Chapter 1
• “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.” -Mayer Rothschild
• "We shall have World Government…The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." -James Paul Warburg
• "It would have been quite impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries ..." - David Rockefeller
• “The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, 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. …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 (CFR)
• "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class. The great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages will bear its burden without complaint." - Rothschild Brothers of London in a letter to fellow conspirators
By 1910, the world’s financial power was already heavily concentrated… In the United States, the Morgan group and The Rockefeller group were the dominant financial forces. In Europe, it was the Rothschild group and the Warburg group. Through their banks and investment firms, it has been estimated that these 4 groups controlled 25% of the entire world’s wealth. …A sizable sum, but there was plenty more to be had. And though it’s true these financial titans competed with one another, they also struggled against common “enemies.” In the end, their desire to defeat those enemies brought them together. And together, they created (for themselves) the monetary system you and I live under today.
Our story begins with 7 men traveling under fake names and in absolute secrecy to the privately owned Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. Even after arriving at their secluded destination, the secrecy continued. All of the island’s permanent staff had been sent on vacation and carefully screened replacements took their place. For 9 days, the men were under strict rules to address each other by first name only. Nearly two decades passed before any of the conspirators publicly admitted they’d participated in the meeting.
Those involved:
1. Benjamin Strong: The head of J.P. Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company
2. Henry P. Davidson: Senior partner of the J.P. Morgan Company
3. Charles D. Norton: President of J.P. Morgan’s First National Bank of NY
4. Nelson W. Aldrich: Business associate of J.P. Morgan, United States Senator
(Republican “whip”) Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, father-in-law to
John D. Rockefeller Jr.,
5. Abraham Piatt Andrew: Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
6. Frank A. Vanderlip: Representing William Rockefeller and the international
investment banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, president of the National
City Bank of New York (The most powerful bank at the time)
7. Paul M. Warburg: Representing the Rothschild banking dynasty in England and
France, partner in Kuhn, Loeb and Company, brother of Max Warburg who was head
of the Warburg banking consortium in Germany and the Netherlands
The main “enemies” that brought these men together were: Emerging competition, bank runs, and currency drains.
Competition
From the years 1900 to 1910, the number of banks operating in the United States had more than doubled to over twenty thousand. Most of the new banks had sprung up in the South and West and this was costing the large New York banks an increasing percentage of their business. However, in a “free market economy” there was little the New York bankers could do (legally) to stop this. So, as is often the case with unimaginably rich and powerful people, they set out to co-opt the power of government. By rewriting the “rules and regulations” in their favor, they could easily crush their competitors.
Another form of “competition” came from the bank’s customers themselves. A new trend had emerged; self-financing. That is to say, PROFITS were now being used to finance corporate growth instead of bank borrowed funds. From 1900 to 1910, seventy percent of funding for corporate growth came from within. As such, the banks were being cut out of the equation and businesses were becoming increasingly independent. Even the federal government had gotten into the act. Worse than “not borrowing,” the government was actually paying off the national debt. Less and less debt equals less and less profit for the banks…this was a trend that had to stop.
To gain the greatest control, the bankers needed a system that allowed them to bypass the free market and manipulate interest rates directly. For instance, to encourage debt over saving and self-financing, the banks would only need to tip the interest rates down. Low rates encourage people to borrow and spend recklessly -- more borrowing equals more debt, more debt equals more profit for the banks. Then there is the option of being able to raise interest rates at will. It was a powerful tool they couldn’t do without.
Bank Runs
One of the greatest threats a bank faces is known as a “bank run.” It should be noted; if banks actually ran a legitimate business, “bank runs” wouldn’t be a problem. But they don’t run a legitimate business and so bank runs are a problem. To understand what a bank run is, all you have to understand is the underlying fraudulent nature of the banking system. In essence, it is this:
When you deposit money in a bank, you expect the bank to keep your money safe until the time you wish to withdraw it. If 100 people deposit 100 dollars in a bank ($10,000 total) the expectation is; the bank now has $10,000 in their vault. Under these circumstances, there would be no problem if all 100 people showed up on the same day to withdraw their $100. The bank could simply take the $10,000 out of the vault, return $100 to 100 people and that would be the end of that.
The problem is the bank never has anywhere near as much money on hand as it “owes” to its depositors. Instead of keeping your money in their vault, the bank loans it out to others. As if that isn’t bad enough, they then (based on the rules of the current system) are allowed to loan out even more money they don’t physically have. (Don’t worry; we’ll cover this ridiculous fact of modern banking in greater detail soon enough.) When all is said and done, it isn’t uncommon for a bank to have only a couple dollars on hand for every $100 (or more) that it owes to others.
If the public keeps its money in the bank, as it usually does, no problems arise. But if something spooks the public, or if more than a few percent of the population simply decide they’d like to have their money, the scam is exposed. When word gets out that the bank is stalling or unable to pay its depositors, the problem intensifies. Suddenly masses of people converge on the bank in an attempt to “get their money” (this is known as a bank run.) The bank of course doesn’t have anywhere near enough money to return to its depositors and bankruptcy usually follows. Sadly it’s the depositors who end up “paying the price.”
A normal human would look at the system and say it needed to be corrected. Banks shouldn’t be allowed to loan out depositor’s money without the depositor’s consent. Nor should the bank be permitted to create even greater financial obligations; loaning out even more money it doesn’t actually have. But who said any of this was going to make sense? We can’t forget the banking business is a business. Its current structure wasn’t created for the benefit of those “normal humans” who don’t understand it. There is a lot of profit to be made in loaning out money you didn’t have to earn, so figuring out a way to protect the inherently fraudulent system (rather than correcting it) was one of the main goals of the Jekyll Island conspirators.
Currency Drains
A currency drain is very similar to a bank run. The bank owes more money to other people than it has on hand and, as a result, it is driven into bankruptcy. With a currency drain however, instead of depositors lining up at the bank’s teller window seeking their money, now it is other banks lining up seeking what they’re owed.
As an easy example, imagine for a moment there are only two banks: Joe’s Bank and Mary’s Bank.
Let’s say that I (Joe) have a $100 balance in my checking account. I decide I want to purchase Mary’s computer and she agrees to sell it to me for $100. Rather than go to my bank to withdraw cash, I simply write Mary a check.
When Mary cashes my check at her bank, the $100 she is given comes out of her bank’s available money supply. In other words, Mary’s bank is temporarily “out” $100. Not until the check is returned to my bank (demanding the $100 I have in my checking account) will the transaction be complete.
Now imagine my bank agrees to “loan me” $1,000 it does not have. (Again, we’ll cover how banks literally “create money out of nothing” a little later.) For now, suffice to say my bank simply types “1000” into their computer and, by doing so, adds $1,000 to my checking account balance. With my new $1,000 balance I go to Mary and ask if she’d like to sell her old lawn tractor. She agrees. I write her a check for $1,000, she deposits it in her bank, and her bank returns the check to my bank for payment, only this time my bank cannot produce the money. This provides the basic idea of how a “currency drain” manifests. Currency drains come as a result of banks making more promises to “pay money on demand” than they can keep.
Of course, in the real world, there are many banks and many customers. While I’m writing a check for $1,000 that will be deposited in Mary’s bank, somebody from Mary’s bank might write a check for $1,000 that will be deposited in mine. In this case, the two checks would cancel each other out (each bank owes the other $1,000.) Because no money would need to be transferred to balance these transactions, there wouldn’t be any “drain” on either bank’s available currency.
Another scenario where a bank would not have to worry about experiencing a currency drain would be: I write a check from my bank to somebody who also banks at my bank (or one of it’s many other branches.) When the person I wrote the check to deposits it at one of the “Joe’s bank” branches, the bank only needs to subtract some digits from my account balance and add some to the depositor’s account.
--Rigging the system to protect against the problem of currency drains (rather than correct the underlying problem that caused them) was yet another one of the main objectives of those who brought us our “Federal Reserve System.”
Banker’s Heaven
As the system stood in 1910, some banks were more reckless than others about “loaning money” they didn’t have. (Remember, banks make money on loans…the more loans they can issue and collect interest on, the more profit they earn.) The predictable result of reckless banking was this: Customers would borrow from a reckless bank and then write checks on their newly created account balance. Those checks would wind up deposited with other banks and those other banks would demand payment. Inevitably, the reckless bank would be drained of all its available currency (all of its customer’s deposits) and would go belly up.
To illustrate this a little further, imagine we have a cautious bank and a reckless bank. The cautious bank has $10,000 of its own money on hand for every $10,000 in “checking account” money it creates as loans. As a result of keeping cash reserves equal to 100% of its loans, it will never have a problem with too many checks coming in from other banks. …it will always be able to meet its obligation to produce cash because its obligations are 100% backed by its cash reserves.
Our other bank (the reckless one) has $10,000 in cash on hand, but it isn’t happy with earning interest on only $10,000 in loans…it wants to earn interest on $100,000. So it starts issuing “loans” (creating new checking account balances out of nothing for its loan customers.) As those customers start writing checks, and those checks start finding their way into other banks, the inevitable “currency drain” begins. The bank goes broke, depositors lose everything, and the free money (interest / profit earned on money that existed only as keystrokes in a computer) is over for the bankers involved.
Historian John Klein explains: “The financial panics of 1873, 1884, 1893, and 1907 were in large part…triggered by the currency drains that took place in periods of relative prosperity when banks were loaned up.” In other words, banks were walking closer and closer to the edge of how much money they could loan out (without sufficient money to back those loans) and this practice led to repeated panics and the failure of some 1,748 banks over a couple decades. Again, rather than do the obvious (fix the fraudulent system) our banker friends were intent on expanding their profits and protecting themselves from the naturally occurring losses. Their primary goals:
1. Stop the growing influence of smaller “rival banks” and expand their control over the nation’s financial resources.
2. Make the money supply “more elastic” (make it easier to create large amounts of money out of nothing and loan it out) so they could reverse the trend of people using their own profits to finance growth and recapture the industrial loan market.
3. Consolidate the meager cash reserves of the nation’s individual banks into one large reserve and encourage banks to maintain the same loan to reserve ratio. This would help stave off currency drains and bank runs.
4. If the entire system should come crashing down, have a mechanism in place to shift the losses from the bankers to the taxpayers.
5. Convince the people (and Congress) the new “system” would protect and benefit the public.
What they needed to achieve their goals was no secret. Only a strong cartel created with legislation and sustained by government power would suffice. A near perfect model was already up and running in Europe; it was simply a matter of exporting it to the United States. Still, that would prove easier said than done. At the time, the voters would have vehemently opposed the idea of a handful of banking interests centralizing their power, interfering with competition and manipulating the free-enterprise system. –They had no faith in what was commonly referred to as “the money trust” and these men WERE “the money trust.” So, as is often the case in politics, it became an issue of wrapping everything in the right words and then pouring on the propaganda.
How they sold it to the public…
The cartel would operate as a central bank, but for the purpose of public relations the word “bank” would not be used. To gain the public’s trust, “the system” was given the appearance of a Federal agency. Anger over recent panics and bank failures was used to stir up demands for “monetary reform.” After creating sufficient public outcry, the Jekyll Island conspirators stood ready with their “solution.”
The plan’s initial structure was kept somewhat conservative; but it contained plenty of “wiggle room” to get it just right over time. To avoid the appearance of a “Wall Street centralized power structure” it was designed with regional branches scattered about the country. To create the appearance of academic approval, university professors were employed to tout its merits. Last but not least, the VERY MEN who conspired to make the plan a reality attacked and condemned it publicly. This final step convinced the public it was “bad for the money trust” and hence “good for them.” …From start to finish, it worked like a charm.
A psychological operation (or PsyOp) is defined as: “Techniques used…to influence a target audience's emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and behavior…in order to…reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives.” You’ll be hard pressed to find a better definition of the weapon used against the American people to secure adoption of The Federal Reserve System. On December 22, 1913, “The Creature from Jekyll Island” (The Federal Reserve System) was signed into existence and it has been thrashing about ever since.
Although “The Fed” was supposedly implemented to stabilize our economy and benefit the public, a look at its history shows it has done anything but.
“Since its inception, it has presided over the crashes of 1921 and 1929; the Great Depression of 1929 – 1939; recessions in 1953, 1957, 1969, 1975, and 1981; a stock market “Black Monday” in 1987; and a 1000% inflation which has destroyed 90% of the dollars purchasing power.”
That latter point (a 1000% inflation which has destroyed 90% of the dollars purchasing power) is an outdated figure. As of this writing, it is actually closer to 96%! It’s impossible to assess the full impact of the Federal Reserve System without taking inflation into account. Inflation has been called a “hidden tax” because it reduces your purchasing power just as surely as government taking part of what you’ve earned (in taxes) reduces your purchasing power.
If you earn $10,000 dollars and the government takes $3,000 of it, your purchasing power has been reduced by 30 percent. If you earn $10,000 and a government sanctioned inflationary policy reduces the purchasing power of your money by 30%, the impact on your wealth is the same; you’ve suffered a loss in purchasing power equal to $3,000. It’s no different than if they had simply taken the $3,000 from you.
Unfortunately, very few people understand this and that works to the advantage of those who profit from the system. Think about it. You’d be mad if somebody stole $3,000 from you; you’d know exactly how much of your money was missing and you’d want to go after whoever took it. –But when was the last time you complained about the erosion of your purchasing power? –When was the last time you tried to figure out how much of your money has been stolen via inflation over the past 5 or 10 years? –When was the last time you “went after” those responsible?
We will cover inflation in greater detail in upcoming chapters. For now, we’ll keep it very simple: As the Federal Reserve facilitates the reckless expansion of our money supply (inflating the amount of currency / credit in our economy) the ever increasing volume of money decreases the value of our dollars. As the value of our dollars goes down, the number of dollars it takes to buy things goes up. As the bankers profit from the system, the costs are passed onto us in the form of reduced purchasing power.
Unfortunately, we’ve only just begun to cover the problems inherent in the Federal Reserve System. There are many more ways it benefits the few at the expense of the masses….
--> Reason number one to abolish the Federal Reserve System:
There can be no argument the Federal Reserve System has failed miserably in its stated objectives; to stabilize the economy, protect and benefit the public. Furthermore, based on the inherently fraudulent nature of the system, it can be reasonably argued that its stated objectives were never its REAL objectives at all.
“When one realizes the circumstances under which it was created, when one contemplates the identities of those who authored it, and when one studies its actual performance over the years, it becomes obvious that the System is merely a cartel with a government façade.”
Antony Sutton, Professor of Economics at California State University sums it up this way (Emphasis added)
“Even today,….academic theoreticians cover their blackboards with meaningless equations, and the general public struggles in bewildered confusion with inflation and the coming credit collapse, while the quite simple explanation of the problem goes undiscussed and almost entirely uncomprehended. The Federal Reserve System is a legal private monopoly of the money supply operated for the benefit of the few under the guise of protecting and promoting the public interest.”
Simply stated, Congress created this creature; Congress can kill it. If it is incapable of meeting its stated objectives, and if in fact those objectives were never genuine, but a ruse to serve alternate interests at the expense of the American people, there is no reason why it should be permitted to breathe another day.
Acknowledgements - Introduction
1. Money is Power...............................................5
2. Something for Nothing................................12
3. The Bailout.................................................18
4. Dreaming of a New World Order......................27
5. BUILDING a New World Order........................35
6.What is Money?..........................................44
7. The World's First Central Bank........................58
8. How They Do It - How We Stop Them.............64
->Purchase a "hard copy" of this book here
