The Money Masters

How International Bankers Gained Control of America (1996)

Directed and narrated by Bill Still.

1. Introduction - The problem

What's going on in America today?
Why are we over our heads in debts?
Why cannot the politicians bring debt under control?
Why are so many people, often both parents now working at low pay in death end jobs, and
still are making do with less?
What's the future of the American economy and way of life?
Why does the government tell us inflation is low, when the buying power of our
paycheques is declining at alarming rate?
Only a generation ago bread was a quarter and you could get a new car for $1995.
Are we headed into an economic crash of unprecedented proportions, one which will make
the crash of 1929 and the great depression which followed, look like a Sunday school pick-
nick?
If so, can we prevent it?
And what can we do to protect our families?
Reliable experts say a crash is coming.
They also say that there are simple and inexpensive things anyone can do to protect their
families, to keep food on the tables and a roof over our heads, even in the worst of times.
But to do that, we have to understand why the crash is coming, who's behind it, what they
want, and how the perpetrators plan on protecting their families.
Armed with this knowledge, any of us, can ride out the coming storm.
(01:58)
Larry Bates was a bank president for 11 years.
As a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives he chaired The Committee On
Banking And Commerce.
He 's also a former professor of economics and the author of the best-selling book 'The
New Economic Disorder'.
"I can tell you right now, that there is going to be a crash of unprecedented proportions. A
crash like we never seen before in this country.
The greatest shock of this decade is that more people are about to lose more money than
any time before in our history. But the second greatest shock will be the incredible amount
of money just a roadable(?) small group of people will make at exactly the same time. You
see, in periods of economic upheaval and economic crisis wealth is not destroyed. It's
merely transferred."
Presidential candidate Charles Collins is a lawyer, has own banks and served as a bank
director.
He believes we'll never get out of debt because the Federal Reserve is in control of our
money.
(03:09)
"Right now is perpetuated by the Federal Reserve making us borrow the money (and
prom.) at interest to pay the interest that's already accumulated.
So we can not get out of debt the way we are going now."

(03:24)
Economist Henry Pasquet is a ten year instructor in economics.
He agrees the end is near for the US economy.
"... not when you're adding, you know, roughly round term a billion dollars a day. We just
cannot go on. We had less than 1 trillion dollars national debt in 1980. Now it's
approximately 5 trillion dollars, 5 times greater in 15 years. It doesn't take a genius to
realise that this just cannot go on for ever."

The problem is that since 1864, we've had a debt-based banking system.
All our money is based on government debt.
We can not extinguish government debt without extinguishing our money supply.
That's why talk of paying of the national debt, without reforming our banking system, is an
impossibility.
That's why the solution does not lay in discussing the size of national debt.
Rather it lays in reforming out banking system.

This is the Federal Reserve Headquarters in Washington.

It sits on this very impressive address: right on Constitution Avenue, right across from the
Lincoln Memorial.
But is it Federal?
Is it really part of the United States Government?
Well, what we are about to show you, is that there is nothing federal about the Federal
Reserve and there are no reserves.
The name is a deception created back before the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913 to
make Americans think, that American central bank operates in the public interest.
The truth is that the Federal Reserve is a private bank, owned by private stockholders, and
run purely for their private profit.
(05:07)
Henry Pasquet "That's exactly correct. The FED is a privately owned, for profit
corporation, which again, has no reserve, at least, no reserves to back up the Federal
Reserve notes, which is our common currency."

(05:22)
Larry Bates "..oh absolutely. The Federal Reserve is neither federal and has doubtful
reserve. It's a private bank, that is own by member banks, and euh, it was charted under
the (dis) guise of deceit by an act of congress in 1913. December the 23rd, 1913, when
most members of the congress had gone home for the holidays, the house of representatives
had passed the federal reserve act of 1913. But it was having difficulties in getting out the
senate. And euh, most people had gone home. But one of the things I used to make sure and
check is when we had a recess in legislating circles, you want to make sure that adjourned
what is called senate die without date.(sunny die without day???)
The senate had die without date(?) . He was still technically in session.
So you had 3 members of the senate, according to the senate journal, were present on that
day, December the 23rd, 1913. And they passed the Federal Reserve Act in the senate on
an unanimous consent voice vote. There was no objection. Had there been one person there
to object, and say in contest, the absence of a court, than it would not have passed."

(06:36)
If there's still any doubt whether the Federal Reserve is a part of the US government, check
your locale telephone book.
In most cities it is not listed in the blue government pages.
It is listed in the business white pages, right next to Federal Express, another private
company.
But more directly, US court has ruled time and time again that the Federal Reserve is a
private corporation.

Why can't congress do something about the FED.

Most members of congress just don't understand the system.
And the few who do, are afraid to speak up.
For example, initially a veteran congressman from Chicago, asked us if he could be
interviewed for this video.
However both times our camera crew arrived at his office to do the interview, this was all
we were able to film (empty office).
The congressman never appeared.
And eventually decided he no longer wanted to participate.
But a few others in congress have been boulder over the years.
Here are 3 quick examples.
(07:42) In 1923, representative Charles E. Lindberg, a republican from Minnesota, and
father of the famed aviator, Lucky Lindy, put it this way:" 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 profit from the use of other people's money."
Charles E. Lindberg

One of the most outspoken critics in congress of the Fed was the former chairman of The
House of Banking Currency Committee during the depression years, Lewis T. McFadden,
republican of Pennsylvania, said in 1932: "We have in this country one of the most corrupt
institutions the world has ever known.
I refer to the Federal Reserve Board.... This evil institution has impoverished ... the people
of the US
... and has practically bankrupted our Government.
It has done this through ... the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."
Lewis T. McFadden

Senator Barry Goldwater was a frequent critic of the Fed.: "Most Americans have no real
understanding of the operation
of the international moneylenders .... The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have
never been audited.
It operates outside the control of Congress and ... manipulates the credit of the US." Barry
Goldwater

(09:15)
Larry Bates: "The Federal Reserve really, even though it is not part of the federal
government, it is more powerful than the federal government. It's more powerful than the
president, the congress and the courts.
And a lot of people challenge me on that, but, let me prove my case.
The Federal Reserve determines what the average persons car payment is going to be,
what their house payment is going to be, and whether they have a job or not.
And I submit to you that that's total control.
And the Federal Reserve is the largest single creditor of the US government.
What does proverbs tell us? That the borrower is servant to the lender."

What one has to understand is that from the day the constitution is adopted, right up to
today, the folks who profit from privately owned central banks, as Madison called them
The Money Changers, had fought a running battle for control of who gets to print
America's money.
Why is who prints the money so important?
Think as money is just another commodity.
If you have a monopoly on a commodity that everyone needs, everyone wants, and nobody
has enough of, there are lot's of ways to make a profit and also excerpt(?) tremendous
political influence.
That's what this battle is all about.
Throughout the history of the United States, the money power has gone back and forward
between congress and some sort of privately owned central bank.
The Founding Fathers knew the evils of a privately owned central bank.
First of all they had seen how the privately owned British central bank, The Bank of
England, had run up the British national debt to such an extent that parliament had been
forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies.
In fact, as we will see later, Benjamin Franklin claimed that this was the real cause of the
American Revolution.
Most of the founding fathers realised the potential dangers of banking and feared bankers
accumulation of wealth and power.
Thomas Jefferson put it this way: "I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more
dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it
properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson
That succinct statement of Jefferson is in fact the solution to all our economic problems
today.
It bears repeating: the issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the
people to whom it properly belongs.
James Madison, the main author of the constitution agreed.
Interestingly, he called those behind the central banks scheme, Money Changers.
Madison strongly criticised their actions: "History records that The Money Changers used
every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control
over governments by controlling money, and its issuance." James Madison
The battle over who gets to issue our money has been the pivotal issue throughout the
history of the United States.
Wars are fought over it.
Depressions are caused to acquire it.
Yet after WWI, this battle was rarely mentioned in the news papers or history books.
Why?
By WWI, The Money Changers with their dominant wealth had seized control of most of
the nations press.
Throughout US history, this battle over who gets the power to issue our money has
raged(?).
In fact, it has changed hands back and forward 8 times since 1764.
Yet this fact, has virtually vanished from public view for over 3 generations, behind a
smokescreen admitted by Fed chair leaders in the media.
Until we stop talking about deficits and government spending, and start talking about who
controls how much money we have, it's all just a big shell game.
A complete and utter deception.
It want matter if pass an iron clouded amendment to the constitution, mandating a balanced
budget.
Our situation is only going to get worse until we root out the cause at it's source.
What's the solution for our national problem?
First of all: education.
That what this presentation is all about.
But secondly we must act.
We must take back the power to issue our own money.
Issuing our own money is not a radical solution.
I want to stress that.
It's the same solution used in history by man like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
Andrew Jackson, Martin Vanburen and Abraham Lincoln.
(14:14)
So, to sum it up.
In 1913 congress gave an independent central bank, deceptively named the Federal
Reserve, a monopoly over issuing America's money and the debt generated by this quasi
private corporation is what is killing the American economy.
Though the Federal Reserve is now the most powerful bank in the world, it was not the
first.
So where did this idea come from?
To really understand the magnitude of the problem, we have to travel back to Europe.

(14:50)

2. The Money Changers

Just who are this Money Changers, James Madison spoke of.
In the bible, 2000 years ago, Jesus drove The Money Changers from the temple.
It was the only time Jesus used force during his ministry.
What were Money Changers doing in his temple?
When Jews came to Jerusalem, to pay their temple taxes, they could only pay it with a
special coin, the half-shekel of the sanctuary.
This was a half ounce of pure silver, about this size.
It was the only coin around at that time, which was pure silver and of assured weight,
without the image of pagan emperor.
Therefore, for the Jews, the half-shekel was the only acceptable to god.
But these coins were not plentiful.
The Money Changers had cornered the market on them.
Than they raised the prize, just like any other commodity to whatever the market would
bear.
In other words, Money Changers were making exorbitant profits because the held a virtual
monopoly on money.
The Jews had to pay whatever they demanded.
To Jesus this totally violated the sanctity of gods house.

(16:06)

3. Roman Empire
But the money changing scam did not originate in Jesus days.
Two hundred years before Christ, Rome was having trouble with Money Changers.
Two early Roman Emperors had tried to diminish the power of The Money Changers by
reforming usury laws and limiting landownership to 500 acres.
They were both assassinated.
In 48 BC Julius Caesar took back the power to coin money from The Money Changers and
minted coins for the benefit of all.
With this new plentiful supply of money he build great public works projects.
By making money plentiful Caesar won the love of the common men.
But The Money Changers hated him.
Some believe this was an important factor in Caesars assassination.
One thing is for sure, with the death of Caesar, came the demise of plentiful money in
Rome.
Taxes increased, as did corruption.
Just as in the case of America today, usury and debased coin became the rule.
Eventually the Roman money supply was reduced by 90%.
As a result the common people lost their lands and their homes.
Just as it is about to happen soon in America.
With the demise of plentiful money the masses lost confidence in the Roman government
and refused to support it.
Rome plunged in the gloom of the dark ages.

(17:39)

4. The Goldsmiths
A 1000 years after the death of Christ, Money Changers, those who loan out and
manipulate the quantity of money, where active in medieval England.
In fact, they were so active, that acting together they could manipulate the entire English
economy.
These were not bankers per se.
The Money Changers generally were the goldsmiths.
They were the first bankers, because they started keeping other peoples gold for safe
keeping in their vaults.
The first paper was merely a receipt for gold left at the goldsmith.
Paper money caught on because it was more convenient than carrying around a lot of heavy
gold and silver coins.
Eventually goldsmiths noticed that only a small fraction of the depositors ever came in and
demanded their gold at any one time.
Goldsmiths started cheating on the system.
They discovered that they could print more money than they had gold and usually no one
would be the wiser.
Than they could loan out this extra money and collect interest on it.
This was the birth of fractional reserve banking.
That is loaning out many times more money than you have assets on deposit.
So if a 1000 dollars in gold was deposited with them, they could loan out about 10.000 in
paper money and draw interest payments on it and no one would ever discover the
deception.
By this means, goldsmiths gradually accumulated more and more wealth and used this
wealth to accumulate more and more gold.
Today this practice of loaning out more money than there are reserves is known as
fractional reserve banking.
Every bank in the US is allowed loaning out at least 10 times more money than they
actually have.
That's why they get rich on charging let's say 8% interest.
It's not really 8% per year which is their income.
It's 80%.
That's why bank building are always the largest in town.
But does that mean that all interest or all banking should be illegal.
Hardly.
In the middle ages, canon law, the law of the catholic church, forbade charging interest on
loans.
This concept followed the teachings of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.
They taught that the purpose of money was to serve the members of society, to facilitate the
exchange of goods, needed to lead a virtuous life.
Interest in their believe, hindered this purpose by putting an unnecessary burden on the use
of money.
In other words, interest was contrary to reason and justice.
Reflecting church law in the middle ages, Europe forbade charging interest on loans and
made it a crime called usury.
As commerce grew, and therefore opportunities for investment arose in the middle ages it
came to be recognised that to loan money had a cost for the lender, both in risk and in lost
opportunity.
So some charges were allowed, but not interest per se.
But all moralist, no matter what religion, condemned fraud, oppression of the pour and
injustice as clearly immoral.
As we will see, fractional reserve lending is rooted in a fraud, results in widespread
poverty, and reduces the value of everyone else's money.
(21:20)
Ancient goldsmith discovered that extra profits could be made by rowing(?) the economy
between easy money and tight money.
When they made money easier to borrow, than the amount of money in circulation
expanded.
Money was plentiful.
People took out more loans to expand their businesses.
But then The Money Changers would tighten the money supply.
They would make loans more difficult to get.
What would happen?
Just what happens today.
A certain percentage of people could not repay their previous loans.
And could not take out new loans to repay the old ones.
Therefore they went bankrupt and had to sell their assets to the goldsmiths for pennies on
the dollar.
The same thing is still going on today.
Only today we call this the rowing(?) of the economy, up and down, the business cycle.

(22:20)

5. Talley Sticks
Like Julius Caesar, king Henry The First of England finally resolved to take the money
power away from the goldsmith about 1100 AD.
Henry could have used anything as money.
Sea shelves, feathers, or even yak dung as is often done in the remote Tibetan provinces.
But he invented one of the most unusual money systems in history.
It was called the Talley Sticks system.
Here I have one of the few surviving examples of this form of British money which lasted
726 years until 1826, a Talley stick.
The Talley system was adopted to avoid monetary manipulation of the goldsmiths.
Talley sticks were money fabricated of long sticks of polished wood.
Notches were cut along one edge of the stick to indicate the denominations.
Then the stick was split lengthwise trough the notches, so that both peaces still had a record
of the notches.
The king kept one half to protect against counterfeiting.
Than he would span the other half into the economy and they would circulate as money.
This particular Talley stick is huge, it represented 25.000 pounds.
One of the original stockholders in the bank of England purchased his original shares with
this stick.
In other words, he bought shares in the world richest and most powerful corporation with a
stick of wood.
It's ironic that after it's formation in 1694, The Bank of England attacked the Talley Stick
system, because it was money outside the power of The Money Changers just as king
Henry had wanted it to be.
Why the people accept sticks of wood for money?
That's a great question.
Throughout history people traded anything they thought had value and used it as money.
You see, the secret is that money is only what people agree on to use as money.
What's our paper money today?
It is really just paper.
But here is the trick.
King Henry ordered that Talley stick had to be used to pay the king's taxes.
This build in demand for Talley stick, immediately made them circulate and be accepted as
money.
And they worked well.
In fact, no other form of money has worked so well and for so long as Talley Sticks.
Keep in mind the British empire was build under the Talley Stick system.
The Talley Stick system succeeded despite the fact that The Money Changers constantly
attacked it, by offering the metal coin system as competition.
In other words, metal coins never went completely out of circulation.
But Talley Sticks hung on, because they were good for the payment of taxes.
Finally, in the 1500th, king Henry VIII, relaxed the laws concerning usury and The Money
Changers wasted no time reasserting themselves.
They quickly made their golden and silver money plentiful for a few decades.
But when queen Mary took the throne and tightened the usury laws again, The Money
Changers renewed the hording of golden and silver coins, forcing the economy to plummet.
When queen Mary's sister, Elisabeth I took the throne, she was determined to regain control
over English money.
Her solution was to issue golden and silver coins from the public treasury and take the
control over the money supply away from The Money Changers.
Although control over money was not the only cause of the English Revolution in 1642,
religious differences fuelled the conflict, monetary policy played a mayor role.
Financed by The Money Changers, Oliver Cromwell finally overthrew King Charles,
purged the parliament, and put the King to death.
The Money Changers were immediately allowed to consolidate their financial power.
The result was that for the next 50 years The Money Changers plunged great Britain into a
series of costly war.
They took over a square mile of property in the centre of London, known as The City of
London.
This area is still known today as one of the predominant financial centres of the world.
Conflicts with the Stuart kings lead The Money Changers in England to combine with those
in the Nederland's, to finance the invasion of William of Orange, who overthrew the Stuart
in 1688 and took the English throne.

(27:14)

6. The Bank of England

By the end of the 1600 England was in financial ruin.
Fifty years of more or less continuous war with France and Holland had exhausted her.
Frantic government officials met with The Money Changers to beg for the loans necessary
to pursuit their political purposes.
The prize was high.
A government sanctioned privately owned bank which could issue money out of nothing.
It was to be the worlds first privately owned central bank, The Bank of England.
Although it was deceptively called The Bank of England, to make the general population
think it was part of the government, it was not.
Like any other private corporation, The Bank of England sold shares to get started.
The investors whose names were never revealed, were supposed to put up 1.250.000 British
pounds in gold coins, to buy their shares in the bank.
But only 750.000 pounds was ever received.
Despite that, the bank was duly charted 1694 and started out the business of loaning out
several times the money it supposedly had in reserves, all at interest.
In exchange the bank would loan the British politicians as much of the new currency as
they wanted, as long as they secured the debt by direct taxation of the British people.
So, legalisation of The Bank of England amounted nothing less than the legal counterfeiting
of a national currency for private gain. Unfortunately, nearly every nation has now a
privately controlled central bank, using The Bank of England as their basic model.
Such is the power of this central banks, that they soon take total control over a nation's
economy.
It soon amount to nothing else than a plutocracy, ruled by the rich.
It would be like putting the control of the army in the hands of the mafia.
The danger of tyranny would be extreme.
Yes, we need central banks.
No, we do not need them in private hands.
The central bank's scam is really a hidden task.
The nation sells bonds to the central bank to pay for things that does not have the political
will to raise taxes to pay for.
But the bonds are purchases with money the central bank create out of nothing.
More money in circulation makes your money worth less.
The government gets as money as it needs and the people pay for it in inflation.
The beauty of the plan, is that not one person in a thousand can figure it out, because it's
usually hidden behind complex sounding economics gibberish.
With the formation of the bank of England, the nation was soon a wash in money.
Crisis throughout the country doubled.
Massive loans were granted for just about any wild scheme.
One venture proposed to drain the red sea, to recover gold supposedly lost when the
Egyptian army drowned pursuing Moses and the Israelites.
By 1698 government debt grew from the initial 1.250.000 pounds to 16.000.000 pounds.
Naturally taxes were increased and then increased again to pay for all of this.
With the British money supply firmly in their grip, the British economy began a wild roller
coaster series of boom and depressions, exactly the sort of things a central bank claims to
prevent.
(31:03)
Eddie George, Governor of The Bank of England: "There are two things, which I think, are
intrinsic not just to the bank of England but to central banking generally.
The first is an involvement in the formulation of malatry(military?) policy, with the specific
objective of achieving malatry(monetary?) stability."
However since the bank of England took control the British pound has rarely been stable.
Now let's take a look at the role of the Rothschild's family, the family said to be the
wealthiest in the world.

(31:34)

7. The Rise of the Rothschilds

This is Frankfurt, Germany.
Fifty years after the bank of England opened it's doors, a goldsmith named Amshel Moses
Bauer, opened a coins shop, a counting house, in 1743.
And over the door he placed a sign to depicting roman eagle on a red shield.
The shop became known as the red shield firm, or in German Rothschild.
When his son, Amshel Mayer Bauer, inherited the business, he decided to change his name
to Rothschild.
Amshel soon learned that loaning money to governments and kings, was more profitable,
than loaning money to private individuals.
Not only were the loans bigger, but the were secured by the nations taxes.
Mayer Rothschild had five sons. He trained them all in the skills of money creation.
Then send them out to the major capitals of Europe, to open branch offices of the family
banking business.
His first son Amshel Mayer, stayed in Frankfurt, to mind the hometown bank.
His second son, Salomon, was sent to Vienna.
His third son, Nathan, was clearly the most clever.
He was sent to London at age 21, in 1798, a hundred years after the founding of The Bank
of England.
His fourth son, Carl (Calmann), went to Naples, and his fifth son Jacob went to Paris.
In 1785 Mayer Amshel moved his entire family to this larger house, a five store dwelling
he shared with the Shiff(?) family.
This house known as the green shield.
The Rothschilds and the Shiffs would play a central role in the rest of the European
financial history, and in that of the United States.
The Rothschilds broke into dealings with European royalty, here at William's Hall, the
palace of the wealthiest man in Germany.
In fact the wealthiest monarch in all Europe, Prince William of Hesse-Cassel.
At first the Rothschild were only helping William speculate in precious coins.
But when Napoleon chased Prince William into exile, he sent 550.000 pound, a gigantic
sum at that time, to Nathan Rothschild in London, with the instructions for him to buy
consols(?), British government bonds, also called government stock.
But Rothschild used the money for his own purposes.
With Napoleon on the loose, the opportunities of wartime investments were nearly
limitless.
William returned here, sometime prior to the battle of Waterloo in 1815.
He summoned Rothschild, demanded his money back.
The Rothschilds returned Williams money, with the interest the British consols(?) would
have paid him had the investment actually been made.
But the Rothschild kept all the passed profit they had made using Williams money.
Nathan Rothschild later bragged, that in the 17 years he had been in England, he'd
increased his original 20.000 pound stake given to him by his father by a 2500 times.
By cooperating within the family, the Rothschilds soon grew unbelievably wealthy.
By the mid 1800 the dominated all European banking, and were certainly the wealthiest
family in the world.
They financed Cecil Roadhes(?), making it possible for him to establish, a monopoly over
the diamond and goldfield of the South African.
In America financed the Harrolmen(?) in railroad, the Vanderbilt in railroads and the press,
and Carnegie in the steel industry among many others.
In fact during WWI J.P. Morgan was thought to be the richest man in America.
But after his death, it was discovered that his was only a lieutenant of the Rothschilds.
Once Morgan's will was made public, it was discovered that he owned only 19% of J.P.
Morgan companies.
By 1850 James Rothschild the hair of the French branch of the family, was said to be worth
600.000.000 French Franks, 150 million in more than all the other bankers in France put
together.
He build this mansion called Perrier, just East of Paris.
Wilhelm I on scene he would exclaim: "Kings couldn't afford this, it could only belong to a
Rothschild."
Another 19th century French commentator put it this way: "There is but one power in
Europe and that is Rothschild."
There is no evidence that their predominant standing in European or world finance has
changed.
Now let's take a look at the results The Bank of England had produced on the British
economy and how that later was the root cause of the American Revolution.

(37:09)

8. The American Revolution

By the mid 1700th the British Empire was nearing its height of power around the world.
But Britain had fought 4 costly wars in Europe since the creation of their privately owned
central bank, The Bank of England.
The cost had been high.
To finance this wars, the British parliaments here, had borrowed heavily from the bank.
By the mid 1700th the governments debt here in Britain was 140 million pounds.
A staggering sum for those days.
Constantly the British government was embarked on a program of trying to raise revenues
from their American colonies in order to make their interest payments to the bank.
But in America it was a different story.
The scourge of a privately owned central bank had not yet hit.
This is Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where The Declaration of Independence and
Constitution were signed.
In the mid 1700th, pre-Revolutionary America was still relatively pour.
There was a severe shortage of precious metal coins to trade for goods.
So the early colonies were forced to experiment with printing their own home-grown paper
money.
Some of these experiments were successful.
Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own paper money.
In 1757 Franklin was send to London.
He ended up staying for the next 17 years here, nearly until the starting of the American
Revolution.
During this period the American colonies began to issue their own money.
Called colonial scrip, the endeavour was very successful.
It provided a reliable medium of exchange and it also helped to provide a feeling of unity
between the colonies.
Remember, colonial scrip was just paper money, debt-free money, printed in the public
interest and not backed by gold or silver coins.
In other words, it was a totally fiat currency.
One day, officials of The Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the
new found prosperity of the colonies.
Without hesitation he replied: "That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It
is called the Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and
industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this
manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power,
and we have no interest to pay to no one." Benjamin Franklin
This was just common sense to Franklin, but you can imagine the impact it had on The
Bank of England.
America had learned the secret of money and that genie had to be returned to its bottle as
soon as possible.
(41:00)
As a result, parliament hurriedly(?) passed the Currency Act of 1764.
This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all
future taxes in gold or silver coins.
In other words, it forced the colonies on a gold or silver standard.
For those who still believe that a gold standard is the answer for America's current
monetary problems, look what happened to America after that.
Writing in his auto-biography Franklin said: "In one year, the conditions were so reversed
that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets
of the Colonies were filled with unemployed." Benjamin Franklin
Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for The American Revolution.
As Franklin put it in his auto-biography: "The colonies would gladly have borne the little
tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their
money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.
The inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of
the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the
Revolutionary War." Benjamin Franklin
By the time the first shots were fired in Lexington Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, the
colonies had been drained of gold and silver coins by British taxation.
As a result, the continental government had no choice but to print money to finance the
war.
At the start of the revolution, the US money supply stood at $12 million.
By the end of the war it was nearly 500 million.
As a result the currency was virtually worthless.
Shoes sold for $5.000 a pair.
Colonial Scrip had worked because just enough was issued to facilitate trade.
As George Washington commented: "A wagonload of money will scarcely purchase a
wagonload of provisions."
Today, those who support a gold back currency point to this period of revolution to
demonstrate the evils of a fiat currency.
But remember the same currency had worked so well 20 years earlier during times of peace
that The Bank of England had parliament outlawed.

(43:40)

9. The Bank of North America

Towards the end of the revolution the continental(?) congress, meeting here at the
Independence Hall, grew disparate for money.
In 1781 they allowed Robert Morris, the financial super intended, to open a privately
owned central bank.
Incedently(?), Morris was a wealthy men, who had grown wealthy in the revolution by
trading war materials.
Called The Bank of North America, the new bank was closely modelled after the bank of
England.
It was allowed to practice Fractional Reserve Banking.
That is, it could lend out money it didn't have, then charge interest on it.
If you or I would do that, we would be charged with fraud, a felony.
The banks charter, called for private investors to put up $400.000 worth of initial capital.
But when Morris was unable to raise the money, he brazenly used his political influence to
have gold deposited in the bank which had been loaned to America by France.
He then loaned this money to himself and his friends to reinvest in shares of the bank.
And like the bank of England, the bank was given a monopoly over the national currency.
Soon the danger became clear.
The value of American currency begun to plummet.
So 4 years later, in 1785, the bank charter was not renewed.
(45:14)
The leader of the effort to kill the bank, William Findley of Pennsylvania, explained the
problem this way: "This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be
varied in its object ... to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state." William
Findley
The men behind The Bank of North America, Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris, and the
banks president Thomas Willing(?) did not give up.
Only 6 years later, Hamilton, then Secretary of The Treasury, and his mentor Morris,
rammed a new privately owned central bank trough the new congress.
Called The First Bank of The United States, Thomas Willing(?) again served as the banks
president.
The players were the same, only the name of the bank was changed.

(46.11)

10. The Constitutional Convention

In 1787 colonial leaders assembled in Philadelphia to replace the ailing(?) articles of
confederation.
As we saw earlier both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were unalterably opposed to
a privately owned central back.
They had seen the problems caused by The Bank of England.
They wanted nothing of it.
As Jefferson later put it: "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." Thomas Jefferson
During the debate over the future monetary system another one of The Founding Fathers
Gubenan(?) Morris castigated the motivations of the owners of the bank of North America.
Gubenan(?) Morris headed the committee that wrote the final draft of The Constitution.
Morris knew the motivations of the bank well.
Along with his old boss Robert Morris, Gubenan(?) Morris and Alexander Hamilton, the
ones who had presented the original plans for The Bank of North America to the
continental congress in the last year of the revolution.
In a letter he wrote to James Madison on July 2nd 1787 Gubenan(?) Morris revealed what
was really going on: "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." Gouvernor
Morris
Despite the defection of Gubenan(?) Morris from the ranks of the bank, Hamilton, Robert
Morris, Thomas Willing(?) and their European bankers were not about to give up.
They convinced the bulk of the delegates to the constitutional convention to not give
congress the power to issue paper money.
Most of the delegates were still reeling(?) from the wild inflation of the paper currency
during the revolution.
They had forgotten how well Colonial Scrip had worked before the war.
But The Bank of England had not.
The Money Changers could not stand to have America printing their own money again.
So The Constitution is silent on the matter.
This gravest(?) defect left the door wide open for The Money Changers, just as they had
planned.

(49.02)

11. First Bank of the United States

In 1790 less than 3 years after The Constitution had been signed The Money Changers
struck again.
The newly appointed secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to the
congress calling for a new privately owned central bank.
Coincidentally, this was the very year that Amshel Rothschild made his pronouncement
from his flagship bank in Frankfurt: "Let me issue and control a nations money and I care
not who writes the laws" Amshel Rothschild

Charles Collins: "Alexander Hamilton was a tool of the international bankers, and he
wanted to create The US bank, the Bank of the United States, and did so."
Interestingly one of Hamilton's first jobs after graduating from law school in 1782, was as
an aid to Robert Morris, the head of the Bank of North America.
In fact the year before Hamilton had written Morris a letter saying: "A national debt, if not
excessive will be to us a national blessing."
A blessing to whom?
After a year of intense debate in 1791, congress passed the bill and gave it a 20 year
charter.
The new bank was to be called The First Bank of the United States, or BUS.
Here we are in front of The First Bank of the United States in Philadelphia.
The bank was given a monopoly on printing US currency, even though 80% of it's stock
would be held by private investors.
The other 20% would be purchased by the US Government.
But the reason was not to give the government a peace of the action, it was to provide the
capital for the other 80% honours.
As with the old Bank of North America and The Bank of England before that, the
stockholders never paid the full amount for their shares.
The US Government put up their initial $2 million in cash.
Than the bank thru the old magic of fractional reserve lending, made loans to it's charter
investors, so they could up with the remaining $8 million of capital needed for this risk free
investment.
Like The Bank of England, the name of the Bank of the United States, was deliberately
chosen to hide the fact that it was privately controlled.
And like The Bank of England, the names of the investors in the bank were never revealed.
Many years later it was a common saying that the Rothschilds were the power behind the
old Bank of the United States.
The bank was sold to congress as a way to bring stability in the banking system and to
eliminate inflation.
So what happened?
Over the first 5 years the US Government borrowed $8.2 million from the Bank of the US.
In the same 5 year period, prices rose by 72%.
Jefferson as the new Secretary of State watched the borrowing with sadness and frustration
unable to stop it: "I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
Constitution .. taking from the federal government their power of borrowing." Thomas
Jefferson
Millions of Americans feel the same way today.
They watch in helpless frustration as the federal government borrows the American
economy into oblivion.
So although it was called The First Bank of the United States, it was not the first attempt, at
a privately owned central bank in this country.
As with The Bank of North America the government put up most of the cash to get this
private bank going.
Then the bankers loaned this money to each other, to buy the remaining stock in the bank.
It was a scam, plain and simple.
And they wouldn't be able to get away with it for long.
But first we have to travel back to Europe, to see how a single man was able to manipulate
the entire British economy, by obtaining the first news about Napoleons final defeat.

(53.25)

12. Napoleon's Rise To Power

Here in Paris the Bank of France was organised in 1800, just like the Bank of England.
But Napoleon decided that France had to break free of debt and he never trusted the Bank
of France.
He declared that when a government is dependant upon bankers for money, the bankers not
the leaders of the government are in control.
Napoleon Bonaparte: "The hand that gives is above the hand that takes.
Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency: their
sole object is gain."
Back in America, unexpected help was about to arrive.
In 1800 Thomas Jefferson, narrowly defeated John Adams to become the 3rd president of
the United States.
By 1803 Jefferson and Napoleon had struck a deal.
The U.S. would give Napoleon $3 million in gold, in exchange for a huge chunk of territory
west the Mississippi river, the Louisiana purchase.
With that $3 million Napoleon quickly forged an army and set off across Europe,
conquering everything in his path.
But The Bank of England quickly rose to oppose him.
They financed every nation in his path reaping(?) the enormous profits of war.
Prussia, Austria and finally Russia, all went heavenly into debt in a futile attempt to stop
Napoleon.
Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, 30 year old Nathan Rothschild, the
head of the London office of the Rothschild family, personally took charge of a bold plan,
to smuggle a much needed shipment of gold right thru France to finance an attack by the
duke of Wellington, from Spain.
Nathan later bragged at a dinner party in London that it was the best business he had ever
done.
Little did he know he would do much better business in the near future.
Wellingtons attacks from the South and other defeats, eventually forced Napoleon to
abdicate and Louis XVIII was crowned king.
Napoleon was exiled to Elba, a tiny island of the coast of Italy, supposedly exiled from
France for ever.
While Napoleon was in exile on Elba, temporarily defeated by England and with the
financial help of the Rothschilds America was to trying to break free of its central bank as
well.

(56.08)

13. Death of the First Bank

In 1811 a bill was put before congress to renew the charter of The Bank of the United
States.
The debate grew very heated and the legislators of both Pennsylvania and Virginia, passed
resolutions asking congress to kill the bank.
The press core of the day attack the bank openly, calling it a great swindle, a vulture, a
viper and a cobra.
Oh to have an independent press once again in America.
A congressman P.B. Porter attacked the bank from the floor of congress saying that if the
banks charter was renewed, congress "would have planted in the bosom of the constitution
a viper, which would one day or another sting the liberties of this country to the heart."
Prospects didn't look that good for the bank.
Some writers have even claimed that Nathan Rothschild warned that the U.S. would find
itself involved in a most disastrous war if the banks charter would not be renewed.
But it wasn't enough.
When the smoke had cleared, the renewal was defeated by a single vote in the house and
was deadlocked in the senate.
By now, America's 4th president James Madison, was in the White House.
Remember Madison was a starch(?) opponent of the bank.
His vice president, George Clinton, broke the tie in the senate and sent the bank into
oblivion.
Within 5 months, England attacked the U.S. and the war of 1812 was on.
But the British were still busy fighting Napoleon.
And so the war of 1812 ended in a drawl in 1814.
Though The Money Changers were temporary down, they were far from out.
It would take them only another 2 years to bring back their bank, bigger and stronger than
ever.

(58.13)

14. Waterloo
But now, let's return to Napoleon.
Because nothing else in history more accurately demonstrates the ingenuity of the
Rothschild family, then their control of the British stock market after Waterloo.
In 1815, a year after the end of the war of 1812 in America, Napoleon escaped his exile and
returned to Paris.
French troops were send out to capture him, but such was his charisma that the soldiers
rallied around their old leader and hailed(?) him as their emperor once again.
In march of 1815 Napoleon equipped an army which Britain's duke of Wellington, defeated
less than 90 days later, at Waterloo.
Some writers claimed Napoleon borrowed 5 million pounds from the Bank of England to
rearm.
But it appears these funds actually came from Hubard(?) Banking House in Paris.
Nevertheless, from about this point on, it was not unusual for privately controlled central
banks to finance both sides in a war.
Why would a bank finance opposing sides in a war?
Because war is the biggest debt generator of them all.
A nation will borrow any amount for victory.
The ultimate loser is loaned just enough to hold out the vain hope of victory and the
ultimate winner is given enough to win.
Besides such loans are usually conditioned upon the guaranty that the victor will honour the
debts of the vanquished.
This is the Waterloo battlefield about 200 miles north-east of Paris in what today is
Belgium.
Here Napoleon suffered his final defeat, but not before thousands of French and
Englishmen gave their lives on a steamy summer day in July of 1815.
Right over there, on June 18th 1815, 74.000 French troops met 67.000 troops from Britain
and other European nations.
The outcome was certainly in doubt.
In fact, had Napoleon attacked a few hours earlier, he would probably have won the battle.
But no matter who won or lost, back in London, Nathan Rothschild planned to use the
opportunity, to try to seize control over the British stock and bond market and possibly
even The Bank of England.
Rothschild stationed a trusted agent, a man named Rotworth(?), on the north side of the
battlefield, closer to the English channel.
Once the battle had been decided, Rotworth(?) took of for the channel.
He delivered the news to Nathan Rothschild, a full 24 hours before Wellington's own
courier.
Rothschild hurried to the stock market, and took up his usual position in front of an ancient
pillar.
All eyes were on him.
The Rothschilds had a legendary communications network.
If Wellington had been defeated, and Napoleon was loose on the continent again, British
financial situation would become grave indeed.
Rothschild looked sadly.
He stood there motionless, eyes down cast.
And suddenly he began selling.
Other nervous investors saw that Rothschild was selling.
It could only mean one thing: Napoleon must have won, Wellington must have lost.
The market plummeted.
Soon everyone was selling their consols(?), their British government bonds and prices
dropped sharply.
But then Rothschild started secretly buying up the consols(?) through his agents for only a
fraction of their worth hours before.
Myths, legends you say?
One hundred years later, the New York Times ran the story that Nathan Rothschild
grandson had tempted to secure a court order to suppress a book with that stock market
story in it.
The Rothschild family claimed that the story was untrue and libellous(?).
But the court denied the Rothschilds request and ordered the family to pay the courts costs.
What's even more interesting about this story, is that some authors claim that the day after
the battle of Waterloo in a matter of hours, Nathan Rothschild came to dominate not only
the bond market but The Bank of England as well.
Whether or not the Rothschild family seized control of The Bank of England, the first
privately own central bank in a major European nation and the wealthiest, one thing is
certain: by the mid 1800th, the Rothschilds were the richest family in the world bar
none(?).
They dominated the new government bond markets, and branched in other banks and
industrial concerns.
In fact, the rest of the 19th century was known as the age of the Rothschilds.
Despite this overwhelming wealth, the family has generally cultivated an aura of
invisibility.
Although the family controls scores of industrial, commercial, mining and tourist
corporations, only a handful bear the Rothschild name.
By the end of the 19th century, one expert estimated that the Rothschild family controlled
half the wealth of the world.
Whatever the extent of their fast wealth, it is reasonable to assume that their percentage of
the worlds wealth is increased since then.
But since the turn of the century (1900) the Rothschild have cultivated the notion that their
power has somehow weaned(?) even as their wealth increases.

(1.04.22)

15. Second Bank of the U.S.

Meanwhile back in Washington in 1816, just one year after Waterloo and Rothschild's
alleged takeover the Bank of England the American congress passed a bill committing yet
another privately own central bank.
This bank was called The Second Bank of the United States.
The new banks charter was a copy of the previous banks.
The U.S. Government would own 20% of the shares of the bank.
Of course the federal share was paid by the treasury up front into the bank coppers(?).
Then through the magic of fractional reserve lending, it was transformed into loans to
private investors who then bought the remaining 80% of the shares.
Just as before the primary stockholders remained a secret.
But it known that the largest flock of shares about 1/3 of the total were sold to foreigners.
As one observer put it: "It 's certainly no exaggeration to say that the Second Bank of the
United States was rooted as deeply in Britain as it was in America."
So by 1816 some authors claim the Rothschilds had taken control over The Bank of
England and backed a new privately owned central bank in America as well.

(01:05:42)
16. Andrew Jackson
After 12 years of manipulation of the U.S. economy on the part the Second Bank of The
U.S., the American people had had just about enough.
Opponents of the bank nominated a dignified senator from Tennessee, Andrew Jackson, the
hero of the battle of New Orleans to run for president.
This is his home, the hermitage.
No one gave Jackson a chance, initially.
The bank had long ago learned how the political process could be controlled with money.
To the surprise and the dismay of The Money Changers Jackson was swept into office in
1828.
Jackson was determined to kill the bank at the first opportunity and wasted no time in
trying to do so.
But the bank's 20 years charter didn't come up for renewal until 1836, the last years of his
second term, if he could survive that long.
During his first term, Jackson contented himself with the rooting out the banks many
million from government service.
He fired 2000 of the 11.000 employees of the federal government.
In 1832 with his re-election approaching the bank struck an early blow, hoping Jackson
would not want to stir up controversy.
They asked congress to pass a renewal bill for years early.
Naturally congress complied, than send it to the president for signing.
But Jackson wade in with both feet.
Old hickory, never a coward, vetoed the bill.
His veto message is one of the great American documents.
It clearly lays out the responsibility of the American government toward its citizens rich
and poor.
Andrew Jackson: "It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our
Government.
More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners ....
Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little
to bind it to our country?...
Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our
citizens in dependence.... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power
of the enemy.
If [government] would confine itself to equal protection, and as Heaven does its rains,
shower its favour alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an
unqualified blessing.
In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just
principles." Andrew Jackson

Later that year, in July 1832, congress was unable to override Jackson's veto.
Now Jackson had to stand for re-election.
Jackson took his argument directly to the people.
For the first time in the U.S. history Jackson took his campaign on the road.
Before then, presidential candidates stayed at home and looked presidential.
His campaign slogan was "Jackson and no bank"
The National Republican Party ran senator Henry Clay against Jackson.
Despite the fact that the bankers put over $3 million into Clays campaign, Jackson was re-
elected by a landslide in November of 1832.
Despite his presidential victory, Jackson knew the battle was only beginning.
"The hide-rope(?) corruption is only scoped(?) not death."said the newly elected president.
Jackson ordered his new secretary of the treasury, Lewis McLane, to start removing the
governments deposits from The Second Bank and start placing them in state banks.
But McLane refused to do so.
Jackson fired him and appointed William James Dwaine(?) as the new secretary of the
treasury.
Dwaine also refused to comply with the presidents request and so Jackson fired him as well
and then appointed Robert B. Tainy(?) to the office.
Tainy(?) did withdraw Governments funds from the banks, starting on October 1st 1833.
Jackson was dubbilant(jubilant?): "I have a chain, I am ready with screws to draw every
toot and the stumps".
But the bank was not yet done fighting.
Its head, Nicholas Biddle, used his influence to get the senate to reject Tainy(?) nomination.
Then in a rare show of arrogance, Biddle threatened to cause a depression if the bank was
not re-chartered.
Nicholas Biddle: "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." Nicholas Biddle
Next in an unbelievable fit of honesty for a banker, Biddle admitted that the bank was
going to make money scares to force congress to restore then bank: "Nothing but
widespread suffering will produce an effect on Congress.... Our only safety is in pursuing a
steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately
lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the bank." Nicholas Biddle
What a stunning revelation.
Here was the pure truth, revealed with shocking clarity.
Biddle intended to use the money contraction power of the bank to cause a massive
depression until America gave in.
Unfortunately, this has happened time and time again throughout U.S. history and is about
to happen again in today's world.
Nicholas Biddle made good on his treat.
The bank sharply contracted the money supply by calling in all loans and refusing to extend
new ones.
A financial panic ensued(?), followed by a deep depression.
Naturally Biddle blamed Jackson for the crash, saying it was caused by the redrawal of
federal funds from the bank.
Unfortunately, his plan worked well.
Wages and prices sacked, unemployment soared along with business bankruptcies.
The nation quickly went into an uproar.
Newspapers editors blasted Jackson in editorials.
The bank threatened to withhold payments which then could be made directly to key
politicians to support.
Within only months, congress assembled at what was called the panic session.
Six months after he had withdrawn funds from the bank Jackson was officially censured(?)
by a resolution which passed the senate by a vote of 26 to 20.
It was the first time a president had ever been censured(?) by congress.
Jackson lashed out at the bank : "You are a thin of vipers, I intend to root you out and by
eternal God I will rite your out"
America's faith tethered(?) on a knife edge.
I congress could master to enough votes to override Jackson's veto, the bank would be
granted another 20 years monopoly or more over America's money.
Time enough to consolidate its already great power.
Then America would hurt.
The governor of Pennsylvania came out supporting president Jackson and strongly
criticised the bank.
On top of that, Biddle had been caught boosting in public about the banks plan to crash the
American economy.
Suddenly the tide shifted.
(01:13:18)
In April of 1834 the House of Representatives voted 134-82 against rechartering the bank.
This was followed up by an even more lap sided vote to establish a special committee to
investigate what if the bank had caused the crash.
When the investigating committee arrived at bank store in Philadelphia, armed with a
subpoena to examine the books, Biddle refused to give them up.
Nor would he allow inspection of correspondence with congressman relating to their
personal loans and advances he made to them.
He also refused to testify before the committee back in Washington.
On January 28 1835 Jackson paid of the final instalment of the national debt which had
been necessitated by allowing the bank to issue currency for government bonds, rather than
simply issuing treasure notes without such debt.
He was the only president to ever pay of the debt.
A few week later on January the 30th 1835, an assassin by the name of Richard Lawrence
tried to shoot president Jackson.
But by the grace of God both pistols misfired.
Lawrence was later found not guilty by reason of insanity.
After his release he bragged to friends that powerful people in Europe had put him up to the
task and promised to protect him if he were caught.
The following year when its charter ran out The Second Bank of The United States ceased
functioning as the nations central bank.
Biddle was later arrested and charged with fraud.
He was trailed and acquitted, but died shortly thereafter, while still tied up in civil sueds(?).
After his second turn as president, Jackson retired here to the hermitage in Nashville to live
out his life.
He is still remembered here for his determination to kill the bank.
In fact he killed it so well that it took The Money Changers 77 years to undo the damage.
When asked what his most important accomplishment had been, Jackson replied: "I killed
the bank!"

(1.15.34)
17. Abe Lincoln
Unfortunately even Jackson failed to grasp the entire picture and true cause.
Although Jackson had killed the central bank, the most insidious weapon of The Money
Changers, fractional reserve banking, remained in use by the numerous state charted bank.
This fuelled economic instability in the years before the civil war.
Still the central bankers were out and as a result America thrived as an expanded west
worth.
During this time, the principal Money Changers struggled to regain their lost centralized
power but to no avail.
Then finally they referred to the old central bankers formula: war to create debt and
dependency.
If they couldn't get their central bank any other way, America could be brought to its knees
by plunging it into a civil war just as if they had done in 1812 after The First Bank of The
United States was not recharted.
One month after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the first shots of the American Civil
War were fired here at Fort Sumter South Carolina on April 12 1861.
Certainly slavery was "a" cause for the civil war but not the primary cause.
Lincoln knew that the economy of the south depended upon slavery and so before the civil
war he had no intention of eliminating it.
Lincoln had put it this way in his inaugural address only one month earlier: "I have no
purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where
it now exists.
I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Even after the first shots were fired here at fort Sumter, Lincoln insists that the civil war
was not about the slavery: "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."

So what was the civil war all about?

There were many factors at play.
Northern industrialist had used protective tear-ups(?) to prevent the southern states from
buying cheaper European goods.
Europe retaliated by stopping cotton imports from the south.
The southern states were in a double financial bind.
They were forced to pay more for most of the necessities of life while their income from
cotton export plummeted.
The south was angry.
But there were other factors at work.
The Money Changers were still stunned, by Americans withdrawal from their control, 25
years earlier.
Since then America's wildcat economy had made the nation rich, a bad example for the rest
of the world.
The central bankers now saw an opportunity to split the rich new nation, to divide and
conquer by war.
Was this just some sort of wild conspiracy theory at the time?
Well, let's take a look at what a well places observer of the scene had to say at the time.
His name was Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of Germany, the man who united the German
states a few years later.
"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." Otto
von Bismarck
Within months after the first shots here at Fort Sumter, the central bankers loaned Napoleon
III of France, the nephew of the Waterloo Napoleon, 210 million francs to seize Mexico
and station troops along the southern border of the U.S., taking advantage of their war, to
violate the Monroe doctrine and return Mexico to colonial rule.
No matter what the outcome of the civil war, a weakened America, heavily indebted to The
Money Changers would open up central and south America again to European colonisation
and domination.
The very thing, America's Monroe doctrine had forbade in 1823.
At the same time, Great Britain moved 11.000 troops into Canada and positioned them
menacingly along America's northern border.
The British fleet went to war alert, should a quick intervention be called for.
Lincoln knew he was in a double bind.
That's why he agonised over the faith of the Union.
There was a lot more to it than just differences between the north and the south.
That's why his emphasis was always on 'union', and not merely the defeat of the south.
But Lincoln needed money to win.
In 1961, Lincoln and his secretary of the treasury, Salmon T. Chase, went to New York to
apply for the necessary loans.
The Money Changers anxious to see the Union fail, offered loans at 24 to36% interest.
Lincoln said, thanks, but no thanks and returned to Washington.
Lincoln sent for an old friend colonel Dick Tailor of Chicago, and put him on the problem
of financing the war.
During one meeting Lincoln asked Tailor, what discovered.
Tailor put it this way: "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."
When Lincoln asked if the people of United States would accept the notes Tailor 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."
So that's exactly what Lincoln did.
In 1862-63 he printed up $450 million worth of the new bills.
In order to distinguish them from other bank notes in circulation he printed them in green
ink on the back side.
That's why the notes were called greenbacks.
With this new money Lincoln paid the troops and bought their supplies.
During the course of the war nearly $450 million worth of greenbacks were printed at no
interest to the federal government.
Lincoln understood who is really pulling the strings and what was at stake for the American
people.
This is how he explained his rational: "The Government should create, issue and circulate
all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the
buying power of the consumers.
The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of
Government, but is the Government 's greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest.
Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity." Abraham Lincoln
A truly incredible editorial in The London Times explained the central bankers attitude
towards the greenbacks: "If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North
America, shall become endurated(?) down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish
its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the
money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in
the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America.
That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." Times of
London
(01:24:19)
The scheme was effective.
So effective that the next year, 1863, with federal and confederate troops beginning to mass
for the decisive battle of the war, and the treasury in need of further congressional authority
to issue more greenbacks, Lincoln allowed the bankers to push through the national bank
act.
These new national banks would operate under a virtual tax-free status and collectively
have the exclusive monopoly power to create the new form of money banknotes.
Tough greenbacks continued to circulate, their numbers were not increased.
But most importantly, from this point on, the entire U.S. money supply would be created
out of debt, by bankers buying U.S. bonds and issuing them for reserves for banknotes.
As historian John Kenneth Galbraith explained it: "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." John Kenneth Galbraith
Later on in 1863, Lincoln got some unexpected help from tsar Alexander II of Russia.
The tsar like Bismarck in Germany, knew what the international Money Changers were up
to and had stead vastly refused to let them set up a central bank in Russia.
If America survived and was able to remain out of their clutches, the tsar's position would
remain secure.
Yet if the bankers were successful, by dividing America and giving the peaces back to
Britain and France, both nations under the control of their central banks, eventually they
would threaten Russia again.
So the tsar gave order that if either England or France actively intervened and gave aid to
the south, Russia would consider such action as a declaration of war.
He did the same with part of his pacific fleet and sent them to port in San Francisco.
Lincoln was re-elected the next year, 1864.
Had he lived, he would surely have killed the national banks money monopoly extracted
from him during the war.
On November 21, 1864 he wrote a friend the following: "The money power preys upon the
nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic
than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy."
Shortly before Lincoln was murdered, his former secretary of treasury, Salmon P. Chase,
bemoaned his role in helping secure the passage of the national banking act only one year
earlier: "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." Salmon P. Chase
On April 14th, 1865, 41 days after his second inauguration and 5 days after Lee
surrendered to Grant at Appomattox, Lincoln was shot by John Rock Booth at Ford's
theatre.
Bismarck, chancellor of Germany, commented the death of Abraham Lincoln: "The death
of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great
enough to wear his boots.... I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous
tricks, will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to
corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into
wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance." Otto von
Bismarck
Bismarck well understood The Money Changers plans.
Allegation that international bankers were responsible for Lincolns assassination surfaced
in Canada 70 years later in 1934.
Gerald G. McGeers, a popular and well respected Canadian attorney, revealed the stunning
charge in a 5 hour speech before the Canadian House of Commons blasting Canada's debt-
based money system.
Remember, it was 1934, the height of the great depression, which was ravaging Canada as
well.
McGeer had obtained evidence to deleted from the public record, provided to him by secret
service agents at the trail of John Wills Booth after Booth's death.
McGeer said it showed that Booth was a missionary, working for the international bankers.
According to an article in the Vancouver Sun of May 2nd 1934: "Abraham Lincoln, the
martyred 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 - and the plot was hatched in Toronto and Montreal... There was
only one group in the world at that time ....who had any reason to desire the death of
Lincoln. they were the men opposed to his national currency program and who had fought
him throughout the whole if the civil war on his policy of greenback currency."
Interestingly McGeer claimed that Lincoln was assassinated not only because international
bankers wanted to re-establish a central bank in America, but because they also wanted to
base America's currency on gold.
Gold they controlled.
In other words, put America on a gold standard.
(01:30:10)
Lincoln had done just the opposite by issuing U.S. notes, greenbacks, which were base
purely on the good faith and credit of the United States.
The article quoted McGeer is saying: "They were the men interested in the establishment of
the Gold Standard money system and the right of bankers to manage the currency and
credit of every nation in the world. With Lincoln out of the way, they were able to proceed
with that plan and did proceed with it in the United States. Within 8 years of Lincoln's
assassination silver was demonetised and the Gold Standard money system set up in the
United States."
Not since Lincoln has the U.S. issued debt free U.S. notes.
These red sealed bills which were issued in 1963 were not a new issue from president
Kennedy, but merely the old greenbacks, reissued year after year.
In another act of folly and ignorance, the 1994 regal(?) act actually authorized the
replacement of Lincoln's greenbacks with debt-based notes.
In other words, greenbacks were in circulation in the United States until 1994.
(01:31:27)
Why was silver bad for the bankers and gold good?
Simple because silver was plentiful in the United States, it was very hard to control.
Gold was, and always has been, scarce.
Throughout history it has been relatively easy to monopolize gold, but silver has
historically been 15 times more plentiful.

(1.31.51)

18. The Return of the Gold Standard

With Lincoln out of the way, The Money Changers next objective was to gain complete
control over America's money.
This was no easy task, with the opening of the American West, silver had been discovered
in huge quantities.
On top of that, Lincoln's greenbacks were generally popular.
Despite the European central bankers deliberate attacks on greenbacks, they continued to
circulate in the United States.
In fact until a few years ago.
According to historian W, Cleon Skowson: "Right after the Civil War there was
considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional
monetary system. Had not the European money trust intervened, if would have no doubt
become an established institution."
It is clear that the concept of America printing her own debt-free money, sent shockwaves
throughout the European central banking elite.
They watched with horror as Americans clammered(?) van reclammer?) for more
greenbacks.
They may gave killed Lincoln, but support for his monetary ideas grew.
On April 12 1866, nearly one years to the day of Lincolns assassination, congress went to
work at the bidding of European central banking interest.
It passed the contraction act authorizing the secretary of the treasury to begin to retire some
of the greenbacks in circulation and thereby contract the money supply.
Authors Theodore R. Tarren(?) and Richard F. Warner explain the result of the money
contraction in their classic book on the subject 'The truth in money' book: "The hard times
which occurred after the civil war could have been avoided if the greenback legislation had
continued as president Lincoln has intended it. Instead, there were a series of money
panics, what we call recessions, which put pressure on the congress to enact legislation the
banking system under centralized control. Eventually the federal reserve act was passed on
December 23rd 1913. "
In other words The Money Changers wanted two things: the reinstitution of a central bank
under their exclusive control, and two: an American currency backed by gold.
Their strategy was twofold: first of all cause a series of panic to try to convince the
American people that only centralized control of the money supply could provide economic
stability and secondly remove so much from the system that most Americans would be so
desperately poor that they either wouldn't care or would be to weak to oppose the bankers.
In 1866, there was $1.8 billion in currency in circulation in the United States, about $50.46
per capita.
In 1867 alone, half a billion dollars, $500 million was removed from the money supply.
Ten years later, 1876, America's money supply was reduced to only $6 billion.
In other words 2/3 of America's money had been called in by the bankers.
Only $14.60 per capita remained in circulation.
Ten years later, the money supply had been reduced to only 4 billion dollars.
Even tough the population had boomed.
The result was that only $6.67 per capita remained in circulation.
(01:35:36)

POST CIVIL WAR DEPRESSION

Year Total Dollars Per Capita
1866 $1.8 million $50.46
1867 $1.3 million $44.00
1876 $0.6 million $14.60
1886 $0.4 million $6.67

A 700% loss in buying power over 20 years.

Today economist try to sell the idea that recessions and depressions are a natural part of
something they call the business-cycle.
The truth is our money supply is manipulated now just as it was before and after the civil
war.
How did this happen?
How did money become so scarce?
Simple.
Bank loans were called in, and no new ones were given.
In addition, silver coins were melted down.
In 1872 a man named Ernest Seyd, was given 100.000 pounds about $500.000, by The
Bank of England, and sent to America to bribe necessary congressman to get silver
demonetised.
He was told if that was not sufficient, to draw an additional 100.000 pounds or as much
more as was necessary.
The next year congress passed The Coiny(?) Jack of 1873, and the minting of silver
abruptly stopped.
In fact representative Samuel Hooper who introduced the bill in the house, acknowledged
that Mister Seyd actually drafted the legislation.
But it gets even worse than that.
In 1874 Seyd himself admitted who is behind the scheme: "I went to America in the winter
of 1872-73, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of the bill demonetising silver. It
was in the interest 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."
But the contest over control of America's money was not yet over.
Only 3 years later in 1876, with 1/3 of America's workforce unemployed, the population
was growing restless.
People were clammering(?) for a return to the greenback money system of president
Lincoln or a return to silver money.
Anything that would make money more plentiful.
That year congress created the United States Silver Commition to study the problem.
Their report clearly blame the monetary contraction on the national bankers.
The report is interesting, because it compares the deliberate money contraction by the
national bankers after the civil war to the fall of the Roman Empire: "The disaster of the
Dark Ages was caused by decreasing money and falling prices.... Without money,
civilization could not have had a beginning, and with a diminishing supply, it must
languish and unless relieved, finally perish."
"At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to
$1.800.000.000. By the end of the Fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than
$200.000.000... History records no other such disastrous transition as that from the Roman
Empire to the Dark Ages" United States Silver Commition
Despite this report by the Silver Commition, congress took no action.
The next year 1877, riots broke out from Pittsburgh to Chicago.
The torches of starving bands also lit up the sky The bankers hurtled(?) to decide what to
do.
They decided to hang on.
Now that they were back into control to a certain extend, they were not about to give it up.
At the meeting of the American Banking Association that year, they urged their
membership to do everything in their power to put down the notion of a return to
greenbacks.
The ABA secretary James Buel offered a letter to the members which blatantly called on
the bank to subvert not only the congress but the press: "It is advisable to do all in your
power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural
and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money 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 the government issue
of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our
individual profits as bankers and lenders."
"See your Congressman at once and engage him to support our interests that we may
control; legislation" James Buel
As political pressure mounted in congress for change, the press tried to turn the American
people away from the truth.
The New York Preview put it this way on January 10th 1878:"The capital of the country is
organized at last and we will see whether the congress will dare to fly in its face"
But it didn't work entirely.
On February 28th 1878 congress passed the Sherman law, allowing the minting of limited
number of silver dollars in deem(?) the 5 year hiatus.
This did not end gold backing the currency however, nor did it completely free silver.
Previous to 1873 anyone who brought silver to the US mint could have it struck into silver
dollars free of charge.
No longer.
But at least some money began to flow back into the economy again.
With no further treat to their control, the bankers loosened up loans and the post civil war
depression finally ended.
Three years later the American people elected republican James Garfield president.
Garfield understood how the economy was being manipulated.
As a congressman he had been chairman of the propriations committee and was a member
of banking and currency.
After his inauguration he slammed The Money Changers publicly in 1881: "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." James Garfield
Unfortunately within a few week of making the statement on July 2nd of 1881 he was
assassinated.

(1.42.32)

19. Free Silver

The Money Changers were gathering strength fast.
They began a periodic fleecing of the flock they called it, by creating economic booms
followed by further depressions, so they could buy up thousands of homes and farms for
pennies on the dollar.
In 1891 The Money Changers prepared to take the American economy down again and
their methods and motives were laid out with shocking clarity in a memo send out by the
American Bankers Association, the ABA, an organisation in which most bankers were
members.
Notice that this memo called for bankers to create a depression on a certain day 3 years in
the future.
According to the congressional record here is how it read in part: "On Sept. 1st 1894, we
will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept. 1st we will demand our money.
We will foreclose and become mortgagees(?) 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...."
These depressions could be controlled cause American was on the gold standard.
Since gold is scarce, it is one of the easiest commodities to manipulate.
People wanted silver money legalized again so they could escape the stranglehold The
Money Changers had on gold money.
People wanted silver money reinstated, reversing Mister Seyd's act of 1873, by then called
the crime of 1873.
By 1896 the issue of more silver money had become the central issue in the presidential
campaign.
William Jennings Bryan a senator from Nebraska ran for president as a democrat on the
free silver issue.
At the democratic national convention in Chicago he made an emotional speech which won
him the nomination entitled crone of thorns and cross of gold.
Though Bryan was only 36 years old at the time, this speech is widely regarded as they
most famous oration ever made for a political convention.
In the dramatic conclusion Bryan said: "We will answer their demand for a gold standard
by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns,
you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." William Jennings Bryan
The bankers lavishly supported the republican candidate William McKenley who favoured
the gold standard.
The resulting contest was amongst the most fiercely contested presidential races in
American history.
Bryan made over 600 speeches in 27 states.
The McKenley campaign got manufactors(?) and industrialist to inform their employees
that if Bryan was elected all factories and plants would close and there would no work.
The rouse(?) succeeded.
McKenley beat Bryan by small margin.
Bryan ran for president again in 1900 and 1908 but felt short each time.
During the 1912 democratic convention Bryan was a powerful figure who helped Woodrow
Wilson win the nomination.
When Wilson became president He appointed Bryan as secretary of state.
But Bryan soon became disenchanted with the Wilson administration.
Bryan served only 2 years under the Wilson administration before resigning in 1915 over
the highly suspicious sinking of the Lucitania, the event which was used to drive America
into WWI.
Although William Jennings Bryan never gained the presidency, he efforts delayed The
Money Changers for 17 years from attaining their next goal, a new privately own central
bank for America.

(1.46.44)

20. J.P. Morgan and the Crash of 1907

Now it was time for The Money Changers to get back to the business of a new private
central bank for America.
During the early 1900th men like JP Morgan laid the charge.
One final panic would be necessary to focus the nations attention on the supposed need for
a central bank.
The rational was that only the central bank could be preventing bank failure.
Morgan was the most powerful banker in America and a suspected agent for the
Rothschilds.
Morgan had helped finance John D. Rockefeller Standard Oil empire.
He also had helped finance the monopolies of Edward Heirman in railroads, of Andres
Carnegie in steel and of others in numerous industries.
But on top of that J.P. Morgan father, Junius Morgan had been America's financial agent to
the British.
After his fathers death J.P. Morgan took on a British partner, Edward Grandfel a long time
director of The Bank of England In fact upon Morgan's his estate contained only a few
million dollars.
The bulk of the securities most people thought he owned, were in fact owned by others.
In 1902, president Theodore Roosevelt allegedly went after Morgan and his friends by
using the Chairman Antitrust Act to try to break up their industrial monopoly.
Actually Roosevelt did very little to interfere on the growing monopolization of American
industry by the bankers and their surrogates.
For example, Roosevelt supposedly broke up the Standard Oil monopoly.
But it wasn't really broken at all.
It was merely divided into 7 corporations all still controlled by the Rockefellers.
The public was aware of this thanks to political cartoonists like Thomas Nast who referred
to the bankers as the money trust.
By 1907 the year after Teddy Roosevelt's re-election, Morgan decided it was times to try
this central bank again.
Using their combined financial muscle, Morgan and his friends were secretly able to crash
the stock market.
Thousands of small banks were vastly overextended.
Some had reserves of less than 1%, thanks to the fractional reserve principle.
Within days bank runs were commonplace across the nation.
Now Morgan stepped into the public arena and offered to prop up the faltering American
economy by supporting failing banks with money he manufactured out of nothing.
It was an outrageous proposal, far worse than even fractional reserve banking, but congress
let him do it.
Morgan manufactured $200 million worth of this completely reserveless private money and
bought things with it, paid for services with it and sent some of it to his branch banks to
lent out at interest.
His plan worked.
Soon the public regained confidence in money in general and quit horting(?) their currency.
But as a result banking power was further consolidated into the hand of a few large banks.
By 1908 the panic was over and Morgan was hailed as a hero by the president of Preston
university, a man by the name of Woodrow Wilson: "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." Woodrow Wilson
Economic textbooks would later explain that the creation of the Federal Reserve System
was the direct result of the panic of 1907: "With its alarming epidemic of bank failure, the
country was fed up once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking."
But Minnesota congressman Charles A. Lindbergh senior, the father of the famous aviator
Lucky Lindy later explained that the panic of 1907 was really just a scam: "Those not
favourable to the money trust could be squeezed out of business and the people frightened
into demanding changes in the banking and currency laws, which the Money Trust would
frame." Charles A. Lindbergh
So, since the passage of The National Bank Act of 1863 The Money Changers had been
able to create a series of booms and busts.
The purpose was not only to fleece the American people of their property but later claim
that the banking system was basically so unstable that it had to be consolidated into a
central bank once again.

(1.51.40)

21. Jekyll Island

After the crash Teddy Roosevelt in response to the panic of 1907, signed into law a bill
creating something called the National Monetary Commition.
The Commition was to study the banking problem and make recommendations to congress.
Of course the Commition was packed with Morgan's friend and cronies.
The chairman was a man named senator Nelson Aldrich from Road Island.
Aldrich represented the new port Road Islands homes of America's richest banking
families.
His daughter married John D. Rockefeller junior and together they had 5 sons.
John, Nelson who would become vice-president 1974, Lawrence Winthrop, and David, the
head of the council on foreign relations and former chairman of Chase Manhattan banking.
As soon as the national monetary Commition was set up, senator Aldrich immediately
embarked on a 2 years tour of Europe, where he consulted at length with the private central
bankers in England, France and Germany.
The total cost of his trip alone to the taxpayers was $300.000.
An astronomical sum in those days.
Shortly after his return on the evening of November 22nd 1910 some of the wealthiest and
most powerful men in America boarded president Aldrich private railcar and in the strictest
secrecy journeyed to this place, Jekyll Island, of the coast of Georgia.
With the group came Paul Warburgh.
Warburgh had been given a $500.000 salary to lobby for the passage of a privately owned
central bank in America, by the investment firm Kuhn-Leob & C°.
Warburgh partner in this firm was a man named Jacob Shiff, the grandson of the man who
shared the green shield house with the Rothschild family in Frankfurt.
Shiff as we will find out later, was in the process of spending $20 million to finance the
overthrow of the tsar in Russia.
These 3 European banking families the Rothschilds, the Warburghs and the Shiffs, were
interconnected by marriage down through the years, just as their American counterparts the
Morgans, Rockefellers and the Aldriches were.
Secrecy was so tight that all 7 primary participants were cautious to only use first names, to
prevent servants from learning their identities.
Years later one participant Frank Vanderlip president national city bank of New York and a
representative of the Rockefeller family, confirmed the Jekyll Island trip in a February 9th
1935 edition of the Saturday Evening Post: "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."
Frank Vanderlip
The participants came here to figure out how to solve their major problem: how to bring
back a privately owned central bank.
But there were other problems that needed to be addressed as well.
First of all the markets share of the big national bank was shrinking fast.
In the first 10 years of the century the number of U.S. banks had more than doubled to over
20.000.
By 1913 only 29% of all banks were national banks and they held only 57% of all deposits.
As senator Aldrich later admitted in a magazine article: "Before passage of this Act, the
New York Bankers could only dominate the reserves of New York. Now, we are able to
dominate the bank reserves of the entire country." Nelson Aldrich
Therefore something had to be done to bring this new banks under their control.
As John D. Rockefeller put it: "Competition is sin."
Secondly the nation's economy was so strong that corporations started to finance their
expansions out of profits instead of taking out huge loans from large banks.
In the first 10 years of the new century 70% of corporate funding came from profits.
In other words American industry was becoming independent of The Money Changers and
that trend had to be stopped.
All the participants knew that these problems could be hammered out into a workable of
solution.
But perhaps their biggest problem was a public relations problem: the name of the new
bank.
That discussion took place right here in this room, one of the many conference rooms in
this sparkling hotel, today known as the Jekyll Island Club hotel.
Aldrich believed that 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 here was 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 Aldrich the egotistical politician who insisted it be called the Aldrich bill.
After 9 days on Jekyll Island the group dispersed.
The new central bank would be similar to the old bank of the United States.
It would be given a monopoly over U.S. currency and create that money out of nothing.
How does the fed create money out of nothing?
It is a 4 step process.
But first a word on bonds.
Bonds are simply promises to pay or government IOU's.
People buy bonds to get a secure rate of interest.
At the end of the term of the bond the government repays the bond plus interest and the
bond is destroyed.
There are about $3.6 trillion worth of this loans or bonds at present.
Now here is the fed money making process.
Step1. The Federal Open Market Committee approves the purchase of US Bonds.
Step2. Bonds are purchased by the Fed. by whoever is offering them for sale on the open
market.
Step3. The Fed pays for the bonds with electronic credits to the seller's bank, which in turn
credits the seller's bank account. The trick is these credits are based on nothing. The Fed.
just creates them.
Step4. The bank uses this deposits as reserves They can loan out over 10 times the amount
of their reserves to new borrowers, all at interest.
In this way a Fed purchases up say $1 million worth of bonds gets turned in to over $10
million in bank accounts.
The Fed in effect creates 10% of this totally new money and the bank create the other 90%.
To reduce the amount of money in the economy the process is just reversed.
The Fed sells bonds to the public and the money flows out of the purchasers locale bank.
Loans must be reduced by 10 times the amount of the sell.
So a Feds sell of a million dollars in bonds results in $10 million less money in the
economy.
So how does this benefit the bankers who's representatives huddle the Jekyll Island?
1st - It totally misdirected banking reform efforts from proper solutions 2nd - it prevented a
proper debt-free system of government finance like Lincolns greenbacks from making a
comeback The bond base system of government finance forced on Lincoln after he created
greenbacks was now cast in stone.
3rd - it delegated to the bankers the right to create 90% of our money supply based on only
fractional reserves which they then loan out at interest.
4th - it centralized overall control of our nation's money supply in the hands of a few men.
5th - it established a central bank with a high degree of independence from effective
political control Soon after its creation the Fed. great contraction in the early 1930's would
cause the Great Depression.
This independence has been enhanced since then through additional laws In order to fool
the public into thinking the government retained control, the plan called for the Fed to be
run by a board of governors appointed by the president and approved by the senate.
But all the bankers had to do was to be sure their man got appointed to the board of
governors.
That wasn't hard.
Bankers have money and money buys influence over the politicians.
One the participants left Jekyll Island the public relations blitz was on.
(02:01:06)
The big New York banks put together an educational fond of $5 million to finance
professors at respected universities to endorse the new bank.
Woodrow Wilson at Princeton was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon.
But the bankers sub defuse didn't work.
The Aldrich Bill was quickly identified as the bankers bill.
A bill to benefit only what became known as the money trust.
As congressman Lindbergh put it during the congressional debate:" 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."
Charles A. Lindbergh
Seeing they didn't have the votes to win in congress the republican leadership never
brought the Aldrich Bill to a vote.
The bankers quietly decided to move to track 2: the democratic alternative.
They begin financing Woodrow Wilson as the democratic nominee.
As respected historian James Perloff put it: "Wall Street financier Bernard Baruch was put
in charge of Wilson's education."
"Baruch brought Wilson to the Democratic Party Headquarters in New York in 1912,
'leading him like one would a poodle on a string'. Wilson received an 'indoctrination
course' from the leaders convened there...." James Perloff
So now the stage was set.
The Money Changers were poised to install their privately owned central bank once again.
The damage president Andrew Jackson had done 76 years earlier had been only partly
repaired with the passage of the National Bank Act during the civil war.
Since then the battle had raged on across the decades.
The Jacksonians became the greenbackers who became the hardcore supporters of William
Jennings Bryan.
With Bryan leading the charge these opponents of The Money Changers ignored of Baruch
tutelage, now trough themselves behind Woodrow Wilson.
They and Bryan would soon be betrayed.

(2.03.24)

22. Fed Act of 1913

During the presidential campaign the democrats were careful to pretend to oppose the
Aldrich Bill.
As representative Louis McFadden, himself a democrat, as well as chairman of the House
of Banking and Currency committee, explained it 20 years after the facts: "The Aldrich bill
was condemned in the platform ... when Woodrow Wilson was nominated.... The men who
ruled the Democratic party promised the people that if they were returned to power, there
would be no central bank established here while they held the reins if government....
Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the
tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established
here in our free country the worm--eaten monarchical institution of the 'king's bank' to
control us from the top downward and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave" Louis
McFadden
Once Wilson was elected Morgan, Warburg, Baruch & C° advanced a new plan which
Warburg named the federal reserve system.
The democratic leadership he opened a new bill called The Glass Owen Bill as something
radically different from The Aldrich Bill.
But in fact the bill was virtually identical in every important detail.
In fact so vias(?) with the democratic denials of similarities that Paul Warburg the father of
both bills had to step in to reassure paid friends in congress that the two bills were virtually
identical: "Brushing aside the external differences affecting the 'shells,' we find the 'kernels'
of the two systems very closely resembling and related to one another." Paul Warburg
But that admission was for private consumption only.
Publicly the money trust throated out senator Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip, the president of
Rockefeller National Citibank of New York and one of the Jekyll Island seven to oppose
the new federal reserve system.
Years later however Vanderlip admitted in the Saturday Evening Post that the two
measures were virtually identical: "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." Frank Vanderlip
As congress newed(?) a vote they called Ohio attorney Alfred Crozier to testify.
Crozier noticed the similarities between the Aldrich bill and the Glass-Owen bill: "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." Alfred Crozier
During the debate on the measure senators complained that the big banks where using their
financial muscles to influence the outcome.
"There are bankers in this country who are enemies of the public welfare" said one senator.
What an understatement! Despite the charges of deceit and corruption the bill was finally
snack through the senate on December 22nd 1913, after most senators had left town for the
holidays, after having been assured by the leadership, that nothing would be done until long
after the Christmas recess.
On the day the bill was passed congressman Lindbergh prophetically warned his country
man that: "This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs
this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized. The people may
not know it immediately, but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed.... The worst
legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill" Charles Lindbergh
On top of all this only weeks earlier congress had finally passed a bill legalizing income
tax.
Why was the income tax law important?
Because bankers finally had in place a system which would run up a virtually unlimited
federal debt.
How would the interest on this debt be repaid, never mind the principle?
Remember a privately owned central bank creates the principle out of nothing.
The federal government was small then.
Up to then it had subsisted merely on tear-offs and excess(?) taxes.
Now just is with The Bank of England interest payments had to be guarantied by direct
taxation of the people.
The Money Changers knew that if they had to relay on contributions from the states,
eventually the individual state legislators would revolt, and neither refuse to pay the interest
on their own money, or at least bring political pressure to bear to keep the debt small.
It is interesting to know that in 1895 the supreme court had found a similar income tax law
to be unconstitutional.
The supreme court even found a corporate income tax law unconstitutional in 1909.
As a result senator Aldrich hustled the bill for a constitutional amendment allowing income
tax through the congress.
The proposed 16th amendment to the constitution was then send to the state legislators for
approval.
But some critics claim that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the necessary three
quarters of the states.
In other words the 16th amendment may not be legal.
But The Money Changers were in no mood to debate the fine points.
By October of 1913 senator Aldrich had hustled the income tax bill through congress.
Without the power to tax the people directly and bypass the states the federal reserve bill
would be far less useful to those who wanted to drive America deeply into their debts.
(02:09:38)
A year after the passage of the federal reserve bill congressman Lindbergh explained how
the Fed. created what we have come to call the business-cycle and how they use it to their
advantage: "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 strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a
special privilege class by any government that ever existed.... The system is private,
conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of the
other people's money....They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage.
They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them
when they control finance..." Charles Lindbergh
Congressman Lindbergh was correct on all points.
What he didn't realize was that most European nations had already fallen prey to the central
bankers decades or centuries earlier.
But he also mentions the interesting fact that only one year later the Fed had cornered the
market in gold.
This is how he put it: "Already the federal reserve banks have cornered the gold and gold
certificates."
But congressman Lindbergh was not the only critic of the Fed.
Congressman Louis McFadden, the chairman of The House Banking and Currency
Committee, from 1920 to 1931, remarked that the federal Reserve Act brought about: "A
super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting
together to enslave the world for their own pleasure." Louis McFadden
Notice how McFadden saw the international character of the stockholders of the federal
reserve.
Another chairman of The House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960's Wright
Patman from Texas put it this way: "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." Wright Patman
Even the inventor of the electric light Thomas Edison joined the fray in criticizing of the
system of the Federal Reserve: "If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar
bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference
between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of
the bond and an additional 20%, where as the currency pays nobody but those who
contribute directly in some useful way.... It is absurd to say our country can issue $30
million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one
promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people." Thomas Edison
Three years after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act even president Wilson began to
have second thoughts about what had been unleashed during his first term in office : "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 that 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." Woodrow
Wilson
Before his death in 1924 president Wilson realized the full extend of the damage he done to
America when he confessed: "I have unwittingly ruined my government".
So finally The Money Changers those who profit by manipulating the amount of money in
circulation, have their privately owned central bank installed again in America.
The major newspapers which they also owned hailed passage of the Federal Reserve Act in
1913 telling the public that now depressions could be scientifically prevented.
The fact of the matter was, that now depressions could be scientifically created.

(2.15.01)

23. World War I

Power was not centralized to a tremendous extent.
Now it was time for a war, a really big war.
In fact the first World War.
Of course to the central bankers the political issues of war don't matter nearly as much as
the profit potential.
And nothing creates debts like warfare.
England was the best example at that time.
During the 119 year period between the founding of The Bank of England and Napoleon's
defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years and much of the remaining time
she'd been preparing for war.
In WWI the German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds
loaned money to the British and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French.
In America J.P. Morgan was the sells agent for war materials for both the British and the
French.
In fact 6 months into the war Morgan became the largest consumer on earth spending $10
million a day.
His office here at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and salesman trying to cut a deal.
In fact it got so bad that the bank had to pose guards at every door and at the partners
homes as well.
Many other New York bankers made out as well from the war.
President Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head The War Industries Board.
According to historian James Perloff both Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by some
$200 million during the war.
But profits were not the only motive.
There was also revenge.
The Money Changers never forgave the tsars for the support of Lincoln during the civil
war.
Also Russia was the last major European nation to refuse to give into the privately owned
central bank scheme.
Three years after WWI broke out the Russian Revolution tappled(?) the tsar and installed
the scourge of communism.
Jacob Shiff from the Kuhn Logan company bragged from his deathbed that he $20 million
towards the defeat of the tsar.
Money was funded from England to support the revolution as well.
Why would some of the richest men of the world financially back communism, the system
that was openly vowing to destroy the so called capitalism that made them wealthy?
Researcher Gary Allen explained it this way: "If one understands that socialism is not a
share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth,
then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at
all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs....
Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses,
but of the economic elite" Gary Allen, author
As W. Cleon Skowsen put it in his 1970 book The Naked Capitalist: "Power from any
source tends to create an appetite for additional power.... It was almost inevitable that the
super-rich would one day aspire to control not only their own wealth, but the wealth of the
whole world... To achieve this, they were perfectly willing to feed the ambitions of the
power-hungry political conspirators who were committed to the overthrow of all existing
governments and the establishments of a central world-wide dictatorship." W. Cleon
Skowsen
But what if these revolutionaries get out of control and try to seize power from the super-
rich?
After all it was Mao Tse Tung who in 1938 stated his position concerning power: "Political
power grows out the barrel of a gun".
The Wall Street London access elected to take the risk.
The master planners attempted to control revolutionist communist group by feeding them
vast quantities of money when they obeyed, and contracted supply or even financing their
opposition if they got out of control.
Lenin began to understand that although he was the absolute dictator of the new soviet
union he was not pulling the financial strings.
Someone else was silently in control: "The state does not function as we desired. The car
does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the
desired direction. It moves as another force wishes." Vladimir Lenin
(02:20:00)
Who is behind it ?
Representative Louis T. McFadden chairman of the House Banking and Currency
Committee, throughout the 1920's and into the great depression years of the 1930's
explained it this way: "The course of Russian history has, indeed, been greatly affected by
the operations of international bankers.... The Soviet Government has been given United
States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board... acting through the Chase Bank.....
England has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve banks and has re-lent it at
high rates of interest to the Soviet Government... The Dnieperstory Dam was built with
funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest
Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks." Louis T. McFadden
In other words the Fed and The Bank of England at the behest(?) of the international
bankers who control them were creating a monster, one which would fuel 7 decades of
unprecedented communist revolution, warfare and most importantly death.
In case you think, there is some chance that The Money Changers got communism going
and then lost control, in 1992 the Washington Times reported that Russian president Boris
Yeltsin was upset that most of the incoming foreign aid was been sited off "straight back
into the coffers of western banks in debt service"
No one in his right mind would claim that a war as large as WWI had a single cause.
Wars are complex things with many causative factors.
But on the other hand it would equally foolish to ignore as a prime cause of WWI those
who would profit the most from the war.
The role of The Money Changers is no wild conspiracy theory.
They had a motive, a short range self-serving motive, as well as a long range political
motive of advancing totalitarian governments with The Money Changers maintaining the
financial ploughs to control whatever politician might emerge as the leader.
Next, we'll see what The Money Changers ultimate political goal is for the world.

(2.22.21)

24. Great Depression

Shortly after WWI the overall political agenda of The Money Changers began to be clear.
Now that they controlled national economies individually, the next was the ultimate form of
consolidation: world government.
The new world government proposal was given top priority at the Paris peace conference
after WWI.
It was called The League of Nations.
But much to the surprise of Paul Warburg and Bernard Baruch, who attended the peace
conference with president Wilson, the world was not yet ready to dissolve national
boundaries.
Nationalism still beat strong in the human breast.
For example Lord Curson, the British foreign secretary, called the League of Nations a
good joke, even tough it was the British policy to support it.
To the humiliation of president Wilson the U.S. congress wouldn't the ratify the League
either.
Despite the fact that it had been ratified by many other nations, without money flowing
from the U.S. treasury, the League died.
After WWI, the American public had grown tired of the internationalist policies of the
democrat Woodrow Wilson.
In the presidential election of 1920, republican Warren Harding won a landslide victory
with over 64% of the vote.
Harding was a ardent fowl(?) of both bolshevism and the League of Nations.
His election which opened a 12 year run of republican presidency in the white house, lead
to an unprecedented prosperity, known as The Roaring Twenties.
Despite the fact that the war had brought America a debt ten times larger than its civil war
did, still the American economy surged.
Gold had poured into the country and continued to do so afterwards.
In the early 1920's the governor of this bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a
man named Benjamin Straw met frequently with the secretive and excentric(?) governor of
The Bank of England Montegue Norman.
Norman was determined to replace the gold England had lost to the US during WWI, and
return The Bank of England to its former dominants in world finance.
On top of that, rich with gold the American economy might get out of control again, just as
it had done just after the civil war.
During the next 8 years under the presidencies of Harding and Coolidge, the huge federal
debt built up during WWI was cut by 38% down to $16 billion , the greatest percentage
drop in U.S. history.
During the election of 1920, Warren Harding and Calban Coolidge, ran against James Cox,
governor of Ohio and the little known Franklin D. Roosevelt who had previously risen to
no higher post than president Wilson's assistant secretary of the Navy.
After his inauguration Harding moved quickly to formally kill the League of Nations.
Then he quickly moved to reduce domestic taxes while raising tear-offs to records heights.
Now, this was a revenue policy of which most of the founding fathers would certainly have
approved.
His second year in office Harding took ill on a train trip in the west and suddenly died.
Although no autopsy was performed the cause was said to be, either pneumonia or food
poisoning.
When Coolidge took over, he continued Harding's domestic economic policy of high tear-
offs on imports while cutting income taxes.
As a result the economy grew at such a rate, that net revenue still increased.
Now that had to be stopped.
So just as if they had done so frequently before, The Money Changers decided it was time
to crash the American economy.
The Federal Reserve began flooding the country with money.
They increased the money supply by 62% during these years.
Money was plentiful.
This is why it is know as The Roaring Twenties.
Before his death in 1919 former president Teddy Roosevelt warned the American people
what was going on.
As reported in the March 27th 1922 edition of The New York Times Roosevelt said:
"These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of
newspapers and the columns of the papers to club into submission or drive out of public
office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose
the invisible government. " Theodore Roosevelt
Just one day before in the New York Times the mayor of New York, John Hylan, quoted
Roosevelt and blasted those he saw as taking control over America, its political machinery
and its press: "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 at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small
group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The
little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government
for their own selfish purposes.... They practically control both parties, write political
platforms, make cats paws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations,
and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such
candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.... These
international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of
newspapers and magazines in the country." John Hylan
Why did people not listen to such strong warnings and demand that congress reverse its
1913 passage of the Federal Reserve Act?
Because remember it was the 1920's.
A steady increase in bank loans contributed to a rise in market.
In other words, just as it is today, in times of prosperity no one wants to worry about
economic issues.
But there is a dark side to all this prosperity.
Business is expanded and became strung out on credit.
Speculation on the booming stock market came rapid.
Although everything looked rosy, it was a castle made of sand.
When all was in readiness in April 1929, Paul Warburg, the father of the Federal Reserve,
sent out a secret advisory, warning his friends that a collapse and nation wide depression
was certain.
In august of 1929 the Fed began to tighten money.
It is not a coincidence that the biography of all the Wall Street giants of that era John D.
Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Joseph Kennedy, Bernard Baruch etc all marvelled that they got
out of the stock market just before the crash and put all their assets in cash or gold.
Henry Pasquet: (2.30.00) "In 1970 I was assigned the Uligie Askmont Field>(?) near
Massassuchet in Bedford; and one of the oldest civilian mechanics was working for me as
aircraft inspector, his name was Ed Carrigon, and Ed had grown up in that area and he
and his father had gone to the same church with Jo Kennedy. And Ed related to me in 1971
that he remembered a knock at the door, he went over, opened the door and it was Jo
Kennedy. So he ushered Jo Kennedy in his house, and he and his father talked and Ed sat
between the two of them. This was in 1929, the summer of 1929. And Jo Kennedy told Ed's
father, sell all of your stock, now, don't ask any questions. That was the quote of Jo
Kennedy. And Ed related that to me and his said it was still crystal clear in his mind and it
really struck him: why would Jo say this? So Jo left, His father asked no questions, He
went out and sold all his stock in the summer of 1929 and we all know what happened that
October."
On October 24th 1929, the big New York bankers called in their 24hours broker call loans.
This meant that both stock brokers and customers had to dump their stocks on the market to
cover loans no matter what price they had to sell them for.
As a result the market tumbled and that day was known as Black Thursday.
According to John Kenneth Galbraight riding(?right?) in the crash 1929 at the height of the
selling frenzy, Bernard Baruch brought Winston Churchill, into the businesses gallery of
New York stock exchange chair to witness the panic and impress him with his power over
the wild events down on the flour.
Congressman Louis McFadden chairman of The House Committee on Banking and
Currency, in 1920 to 1931, knew who was to blame.
He accused the Fed and the international bankers of orchestrating the 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." Louis
T. McFadden
But McFadden went even farther.
He openly accused them of causing the crash in order to steel America's gold.
In February 1931 in the midst of the depression, he put it this way: "I think it can hardly be
disputed that the statesman and financiers of Europe are ready to take almost any means to
reacquire rapidly the gold stock which Europe lost to America as the result of World War
I". Louis T. McFadden
Curtis Dall, a broker for the Legman brothers, was on the floor of the New York stock
exchange the day of the crash.
In his 1970 book 'FDR My exploited father in law' he explain that the crash was triggered
by the planned sudden shortage call money in the New York money market: "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." Curtis Dall, son-
in-law FDR
Within a few weeks $3 billion of wealth simply seemed to vanish.
Within a year $40 billion had been lost.
But did it really disappear?
Or was it simply consolidated in fewer hands?
Joseph P. Kennedy's worth for example grew from $4 million in 1929 to over $100 million
by 1935.
And what did the Federal Reserve do?
Instead of moving the help the economy out, by quickly lowering interest rates, to stimulate
economy, the Fed continued to brutally contract the money supply further, deepening the
depression.
Between 1929 and 1933 the Fed reduced the money supply by an additional 33%.
Although most Americans have never heard that the Fed was the cause of the depression,
this is well amongst the top economists.
Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize winning economist, now of Stanford University, said the
same thing in a national public radio interview in 1969: "The Federal Reserve definitely
caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-
third from 1929 to 1933." Milton Friedman
But the money lost by most Americans during the depression didn't just vanish.
It was just redistributed into the hands of those who had gotten out just before the crash and
had purchased gold, which is always a save place to put your money just before a
depression.
But America's money also went overseas.
Incredibly as president Hoover was heroically trying to rescue banks, and proper
businesses, with millions of Americans starving as the great depression deepened, millions
of dollars were being spent rebuilding Germany from damage sustained during WWI.
Eight years before Hitler would invade Poland.
Representative Louis McFadden,..., warned congress, that Americans were paying for
Hitler's rise to power.
(2.35.46)

"After WWI, Germany fell into the hands of the German international bankers. Those
bankers bought her and they now own her, lock, stock, and barrel. They have purchased
her industries, they have mortgages on her soil, they control her production, they control
all her public utilities.
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 billions of American money ... has been
pumped into Germany .... You have all heard of the spending that has taken place in
Germany... modernistic dwellings, her great planetariums, her gymnasiums, her swimming
pools, her fine public highways, her perfect factories. All this was done on our money. All
this was given to Germany through the Federal Reserve Board.
The Federal Reserve Board ... has pumped so many billions of dollars into Germany that
they dare not name the total." Rep. Louis McFadden
In his last year in office Hoover desperately put forward a plan to bail out the failing banks.
But he needed support from the democratic congress and that was not to be had.
That same year Franklin D. Roosevelt was swept into office during the 1932 presidential
election.
Once Roosevelt was in office however sweeping emergency banking measures were
immediately announced, which did nothing but increase the Fed.'s power over the money
supply.
Then and only then did the Fed finally begin to loosen the purstrings(?) and feed new
money out to the starving American people.

(2.37.48)

25. FDR/WWII
At first Roosevelt railed(?) against The Money Changers as being the cause of the
depression.
Believe it or not, but this was what he said on march 4th 1933, in his inaugural address:
"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." Franklin D. Roosevelt
But two days later Roosevelt declared a bank holiday and closed all banks.
Later that years 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.
The new decree was in affect a confiscation.
Those who didn't comply risk as much as 10 year in prison and a $10.000 fine, the
equivalent of a $100.000 today.
Out in small town America some people didn't trust Roosevelt's order.
Many were thorn between keeping their hard earned wealth or obeying the government.
Those who did turn in their gold were paid the official price for it, $20.66 per ounce.
So unpopular was the confiscation order that no one anywhere in government would take
credit for authoring it.
No congressman claimed it.
At the signing ceremony president Roosevelt made it clear to all present that he was not the
author of it and publicly stated that he had not ever read it.
Even the secretary of the treasury said he never read it either, saying it was "what the
experts wanted".
Roosevelt convinced the public to give up their gold by saying that pulling the nations
resources was necessary to get America out of the depression.
With great fanfare he ordered a new bullion depository built to hold the mountain of gold
the U.S. Government was illegally confiscating.
By 1936 the U.S. bullion depository Ford Knox was completed.
And in January 1937, the gold began the flow into it.
The rip off of the ages was about to proceed.
In 1935 once the gold had all been turn in, the official prize of gold suddenly raised to $35
per ounce.
But the catch was only foreigners could sell their gold at the new higher prize.
The Money Changers who had heated Baruch's note and gotten out of the stock market just
before the crash and bought gold at $20.66, then shipped it to London, could now bring it
back and sell it to the government nearly doubling their money while American starved.
The Ford Knox Bullion depository sits here in the middle of the Ford Knox military
reservation 30 miles south-west of Louisville Kentucky.
This is as close as we were permitted to get to the depository, despite years of letters from
members of congress to allow our film crew inside.
The four acres ground immediately surrounding the building are guarded by an electrified
steel fence, an open mote(?) and machine guns armed guardtillboxes at the structures
corners.
When gold began arriving on January 13th 1937, there was unprecedented security.
Thousands of official guests watched the arrival of a nine car train from Philadelphia,
guarded by armed soldiers, postal inspectors, secret service men, and guards from the U.S.
Mint.
It was all great theatre.
America's gold supply from across the land had been pulled, supposedly for the public
benefit and then safely tucked into Ford Knox.
For all that security would soon be breached (gebroken) be the government itself.
Now the stage was set for a really big war.
One which would pile up debt far beyond that of WWI.
"For example in 1944 alone the US national income was only $183 billion, yet $103 billion
was spend on the war.
This was 30 times the spending rate of WWI. In fact the American taxpayer picked up 55%
of the total allied cost of the war. But equally important, virtually every nation involved in
WWII greatly multiplied their debt. In the U.S. for example federal debt went from 43
billion in 1940 up to 275 million in 1950, an increase of 598%. Between 1940 and 1950
Japanese's debt swelled 1348%. French debt grew 583%. In Canadian's debt worth
417%."
After the war, the world was now divided in two economic camps: communist commend
economies on the one hand versus monopoly capitalist on the other, set to fight it out in a
perpetual and highly profitable arms race.
It was finally time for the central bankers to embark in earnest on their 3 step plan to
centralize the economic systems of the entire world and finally bring about their global
government or New World Order.. The phases of this plan were: Step one: central bank
domination of national economies worldwide.
Step two: centralize regional economies to organisations such as the European Monetary
Union, and regional trade unions, such as NAFTA Step three: centralize the world economy
to a World Central Bank, a world money , and ending national independence to abolition of
all tear-offs, treaties like GATT Step one was completed long ago.
Steps two and three are far advanced and nearing completion.
What about gold?
Amongst central banks, the largest holder of gold is now the IMF.
It and central banks now controlled two-thirds of the worlds gold supply, giving them the
ability to manipulate the gold market.
Remember The Money Changers golden rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules.
But before we get into solutions to our problems, let's take a look at what happened to all
that gold in Ford Knox.
Because if we don't understand that the gold has been stolen, than when the crash comes,
we allow ourselves to be stampeded into the wrong solution of gold backed currency.
Most Americans still believe that the gold is still here at Ford Knox.
At the end of WWII, Ford Knox contained over 7 million ounces of gold, an incredible
70% of all the gold in the world.
Who much remains?
No one knows.
Despite the fact that federal law requires annual physical audits of the Ford Knox gold, the
treasury has consistently refused to conduct one.
The truth is that a reliable audit at whatever remains here, has never been conducted since
President Eisenhower ordered one in 1953.
Where did America's gold in Ford Knox go?
Over the years it was sold off to European Money Changers at the $35 per ounce prize.
Remember this was during the times that it was illegal for Americans to buy any of their
own gold from Ford Knox.
In fact there was a very infamous case, were the Firestone family set up a string of dummy
corporations to purchase Ford Knox gold and keep it in Switzerland, never hitting U.S.
shores.
They were eventually caught however and successfully prosecuted.
Finally by 1971 all the pure gold had been secretly removed from Ford Knox, drained back
to London.
Once the gold was gone from Ford Knox president Nixon closed the gold window by
repealing Roosevelt's gold reserve act from 1934, finally making it legal once again for
Americans to buy gold.
Naturally gold prices immediately began to soar.
Nine years later, gold sold for $880 per ounce, 25 times what the gold in Ford Knox was
sold for.
One would think that eventually someone in the government would get wind of what was
happening and blow the whistle.
The largest fortune of the history of the world stolen.
Shades of the old James Bond film Goldfinger.
Well, as a matter of fact, Ian Fleming, the author of James Bond series, was head of the
British Counter-Intelligence Service, MI5.
Some believe in the intelligence community that he wrote much of his fiction as a warning
as many authors of fiction do.
Yet the removal of all the good delivery gold from Ford Knox, can be viewed as a
deliberate raid on the U.S. treasury, and such an operation might well had been years in the
making, namely 40 years, certainly enough time for Fleming to get wind of it and try to
prevent it.
So, just how did the story of the Ford Knox gold robbery get out ?
It all started with an article in a New York periodical in 1974.
The article charged that the Rockefeller family was manipulating the Federal Reserve to
sell off Ford Knox gold at bargain based prices to unanimous European speculators.
Three days later, the unanimous source of the story, Louise Arcanclass Boyer, mysteriously
fell to her death, from the window of her 10 floor apartment in NY.
How had misses Boyer had known of the Rockefeller connection to Ford Knox gold heist ?
She was the long time secretary of Nelson Rockefeller.
For the next 14 years, this man Ed Durell, a wealthy Ohio industrialist, devoted himself to a
quest for the truth concerning the Ford Knox gold.
He wrote thousands of letters to over one thousand government and banking officials,
trying to find out how much gold was really left and were the rest of it was gone.
Edith Roosevelt, the granddaughter of Teddy Roosevelt, questioned the acts of the
government in a march 1975 edition of The New Hampshire Sunday News: "Allegations of
missing gold from our Fort Knox vaults are being widely discussed in European financial
cycles. But what is puzzling is that the Administration is not hastening to demonstrate
conclusively that there is no cause for concern over our gold treasure - if indeed it is in a
position to do so." Edith Roosevelt
Unfortunately Ed Durell never did accomplish his primary goal, a full audit of the gold
reserve in Ford Knox.
It 's incredible that the world greatest treasure has had little accounting or auditing.
This gold belongs to the American people, not the Federal Reserve and their foreign
owners.
One thing is certain, the government could blow all this speculation away in a few days,
with a well publicized audit, under the serying(?) lights of media camera's.
It has chosen not to do so.
One must conclude that they are afraid of the truth, such an audit would reveal.
what is the government so afraid of?
Here is the answer.
When president Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, his conservative friends urged him to
study his ability of returning to a Gold Standard, as the only way to curb government
spending.
It sounded like a reasonable alternative.
So president Reagan appointed a group of men, called the Gold Commition, to study the
situation and report back to congress.
What Reagan's Gold Commition reported back to congress in 1982 was the following
shocking revelation concerning: "The U.S. treasury owned no gold at all."
All the gold that was left in Ford Knox was now owned by the Federal Reserve, a group of
private bankers as collateral against the national debt.
The truth of the matter is, that never before had so much money been stolen from the hands
of the general public and put into the hands of small group of private investors, The Money
Changers.

(2.50.49)
26. IMF/World Bank
I am standing in front of the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund located in
Washington DC.
Across the street, right over there, is the headquarters of the World Bank.
What are these organisation an who controls them and most importantly are they about to
create a huge worldwide depression?
Let us step back in time for a moment to the aftermath if WWI.
People were tired of war.
So under the guise of peacemaking the international bankers devised a plan to consolidate
power even further.
Claiming only an international government would stem the tied of world wars The Money
Changers pushed forward a proposal for world government which stood on three legs: a
world central bank to be called the ban of international settlements; a world judiciary to be
called the world court located in Den Haag in the Netherlands; and a world executive
legislator to be called The League of Nations.
As president Clinton's mentor, Georgetown historian Carroll Quigley, wrote in his 1966
'Tragedy and Hope' : "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." Carroll Quigley
Despite intense pressure from the international bankers and the press a handful of US
senators lead by senator Henry Cabott Large, kept the U.S. out of these schemes.
Without U.S. participation the League was doomed.
Incredibly, even though U.S. rejected the world central bank , BIS, the New York Federal
Reserve ignored its government, and arrogantly sent representatives to Switzerland to
participate in the central bankers meeting right up until 1994, when the U.S. was finally
officially dragged into it.
Their world government scheme sported (?) the bankers resorted to the old formula.
Another war to weir down the resistance to world government while reaping handsome
profits.
To this end Wall Street helped resurrect Germany through the Thyssen Banks which were
affiliated with the Harrimans Interest in NY, just as the Chase Bank had assisted in the
financing of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia during WWI.
Chase Bank was controlled by the Rockefeller family.
Subsequently it was merged with the Warburgh's Manhattan Bank and formed the Chase-
Manhattan Bank.
Now this has merged with the Chemical Bank of NY making it the largest Wall Street
bank.
(02:54:34)
Their strategy worked.
Even before WWII was over world government was back on track.
In 1944 at Brattonwood New Hampshire, the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank were approved with full US participation.
The second League of Nations, renamed the United Nations, was approved in 1945.
Soon a new national court system was functioning as well.
All affective opposition to these international bodies before the war had evaporated in the
heat of the war, just as planned.
These new organisations simply repeated on a world scale, what the National Banking Act
in 1864, and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, had established in the U.S..
They created a banking cartel composed of the world Central Banks, which gradually
assumed the power to dictate credit policies to the banks of all nations.
For example, just as the Federal Reserve Act authorized the creation of a new national fiat
called Federal Reserve Note, the IMF has been given the authority to issue a world fiat
money called Special Drawing Rights or SDR's.
To date the IMF has created an excess of $30 million worth of SDR's.
Member nations are been pressured to make their currencies fully exchangeable for SDR's.
In 1968 congress approved laws authorizing the Fed. to accept SDR's as reserves in the US,
and to issue Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for SDR's.
What does that mean?
In means that in the U.S., SDR's already a part of our lawful money.
And what about gold?
SDR's are already partially backed by gold and with two-thirds of gold now in the hands of
central banks, The Money Changers can go about structuring the world economic future, in
which ever way they deem most profitable.
Keep in mind, just as the Fed. is controlled by its board of governors, the IMF is controlled
by its board of governors, which are either the heads of the different central banks or the
heads of the national treasury departments dominated by their central banks.
Voting power in the IMF gives the U.S. and the UK, that is to say the Fed. and the Bank of
England, affective control.
Just as the Fed controls the amount of money in the U.S., the BIS, IMF, and World Bank
control the money supply for the world.
So we see the repetition of the old goldsmith's fraud.
Replicated on the national scale, with central banks like the Fed and on the international
scale by the three arms of the world central bank.
Is this organisation of the BIS, the IMF and the World Bank, which we refer to collectively
as the World Central Bank, presently expanding and contracting world credit?
Yes.
Regulations put into effect in 1988 by the BIS, required the world bankers to raise their
capital and reserves to 8% of liabilities by 1992.
Increased capital requirement put an upper limit to the fractional reserve lending similar to
the way cash reserve requirements do.
What is this seemingly insignificant regulation made in a Suisse city 8 years ago meant to
the world?
It means our banks can not loan more and more money to buy more and more time, before
the next depression, as a maximum loan ratio is now set.
It means those nations with the lowest bank reserve in their systems have already felt the
terrible effects of this credit contraction as their banks scramble to raise money, to increase
their reserves to 8%.
To raise the money they had to sell stocks which depressed their stock market and began
the depression first in their countries.
Japan which in 1988 had amongst the lowest capital in reserve requirements and thus was
the most effected by the regulation, has experienced the financial crash which began almost
immediately in 1989 which has wiped out a staggering 50% of the value of its stock market
since 1990 and 60% of the value of its commercial real-estate.
The bank of Japan has lowered its interest rates to 0.5% practically giving away money to
resurrect the economy but still the depression worsens.
Due to the $20 billion bail out of Mexico the financial collapse in that nation is already
known here.
Yet despite the bail out the economy continues to be a disaster.
One huge debt after another is rolled over as new loans are been made simple to enable
Mexico to pay the interest on the old loans.
(03:00:01)
In the south of Mexico the poor had been in open revolt as every spare peso is been
sipend(?) out of the country to make interest payments.
It is important to note that a radical transfer of power is taking place as nations become
subservient to a supra-national world central bank controlled by a handful of the world
richest bankers.
As the IMF creates more and more SDR's by the stroke of a pen on IMF legures(?), more
and more nations borrow them to pay interest on their debts and gradually fall under the
control of the faceless bureaucrat of the worlds central bank.
As the worldwide depression worsens and spreads this will give the world central bank the
power of economic life and death over these nations.
It will decide which nations will permitted to receive further loans of SDR's and which
nations will starve.
Despite all the rhetoric about the development and elevation of poverty the result is a
steady transfer of wealth from the debtor nations to The Money Changers central banks
which control the IMF and the World Bank.
For example in 1992 the third world debtor nations which borrowed from the World Bank
paid $198 million more to the central banks of the developed nations for world bank funded
purposes than they received from the World Bank.
All this increases their permanent debt in exchange for temporary relief of poverty caused
by prior borrowings.
Already these repayments exceed the amount of the new loans.
By 1992 Africa's external debt had reached $290 billion, two and a half times greater than
1980 resulting in skyrocketing infant mortality rates and unemployment, deterioration of
schools, housing and the general help of the people.
The entire world faces the immeasurable suffering already destroying the third world and
now Japan, all for the benefit of The Money Changers.
As one prominent Brazilian politician put it: "The Third Word War has already started. It
is a silent war. Not, for that reason, any less sinister. The war is tearing down Brazil, Latin
America, and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying, there are children.
It is a war over the Third World debt, one which has as its main weapon, interest, a
weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam."

(3.02.43)

27. Conclusions
Although it would be absurd to ignore the pivotal role played by the influential families
such as the Rothschilds, the Warburghs, the Shiffs, the Morgans and the Rockefellers, in
any review of the history of central banking and fractional banking, keep in mind, by now
central banks and the large commercial banks are up to three centuries old and deeply
entrenched in the economic life of many nations.
These banks are no longer depending on clever individuals, such as a Nathan Rothschild.
Years ago the question of ownership was important, but no longer.
For example, The Bank of England and The Bank of France were nationalized after WWII
and nothing changed, nothing at all.. They endure and continue to grow now protected by
numerous laws, paid politicians and mortgaged media, untouched by the changing of
generations.
Three centuries have given them an aura of respectability.
The old school tie is now worn by the sixth generation son who has been raised in a system
that he may never question as he is named to serve on the governing boards of countless
philanthropic organisations.
The focus attention today on individuals or families, or to attempt to sort out the current
holders of power, serves little useful purpose and would be a distraction from the cure.
The problem is far bigger than that.
It is the corrupt banking system that was and is been used to consolidate vast wealth into
fewer and fewer hands that is out current economic problem.
Change the names of the main players now, and the problem will neither go away, nor even
miss a beat.
Likewise among the bureaucrat working in the World Bank, central banks an international
banks, only a tiny fraction have any idea what's really going on.
No doubt they would be horrified to learn that their work is contributing to the terrible
impoverishment and gradual enslavement of mankind to a few incredibly rich plutocrats.
So really, there is no use in emphasizing the role of individuals any more.
And the problem even transcends the normal spectrum of political right or left.
Both communism and socialism, as well as monopoly capitalism have been used by The
Money Changers.
Today they profit from either side of the new political spectrum.
The big government welfare-state, the so called left wing versus the neo-conservative laysa
fer (?) capitalists who want big government totally out of their lives o, the right wing.
Either way the bankers win.
Monetary reform is the most important political issue facing this nation.
That clarified lets proceed to the conclusions in the spirit Lincoln declared: "With malice
towards none, with charity towards all".

At the start of this video we ask a number of troubling questions.

Let's be sure we answered them.
What's going on in America today?
Why are we over our heads in debts?
Why cannot the politicians bring debt under control?
Why are we over our heads in debt?
Because we are labouring under a debt-based money system that is design and controlled
by private bankers.
Now some will argue that the Federal Reserve system is a quasi governmental agency.
But the president appoints only two of the seven members Federal Reserve Board
governors every four years.
And he appoint them to 14 years terms, far longer than his own.
The senate does confirm those appointments, but the whole truth is, that the president
would dare to appoint anyone into that board of whom Wall Street is not approve.
Of course this does not preclude the possibility that some honourable men may be
appointed to the board of governors.
But the fact is that the Fed is specifically designed to operate independently of our
government as are nearly all other central banks.
Some argue that the Fed promote monetary stability.
We saw the current head of The Bank of England Eddy George claim this was the most
important role of a central bank.
In fact the Fed's record of stabilizing the economy shows it to be a miserable failure in this
regard.
Within the first 25 years of its existence the Fed caused three major economic downturns
including the Great Depression, and for the last 30 years has shepparded the American
economy into a period of unprecedented inflation.
Again this is not some wild conspiracy theory, its a well known fact among top economists.
As Nobel prize winner 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
contraction,
This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after
World War I is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System... and that
the severity of each of the major contractions -- 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38 -- is
directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by then Reserve authorities....
Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that
mistakes -- excusable or not -- can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. If is a
bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any
affective check by the body politic -- this is the key political argument against an
independent central bank....
to paraphrase Clemencea: money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central
bankers." Milton Friedman, economist.
We must learn from our history before it is to late.
Why cannot politician control the federal debt?
Because all our money is created out of debt.
Again: its a debt-money system.
Our money is created initially by the purchase of U.S. bonds.
The public buys bonds, like saving bonds; the banks buy bonds, foreigners buy bonds and
when the Fed wants to create more money in the system, it buys bonds, but pays for them
with a simple bookkeeping entry which it creates out of nothing.
Then this new money created by the Fed is multiplied by a factor of 10, by the bank, thanks
to the fractional reserve principle.
So although the banks don't create currency, they do create cheque book money, or deposits
by making new loans.
They even invest some of this created money.
In fact over $1 trillion of this privately created money has been used to purchase U.S. bonds
on the open market, which provides the banks with roughly $50 billion in interest, risk free,
each year, less the interest the pay to some of the depositors.
In this way through fractional reserve lending banks create over 90% of the money, and
therefore cause over 90% of our inflation.
What can do about all this?
Fortunately there is a way to fix the problem fairly easily, speedily and without any serious
financial problem.
We can get our country totally out of debt in one to two years by simply paying off those
U.S. bonds, with debt-free U.S. notes, just as Lincoln issued.
Of course that by itself would create tremendous inflation since our currency is currently
multiplied by the fractional reserve system.
But here is the ingenious solution advanced at part by Milton Friedman, to keep the money
supply stable and avoid inflation and deflation, while the debt is retired.
As the treasury buys up its bonds on the open market with U.S. notes, the reserve
requirements of your hometown local bank, will be proportionally raised so the amount of
money in circulation remains constant.
As those holding bond are paid off in U.S. notes, they will deposit this money thus making
available the currency then needed by the bank to increase their reserves.
Once all the U.S. bonds are replaced with U.S. notes, banks will be at 100% reserve
banking instead of the fractional reserve system currently in use.
From this point on the former Fed buildings will only be needed as a central clearing house
for cheques and those vaults for U.S. notes.
The Federal Reserve Act will no longer be necessary and could be repealed.
Monetary power can be transferred back to the treasury department.
There would be no further creation or contraction of money by banks.
By doing it this way our national debt can be paid off in a single year or so and the Fed and
the fractional reserve banking abolished.
Without national bankruptcy, financial collapse, inflation or deflation, or any significant
change in the way the average American goes about his business.
To the average person the primary difference would be that for the first time since the
Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, taxes would begin to go down.
Now there is a real national blessing for you, rather than for Hamilton's banker friends.
No lets take a look to these proposals in more detail.
(3.13.42)
Here are the main provisions of The Monetary Reform Act that needs to be passed by
congress.
We drafted a propose Monetary Reform Act which follows at the end of this tape.
Of course variations with the same result would be equally welcome.
1. Pay off the debt with debt-free U.S. Notes As Thomas Edison put it: if the U.S. can
issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill.
They both rest purely on the faith and credit of the U.S. Government.
This amounts to a simple substitution of one type of government obligation to another.
On bears interest, the other doesn't.
Federal Reserve Notes can be used for this as well but can not be printed after the Fed is
abolished as we propose, so we suggest using U.S. Notes instead.
2. Abolish Fractional Reserve Banking.
As the debt is paid off, the reserve requirements of all banks and financial institutions
would be raised proportionally at the same time to absorb the new U.S. Notes which would
be deposited and become the bank increased reserves.
Towards the end of the first year of the transition period, the remaining liability of the
financial institutions would be assumed or acquired by the U.S. Government in a one time
operation.
In other words they to would eventually be paid off with debt-free U.S. Notes in order to
keep the total money supply stable.
At the end of the first year or so, all of the national debt would be paid and we could start
enjoying the benefits of full reserve banking.
The Fed would be obsolete and an anachronism.
3. Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the National Banking Act of 1864.
These acts delegate the money power to private banking monopoly.
They must be repealed and the money power handed back to the department of treasury,
where they were initially under president Abraham Lincoln.
No banker or person in any way affiliated with financial institutions should be allowed to
regulate banking.
After the first two reforms, this acts would serve no useful purpose anyway, since they
relate to a fractional reserve banking system.
4. Withdraw the U.S. from the IMF, BIS and the World Bank.
This institutions like the Federal Reserve are designed to further centralize the power of the
international bankers over the worlds economy and the U.S. must withdraw from them.
Their harmless function such as currency exchange can be accomplished either nationally
or in new organisations limited to those functions.
Such a monetary reform act would guarantee that the amount of money in circulation would
stay very stable causing neither inflation nor deflation.
Remember for the last three decades the Fed has doubled the American money supply
every ten years.
That fact and fractional reserve banking are the real causes of inflation and the reduction in
our buying power, a hidden tax.
These and other taxes are the real reason both parents now have to work just to get by.
The money supply should increase slowly to keep prices stable, roughly in proportion to
population growth about 3% per year.
Not at the wimp of a group of bankers meeting in secret.
In fact all future decisions on how much money will be in the American economy must be
made based on statistics of population growth and the price level index.
The new monetary regulators an the treasury department, perhaps called the Monetary
Committee, would have absolutely no discretion in this matter except in time of declared
war.
This would insure a steady stable money growth of roughly 3% per year resulting in stable
prices and no sharp changes in the money supply.
To make certain the process is completely open and honest, all deliberations would be
public, not secret as meetings of the Fed's Board of governors are today.
How do we know this would work?
Because this steps remove the two major causes of economic instability, the Fed and
Fractional Reserve Banking; and the newest one as well, the BIS, Bank of International
Settlements.
But most importantly the danger of a severe depression would be eliminated.
Let us listen to Milton Friedman on the single cause of severe economic depression: "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." Milton Friedman, economist
Issuing our own currency is not a radical solution.
It has been advocated by president Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Vanburen and Lincoln.
But it has been used in different times throughout Europe as well.
Perhaps the best example is one of the small islands of the coast of France in the English
canal, called Guernsey.
It has been using debt-free money issues to pay for large building projects for nearly 200
years.
(03:19:22)
Here we are at Guernsey, and this is the Guernsey flower and vegetables market.
Guernsey is one of the most successful examples of just how well a debt-free money
system can work.
In 1815 a committee was appointed to investigate how best to finance this new market.
The impoverished island could not effort more new taxes, so the states fathers decided to
try a revolutionary idea: issue their own paper money.
They were just colourful paper notes backed by nothing, but the people of this tiny island
agreed to accept them and traded with them.
To be sure the circulated widely, they were declared to be good for the payment of taxes.
Of course this idea was nothing new.
It was exactly what America had done before in the American Revolution and there are
many other examples throughout the world.
But it was new to Guernsey, and it worked miracles.
This market is still in use.
And remember, it was build with no debt to the people of this island state.
But what if we follow Guernsey's example?
How would the bankers react to these reforms?
Certainly the international bankers cartel will oppose reforms that do away with their
control of the world's economy as they have in the past.
But it is equally certain that congress has the constitutional authority and responsibility to
authorize the issuance of debt-free money, U.S. Notes, and to reform, the banking laws it
ill-advisedly enacted.
Undoubtedly the bankers will claim that issuing debt-free money will cause sever inflation
or make other dire(?) predictions.
But remember, it is fractional reserve banking which is the real cause of over 90% of all
inflation, not whether debt-free U.S. Notes are used to pay for U.S. deficits.
In the current system any spending excesses on the part of congress are turned into more
debt bonds, and the 10% purchases by the Fed are then multiplied many times over by the
bankers causing over 90% of all inflation.
Our Fractional Reserve Banking System is the real problem.
We must ignore its inevitable resistance to reform and remain firm until the cure is
complete.
As the director of The Bank of England in 1920's, sir Josiah Stamp put it, referring to this
modern fractional reserve system: "Banking is 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 control credit, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough money to buy it back
again. Take this great power away from the bankers and all great fortunes like mine will
disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a better and happier world to live
in.
But if you want to continue the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of our own slavery, let
them continue to create money and to control credit." Sir Josiah Stamp

Americans are slowly figuring this out.

Today over 3200 cities and counties have endorsed the proposal of a non-profital
organisation called Sovereignty.
The Sovereignty movement calls for congress to authorize the secretary of the treasury to
issue $90 billion per year of U.S. Notes, not Federal Reserve notes, nor debt-based bonds,
to loan money interest free to cities, counties and school districts, for needed capital
improvements.
Remarkably and to their praise, the community bankers association of Illinois, representing
515 member banks, has endorsed this Sovereignty proposal.
A good step in the right direction.
This brings us to another one of our questions, posed at the first of this tape.
Are we headed into an economic crash, of unprecedented proportions?
If so can we prevent it, and what can we do to protect our families?
As Milton Friedman has repeatedly pointed out: no severe depression can occur without a
severe contraction of money.
In our system only the Fed, the Bank of International Settlements, with U.S. Bankers
Cooperation, or a combination of the largest Wall Street banks could cause a depression.
In other words, our economy is so huge and resilient, a depression just cannot happen by
accident.
Unless we reform our banking system they will always have that power.
They can pull the plug in our economy any time they choose.
The only solution is to abolish the Fed, and the Fractional Reserve Banking System, and
withdraw from the BIS.
Only that will break the power of the international bankers over our economy.
And keep in mind, a stock market crash it self, can not cause a severe depression.
Only the severe contraction of our money supply can cause a severe depression.
The stock market crash of 1929, only wiped out market speculators, mostly the small and
the medium ones, resulting in $3 billion in wealth changing hands.
But it served as a smoke screen for a 33% contraction in credit by the Fed over the next
four years, which resulted in over $40 billion in wealth from the American middle class
being transferred to the big banks.
Then in spite of potent howls of protest from a divided congress, the independent Fed kept
the money supply contracted for a full decade.
Only WWII ended the terrible suffering the Fed inflicted on the American people.
In a depression the remaining wealth of the debt burdened middle class will be wiped out
by an employment declining wages and the resulting foreclosures.
If we start to act, reform our monetary system, The Money Changers may do what they did
in 1929 and then the 1930's, crash the stock market and use that as a smoke screen while
contracting the money supply.
But if we are determined to fight to regain control over our money, we can come out of it
fairly quickly.
Perhaps in only a very few months as U.S. Notes begin to circulate and replace the money
withdrawn by the bankers.
The longer we wait, the greater the danger, we permanently loose control of our nation.
But some still wander why the international bankers would want to cause a depression.
Wouldn't that be killing the goose that is currently laying all golden interest eggs?
Remember what Larry Bates said at the first of this video tape: "You see in periods of
economic upheaval and economic crisis, wealth is not destroyed. It is merely transferred."
Do we have any hints as to what The Money Changers have in store for us?
Here is what David Rockefeller, the chairman of Chase-Manhattan Bank, the largest Wall
Street bank, had to say: "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the
right major crisis and the nation will accept the New World Order."
So crisis is needed to for fill their plans quickly.
The only question is when the crisis will occur.
Fortunately we probably have a little time.
It is unlikely that this crisis will occur before the 1999 elections, but after that the
danger begins rising.
But whether or not they decide to cause a crash, or a depression, through relentless
increases of taxes, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, been sent overseas, thanks
to trade agreements such as GATT and NAFTA, the American middle-class, is an
endangered species.
Cheaper labour, including slave labour in Red China, which Harry Woo, has heroically
documented, is being used to compete with American labour.
In other words, money is being consolidated in fewer and fewer hands, as never before in
the history of this nation or the world.
Without reform, the American middle-class will soon be extinct, leaving only the very rich
few, and the very many poor, as has already occurred in most of the world.
We have been warned of all this by congressmen, presidents, industrialists, and economists,
down through the years.
Religious leaders to, have seen the danger.
About 1898, during the time of William Jennings Bryan, pope Leo XIII, put it this way:
"On the one side there is the party which holds the power because it holds the wealth;
which has in its grasp all labour and all trade; which manipulate 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". Pope Leo XIII
More recently during America's Great Depression, pope Pius XI spoke of the same
problem: "In our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic
economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few...
This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they
hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for this
reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as
it were, in their hands, the very soul of the economy so that no one dare breathe against
their will." Pope Pius XI

But now let us go back to our original questions.

What can we do to protect our families during a depression?
First of all 'Get out of debt' if you can, even if it means lowering your standard of life.
Otherwise you stand to loose, everything that is debt financed.
Secondly 'Get liquid', reduce your wealth to more liquid forms, reduce your real-estate
assets for example.
If you own your own house out right, then fine.
If not, then sell other assets to pay it of.
For the worst case scenario, consider putting some of your assets into old silver coins.
Pre 1965 coins or 90% silver.
From 1965 on they or not.
It has been said that during a severe depression a single silver dollar, may be able to by
your family groceries for a week.
Why will old silver dollars become so valuable?
Because most people are so familiar with them.
They know they are of an assured weight and purity.
In that case owning just 20 to 30 silver dollars, might mean the difference between your
family making it or not, through what is likely to be the worst time in U.S. history.
Other forms of precious metals, particularly gold, are usually a good way to protect extra
assets during the depressions.
But there are other thing you can do.
You might consider foreign currency funds.
Consider opening a Suisse or Austrian bank account, or a foreign currency denominated
bank account in an U.S. bank.
If you can afford to diversify into all of them consider doing so.
Educate your friends.
Our country needs a solid group, who really understand how our money is manipulated and
what the solutions really are.
Because if a depression comes there will be those who call themselves conservatives who
will come forward advancing solutions framed by the international bankers.
Be aware of calls to return to a gold standard.
Why?
Simple, because never before has so much gold been so concentrated outside of American
hands.
And never before has so much gold been in the hands of international governmental bodies
such as the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
In fact the IMF now holds more gold than any central bank.
A gold backed currency usually brings despair to a nation.
And to return to it, would certainly be a false solution in our case.
Remember we had a gold backed currency in 1929 and during the first four years of the
Great Depression.
Likewise, be aware of any plans advance for a regional or world currency, this is the
international bankers Trojan Horse.
Educate our member of congress.
It only takes a few persuasive members to make the others pay attention.
Most congressman just don't understand the system.
Some understand it, but are so influenced by bank pack contributions that they ignore it, not
realizing the gravity of their neglect.
We hope we have made a valuable contribution to the national debate on monetary reform.
It remains for each man to do his duty consistent with his state in life.
May god give us the light to help reform our nation and ourselves.
We say ourselves because ultimately vast multitudes of men are going to be driven more
and more to desperation, by the accumulation of the world's wealth in fewer an fewer
hands.
Men will tend to become like their oppressors: selfish and greedy.
Rather let us keep in mind that this period of reform, a warning not to loose sight of greater
things as pope Pius XI put it: "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, it 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

See also
Los Amos del Dinero
Cómo los Banqueros Internacionales Ganaron el Control de America (1996)

Dirigida y narrada por Bill Still

1. Introducción - El Problema
¿Qué está pasando en América hoy día?
¿Porqué estamos endeudados hasta el cuello?
¿Porqué los políticos no pueden controlar la deuda?
¿Porqué hay tanta gente, a menudo ambos padres ahora trabajando con bajos salarios en
empleos sin futuro, y aún arreglándoselas con menos?
¿Cuál es el futuro de la economía Americana y su estilo de vida?
¿Porqué el gobierno nos dice que la inflación es baja, cuando el poder de compra de
nuestros cheques de pago declina a un ritmo alarmante?
Solo una generación atrás el pan costaba 0.25 ctvs. Y un auto nuevo $1.995!
¿Nos dirigimos a un colapso económico de proporciones jamás vistas, una que hará que el
colapso financiero de 1929 y la gran depresión que le siguió parezcan un paseo dominical?
¿Si es así, podemos evitarlo?
¿Y que podemos hacer para proteger nuestras familias?
Expertos confiables dicen que el colapso de acerca.
También dicen que hay cosas simples y económicas que cualquiera pude hacer para
proteger sus familias, y mantener comida sobre la mesa y un techo sobre nuestras cabezas,
incluso en el peor de los tiempos.
Pero para hacer esto tenemos que entender porque se aproxima el colapso, quien está detrás
de él, que quieren ellos, y como los perpetradores planean proteger sus familias.
Armados con conocimiento, cualquiera de nosotros, puede superar la tormenta que se
aproxima.
(01:58)
Larry Bates fue presidente de un banco por 11 años.
Cómo miembro de la Cámara de Representantes por Tennessee presidió el Comité sobre
Banca y Comercio.
También es un antiguo profesor de economía y autor del éxito editorial “El Nuevo
Desorden Económico”.
“Puedo decirle ahora mismo, que habrá un colapso de proporciones sin precedentes. Un
colapso como nunca antes visto en este país.
El más grande choque de esta década es que mas gente va a perder más dinero que en
ninguna otra época anterior en nuestra historia. Pero el segundo más grande choque será
la increíble cantidad de dinero que un pequeño grupo de gente hará exactamente al mismo
tiempo. Verá, en períodos de agitación y crisis económica la riqueza no es destruida.
Simplemente es transferida.”
El candidato Presidencial Charles Collins es un abogado, ha poseído bancos y sirvió como
director bancario.
El cree que nunca saldremos de la deuda porque la Reserve Federal controla nuestro dinero.
(03:09)
“Ahora mismo está perpetuada por la Reserva Federal haciéndonos prestar dinero al
interés para pagar el interés que ya está acumulado.
Así que no podemos salirnos de la deuda en la manera como vamos ahora.”

(03:24)
El economista Henry Pasquet ha enseñado economia por 10 años.
Él está de acuerdo que el fin está cerca para la economía estadounidense.
“. . . no cuando usted está añadiendo, ustedes saben, un aproximado de un billón de
dólares diarios. No podemos continuar. Teníamos menos de un trillón de dólares de deuda
nacional in 1980. Ahora es aproximadamente 5 trillones de dólares (1995), 5 veces más
grande en 15 años. No se necesita ser un genio para darse cuenta que esto no puede
continuar por siempre.”

El problema es que desde 1864, hemos tenido un sistema bancario basado en la deuda.
Todo nuestro dinero se basa en deuda pública.
No podemos extinguir la deuda pública sin extinguir nuestro suministro de dinero.
Es por eso que hablar de pagar la deuda nacional sin reformar el sistema bancario es una
imposibilidad.
Es por eso que la solución no yace en discutir el tamaño de la deuda pública.
Mas bien yace en la reforma de nuestro sistema bancario.

Estos son los cuarteles generales de la Reserva Federal en Washington.

Situados en una impresionante dirección: en la Avenida Constitución, justo enfrente del
monumento a Lincoln.
¿Pero es Federal?
¿Es realmente parte del gobierno de los Estados Unidos?
Bien, lo que vamos a mostrarle, es que no hay nada federal acerca de la Reserva Federal y
que no hay reservas.
El nombre es un engaño creado tiempo atrás cuando la Ley de Reserva Federal fue
aprobada en 1913 para hacerle pensar a los Estadounidenses que el banco central americano
opera en el interés público.
La verdad es que la Reserva Federal en un banco privado, propiedad de accionistas
privados, y dirigido únicamente para beneficio privado.
(05:07)
Henry Pasquet: “Eso es correcto, la FED es propiedad privada, para beneficio
corporativo, el cual de nuevo no tiene reserva, al menos no para respaldar los billetes de
la Reserva Federal, los cuales son nuestra moneda corriente.”

(05:22)
Larry Bates: “. . oh por supuesto. La Reserva Federal no es federal y dudosamente
reserva. Es un banco privado, propiedad de miembros de la banca, y fue fundada bajo el
disfraz de engaño por una ley del congreso en 1913. El 23 de diciembre de 1913, cuando
la mayoría de los miembros de el congreso se habían marchado para las vacaciones, la
cámara de representantes había aprobado la ley de la reserva federal de 1913. pero estaba
teniendo dificultades en sacarla en el senado. Y la mayoría de la gente se había marchado
a casa. Pero una de las cosas de las que suelo asegurarme y verificar es cuando tenemos
un receso en los círculos legislativos, usted quiere asegurarse que la actividad fue
aplazada sin fecha.
¿La aplazó el senado sin fecha? Estaba aún técnicamente en sesión.
Así que usted tenía 3 miembros del senado, según los registros del senado, que estaban
presentes ese día, diciembre 23 de 1913. Y ellos pasaron la ley de la Reserva Federal con
un unánime voto. No hubo objeción. Si hubiera habido una persona que la objetara, y
dicho en respuesta, la ausencia de un quorum, no hubiera pasado.”

(06:36)
Si hay aún alguna duda de si la Reserva Federal es parte del Gobierno, verifiquen su guía
telefónico local.
En la mayoría de las ciudades no está listado en las páginas azules del gobierno.
Está listada en las páginas blancas de negocios, justo al lado de Federal Express, otra
compañía privada.
Pero más directamente, la corte de los Estados Unidos a fallado una y otra vez que la
Reserva Federal es una corporación privada.
¿Por qué el congreso no puede hacer nada acerca de la FED?
La mayoría de los miembros simplemente no entienden el sistema.
Y los pocos que lo entienden tienen miedo de hablar.
Por ejemplo, inicialmente un veterano congresista de Chicago, nos preguntó si el podía ser
entrevistado para este video.
Sin embargo en las dos ocasiones en que nuestro equipo llegó a su oficina para la
entrevista, esto fue todo lo que fuimos capaces de filmar.
El congresista nunca apareció.
Y finalmente decidió que ya no quería participar.
Pero otros pocos en el congreso han sido persistentes a través de los años.
He aquí 3 rápidos ejemplos.
(07:42) En 1923, el representante Charles E. Lindberg, un republicano de Minnesota, y
padre del famoso aviador, lo planteó de este manera: