|
Part 1
Three Hundred Trillion Dollars and Counting
Chapter 1
MONEY
1.1 The Money Magicians
1.2 The Banking Cartel
The Western money monopoly is the central pillar of the New World
Order monolith. The ownership and control of commercial activity by
a few European and American families has created the necessary
concentration of financial power to manipulate public policy at all
levels through co-option of politicians, policy institutes,
charities, educational establishments, and media outlets.
Maintaining this international army is a very expensive business, so
it is important to understand the source of its funds.
1.1 THE MONEY MAGICIANS
I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that
the banks can and do create money... And they who control the credit
of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the
hollow of their hands the destiny of the people
- Reginald McKenna
speaking to stockholders as Chairman of the Board
of Midland Bank in January 1924.(1)
G. Edward Griffin's book
The Creature from Jekyll Island is the
source for the following explanation(2) - a benchmark publication on
the subject of banking and the New World Order.
Western banks create money through a fractional-reserve lending
system. Central banks lend money to governments to make up for the
deficit in taxation receipts. The banks print money out of nothing
and receive interest bearing government bonds in return. These bonds
are called "securities" because they are backed by the full credit
and integrity of taxpayers who pay back the loans through taxation.
Eventually every pound or dollar borrowed passes through the current
accounts and savings accounts operated by commercial banks. Under
the rules of fractional-reserve banking, for the purpose of lending
money, the commercial banker is allowed to print nine more pounds or
dollars than he holds on deposit, or what ever ratio the central
bank decides. He pays savers a modest rate of interest and charges
borrowers a much higher rate on up to ten times the amount. His only
costs are his buildings, employees, and book-keeping. The only risk
he takes is an accounting risk if too many loans go into default at
once. However, if he gets into serious trouble the central bank will
come running to his aid with more money printed out of nothing.
Looking for the equity in this system is fruitless. Every penny and
cent in circulation requires interest payment to the money powers
because money is debt. Hundreds of billions of dollars world-wide
are paid in interest every year to men who print money out of
nothing.
A frequently asked question is, 'where does the money come from to
pay the interest on the loan?' Quite simply there is none. Interest
payments are serviced
by payment in kind - through labour. This is a game of musical
chairs where the money keeps on circulating between creditors and
debtors. The profits from the banks are used by their shareholders
to buy goods and services, passing the money to the workers to pay
back the capital and the interest. If the game of musical chairs
ever stopped there wouldn't be enough money in circulation to repay
a penny or cent of interest. But the game is designed to go on
forever.
Having said all this, the bankers are permanently and necessarily
interposed between parties in the market place, allowing us to trade
goods and services for money. But they charge a high price for their
services, as many Third World nations have found out, and have
become fantastically wealthy as a result. The problem of this money
monopoly is as much a political one as an economic one.
On the eve of the 2001 General Election, Prime Minister Tony Blair
was interviewed by the BBC's leading news presenter, Jeremy Paxman.
There was an extraordinary exchange over the question of whether or
not someone can become too rich.(3) In describing the extent to
which money really is power, the rest of this book explains one of
the reasons why Tony Blair did not want to answer that question.
PAXMAN: Do you believe that an individual can earn too much money?
BLAIR: I don't really - it is not -no, it's not a view I have. Do
you mean that we should cap someone's income? Not really, no. Why?
What is the point? You can spend ages trying to stop the highest
paid earners earning the money but in an international market like
today, you probably would drive them abroad. What does that matter?
Surely the important thing is to level up those people that don't
have opportunity in our society.
PAXMAN: But where is the justice in taxing someone who earns £34,000
a year, which is about enough to cover a mortgage on a one-bedroom
flat in outer London, at the same rate as someone who earns £34
million. Where is the justice?
BLAIR: The person who earns £34 million, if they're paying the top
rate of tax, will pay far more tax on the £34 million than the
person on £34,000.
PAXMAN: I am asking you about the rate of tax.
BLAIR: I know and what I am saying to you is the rate is less
important in this instance than the overall amount of tax that
people would pay. You know what would happen, if you go back to the
days of high top rates of tax. All that would happen is that those
people, who are small in number actually, and you can spend a lot of
time getting after the person earning millions of pound a year, and
then what you don't do is apply the real energy where it's necessary
on things like the children's tax credit, the Working Families Tax
Credit, the minimum wage, the New Deal, all the things that have
helped people on lower incomes.
PAXMAN: But where is the justice in it?
BLAIR: When you say where is the justice in that, the justice for me
is concentrated on lifting incomes of those that don't have a decent
income. It's not a burning
ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.
PAXMAN: But Prime Minister, the gap between rich and poor has by
widened while you have been in office. BLAIR: A lot of those figures
are based on a couple of years ago before many of the
measures we took came into effect. But the lowest income families in
this country are benefiting from the government. Their incomes are
rising. The fact that you have some people at the top end earning
more
PAXMAN: ..Benefiting more!
BLAIR: If they are earning more, fine,
they pay their taxes.
PAXMAN: But is it acceptable for gap between
rich and poor to widen?
BLAIR: It is acceptable for those people on
lower incomes to have their incomes
raised. It is unacceptable that they are not given the chances. To
me, the key thing is not whether the gap between those who, between
the person who earns the most in the country and the person that
earns the least, whether that gap is.
PAXMAN: So it is acceptable for gap to widen between rich and poor?
BLAIR: It is not acceptable for poor people not to be given the
chances they need in life.
PAXMAN: That is not my question.
BLAIR: I
know it's not your question but it's the way I choose to answer it.
If you end
up going after those people who are the most wealthy in society,
what you actually
end up doing is in fact not even helping those at the bottom end.
PAXMAN: So the answer to the straight question is it acceptable for
gap between rich and poor to get wider, the answer you are saying is
yes.
BLAIR: No, it's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that my
task is.
PAXMAN: You are not saying no.
BLAIR: But I don't think that
is the issue.
PAXMAN: You may not think it is the issue, but it is the
question. Is it OK for the gap
to get wider?
BLAIR: It may be the question. The way I choose to answer it is to
say the job of government is make sure that those at the bottom get
the chances.
PAXMAN: With respect, people see you are asked a
straightforward question and
they see you not answering it.
BLAIR: Because I choose to answer it in the way that I'm answering
it.
PAXMAN: But you are not answering it.
BLAIR: I am answering it. What I am saying is the most important
thing is to level up, not level down.
PAXMAN: Is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to get
bigger?
BLAIR: What I am saying is the issue isn't in fact whether the very
richest person ends up becoming richer. The issue is whether the
poorest person is given the chance that they don't otherwise have.
PAXMAN: I understand what you are saying. The question is about the
gap.
BLAIR: Yes, I know what your question is. I am choosing to answer it
in my way rather than yours.
PAXMAN: But you're not answering it.
BLAIR: I am.
PAXMAN: You are answering another question.
BLAIR: I am answering actually in the way that I want to answer it.
I tell you why I want to answer it in this way. Because if you end
up saying no, actually my task is to stop the person earning a lot
of money earning a lot of money, you waste all your time and energy,
taking money off the people who are very wealthy when in today's
world, they probably would move elsewhere and make their money. What
you are not asking me about, which would be a more fruitful line of
endeavor, is what are you doing for the poorest people to give them
a boost.
PAXMAN: Let's talk about tax. You have promised...
BLAIR: Why don't we talk about the poorest of society and what we
are doing for them.
PAXMAN: I assume you want to be Prime Minister. I just want to be an
interviewer. Can we stick to that arrangement?
1.2 THE BANKING CARTEL
The monopoly underlying all other monopolies is
the banking cartel.
The wealth of
the Rothschild dynasty in the nineteenth century was
legendary. In building the mightiest private bank the world has ever
seen, the Rothschilds amassed the largest private fortune in the
history of capitalism. Since 1919, the world gold price has been
fixed daily at the office of N.M. Rothschild & Sons in London.
However, before World War I the European and American money powers
had already formed a lasting partnership. Potential competitors on
Wall Street, which included European banking houses, decided that
they could reduce competition from the provincial banks and achieve
higher profits if only they had a functional central bank like those
in Europe and cooperated in printing America's money.(4)
A central bank is a private cartel enforced by the police power of
government. Created in 1913,
the Federal Reserve 'System' was
designed to benefit the most powerful New York banks, halting the
loss of business to the hundreds of smaller banks in the southern
and western states. The system appeared to distribute power equally
between the twelve regional branches but in reality, it gave power
to the New York branch controlled by The Money Trust on Wall
Street.(5)
The Jekyll Island Plan for the Federal Reserve Act was
drawn up by the five biggest banking houses in Europe and America:
Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg and Kuhn Loeb.(6) It's
chief architect was Paul Warburg of the German and Swiss banking
house who moved to America only nine years earlier. He brought with
him all the experience of European central banking. His brother Max
Warburg was financial adviser to the Kaiser and later Director of
Germany's central bank, The Reichsbank.(7) Paul Warburg's Wall
Street banking operation was a partnership with the Rothschilds in
Kuhn Loeb & Co..
After working together to create the 'Fed', the members of the
cartel devised the acceptance market which powered up their newly
created money printing press. Through the 1920s the acceptance
market created over half of all the money printed by the Fed.(8)
Since then, the agents of the private commercial banks, who sit on
the boards of the central banks throughout the world, have worked
together to formulate international monetary policy. In 1966, Bill
Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, Professor Carroll
Quigley, described the system in his book Tragedy and Hope: (9)
The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of
these investment bankers... who remained largely behind the scenes
in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of
international co-operation and national dominance which was more
private, more powerful and more secret than that of their agents in
the central banks... In addition to these pragmatic goals, the
powers of financial capitalism had another 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 feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in
concert, by secret agreements arrived at infrequent private meetings
and conferences. The apex of this system was to be the Bank for
International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank
owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were
themselves private corporations...
The international nature of the cartel was evidenced during the
1920s when the Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank,
Benjamin Strong, worked with Montague Norman, the Governor of the
Bank of England, to assist the economy of Great Britain at the
expense of American investors. Increasing the
U.S. money supply contributed to a massive speculative boom in the
stock market and the Wall Street Crash in 1929.(10)
Woodrow Wilson was the U.S. President when the Fed was created. In
his book The New Freedom he commented on the centralization of
banking power:
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to
me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the
field of commerce and manufacturing are afraid of somebody, afraid
of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so
organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocking, so complete, so
pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when
they speak in condemnation of it.(11)
In July 2003 it was mentioned in the news that the Rothschild
international investment banking group is controlled by a parent
company called Rothschild Continuation Holdings A.G., located in
Switzerland. Far from being competing factions, the English and
French Rothschilds have worked out a deal merging control of their
respective banking houses by forming a new holding company,
Concordia B.V..(12)
It is these family run private banks which continue to coordinate
central bank policy. On 28 June 1998, The Washington Post published
an article about the Bank for International Settlements describing
how "this economic cabal.... this secretive group... the financial
powers who control the world's supply of money" shape the world's
economy.(13)
The next chapter asks the question, 'who today really has all the
money and where is it invested?'. This is not possible to answer
with satisfactory precision but there are some good indicators that
provide much food for thought.
Chapter 1 End Notes
-
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our
Time, The MacmillanCompany, New York, 1966, p.325
-
G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Media,
Fourth Edition,2002,
-
Transcript of Jeremy Paxman's Newsnight interview with Tony
Blair,4th June 2001.BBC news on-line. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1372220.stm
-
Ibid., p.437
-
Ibid., p.473
-
Ibid., p.12
-
Ibid., p.18
-
Ibid., p.482
-
Quigley, op cit., pp. 324, 326-327
-
Griffin op cit., pp. 474-475
-
Globalization, Robert Gaylon Ross Sr.
-
Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG: Restructuring, Clarinet News, 9
July 2003.
See
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/de/Brothschilds-continuation.R-J1_Dl9.html
-
Dr. Stanley Monteith,
The Brotherhood of Darkness, Hearthstone
Publishing, 2000,
p.33.
Back to Contents
|