiring some of the Greenbacks in circulation.

This money contraction and it's disastrous results is explained by Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Walker, in their book, "The Truth In Money Book," in which they state the following,

"The hard times which occurred after the Civil War could have been avoided if the Greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead there were a series of money panics, what we call recessions, which put pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under centralized control. Eventually the Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23rd 1913."

This is how the, "Contraction Act," passed by Congress affected America (the money supply goes down purely because currency in circulation is being withdrawn):

Year In circulation Approximately per capita
1866 $1,800,000,000 $50.46
1867 $1,300,000,000 $44.00
1876 $600,000,000 $14.60
1886 $400,000,000 $6.67

Therefore in the twenty years since 1866 two thirds of the American money supply had been called in by the bankers, representing a 760% loss in buying power over this twenty years. The money became scarce simply because bank loans were called in and no new ones were given.

1872 Ernest Seyd is sent to America on a mission from the Rothschild owned Bank of England. He is given $100,000 which he is to use to bribe as many Congressmen as necessary, for the purposes of getting silver demonetized, as it had been found in huge quantities in the American West, which would eat into Rothschild's profits.
1873 Ernest Seyd obviously spent his money wisely, as Congress pass the, "Coinage Act," which results in the minting of silver dollars being abruptly stopped. Furthermore, Representative Samuel Hooper, who introduced the bill in the house, even admitted that Ernest Seyd had actually drafted the legislation.
1874 Ernest Seyd himself admitted who was behind the demonetizing of silver in America, when he makes the following statement,

"I went to America in the winter of 1872 - 1873, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interests of those I represented, the governors of the Bank Of England, to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."

1876 Due to the manipulation of the money supply in America, one third of the workforce is unemployed and unrest is growing. There are even calls for a return to Greenback money or silver money. As a result, Congress creates the, "United States Silver Commission," to investigate the problem.
This commission clearly understood that the national bankers were the cause of the problem, with their deliberate contraction of the money supply. An excerpt of their report reads as follows,

"The disaster of the Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices ...Without money, civilization could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must languish, and unless relieved, finally perish. At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,000,000. By the end of the 15th century it had shrunk to less than $200,000,000...History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages..."

Despite this damning report from the commission, Congress took no action.

1877 Rioting breaks out from Pittsburgh to Chicago. The bankers get together to decide what to do and they decided to hang on, as they knew that despite the violence, they were now firmly back in control. At the meeting of the American Bankers Association, they urged their membership to do everything in their power, to put down any notion of a return to Greenbacks.
The American Bankers Association secretary, James Buel, even wrote a letter to the members in which he blatantly called on the banks to subvert both Congress and the press. In this letter he stated,

"It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as well as oppose the Greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money....

...To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your Congressman at once and engage him to support our interests that we may control legislation."

1878 James Buel's letter clearly had some effect, as although pressure mounted in Congress for change, the press tried to turn the general public away from the truth. An example of this is from the New York Tribune in their 10th January edition in which is stated in a bankers propaganda piece,

"The capital of the country is organized at last and we will see whether Congress will dare to fly in its face."

This early control of the media didn't work entirely nevertheless, as on February 28th Congress passed the, "Sherman Law." This law allowed the minting of a limited number of silver dollars, ending the 5 year hiatus. However this did not mean that anyone who brought silver to the United States Mint could have it struck into silver dollars, free of charge, as in the period prior to Ernest Seyd's Coinage Act, in 1873. Gold backing of the American currency also remained.

However, this Sherman Law did ensure that some money began to flow into the economy again, and coupled with the fact that the bankers now realized that they were still firmly in control, they started issuing loans again and the post Civil War depression was finally over.

1881 The American people elect the Republican, James Garfield as the 20th President of the United States. This was a worry to the money changers, because as a Congressman, he had been Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and was a member of Banking and Currency. The money changers were therefore aware that President Garfield was in full knowledge of their scam on the American people. Indeed following his inauguration, President Garfield stated,

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

Strangely enough within a few weeks of making that statement, President Garfield was assassinated on 2nd July.

1891 The money changers spent the last decade creating economic booms followed by depressions, so that they could buy up thousands of homes and farms for pennies on the dollar. They were preparing to take the economy down again in the near future, and in a shocking memo sent out by the American Bankers Association, which would come out in the Congressional Record more than twenty years later, the following is stated,

"On September 1st 1894 we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st we will demand our money.

We will foreclose and become mortgages in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price...Then the farmers will become tenants as in England...,"

1891 American Bankers Association, as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913.

1896 The central issue in the Presidential campaign is the issue of more silver money. Senator William Jennings Bryan from Nebraska, a Democrat aged only 36, makes an emotional speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, entitled, "Crown Of Thorns And Cross Of Gold." Senator Bryan stated,

"We will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

The bankers naturally supported the Republican candidate, William McKinley who in return favored the gold standard. Furthermore those in the McKinley campaign, got manufacturers and industrialists to inform their employees that if Bryan were elected, all factories and plants would close and there would be no work.

This tactic succeeded, McKinley beat Bryan, albeit by a small margin.

1898 Pope Leo XIII stated the following on the subject of usury,

"On the one hand there is the party which holds the power because it holds the wealth, which has in its grasp all labor and all trade, which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is powerfully represented in the councils of State itself. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sore and suffering.

Rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless under a different form but with the same guilt, still practiced by avaricious and grasping men...so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the masses of the poor a yoke little better than slavery itself."

1907 During the early 1900's, the money changers were anxious to advance their business of setting up another private Central Bank for America. Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, stated, or rather threatened,

“Unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.”

They put Rothschild agent, J. P. Morgan at the forefront of their charge. Interestingly J. P. Morgan's father, Julius Morgan, had been America's financial agent to the British, and after Julius' death, J. P. Morgan took on a British partner, Edward Grenville, who was a long time director of the Bank Of England.

This year was the year of the money changers attack. J. P. Morgan and his cohorts secretly crashed the stock market. They were aware that thousands of small banks were so vastly over extended, some only had reserves of 1% under the fraudulent fractional reserve principle. Within only a few days, bank runs became commonplace across the nation.

Morgan then stepped up and publicly announced that he would support these failing banks. What he failed to mention is that he would do this by manufacturing money out of nothing. And then what happened, surprise, surprise, Congress let him do it! So, Morgan manufactured $200,000,000 of this completely reserveless private money, purchased goods and services with it, and sent some of it to his branch banks to lend out at interest.

As a result, the general public regained confidence in money, but most importantly it meant the banking power was now further consolidated into the hands of a few large banks.

1908 With the widespread financial panic over, J. P. Morgan was hailed as a hero by the then President of Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson, who even crassly or arrogantly stated,

"All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public spirited men like J. P. Morgan, to handle the affairs of our country."

President Theodore Roosevelt had also signed into law, following the financial panic, a bill creating the, "National Monetary Commission."

This commission was supposed to study the banking problem and make recommendations to Congress. Naturally, the commission was packed with J. P. Morgan's friends and cronies.

The chairman was Senator Nelson Aldrich from Rhode Island, and he represented the Newport Rhode Island homes of America's richest banking families. His daughter married John D. Rockefeller Jr., and together they had five sons (including Nelson who would become Vice President in 1974 and David who would become Head of the Council on Foreign Relations).

Following the setting up of this National Monetary Commission, Senator Aldrich immediately embarked on a 2 year fact finding tour of Europe, where he consulted at length with the private central bankers in England, France, and Germany, or rather Rothschild, Rothschild, and Rothschild.

The total cost of this 2 year trip to the American taxpayer? $300,000. Yes, three hundred thousand dollars, that is not a misprint!

1910 Senator Aldrich returns from his two year European fact finding mission on 22nd November. Shortly afterwards some of America's most wealthy and powerful men boarded Senator Aldrich's private railcar in the strictest secrecy. They journeyed to Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia.
In this group were Paul Warburg, who was earning a $500,000 a year salary from Rothschild owned firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Company. This salary was for him to lobby for a privately owned central bank in America. Also present was Jacob Schiff, a Rothschild who had purchased Kuhn, Loeb and Company shortly after he arrived in America from England.

The Rothschilds, Warburgs and Schiffs, interconnected by marriage, were essentially the same family.

Secrecy at this meeting was so tight that all the participants were cautioned to use only first names, to prevent servants from learning their identities. Years later, one participant, Frank Vanderlip, President of National Citibank and a representative of the Rockefeller family, confirmed the Jekyll Island trip in a 9th February 1935 edition of the Saturday Evening Post in which he stated,

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

It was not just the setting up of a Central Bank that was on the agenda. Other problems for these bankers were that the market share of these big national banks was shrinking fast. In the first ten years of the century the number of United States banks had more than doubled to over 20,000. By 1913 only 29% of all banks were national banks and they held only 57% of all deposits. As John D. Rockefeller put it,

"Competition is Sin!"

Senator Aldrich later admitted in a magazine article,

"Before passage of this Act, the New York Bankers could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now we are able to dominate bank reserves of the entire country."

So one of the aims of these conspirators was to bring these new banks under their control. Secondly the nations economy was so strong that corporations were starting to finance their own expansions out of profits instead of taking out huge loans from large banks. Indeed, in the first ten years of the century, 70% of corporate funding came from profits.

Basically, American Industry was becoming independent of the money changers, and the money changers were not about to let that happen.

There was also much discussion regarding the name of the new bank, which took place in a conference room in the Jekyll Island Club Hotel. Aldrich believed the word, "bank," should not even appear in the name. Warburg wanted to call the legislation, the, "National Reserve Bill," or the, "Federal Reserve Bill." The idea was not only to give the impression that the purpose of the new central bank was to stop bank runs, but also to conceal its monopoly character.

However it was Senator Aldrich, the egomaniac, who insisted it be called the, "Aldrich Bill." So, after nine days at Jekyll Island, the group dispersed. This group of conspirators immediately set up an educational fund of $5,000,000 to finance Professors at top universities to endorse the new bank.

The new central bank would be very similar to the old Bank Of The United States, in that it would be given a monopoly over United States currency and create that money out of nothing. Also in order to make the public think it was under control of the Government, the plan called for the central bank to be run by a board of governors appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

This would not cause any undue problems for the bankers, as they knew they could use their money to buy influence over the politicians, in order to ensure the men they wanted got appointed to the board of governors.

1912 The Aldrich bill is presented to Congress for debate. This was very quickly identified as a bill to benefit the bankers, or an expression for them which was coined at the time, "The Money Trust." During the debate, the Republican, Charles A. Lindbergh stated,

"The Aldrich plan is the Wall Street Plan. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead."

As this debate continued on, the bankers realized they didn't have enough support, so the Republican leadership never brought the Aldrich bill to a vote. Instead the bankers decided to switch their attention to the Democrats and started heavily financing Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Presidential nominee. The Wall Street banker, Bernard Baruch, was put in charge of the Wilson project, and as historian, James Perloff, stated,

"Baruch brought Wilson to the Democratic Party headquarters in New York in 1912, 'leading him like one wood a poodle on a string.' Wilson received an, 'indoctrination course,' from the leaders convened there...."

During the Democratic Presidential campaign, Wilson and the rulers of the Democratic Party pretended to oppose the Aldrich bill. As Republican representative, Louis T. McFadden, explained twenty years later, when he was was Chairman Of The House Banking And Currency Committee,

"The Aldrich Bill was condemned in the platform...when Woodrow Wilson was nominated...The men who ruled the Democratic Party promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reins 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 to shackle us from the cradle to the grave."

On November 5th, Woodrow Wilson was elected, and J. P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch et al, advanced a new plan which Warburg called the Federal Reserve System. The leadership of the Democratic Party hailed this new bill called the, "Glass-Owen Bill," as totally different to the Aldrich bill, when in fact it was virtually identical.

Funnily enough the Democrats were so vehement in their denial of the similarity of the, "Glass-Owen Bill," to the, "Aldrich Bill," that Paul Warburg, the creator of both bill, had to inform his paid friends in Congress, that the two bills were virtually identical and therefore they must vote to pass it. Warburg stated,

"Brushing aside the external differences affecting the, 'shells,' we find the, 'kernels,' of the two systems very closely resembling and related to one another."

However this admission by Warburg was not made public. Instead, Senator Aldrich, and Frank Vanderlip, the President of Rockefeller's National Citibank of New York, were to publicly state their opposition to the bill in order to make people think that the bill proposed was radically different to the Aldrich bill. Indeed, Frank Vanderlip stated years later in the Saturday Evening Post,

"Although the Aldrich Federal Reserve Plan was defeated when it bore the name Aldrich, nevertheless its essential points were all contained in the plan that finally was adopted."

1913 With Congress nearing a vote on the Glass-Owen Bill, they called Ohio Attorney, Alfred Crozier, to testify. However, Crozier noticed the similarities between the Aldrich Bill and the Glass-Owen Bill, and subsequently stated,
"The...bill grants just what Wall Street and the big banks for twenty-five years have been striving for - private instead of public control of currency. It (the Glass-Owen bill) does this as completely as the Aldrich bill. Both measures rob the government and the people of all effective control over the public's money, and vest in the banks exclusively the dangerous power to make money among the people scarce or plenty."

The debate on this bill was not going well for the banks, with many Senators intimating the bill was corrupt and deceitful, however the bill was approved through the Senate on December 22nd. How did this happen? Because most of the Senators had left town to return home for the Christmas holidays. Furthermore, these Senators had been assured by the leadership, that nothing would be done regarding this bill until long after the Christmas recess.

Representative Charles A Lindbergh Sr. stated,

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized. The people may not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed...The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."

Interestingly, only a few weeks earlier, in October, Congress finally passed a bill legalizing direct income tax of the people. This was in the form of a bill pushed through by Senator Aldrich, which is now commonly known as the 16th amendment. The income tax law was fundamental to the Federal Reserve. This is because the Federal Reserve was a system which would run up, essentially, an unlimited Federal debt.

The only way to guarantee the payment of interest on this debt was to directly tax the people, as they had done with the Bank Of England. If the Federal Reserve had to rely on contributions from the States, they would be dealing with bigger entities, who could revolt and refuse to pay the interest on their own money, or at least bring political pressure to bear in order to keep the debt small.

Actually, this 16th amendment was never ratified, and therefore many American citizens do not pay their income tax and there is nothing the United States Government can do about it. For further information on this go to thelawthatneverwas.com . Also, back in 1895, the Supreme Court had also found an income tax law similar to the 16th amendment, as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also found a Corporate Tax Law unconstitutional in 1909.

Another important amendment that was put through this year is the 17th amendment. This provided for the direct election by the people of two Senators from each state as oppose to the original system of having state legislatures elect United States Senators. More democratic, you would think, until you realize these bankers could now provide the funds for their hand picked people to run for the Senate, and thus avoid future problems like getting the Federal Reserve through the Senate.

Anyway, back to the Federal Reserve, if you are in any doubt as to whether the Federal Reserve is a private company, a basic check the public can carry out is in their phone book. Look under the government pages and it is not listed, but you will find it listed within the business pages.

Actually some recent evidence has come forward as to who really owns the Federal Reserve, and they are the following banks:

Rothschild Bank of London
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Lehman Brothers of New York
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York
Also some argue that the Federal Reserve is a quasi-governmental agency, yet the President appoints only 2 of the 7 members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, every four years, and he appoints them to 14 year terms, which is far longer than any term he could possibly serve as President. The Senate confirms these appointments, but as we have seen, that is the idea, because these are the very people hand picked by the bankers who also finance their campaigns, ensuring loyalty to them, not the people.

Let's summarize how the Federal Reserve creates money out of nothing. It is a four step process:

The Federal Open Market Committee approves the purchase of United States Bonds*.
The bonds are purchased by the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve pays for these bonds with electronic credits to the seller's bank, these credits are based on nothing.
The banks use these deposits as reserves. They can loan out over ten times the amount of their reserves to new borrowers, all at interest.
* Bonds are simply promises to pay or Government IOU's. People purchase bonds in order to get a secure rate of interest. At the end of the term of the bond, the government repays the bond, plus interest and the bond is destroyed.

Let's look at an example of how this works with a Federal Reserve purchase of $1,000,000 of bonds. This then gets turned into over $10,000,000 in bank accounts. The Federal Reserve in effect creates 10% of this totally new $10,000,000 and the banks create the other 90%.

To reduce the amount of money in circulation this process is simply reversed. The Federal Reserve sells these bonds to the public and the money flows out of the purchaser's local bank. Loans must be reduced by ten times the amount of the sale, so a Federal Reserve sale of $1,000,000 in bonds, results in $10,000,000 less money in the economy. How does this benefit the bankers, whose representatives met at Jekyll Island?

It prevented any future banking reform efforts, as the Federal Reserve was to be the only producer of money.
This in turn prevented a proper debt free system of government finance, like President Lincoln's Greenbacks, from making a comeback. Instead, the bond based system of government finance, forced on Lincoln after he created Greenbacks, was now cast in stone.
It delegated to the bankers the right to create 90% of our money supply based on a fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking and allowed them to loan out that 90% at interest.
It centralized overall control of our nations money supply in the hands of and for the profits of a few men.
It established a private central bank with a high degree of independence from effective political control.

1914 The start of World War I. In this war, the German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British, and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French.
One year after the passage of the Federal Reserve Bill, Representative Charles A Lindbergh Sr., outlined how The Federal Reserve created the, "business cycle," and how they manipulated that to their own advantage. He stated,

"To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market, then when ...business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check... prosperity in mid-career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest.

It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation, and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down. This is the strongest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed.

The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage. They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance."

1915 J. P. Morgan became the sales agent for the, "War Materials Board," to both the British and the French engaged in World War I, and becomes the biggest consumer on the planet, spending 10 million dollars a day. Furthermore, President Woodrow Wilson appointed banker, Bernard Baruch, to head the, "War Industries Board."
According to historian, James Perloff, both Bernard Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by approximately 200 million dollars during World War I.

A lot of people believe the key to an effective money supply is to ensure it is backed by something of worth such as gold. However, who do you think would control that gold? As Republican, Charles A. Lindbergh stated this year,

"Already the Federal Reserve Banks have cornered the gold and gold certificates."

1916 President Wilson began to realize the gravity of the damage he had done to America, by unleashing the Federal Reserve on the American people. He stated,

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled governments in the civilized world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by ...a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

1917 The money changers never forgave the Tsars of Russia for both continually opposing their request to set up a central bank in Russia, as well as their support of President Lincoln during the Civil War. Therefore, Jacob Schiff, a Rothschild, spent 20 million dollars through his firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Co., in financing the Russian Revolution.
It is commonly believed that Communism is the opposite of Capitalism, so why would these capitalists support it? Respected researcher, Gary Allen, explains it as follows,

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

1919 In January the Paris Peace Conference takes place following the end of World War I. The bankers put World Government at the top of their agenda, and Paul Warburg and Bernard Baruch attend this conference with President Wilson. To the bankers dismay, the world was not yet ready to dissolve national boundaries and accept World Government, so that part of their plan had failed.
The plan for World Government was called the, "League Of Nations," and although many nations accepted this proposal, the United States Congress would not support it, and thus without the support of money from the United States Treasury, the bankers had failed and the League Of Nations died.

1920 Warren G. Harding is elected President of the United States, and succeeds Woodrow Wilson in 1921. This will be the start of a period which became known as the, "roaring twenties." Despite the fact that World War I had saddled America with a debt that was ten times larger than its civil war debt, the United States economy grew in abundance. Also, gold had poured into America during the war and continued during the 1920's.
The reason for this growth is that President Harding reduced taxes domestically, and increased tariffs on imports to record levels.

1921 The Inventor of the electric light, Thomas Edison, said in an article published in the New York Times, on December 6,

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also...It is absurd to say that our country can issue 30 million dollars in bonds and not 30 million dollars in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."

1922 President Theodore Roosevelt who died in 1919 was quoted in the March 27th edition of the New York Times with the following statement,

"These International bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these newspapers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government."

The reason the New York Times ran this article, was due to the Mayor of New York, John Hylan, who had been reported in the same paper the previous day, March 26th, with the following statement,

"The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state, and nation...It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection...

To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. This little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States Government for their own selfish purposes.

They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make cats paws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business ...these International Bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country."

1923 On August 2nd, President Warren Harding died on a train in mysterious circumstances. The cause was given as either food poisoning or a stroke although no autopsy was performed. He was succeeded by his Vice-President Calvin Coolidge. President Coolidge continued Harding's tax cutting and tariff raising policies.
This policy was so successful that the economy still continued to grow, and the huge Federal Debt built up during World War I, under Harding and Coolidge was reduced by 38% down to 16 billion dollars. This was when the Federal Reserve started flooding the country with money, increasing the money supply by 62%.

Representative Charles A Lindbergh Sr. stated,

"The financial system...has been turned over to...the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of ...a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits, from the use of other people's money."

1924 Shortly before his death this year, President Woodrow Wilson made the following statement in relation to his support for the Federal Reserve,

"I have unwittingly ruined my country."

1927 In July, in Europe, Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman, Benjamin Strong of the Federal Reserve Bank, and Dr. Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, met in conference. No public reports were ever made of these conferences, which happened on numerous occasions and were wholly informal, but which covered many important questions of gold movements, the stability of world trade, and world economy.
Montagu Norman was obsessed with getting back the gold that England had lost to America during World War I and returning the Bank of England to its former position of dominance in world finance. Republican Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, from 1920 to 1931, would comment on this Bank of England plan in the midst of the Great Depression in February 1931 when he stated,

"I think it can hardly be disputed that the statesmen and financiers of Europe are ready to take almost any means to reacquire rapidly the gold stock which Europe lost to America as a result of World War I."

1929 In April, Paul Warburg sent out a secret warning to his friends that a collapse and nationwide depression had been planned for later that year. It is certainly no coincidence that the biographies of all the Wall Street giants of that era: John D. Rockefeller; J. P. Morgan; Joseph Kennedy; Bernard Baruch; et al, all marveled at the fact these people got out of the stock market completely just before the crash and put their assets into cash or gold.
So, as all the bankers and their friends already knew, in August the Federal Reserve began to tighten the money supply. Then on 24th October the big New York bankers called in their 24 hour broker call loans. This meant that both the stockbrokers and their customers had to dump their stocks on the stock market to cover their loans, irrespective of what price they had to sell them for.

As a result of this the stock market crashed on a day that would go down in history as, "Black Thursday." In his book, The Great Crash 1929, John Kenneth Gailbraith makes the following shocking statement,

"At the height of the selling frenzy Bernard Baruch brought Winston Churchill into the visitors gallery of the New York Stock Exchange to witness the panic and impress him with his power over the wild events on the floor."

Republican Congressman, Louis T McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, from 1920 to 1931, was as usual quite candid as to who was responsible. He stated of this crash,

"It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence...The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all."

Curtis B. Dall, the son-in-law of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was working for Lehmann Brothers as a broker, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, on the day of the crash, stated in his 1967 book, F. D. R. My Exploited Father-In-Law,

"Actually, it was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World-Money powers triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the New York Money Market."

Despite the claims of how the Federal Reserve would protect the country against depressions and inflation, they continued to further contract the money supply. Between 1929 and 1933, they reduced the money supply by an additional 33%. Even, Milton Friedman, the Nobel Peace Prize winning economist stated the following in a radio interview in January 1996,

"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."

In only a few weeks from the day of the crash, 3 billion dollars of wealth vanished. Within a year, 40 billion dollars of wealth vanished. However, it did not simply disappear, it just ended up consolidated in fewer and fewer hands, as was planned. An example of this is Joseph P. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy's father. In 1929 he was worth 4 million dollars, in 1935 that had increased to over 100 million dollars.

This is why depressions are caused. As stated previously the top bankers and their friends got out of the stock market and purchased gold just before the crash, which they shipped over to London. This meant that the money lost by most Americans during the crash didn't just vanish, it just ended up in these people's hands.

It also was spent overseas, as whilst the Great Depression was occurring, millions of American dollars was being spent on rebuilding Germany from damage sustained during World War I, in preparation for the bankers World War II. Republican Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee from 1920 to 1931, stated the following in relation to this,

"After World War I, Germany fell into the hands of the German International Bankers. Those bankers bought her and now they own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production, they control all her public utilities.

The international German bankers have subsidized the present Government of Germany and they have also supplied every dollar of the money Adolph Hitler has used in his lavish campaign to build up a threat to the government of Bruening. When Bruening fails to obey the orders of the German International Bankers, Hitler is brought forth to scare the Germans into submission...

Through the Federal Reserve Board over 30 billion of dollars of American money...has been pumped into Germany...You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in Germany ...modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories.

All this was done on our money. All this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board...has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that they dare not name the total."

The money pumped in to Germany to build her up in preparation for World War II, was into the German Thyssen banks which were affiliated with the Harriman interest in New York.

1930 The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) was established by Charles G. Dawes (Rothschild agent and Vice President under President Calvin Coolidge from 1925-1929), Owen D. Young (Rothschild agent, founder of RCA and Chairman of General Electric from 1922 until 1939), and Hjalmar Schacht of Germany (President of the Reichsbank).
The BIS is referred to the bankers as the, "Central bank for the central banks." Whereas the IMF and the World Bank deal with governments, the BIS deals only with other central banks. All its meetings are held in secret and involve the top central bankers from around the world. For example the former head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, would go to the BIS headquarters in Basel, Switzerland, ten times a year for these private meetings.

The BIS also has the status of a sovereign power and is immune from governmental control. A summary of this immunity is listed below:

Diplomatic immunity for persons and what they carry with them (i.e., diplomatic pouches).
No taxation on any transactions, including salaries paid to employees.
Embassy-type immunity for all buildings and/or offices operated by the BIS worldwide including China and Mexico.
No oversight or knowledge of operations by any government authority, they are not audited.
Freedom from immigration restrictions.
Freedom to encrypt any and all communications of any sort.
Freedom from any legal jurisdiction, they even have their own police force.
BIS' current board of directors, only five of which are elected and the rest of which are permanent, are:

Nout H E M Wellink, Amsterdam (Chairman of the Board of Directors)
Hans Tietmeyer, Frankfurt am Main (Vice-Chairman)
Axel Weber, Frankfurt am Main
Vincenzo Desario, Rome
Antonio Fazio, Rome
David Dodge, Ottawa
Toshihiko Fukui, Tokyo
Timothy F Geithner, New York
Alan Greenspan, Washington
Lord George, London
Hervé Hannoun, Paris
Christian Noyer, Paris
Lars Heikensten, Stockholm
Mervyn King, London
Guy Quaden, Brussels
Jean-Pierre Roth, Zürich
Alfons Vicomte Verplaetse, Brussels
Georgetown Professor and historian, Carroll Quigley, commented on the creation of this central bank in his 1975 book, Tragedy And Hope, as follows,

"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far reaching (plan), nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.

The apex of the system was to be the Bank For International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland (*), a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank ...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the Country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

* Home of first World Zionist Congress, chaired by Theodor Herzl in 1897

A handful of United States Senators led by Henry Cabot Lodge, fought to keep the United States out of the Bank for International Settlements. However, even thought the United States rejected this World Central Bank, the Federal Reserve still sent members to participate in its meetings in Switzerland, right up until 1994 when the United States was, "officially," dragged into it.

1932 Republican Representative Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania, the Former Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Commission during the great depression, states,

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board...This evil institution has impoverished...the people of the United States...and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through...the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."

In his final year in office, President Herbert Hoover puts forward a plan to bail out the failing banks, he seemed to feel that they took priority over millions of starving Americans, however this plan did not receive support from the Democratic Congress. Hoover's Presidency failing, Franklin D. Roosevelt is elected President later this year.

1933 On March 4th, during his inaugural address, President Roosevelt made the following statement,

"Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men...The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization."

However, later that year, President Roosevelt outlawed private ownership of all gold bullion and all gold coins with the exception of rare coins. Most of the gold in the hands of the average American was in the form of gold coins and this decree by Roosevelt was effectively a confiscation.

In small town America, the people did not trust Roosevelt. However, the people were given a simple choice. Either turn in your gold and be paid the official price for it of, $20-66 an ounce, or you will be liable for a $10,000 fine and a ten year prison sentence.

This confiscation order was so unpopular, it's author has never been discovered. No Congressman ever claimed having written it, President Roosevelt stated he had not written it, nor had he even read it. Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury, William H. Woodin, claimed he'd never read it either, but that it was, he stated,

"What the experts wanted."

I wonder to what, "experts," he refers!

1934 In its 20th June issue, New Britain magazine of London published a statement made by former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George that,

"Britain is the slave of an international financial bloc."

Also in the article was the following words written by Lord Bryce,

"Democracy has no more persistent and insidious foe than money power ...questions regarding Bank of England, its conduct and its objects, are not allowed by the Speaker (of the House of Commons)."

Louis T. McFadden, Republican Congressman and Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee from 1920 to 1931 stated,

"Through the Fed the people are losing their rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution ...common decency requires us to examine the public accounts of the government and see what kind of crimes against the public welfare have been committed...the people of these United States are being greatly wronged...

Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers-but truth is-the Fed has usurped the Government...the sack of these United States by the Fed is the greatest crime in history...what King ever robbed his subject to such an extent as the Fed has robbed us...it is a monstrous thing for this great nation of people to have its destinies presided over by a traitorous government board acting in secret concert with international usurer.

When the Fed was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here ...a super state controlled by international bankers, and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure."

1935 All the gold held by American citizens had finally been turned in under President Roosevelt's 1933 confiscation order at the price of $20-66 an ounce. Without explanation the official price of gold was then raised to $35 per ounce. The only catch was that only foreigners could sell their gold at the new higher price. Where is the world price of gold set? Since 1919, in the same room of private bank N. M. Rothschild & Sons in London, at 11:00 a.m., on a daily basis.
Therefore Warburg and his banking friends who put their money into gold at $20-66 before the stock market crash and shipped it to London, could now ship it back and sell it to the United States Government for the new higher price. The money changers have a golden rule,

"He who has the gold, makes the rules."

President Roosevelt orders the building of a new gold bullion depository to hold the vast amount of gold the United States government had illegally confiscated. That depository was Fort Knox.

1936 On October 3, Republican Congressman, Louis T McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, from 1920 to 1931, is poisoned to death. This was the third assassination attempt on his life, he had suffered an earlier poisoning and had had shots fired at him.
He had been trying for years to get the Federal Reserve, and as you will have read thus far, had made very revealing statements about the Federal Reserve. He had been warned to back off, but this great American Patriot, put the people he represented before himself, as all elected officials are supposed to do, and was killed by the bankers as a result.

1937 With Fort Knox having been completed only the previous year, the gold now began to flow into it.
1938 With the Federal Reserve having been in control of the United States economy for 25 years under the pretext of promoting monetary stability, it has caused three major economic downturns including the Great Depression. As Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman put it,

"The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before. The most dramatic period of instability in output was, of course, the period between the two wars, which includes the severe (monetary) contractions of 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38. No other 20 year period in American history contains as many as three such severe contractions.

This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System...and that the severity of each of the major contractions - 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38 - is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities...

Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, (so) that mistakes - excusable or not - can have such far reaching effects is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic - this is the key political argument against an independent central bank...To paraphrase Clemenceau money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers."

Milton Friedman would also state,

"I know of no severe depression, in any country or any time that was not accompanied by a sharp decline in the stock of money, and equally of no sharp decline in the stock of money that was not accompanied by a severe depression."

1941 Sir Josiah Stamp, director of the Bank of England during the years 1928-1941, made the following statement with regard to banking,

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again...

Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit."

1944 The United States income is running at 183 billion dollars, yet 103 billion dollars is being spent on World War II. This was thirty times the spending rate during World War I. Actually, it was the American taxpayer that picked up 55% of the total allied cost of the war.
In Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank (initially called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or IBRD - the name, "World Bank," was not actually adopted until 1975), were approved with full United States participation.

The principal architects of the Bretton Woods system, and hence the IMF, were Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes. Interestingly Harry Dexter White who died in 1946, was identified as a Soviet spy whose code name was, "Jurist," on October 16, 1950, in an FBI memo. Also, John Maynard Keynes was a British citizen.

What these two bodies essentially did, was repeat on a world scale what the National Banking Act of 1864, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 had established in the United States. They created a banking cartel comprising the world's privately owned central banks, which gradually assumed the power to dictate credit policies to the banks of all nations.

In the same way the Federal Reserve Act authorized the creation of a new national fiat currency called, Federal Reserve Notes, the IMF has been given the authority to issue a world fiat money called, "Special Drawing Rights," or SDR's. Member nations were subsequently pressured into making their currencies fully exchangeable for SDR's.

The IMF is controlled by its board of governors, which are either the heads of different central banks, or the heads of the various national treasury departments who are dominated by their central banks. Also, the voting power in the IMF gives the United States and the United Kingdom (the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England), effective control of it.

1945 The second, "League Of Nations," now renamed the, "United Nations," was approved. The bankers, World War II, had been a success this time as a result of the physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion the world had felt after yet another World War. This blueprint for world government would soon have its own international court system as well.
1946 The Bank of England was nationalized, which might seem at first sight to be a far reaching measure, but actually made little difference in practice. Yes, the state did acquire all the shares in the Bank of England, they now belong to the Treasury and are held in trust by the Treasury Solicitor.
However, the government had no money to pay for the shares, so instead of receiving money for their shares, the shareholders were issued with government stocks. Although the state now received the operating profits of the bank, this was offset by the fact that the government now had to pay interest on the new stocks it had issued to pay for the shares.

So, although the Bank of England is now state-owned, the fact is that the British money supply is once again almost entirely in private hands, with 97% of it being in the form of interest bearing loans of one sort or another, created by private commercial banks.

As a result of this, the bank is largely controlled and run by those from the world of commercial banking and conventional economics. The members of the Court of Directors, who set policy and oversee its functions, are drawn almost entirely from the world of banks, insurance, economists and big business.

Although the Bank of England is called a central bank it is now essentially a regulatory body that supports and oversees the existing system. It is sometimes referred to as "the lender of last resort," in so far as one of its functions as the bankers' bank is to support any bank or financial institution that gets into difficulties and suffers a run on its liquid assets.

Interestingly, in these circumstances, it is not obliged to disclose details of any such measures, the reason being so as to avoid a crisis in confidence.

1950 Every nation involved in World War II greatly multiplied their debt. Between 1940 and 1950, United States Federal Debt went from 43 billion dollars to 257 billion dollars, a 598% increase. During that same period Japanese debt increased by 1,348%, French debt increased by 583%, and Canadian debt increased by 417%.
James Paul Warburg appearing before the Senate on 7th February states,

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

This is when the central bankers got to work on their plan for global government which started with a three step plan to centralize the economic systems of the entire world. These steps were:

Central Bank domination of national economies worldwide.
Centralized regional economies through super states such as the European Union, and regional trade unions such as NAFTA.
Centralize the World Economy through a World Central Bank, a world money, and ending national independence through the abolition of all tariffs by treaties like GATT.

1953 President Eisenhower orders an audit of Fort Knox. Fort Knox is found to contain over 700 million ounces of gold, 70% of all the gold in the world. Although Federal Law requires an annual physical audit of Fort Knox's gold, it is under Eisenhower's presidency that the last audit is carried out, for reasons that will soon become clear.
1963 President Kennedy issues dollar bills carrying a red seal, and called United States Note. A lot of people believe he was already printing his own debt free money and that is why he was killed, in much the same way as President Lincoln. However, these United States Notes carrying the red seal were merely a reissue of the Greenbacks introduced by President Lincoln.
What could have been motive though, is that on June 4, President Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the United States government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. This order gave the Treasury the power to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury. This meant that for every ounce of silver in the United States Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new debt free money into circulation.

1967 Congressman Wright Patman, then the Chairman Of The House Banking And Currency Committee, stated in Congress,

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

1969 Congress approves laws authorizing the Federal Reserve to accept the IMF's, "SDR's," as reserves in the United States and to issue Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for SDR's.
1971 All the pure gold had been secretly moved from Fort Knox, sold to international money changers for the $35 per ounce price, and is believed to now be kept in London. This is also when President Nixon repeals Roosevelt's Gold Reserve Act of 1934, allowing Americans to once again buy gold. As a result of this gold prices began to soar. In fact, 9 years later, in 1980, gold sold for $880 per ounce, a staggering 25 times what the gold in Fort Knox was sold to the international bankers for.
1974 A New York periodical publishes an article claiming that the Rockefeller family were manipulating the Federal Reserve for the purpose of selling off Fort Knox gold at bargain basement prices to anonymous European speculators. 3 days after the publication of this story, its anonymous source, long time secretary to Nelson Rockefeller, Louise Auchincloss Boyer, mysteriously fell to her death from the window of her ten storey apartment block in New York.
1975 Edith Roosevelt, the grand-daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt questioned the actions of the government in a March 1975 edition of the New Hampshire Sunday News, in which she stated,

"Allegations of missing gold from our Fort Knox vaults are being widely discussed in European financial circles. But what is puzzling is that the Administration is not hastening to demonstrate conclusively that there is no cause for concern over our gold treasure, if indeed it is in a position to do so."

The United States government still did not undertake an audit of the gold in Fort Knox to quell this speculation.

1981 When President Ronald Reagan took office, his conservative friends suggested to him that he return to a gold standard, as a means to curbing government spending. President Reagan was on board with this idea and so he appointed a group of men called the, "Gold Commission," to undertake a feasibility study and report their findings back to Congress.
1982 President Reagan's, "Gold Commission," reports back to Congress and makes the following shocking statement concerning gold,
"The U. S. Treasury owned no gold at all. All the gold that was left in Fort Knox was now owned by the Federal Reserve, a group of private bankers, as collateral against the National Debt."

1983 In order that Ecuador's government be allowed a loan of 1.5 billion dollars from the IMF, they were forced to take over the unpaid private debts Ecuador's elite owed to private banks. Furthermore in order to ensure Ecuador could pay back this loan, the IMF dictated price hikes in electricity and other utilities. When that didn't give the IMF enough cash they ordered Ecuador to sack 120,000 workers.
Ecuador were required to do a variety of things under a timetable imposed by the IMF. These included: raising the price of cooking gas by 80% by November 1 2000; transferring the ownership of its biggest water system to foreign operators; granting British Petroleum the rights to build and own an oil pipeline over the Andes; and eliminating the jobs of more workers and reducing the wages of those remaining by 50%.

1985 In order to illustrate that the great majority of money is not even printed these days, please see the following speech by the late Lord Beswick which appeared in HANSARD, 27th November 1985, vol. 468, columns 935-939, under the title, "Money Supply and the Private Banking System," which states,

"Lord Beswick rose to call attention to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 23rd July 1985 that the 96.9 per cent increase in money supply over a five-year period has been created by the private banking system and without Government authority….

The noble Lord said, 'My Lords, on 10th June this year I asked Her Majesty’s Government by what amount the money supply had increased in the five-year period to mid-April 1985. Interestingly, they gave me the answer in percentages and not in pounds. Having given him prior notice, perhaps the Minister would be good enough later to give me the answer in money terms.

The Government reply on 10th June was that the increase had been by 101.9 per cent, and that of that very large amount only 5 per cent was accounted for by the state minting of more coins and the printing of more notes. That 96.9 per cent increase represented not only an enormous sum of money but also a crucially important factor in our economy.

I wanted to know by whom it had been created, and on 23rd July I again asked Her Majesty’s Government to what extent this increase had Government approval. I was told by the Chancellor of the Duchy, speaking for the Government, 'The 96.9 per cent represented new bank deposits created in the normal course of banking business and no Government authority is necessary for this.'

Had he said that some counterfeiter of coins or forger of notes had been at work there would of course have been an immediate and indignant outcry, yet here we have a government statement that private institutions have created this enormous amount of extra purchasing power and we are expected to accept that it is normal practice and that the government authority does not come into it.

When I asked whether we ought not to consider more deeply who was benefiting from this money-creating power, the Minister said that the implications, though interesting, were maybe too far reaching for Question Time, and so I raise the matter again in debate and hope to get more enlightenment.

The issues are important, they are certainly under-discussed, perhaps not adequately understood, and I hope that I am not being unduly unfair if I say that those who understand the mechanisms often do very well out of them. I make no party point; it is all much bigger and wider than that."

Notice how the Chancellor of the Duchy gave the game away when he said that no government authority was needed for this present system of credit creating.

1987 Edmond de Rothschild creates the World Conservation Bank which is designed to transfer debts from third world countries to this bank and in return those countries would give land to this bank. This is designed so the Rothschilds can gain control of the third world which represents 30% of the land surface of the Earth.
1988: The three arms of the World Central Bank, the World Bank, the BIS and the IMF, now generally referred to as the World Central Bank, through their BIS arm, require the world's bankers to raise their capital and reserves to 8% of their liabilities by 1992. This increased capital requirement put an upper limit on fractional reserve lending.
To raise the money, the world's bankers had to sell stocks which depressed their individual stock markets and began depressions in those countries. For example in Japan, one of the countries with the lowest capital in reserve, the value of its stock market crashed by 50%, and its commercial real estate crashed by 60%, within two years.

The idea is for the IMF to create more and more SDR's backed by nothing, in order for struggling nations to borrow them. These nations will then gradually come under the control of the IMF as they struggle to pay the interest, and have to borrow more and more. The IMF will then decide which nations can borrow more and which will starve. They can also use this as leverage to take state owned assets like utilities as payment against the debt until they eventually own the nation states.

1991 At the Bilderberg Conference on June 6 to 9, in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller made the following statement,

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world, if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.

But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

Note: Click here for a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with a list of people at the Bilderberg Conferences.

1992 The third world debtor nations who had borrowed from the World Bank, pay 198 million dollars more to the central banks of the developed nations for World Bank funded purposes than they receive from the World Bank. This only goes to increase their permanent debt in exchange for temporary relief from poverty which is caused by the payments on prior loans, the repayments of which already exceed the amount of the new loans.
This year Africa's external debt had reached 290 billion dollars, which is two and a half times greater than its level in 1980, which has resulted in deterioration of schools, deterioration of housing, sky-rocketing infant mortality rates, a drastic downturn in the general health of the people, and mass unemployment.

The Washington Times reports that Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, was upset that most of the incoming foreign aid was being siphoned off, and he stated,

"Straight back into the coffers of Western Banks in debt service."

This year American taxpayers pay the Federal Reserve 286 billion dollars in interest on debt the Federal Reserve purchased by printing money virtually cost free.

1994 The Regal Act is introduced in the United States to authorize the replacement of President Lincoln's Greenbacks with debt based notes. They had lasted for 132 years.
1996 Ever wondered why all the world's production seems to be moving to China? In a report entitled, "China's Economy Toward the 21st Century," released this year, it predicts that the per capita income in China in 2010, will be approximately 735 dollars. This is less than 30 dollars higher than the World Bank definition of a low income country.
1997 Less than two months before Tony Blair came to power in England, another interesting entry can be found in HANSARD, 5th March 1997, volume 578, No. 68, columns 1869-1871, in which the Earl of Caithness is recorded as having stated,

"The next government must grasp the nettle, accept their responsibility for controlling the money supply and change from our debt-based monetary system. My Lords, will they? If they do not, our monetary system will break us and the sorry legacy we are already leaving our children will be a disaster."

On 6 May, only four days after Tony Blair's election as Prime Minister, his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, announces he is going to give full independence from political control to the Bank of England.

In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski reveals that Germany is the largest shareholder in the World Bank. When you bear in mind that bankers of the Rothschild bloodline were said to own Germany, "lock, stock and barrel," at the end of World War I, it is not difficult to see who controls the World Bank now.

1998 The IMF eliminate food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia. At the same time the IMF soaked up tens of billions of dollars to save Indonesia's financiers or rather the international banks from whom they had borrowed.
A document leaks out of the World Bank, called, "Master Plan for Brazil." In it it spells out five requirements to ensure a flexible public sector workforce. These are as follows:

Reduce Salary/Benefits
Reduce Pensions
Increase Work Hours
Reduce Job Stability
Reduce Employment

1999 In Brazil, Rio's privatized electric company named, "Rio Light," is responsible for repeated blackouts in neighborhoods. The company blames the weather in the Pacific Ocean for the blackouts, when Rio is on the Atlantic. The blackouts wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that after privatization Rio Light axed 40% of the company's workforce would it? No problem for Rio Light, as a result of that their share price went up 33%.
2000 The IMF require Argentina to cut the government budget deficit from its current $5.3 billion to $4.1 billion the following year, 2001. At that point unemployment was running at 20% of the working population. They then upped the ante and demanded an elimination of the deficit. The IMF had some ideas of how this could be achieved. Cut the government's emergency employment program from $200 a month to $160 a month.
They also asked for an across the board 12 - 15% cut in salaries for civil servants and the cutting of pensions to the elderly by 13%. By December of 2001, middle class Argentineans sick of literally hunting the streets for garbage to eat, started burning down Buenos Aires. In January Argentina devalued the Peso wiping out the value of many common people's savings accounts. Dismayed that they can't rape that country further, James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, states,

"Almost all major utilities have been privatized."

How do they control the unrest within the population? Let me see, an Argentinean bus driver, a thirty seven year old father of five, lost his job as a bus driver from a company that owed him 9 months pay. During a demonstration against this and other injustices perpetrated upon him and the population, the military police shot him dead with a bullet through the head.

In Tanzania with approximately 1.3 million people dying of AIDS, the World Bank and the IMF decided to require Tanzania to charge for what were previously free hospital appointments. They also ordered Tanzania to charge school fees for their previously free education system then expressed surprise when school enrolment dropped from 80% to 66%.

The IMF and World Bank have been in charge of Tanzania's economy since 1985 during which time Tanzania's GDP dropped from $309 to $210 per capita, standards of literacy fell and the rate of abject poverty increased to envelop 51% of the population.When the IMF and World Bank took charge in 1985, Tanzania was a socialist nation. In June 2000 the World Bank reported arrogantly,

"One legacy of socialism is that most people continue to believe the State has a fundamental role in promoting development and providing social services."

There is rioting in Bolivia after the World Bank drastically increase the price of water. The World Bank claim this is necessary to provide for desperately needed repairs and expansion. This is poppycock, my own water supplier is Wessex Water, a privatized water company that was actually owned by Enron! Since privatization (England was the first country to privatize the public water supply), the quality dropped and the prices exploded.

Almost all privatized water companies in Britain have consistently failed to meet government targets on leakages.

2001 Professor Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, and former Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, goes public over the World Bank's, "Four Step Strategy," which is designed to enslave nations to the bankers. I summarize this below,
Step One: Privatization.
This is actually where national leaders are offered 10% commissions to their secret Swiss bank accounts in exchange for them trimming a few billion dollars off the sale price of national assets. Bribery and corruption, pure and simple.

Step Two: Capital Market Liberalization.
This is the repealing any laws that taxes money going over its borders. Stiglitz calls this the, "hot money," cycle. Initially cash comes in from abroad to speculate in real estate and currency, then when the economy in that country starts to look promising, this outside wealth is pulled straight out again, causing the economy to collapse.

The nation then requires IMF help and the IMF provides it under the pretext that they raise interest rates anywhere from 30% to 80%. This happened in Indonesia and Brazil, also in other Asian and Latin American nations. These higher interest rates consequently impoverish a country, demolishing property values, savaging industrial production and draining national treasuries.

Step Three: Market Based Pricing.
This is where the prices of food, water and domestic gas are raised which predictably leads to social unrest in the respective nation, now more commonly referred to as, "IMF Riots." These riots cause the flight of capital and government bankruptcies. This benefits the foreign corporations as the nations remaining assets can be purchased at rock bottom prices.

Step Four: Free Trade.
This is where international corporations burst into Asia, Latin America and Africa, whilst at the same time Europe and America barricade their own markets against third world agriculture. They also impose extortionate tariffs which these countries have to pay for branded pharmaceuticals, causing soaring rates in death and disease

There are a lot of losers in this system, but a few winners - bankers. In fact the IMF and World Bank have made the sale of electricity, water, telephone and gas systems a condition of loans to every developing nation. This is estimated at 4 trillion dollars of publicly owned assets.

In September of this year, Professor Joseph Stiglitz is awarded the Nobel Prize in economics.

2002 On April 12th every major paper in the USA runs a story that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had resigned as he was, "unpopular and dictatorial." In fact he had been kidnapped under a coup, where he was imprisoned on an army base. Following sympathy from the guards, the coup falls apart and President Chavez is back in his office one day later. Interestingly he has video evidence that whilst he was imprisoned on that base a United States military attaché entered the base.
President Chavez, demonized by the controlled western media, gives milk and housing to the poor, and gives land not used for production by big plantation owners for more than two years, to those without land. His big crime however, was in passing a petroleum law that doubled the royalty taxes from 16% to 30% on new oil discoveries, which affected Exxon Mobil and other international oil operators.

He also took full control of the state oil company, PDVSA, which before was nominally owned by the government, but in actual fact was in thrall to these international oil operators. Not only that but President Chavez is also the President of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). The main reason is, however, that President Chavez fully rejects the World Bank's, "Four Step Strategy," and plan to reduce wages of the people for the benefit of the bankers.

Indeed President Chavez has increased the minimum wage by 20%, which has increased the purchasing power of the lower paid workers and strengthened the economy. His minister, Miguel Bustamante Madriz, fully aware of the danger Venezuela poses to the bankers when people contrast the fact it wouldn't let them in, for example, with Argentina who did, stated,

"America can't let us stay in power. We are an exception to the new globalization order. If we succeed, we are an example to all the Americas."

2006 America and Britain is now at war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and looking toward an invasion of Iran. As I mentioned before the greatest debt generator of them all is war. This has pushed America to the brink of financial collapse. This timeline is intended as a record of the past, but before you look at the conclusions, you may like to look at one person's prediction for the near future in this mind-blowing article.

Conclusions
In my research, I have discovered those critics who currently condemn the monetary system almost universally suggest that the only solution is to restore a gold backed currency. I don't think any readers of this timeline can be in any doubt, that such a system will be open to abuse by those very people who abuse it today. Indeed if we introduced a currency backed by chairs, I believe we would find ourselves with nothing to sit on!

The only monetary system that seems to have worked in history is one which is backed by the goodwill of a government and is debt free, such as President Lincoln's, "Greenbacks." Fortunately, the Nobel Peace Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman came up with an ingenious solution of wresting back control of the money supply from the bankers, paying off all outstanding debt, and preventing inflation or deflation whilst this process is completed. I summarize this below.

Using America as the example here, Friedman suggests that debt free United States notes be issued to pay off the United States Bonds (debts) on the open market. In conjunction with this, the reserve requirements of the day to day bank the regular person banks with, be proportionally raised so the mount of money in circulation remains constant.

As those people holding bonds are paid off in United States notes, they will deposit the money in the bank they bank with, thus making available the currency then needed by these banks to increase their reserves. Once all these United States bonds are paid off with United States notes, the banks will be at 100% reserve banking instead of the fractional reserve system and then fractional reserve banking can be outlawed.

If necessary, the remaining liabilities of financial institutions could be assumed or acquired by the United States government in a one-off operation. Therefore these institutions would eventually be paid off with United States notes for the purpose of keeping the total money supply stable.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the National Banking Act of 1864 must also be repealed and all monetary power transferred back to the Treasury Department. The effects of this will be seen very soon by the average person as their taxes would start to go down as they would no longer be paying interest on debt based money to a handful of central bankers.

A law must be passed to ensure that no banker or any person in any way affiliated with financial institutions, be allowed to regulate banking. Also the United States must withdraw from all international debt based central banking operations ie. the IMF; the BIS; and the World Bank.

If all the countries of the world adopted the conclusions above, then humanity will at last be free of these central bankers and their debt based currency. It's a lovely idea, but first we have to get it past our corrupt politicians many of whom are quite aware of the scam that plays us on a daily basis, however rather than do the job we have elected them to do, they keep their mouths shut and instead look after themselves and their families, whilst the rest of us continue to be exploited.

"For what will it profit men that a more prudent distribution and use of riches make it possible for them to gain even the whole world, if thereby they suffer the loss of their own souls? What will it profit to teach them sound principles in economics, if they permit themselves to be so swept away by selfishness, by unbridled and sordid greed, that, 'hearing the Commandments of the Lord, they do all things contrary."

Pope Pius XI

Sources
The Life Of William Ewart Gladstone John Morley 1903
Secrets Of The Federal Reserve Eustace Mullins 1952
The Great Crash 1929 John Kenneth Gailbraith 1955
F. D. R. My Exploited Father-In-Law Curtis B. Dall 1967
Collective speeches of Congressman Louis T. McFadden Louis T. McFadden 1970
A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz 1971
None Dare Call It Conspiracy Gary Allen 1972
Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time Carroll Quigley 1975
The Truth in Money Book Theodore R. Thoren and Richard F. Warner 1984
The Grand Chessboard Zbigniew Brzezinski 1997
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve - 3rd Edition G. Edward Griffin 1998
The Money Changers Patrick S. J. Carmack 1998
The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline - 2002 Edition James Perloff 2002
Globalization and Its Discontents Joseph E. Stiglitz 2003

AFRICOM: FROM THE BUSH "BALONEY" DECEPTION TO AN OBAMA DECEPTION?

Practical Idealist Revival
columnist: John Kusumi

Movie Review: The Obama Deception
by John Kusumi
(centrist liberal)

Topic: Debate
Movie Review: The Obama Deception
A review of the new movie, The Obama Deception, from Alex Jones.by John Kusumi
(centrist liberal)
Friday, March 20, 2009

For my fellow Americans who don't know what's been going on, there is such a thing as the red pill genre of news and information. The term "red pill" comes from a movie, The Matrix, where a character can choose a red pill to disconnect from the matrix, or a blue pill to remain blissfully ignorant of the matrix -- even forgetting the opportunity to choose one pill or the other.

While The Matrix was a fictional movie, The Obama Deception is not. People such as President Barack Obama, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would dearly love to call the movie fictional, but they are not disinterested parties because they are subjects of treatment in the movie. The Obama Deception places them on the hot seat, and they might call the movie "insulting," "slander," "libel," or "defamation of character."

Ah, but this is America. The law would protect an Anonymous Joe against slander, libel, and defamation. But, for public figures, our system allows debate and discussion, consistent with political free speech as assured by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Public figures cannot win cases for slander, libel, and defamation, unless they also prove a fourth factor: malice. And when a call is borderline, the First Amendment protections weigh very heavily. At least in some previous years, the American system has strongly protected its free speech rights.

So every now and then, something is released like Michael Moore's Farenheit 911, or now Alex Jones' The Obama Deception. These are examples of the red pill genre. Red pill material posits that most people are plugged into a matrix, where everyday life is a controlled experience because we are surrounded by the masses of people who are brainwashed by disinformation and propaganda. Most people are creatures of habit, not critical thinkers, and hence their responses come from habits inculcated, and rules of thumb that are promulgated, by the society around them.

If that were the extent of the proposition, I would say "there's something to it," and add that Madison Avenue has highly developed the techniques of marketing, advertising, and public relations. I've had first hand experience working on 'Madison Avenue,' and in political campaigns. (In my case, 'Madison Avenue' needs scare quotes, because N.W. Ayer -- my former and now-defunct agency -- was literally on Sixth Avenue in New York City.) In fact, propaganda and spin are their own highly refined disciplines. Political strategists won't deny it, so there is essential plausibility for the tenets of the red pill genre.

Alex Jones takes it a bit farther, by uncovering hideous evil (whether real or perceived), naming names, and ascribing evil intentions to those he names. In some ways, this is inconvenient, because I have Obama criticism that comes from a different angle. My angle is "the politics of practical idealism" and I would prefer to think of it as "no pill" politics. What if I don't have to swallow either a blue or a red pill? I think of our scene as inconvenient, because the other side -- the Obama administration -- would love to conflate all of its critics together and use broad brush strokes to tar them simultaneously.

Personally, I think there are enormous differences between Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and John Kusumi. But there is a man called Robert Gibbs -- perhaps I'll nickname him Robert Glibs -- who would like to be dismissive of all administration critics. Well, the paint fight comes later. First, here, I'm rendering my own review of the movie.

An essential premise of the movie is that while Obama occupies the throne, real power rests elsewhere. Private bankers, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street are a financial cabal, and they buy the candidate of their choice. The movie includes another narrative, in which power goes from the Bilderberg group to the Trilateral Commission to the Council on Foreign Relations. And as a willing stooge, Barack Obama rewards these groups by packing his administration and cabinet with people from Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations. Then he proceeds to break myriad campaign promises, on the road to implementing a "globalist agenda."

I see some aspects that are disturbing on both sides -- for viewers, and for the Obama administration. Review this quote from the paragraph above: "Obama rewards these groups by packing his administration and cabinet with people from Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations. Then he proceeds to break myriad campaign promises". What's disturbing is that this part of the movie is clearly non-fiction and accurate. The President's own behavior validates, or punches the ticket, of The Obama Deception. It reflects and reports his real life behavior. It's disturbing, because it makes the movie all the harder to dismiss. Barack Obama, you are being documented and chronicled! This much is true.

And so yes, Obama is being documented and chronicled, but the other side can say not always fairly. In an earlier paragraph, I hinted that evil can be real or perceived. The eye of the beholder must take in the information, process it, and arrive at a conclusion as to how evil is the material as witnessed. When we come to "ascribing evil intentions," this is necessarily the realm of conjecture and speculation. In a court of law, conjecture and speculation are tossed out, and someone at the podium of Robert Gibbs can come back with just that point. And, my earlier paragraph ended with the words, "on the road to implementing a 'globalist agenda.'" When the topic is the future, none of us really have it in hand to speak for.

As a result, there is an element of speculation that a court of law would toss. But, the court of public opinion is where we really are, and that's not the same as a court of law. Political free speech definitely supports the right of Alex Jones and anyone to point an accusatory finger about a globalist agenda.

It is worth saying some more to review the fears of a globalist agenda. I believe that nations are good things to keep. I believe that a one-world government would be a very, very bad thing. I believe that lovers of liberty don't want to go there. That's my view, but of course there will always be some on the other side who think that yes, the world should move towards a one-world government. That's the problem. Jones and myself are solidly in the camp or column "against" global government. Anyone on the other side, by definition, favors a massive violation of American sovereignty.

There have already been massive violations of American sovereignty, as Bill Clinton brought in NAFTA / CAFTA / WTO / PNTR -- these are the so called "free trade" agreements that made our trade policy hostage to unelected, unaccountable, private sector bodies as found at NAFTA and the WTO. The entire concept of "investor to state" litigation (one of the precepts in the free trade agreements) is a massive violation of state sovereignty.

Talk of the globalist agenda wrinkles the nose, for people who want to be seen as "politically correct." PCness suggests, bury one's head in the sand on this issue. But, policy makers and informed Americans don't have the luxury to do so. (Apparently news rooms can keep their feet on the desk, and they DO have that luxury -- that, due to the remarkable low standards of THEIR industry. PNTR may be screwing America, but they were trained not to ask questions about it and to not challenge free trade.)

The above matters (free trade agreements) reveal that there has already been some implementation of a globalist agenda. So, it isn't pure speculation -- it has a history that we can review. But at some point, Alex Jones and I part company. I've expressed above where we agree, but in the face of all the bad news, I keep calm, while Jones continues into a full throated tirade against evil.

Sometimes, it may be hard to tell the difference between marauding evil and really bad policy. I keep my eyes out and ears tuned for policy mistakes. There is a role for those such as Jones who would fire up a base and rally the troops to the Rebel Alliance, in a face off with the Evil Empire. It's well and good that Jones occupies that niche. But my concerns range to other places, where Jones and I might disagree. The following is an example.

While I oppose a one-world government, I could support a one-world currency. Floating exchange rates, which we have now, are one way that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Fixed exchange rates, or a one-world currency, would stop the regime of floating exchange rates. On a level playing field, Ethiopians (e.g.) would not need to bemoan the fact that their currency is worthless. In fact, Wall Street includes forex traders who should logically be against this reform, since a one-world currency would obviate the existence of forex and the trading of currencies and related financial tricks.

Do I agree that the Federal Reserve should be nationalized and have its functions placed under the Treasury Department? Yes. But, that's in the absence of a world agreement for a world currency. The likelihood of world agreement is low. But if that were available (with no tiers, no tranches, no privileged treatment that disenfranchises poor people in poor countries), then I would say yes, let's take the agreement for one currency. And my parenthetical note is really the reason why agreement is unlikely. Bankers and Wall Street will want to rig the system so they remain advantaged. Because world agreement is likely not forthcoming -- I expect to remain in the camp with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Alex Jones (and even Glenn Beck!) saying, "End the Fed."

As for reviewing the Obama administration, Jones offers a very damning review. I've previously published some of my own thoughts -- Barack Obama is off to a shaky start. I was disappointed on Day One. On Day One, I would have the United States out of the (bad) WTO, into the (good) ICC, and recognizing (the nation of) Taiwan. And I believe in vigorous prosecution of the prior Bush administration. But I prefer to allow 100 days to elapse before I come out with my full review.

Jones and I have some overlap in our Obama criticism, so I can vouch for our points in common. When campaigning, Obama went to the (formerly) industrial mid-West, and denounced NAFTA. But, his campaign talked from both sides of its mouth, and told the Canadian government "not to worry." I suppose that means that Obama's NAFTA talk was just posturing. To me, the passage of NAFTA in the 1990s crossed a divide. The American republic gave way to the American kleptocracy. Now, Obama seems determined to "preserve, protect, and defend" kleptocracy.

In fact, if he can re-inflate the housing bubble, he will. He cannot do so, but he didn't mind supporting the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street -- a mugging of the American taxpayers that passed Congress in October, 2008.

To me, it is troubling that Obama would re-inflate the housing bubble and have everybody pick up and continue like nothing ever went wrong. That is a mental model that says we will, or can, or should go back to "the status quo ante." When the entire model and paradigm has failed, and when free trade exacerbates the recession and dilutes stimulus efforts, it's time to re-evaluate the model and paradigm. Instead, we saw U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton go to China like a pan handler, saying "please buy our debt." Obama and Clinton have not yet wrapped their heads around the point that the old model is unsustainable; that the economy imploded because that unsustainable model had run its course. Things need to be different going forward, but Obama and Clinton reveal "status quo ante" thinking. That's not change that I can believe in. That's continuity -- not leadership.

Jones and I also note that Barack Obama reversed himself on the quetion of warrantless wiretapping. During the campaign, he voted for the FISA immunity bill, which lets 'off the hook' those telecom companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

If Obama is a brilliant reformer, then he is aware of how compromised he is by surrounding himself with corrupt people. Twenty years ago, Nancy Pelosi was a new Congresswoman, and she became a hero to Chinese dissidents right after the Tiananmen Square massacre by going to bat for them on Capitol Hill. Now as I watched The Obama Deception, it was saddening to see how corrupt Pelosi has become. Also I was amazed at how off base and unrealistic is the thinking of Rahm Emanuel.

Jones' point is that Obama is NOT a brilliant reformer; just a brilliant liar. He may or may not be right. Thus far, I have seen no cessation of American kleptocracy. In fact, Obama took up crusading against the intellectually-dishonest shibboleth of "protectionism." The word protectionism is used by sell outs to avoid and evade sanity in trade policy.

There are parts in the movie that are absolutely brilliant. Complex material was covered at a level for general understanding. I'm thinking of one scene where the "Burger King analogy" is presented. It's more easily watched than described.

In the mildest formulation, Barack Obama is at least sold out. With his harsher and more scathing formulations, Alex Jones will be accused of twisting the truth. But there are many grains of truth included, and these naturally invite analysis. Alex Jones is standing on solid ground, but his "analysis" becomes the full throated tirade that wrinkles my nose and seems wearing.

I think that different people are going to have different take aways from The Obama Deception, but to arm yourself with information is always worthwhile. Alex Jones presents "red pill politics" while sold out mainstream news presents only "blue pill politics." Because the media are so one-sided, I value Jones' material as an antidote or tonic. In conclusion, I recommend this movie. It beats turning on the news and seeing less sincere blue pill stuff.



--
March 18, 2009

Posted by Bol at 12:23 PM

source: http://www.byroncrawford.com/
Things I learned watching The Obama Deception
The Obama Deception

So, I finally did get around to watching Alex Jones' The Obama Deception. A few things I learned:

1) Alex Jones has as many as five famous friends. - The Obama Deception is frontloaded with cameos by guys like Jesse Ventura and Willie Nelson (on the same bus together - I wonder if they were smoking weed), KRS-One, and Joe Rogan, though most of the heavy lifting is done by guys like Webster Griffin Tarpley, author of the hilarious, unauthorized biography of George H.W. Bush, and Gerald Celente, who supposedly predicted the 1987 stock market crash. I'm surprised Charlie Sheen wasn't involved. His career must be too hot right now.

2) KRS-One is a genius. - His politics as Burger King analogy is either the most brilliant thing I've ever heard, or the most retarded. Maybe both. It's true though, when you think about it - if you bitch enough, you can speak with the general manager, but you never get to see the franchise owner. I've worked in a number of fast food restaurants, and I don't even think I saw any of the franchise owners.

3) JFK was the last real president. - The bankers thought he'd take orders, because his father was a Nazi sympathizer and a "speculator." Worse case scenario, they knew he was a freak, and they figured they could probably use that to blackmail him. Hence Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday" to him all sexy, while his family was there. That was probably a warning not to pull out of Vietnam. When he did anyway (er, was going to), they had him killed. Every president since has just been an actor.

4) Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean the paranoid motherfuckers who are making me paranoid aren't really out there. - In The Obama Deception, the Bilderberg Group is made out to be like a comic book supervillain or some shit. For example, when gas was like $4 last summer, then all of a sudden it went down to about what it cost when I was a teenager, that was the Bilderberg Group. Same thing with the subprime mortgage crisis. The Bilderberg Group did that shit on purpose, to fuck up the economy.

5) The sound of conspiracy theories = Natalie Imbruglia. - I knew the spooky music that plays throughout The Obama Deception sounded familiar, but it took me a while to place it. The it occurred to - they play that shit all the time on the Muzak at the BGM. I consulted the Google, and come to find out it's a song called "Wrong Impression" by Natalie Imbruglia. Remember she had that song 'Torn?" I'm not gonna lie - I didn't have the album or anything, but if it came on in the ride, I wouldn't change the station. Plus, that broad was smokin'.

6) Global Warming = bullshit. I was all with Alex Jones, until he started talking about Obama's evil plans. The first thing he mentioned was raising taxes, as if that's the worst thing that could possibly happen. (As long as it's not my taxes.) Then he started talking about how there's no such thing as global warming; it's just some shit the bankers came up with so they could levy a carbon tax. The carbon tax supposedly goes to a company owned by Al Gore. Admittedly, that would help explain why Al Gore has been so committed to raising awareness of global warming, since he lost the 2000 election.

THE BBC REPORTS ON BILDERBERG

Bilderberg: The ultimate conspiracy theory
By Jonathan Duffy
BBC News Online Magazine

The Bilderberg group, an elite coterie of Western thinkers and power-brokers, has been accused of fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors. As the organisation marks its 50th anniversary, rumours are more rife than ever.

Given its reputation as perhaps the most powerful organisation in the world, the Bilderberg group doesn't go a bundle on its switchboard operations.

Telephone inquiries are met with an impersonal female voice - the Dutch equivalent of the BT Callminder woman - reciting back the number and inviting callers to "leave a message after the tone".

Anyone who accidentally dialled the number would probably think they had stumbled on just another residential answer machine.

Leiden
Leiden in Holland, the inauspicious base of the Bilderberg group
But behind this ultra-modest façade lies one of the most controversial and hotly-debated alliances of our times.

On Thursday the Bilderberg group marks its 50th anniversary with the start of its yearly meeting.

For four days some of the West's chief political movers, business leaders, bankers, industrialists and strategic thinkers will hunker down in a five-star hotel in northern Italy to talk about global issues.

What sets Bilderberg apart from other high-powered get-togethers, such as the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), is its mystique.

Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted.

The shadowy aura extends further - the anonymous answerphone message, for example; the fact that conference venues are kept secret. The group, which includes luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and former UK chancellor Kenneth Clarke, does not even have a website.


DISCREET AND ELITE
This year Bilderberg has announced a list of attendees
They include BP chief John Browne, US Senator John Edwards, World Bank president James Wolfensohn and Mrs Bill Gates

In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.

In Yugoslavia, leading Serbs have blamed Bilderberg for triggering the war which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic. The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance.

And while hardline right-wingers and libertarians accuse Bilderberg of being a liberal Zionist plot, leftists such as activist Tony Gosling are equally critical.

A former journalist, Mr Gosling runs a campaign against the group from his home in Bristol, UK.

"My main problem is the secrecy. When so many people with so much power get together in one place I think we are owed an explanation of what is going on.

Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, is led away from court
Timothy McVeigh was among those who believed the conspiracy theory
Mr Gosling seizes on a quote from Will Hutton, the British economist and a former Bilderberg delegate, who likened it to the annual WEF gathering where "the consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide".

"One of the first places I heard about the determination of US forces to attack Iraq was from leaks that came out of the 2002 Bilderberg meeting," says Mr Gosling.

But "privacy, rather than secrecy", is key to such a meeting says Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, who has been invited several times in a non-reporting role.

"The idea that such meetings cannot be held in private is fundamentally totalitarian," he says. "It's not an executive body; no decisions are taken there."

As an up-and-coming statesmen in the 1950s, Denis Healey, who went on to become a Labour chancellor, was one of the four founding members of Bilderberg (which was named after the hotel in Holland where the first meeting was held in 1954).

Crowds gather in Davos
The alternative - the WEF welcomes journalists
His response to claims that Bilderberg exerts a shadowy hand on the global tiller is met with characteristic bluntness. "Crap!"

"There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion," says Lord Healey.

Formed in the spirit of post-war trans-Atlantic co-operation, the idea behind Bilderberg was that future wars could be prevented by bringing power-brokers together in an informal setting away from prying eyes.

"Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended. The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.

"In my experience the most useful meetings are those when one is free to speak openly and honestly. It's not unusual at all. Cabinet meetings in all countries are held behind closed doors and the minutes are not published."

That activists have seized on Bilderberg is no surprise to Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories.

"The idea that a shadowy clique is running the world is nothing new. For hundreds of years people have believed the world is governed by a cabal of Jews.

"Shouldn't we expect that the rich and powerful organise things in their own interests. It's called capitalism."