| 
			  
			  
			  
			  
			
			
			 
			by WashingtonsBlog 
			March 26, 2015 
			from
			
			WashingtonsBlog Website 
			
			
			Spanish version 
			  
			  
			  
			  
			
			 
			  
			  
			  
			  
			Lee Fang
			
			reports: 
				
				
				The possibility of an Iran nuclear deal 
				depressing weapons sales was raised by Myles Walton, an analyst 
				from Germany's Deutsche Bank, during a 
				Lockheed earnings call this past January 27.  
				  
				Walton asked Marillyn Hewson, the chief executive of Lockheed Martin, if an 
				Iran agreement could, 
					
					"impede what you see as progress 
					in foreign military sales."  
				Financial industry analysts such as Walton use 
				earnings calls as an opportunity to ask publicly-traded 
				corporations like Lockheed about issues that might harm 
				profitability.   
				Hewson replied that "that really 
				isn't coming up," but stressed that "volatility all around the 
				region" should continue to bring in new business.  
				  
				According to Hewson,  
					
					"A lot of volatility, a lot of instability, a lot of 
				things that are happening" in both the Middle East and the 
				Asia-Pacific region means both are "growth areas" for Lockheed 
				Martin. 
				The Deutsche Bank-Lockheed exchange, 
					
					"underscores a longstanding truism of the weapons trade: war - 
				or the threat of war - is good for the arms business," says 
				William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the 
				Center for International Policy.  
				Hartung observed that Hewson 
				described the normalization of relations with Iran not as a 
				positive development for the future, but as an "impediment."  
					
					"And Hewson's response," Hartung 
					adds, "which in essence is ‘don't worry, there's plenty of 
					instability to go around,' shows the perverse incentive 
					structure that is at the heart of the international arms 
					market." 
			The President of Stanford University 
			(David Starr Jordan)
			
			reported that banksters are the true power behind the throne, 
			and that - for many centuries - they've made their fortunes by 
			financing war.   
			Former managing director of Goldman 
			Sachs - and head of the international analytics group at Bear 
			Stearns in London (Nomi Prins) -
			
			notes: 
				
				Throughout the century that I 
				examined, which began with the Panic of 1907... what I found by 
				accessing the archives of each president is that
				through many events and 
				periods, particular bankers were in constant communication [with 
				the White House] - not just about financial and 
				economic policy, and by extension trade policy, but also
				about aspects of World War I, 
				or World War II, or the Cold War, in terms of the 
				expansion that America was undergoing as a superpower in the 
				world, politically, buoyed by the financial expansion of the 
				banking community.   
				***   
				In the beginning of World War I, 
				Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality.  
				  
				But 
				the Morgan Bank, which 
				was the most powerful bank at the time, and
				which wound up funding over 75 
				percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War 
				I... pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he 
				might have done, because of 
				their desire to be involved on one side of the war.   
				Now, on the other side of that war, 
				for example, was the National 
				City Bank, which, though they worked with Morgan in financing 
				the French and the British, they also didn't have a problem 
				working with financing some things on the German side, as did 
				Chase …   
				When Eisenhower became president... 
				the U.S. was undergoing this expansion by providing, under his 
				doctrine, military aid and support to countries [under] the 
				so-called threat of being taken over by communism...    
				
				What bankers did was they opened up hubs, in areas such as Cuba, 
				in areas such as Beirut and Lebanon, where the U.S. also wanted 
				to gain a stronghold in their Cold War fight against the Soviet 
				Union. And so the juxtaposition of finance and foreign policy 
				were very much aligned.   
				So in the ‘70s, it became less 
				aligned, because though America was pursuing foreign policy 
				initiatives in terms of expansion, 
				the bankers found oil, and they made an extreme effort to 
				activate relationships in the Middle East, that then the U.S. 
				government followed.
				   
				For example, in Saudi Arabia and so 
				forth, they get access to oil money, and then recycle it into 
				Latin American debt and other forms of lending throughout the 
				globe.  
				  
				So that situation
				led the U.S. 
				government. 
			Indeed, JP Morgan also
			
			purchased control over America's leading 25 newspapers in order 
			to propagandize US public opinion in favor of US entry into World 
			War 1.   
			The U.S. Senate's Special Committee on 
			Investigation of the Munitions Industry
			
			found connections between the wartime profits of the banking and 
			munitions industries to America's involvement in World War I.
			   
			Specifically, the Committee reported 
			that between 1915 and January 1917, the United States lent Germany 
			27 million dollars, and in the same period, it lent to the United 
			Kingdom and its allies 2.3 billion dollars, almost 100 times as 
			much, and so the US entered the war so that the lenders would get 
			repaid by their biggest debtors: The UK and its allies.   
			Subsequently, many big banks funded 
			the Nazis.   
			BBC
			
			reported in 1998: 
				
				
				Barclays Bank has 
				agreed to pay $3.6m to Jews whose assets were seized from French 
				branches of the British-based bank during World War II.   
				***   
				
				Chase Manhattan 
				Bank, which has acknowledged seizing about 100 accounts held by 
				Jews in its Paris branch during World War II … 
					
					"Recently 
				unclassified reports from the US Treasury about the activities 
				of Chase in Paris in the 1940s indicate that the local branch 
				worked "in close collaboration with the German authorities" in 
				freezing Jewish assets. 
			The New York Daily News
			
			noted the same year: 
				
				The relationship between Chase and 
				the Nazis apparently was so cozy that Carlos Niedermann, the 
				Chase branch chief in Paris, wrote his supervisor in Manhattan 
				that the bank enjoyed "very 
				special esteem" with top German officials and "a rapid expansion 
				of deposits," according to Newsweek.   
				Niedermann's letter was written in 
				May 1942 five months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and 
				the U.S. also went to war with Germany. 
			The BBC
			
			reported in 1999: 
				
				A French government commission, 
				investigating the seizure of Jewish bank accounts during the 
				Second World War, says five American banks
				Chase Manhattan, J.P Morgan, 
				Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, Bank of the City of New York 
				and American Express had taken part. 
				It says their Paris branches handed 
				over to the Nazi occupiers about one-hundred such accounts. 
			One of Britain's main newspapers - the 
			Guardian -
			
			reported in 2004: 
				
				George Bush's grandfather [and 
				George H.W. Bush's father], the late US senator Prescott Bush, 
				was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from 
				their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.   
				The Guardian has obtained 
				confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National 
				Archives that a firm of which 
				Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial 
				architects of Nazism.   
				His business dealings... continued 
				until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading 
				with the Enemy Act   
				***   
				The documents reveal that the firm 
				he worked for, Brown Brothers 
				Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German 
				industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 
				1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade.
				   
				The Guardian has seen evidence that 
				shows Bush was the director of the New York-based
				Union Banking Corporation 
				(UBC) that represented Thyssen's US interests and he continued 
				to work for the bank after America entered the war.   
				***   
				Bush was a founding member of the 
				bank [UBC]... The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush's 
				father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany's 
				most powerful industrial family.   
				***   
				By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers 
				Harriman, which claimed to be the world's largest private 
				investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of 
				dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to 
				Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler's build-up to war.   
				Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought 
				more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad.
				   
				According to documents seen by the 
				Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH 
				accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered 
				around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.   
				***   
				UBC was caught red-handed operating 
				a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months 
				after America had entered the war and that this was the bank 
				that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power. 
			Indeed, banks often finance
			
			both sides of wars:             
			And they are one of the main sources of 
			financing
			
			for nuclear weapons.   
			(The San Francisco Chronicle also 
			documents that leading financiers
			Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman also
			
			funded Nazi eugenics 
			programs... but that's a story for another day.)   
			
			The Federal Reserve and other 
			central banks also
			
			help to start wars by financing them. Thomas Jefferson and the 
			father of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, both noted that the 
			financing wars by banks led to 
			
			
			more - and longer - wars.   
			And America apparently considers
			
			economic rivalry to be a basis for war, and is
			using the military to
			
			contain China's growing economic influence.   
			Multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas 
			Price
			
			says: 
				
				What happened to [Libya's] Mr. 
				Gaddafi, many speculate the 
				real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an 
				all-African currency for conducting trade.
				 
				  
				The same thing happened to him 
				that happened to Saddam because the US doesn't want any solid 
				competing currency out there vs. the dollar. You know 
				Gaddafi was talking about a
				
				gold dinar. 
			Senior CNBC editor John Carney
			
			noted: 
				
				Is this the first time a 
				revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still 
				in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It 
				certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central 
				bankers have become in our era.   
				Robert Wenzel of
				
				Economic Policy Journal thinks the central
				
				banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a 
				strong influence over the rebels.   
				This suggests we have a bit more 
				than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are 
				some pretty sophisticated influences. "I have never before heard 
				of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of 
				a popular uprising," Wenzel writes. 
			Indeed,
			
			many claim that recent wars have really been about bringing all 
			countries
			
			into the fold of Western central banking, and that the wars 
			against Middle Eastern countries are really about
			
			forcing them into the dollar and private central banking.   
			The most decorated American military man 
			in history said that
			'war is a racket,' and
			
			noted: 
				
				Let us not forget the bankers who 
				financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits 
				it was the bankers. 
			The big banks have also been
			
			laundering money for terrorists.    
			The big bank employee
			
			who blew the whistle on the banks' money laundering for 
			terrorists and drug cartels says that the giant bank is still aiding 
			terrorists,
			
			saying: 
				
				The public needs to know that money 
				is still being funneled through HSBC to directly buy guns and 
				bullets to kill our soldiers... Banks financing... terrorists 
				affects every single American. 
			He also
			
			said: 
				
				It is disgusting that our banks are 
				STILL financing terror on 9/11 2013. 
			  
			  
			  
			    
			According to the BBC and other sources, 
			Prescott Bush, JP Morgan and other leading financiers also funded a 
			coup against President Franklin Roosevelt in an attempt - basically 
			- to implement fascism in the U.S.  
			  
			See
			
			this,
			
			this,
			
			this and
			
			this.   
			Kevin Zeese
			
			writes: 
				
				Americans are recognizing the link 
				between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street 
				oligarchs - a connection that goes back to the beginning of the 
				modern U.S. empire. 
				  
				 Banks have always profited from war because the debt created 
				by banks results in ongoing war profit for big finance; and 
				because wars have been used to open countries to U.S. corporate 
				and banking interests.  
				  
				Secretary of State, William Jennings 
				Bryan wrote:
				
					
					"the large banking interests were deeply interested 
				in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large 
				profits." 
				Many historians now recognize that a 
				hidden history for U.S. entry into World War I was to protect 
				U.S. investors.
				 
				  
				
				
				U.S. commercial interests had invested heavily in European 
				allies before the war:  
					
					"By 1915, American neutrality was 
				being criticized as bankers and merchants began to loan money 
				and offer credits to the warring parties, although the Central 
				Powers received far less. Between 1915 and April 1917, the 
				Allies received 85 times the amount loaned to Germany." 
					 
				The 
				total dollars loaned to all Allied borrowers during this period 
				was $2,581,300,000.  
				  
				The bankers saw that if Germany won, their 
				loans to European allies would not be repaid. The leading U.S. 
				banker of the era,
				J.P. Morgan and his associates did everything they could to
				
				push 
				the United States into the war on the side of England and 
				France.  
				  
				Morgan said:  
					
					"We agreed that we should do all that was 
				lawfully in our power to help the Allies win the war as soon as 
				possible."  
				President Woodrow Wilson, who campaigned saying he 
				would keep the United States out of war, seems to have entered 
				the war to protect U.S. banks' investments in Europe.   
				The most decorated Marine in 
				history,
				
				
				Smedley Butler, described fighting for U.S. banks in many of 
				the wars he fought in.  
				  
				He said:  
					
					"I spent 33 years and four 
				months in active military service and during that period I spent 
				most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for 
				Wall Street and the bankers.    
					In short, I was a racketeer, a 
				gangster for capitalism.   
					I helped make Mexico and especially 
				Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make 
				Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to 
				collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen 
				Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. 
					   
					I 
				helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of 
				Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican 
				Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.    
					I helped make 
				Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In 
				China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its 
				way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone 
				a few hints.    
					The best he could do was to operate his racket in 
				three districts. I operated on three continents." 
				In 
				Confessions of an Economic 
				Hit Man, John Perkins describes how 
				World Bank and IMF 
				loans are used to generate profits for U.S. business and saddle 
				countries with huge debts that allow the United States to 
				control them.  
				  
				It is not surprising that former civilian military 
				leaders like Robert McNamara and Paul Wolfowitz went on to head 
				the World Bank.  
				  
				These nations' debt to international banks 
				ensures they are controlled by the United States, which 
				pressures them into joining the "coalition of the willing" that 
				helped invade Iraq or allowing U.S. military bases on their 
				land.  
				  
				If countries refuse to "honor" their debts, the CIA or 
				Department of Defense enforces U.S. political will through coups 
				or military action.   
				***   
				More and more people are indeed 
				seeing the connection between corporate banksterism and 
				militarism... 
			Indeed, 
			all wars are bankers' wars.         
			War Makes Banks Rich  
			Wars are the
			
			fastest way for banks to create more debt... and 
			therefore to make more profit. No wonder they love war.   
			After all, the banking system is founded 
			upon the counter-intuitive but indisputable fact that
			
			banks create loans first, and then create deposits later. 
			In other words, virtually all money is 
			actually created as debt.    
			For example, in a hearing held on 
			September 30, 1941 in the House Committee on Banking and Currency, 
			the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Mariner S. Eccles) said: 
				
				That is what our money system is. If 
				there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any 
				money. 
			And Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager 
			of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said: 
				
				If all the bank loans were paid, no 
				one could have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar 
				of coin or currency in circulation.    
				This is a staggering thought. We are 
				completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to 
				borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If 
				the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if 
				not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money 
				system.   
				When one gets a complete grasp of 
				the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is 
				almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important 
				subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.   
				It is so important that our present 
				civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood 
				and the defects remedied very soon. 
			Debt (from the borrower's perspective) 
			owed to banks is profit and income from the bank's 
			perspective. In other words, banks are in the business of creating 
			more debt... i.e. finding more people who want to borrow larger 
			sums.   
			Debt is central to our banking 
			system. Indeed, Federal Reserve chairman Greenspan was so 
			worried that the U.S. would pay off it's debt, that he
			
			suggested tax cuts for the wealthy to increase the 
			debt.   
			What does this have to do with war?   
			War is the most efficient 
			debt-creation machine. For starters, wars are very 
			expensive.   
			For example, Nobel prize winning 
			economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated in 2008 that the Iraq war 
			could cost America up to
			
			$5 trillion dollars. A 
			study by Brown University's Watson Institute for International 
			Studies says the Iraq war costs could exceed
			
			$6 trillion, 
			when interest payments to the banks are taken into account.   
			This is nothing new… but has been going 
			on for thousands of years.    
			As a Cambridge University Press treatise 
			on ancient Athens
			
			notes: 
				
				Financing wars is expensive 
				business, and the scope for initiative was regularly extended by 
				borrowing. 
			So wars have been a huge - and regular - 
			way for banks to create debt for kings and presidents who want to 
			try to expand their empires.   
			Major General Smedley Butler - 
			the most decorated Marine in American history - was right when he
			
			said: 
				
				Let us not forget the bankers who 
				financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits 
				it was the bankers. 
			War is also good for banks because a 
			lot of material, equipment, buildings and infrastructure get 
			destroyed in war. So countries go into massive debt to finance war, 
			and then borrow a ton more to rebuild.   
			The advent of central banks hasn't 
			changed this formula. Specifically, the big banks ("primary 
			dealers") loan money to 
			the FED, and
			
			charge interest for the loan.   
			So when a nation like the U.S. gets into 
			a war, the FED pumps out money for the war effort based upon loans 
			from the primary dealers, who make a killing in interest payments 
			from the FED.         
			War Is Horrible for the American People  
			Top economists say that war is
			
			destroying our economy. But war is
			
			great for the
			
			super-elites... so they want to keep it going.   
			And America's never-ending wars are
			
			hurting
			
			our
			
			national security. Never-ending wars are also 
			destroying our freedom. The Founding Fathers
			
			warned against standing armies, saying that they destroy freedom. 
			(update).   
			Perversely, our government - which is a
			
			wholly-owned subsidiary of the big banks - treats
			
			anti-war sentiment - or
			
			protest of big banks (and 
			here) - as terrorism. 
			  
			    |