The Federal Reserve

From http://z13.invisionfree.com/THE_UNHIVED_MIND/index.php?showtopic=33890

Some truths -Craig

Debunking Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories

Virginia F. Raines

This private "ownership" of the Federal Reserve thing is a total lie. Sorry, we've all been duped for many years, but it's not privately owned. YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ THE MATERIAL. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE GET HYSTERICAL. WHY AREN'T YOU JUST AS HYSTERICAL THAT THE GERMANS HAVE TRIED TO RULE THE ENTIRE WORLD SINCE 1870?

WHY AREN'T YOU JUST AS HYSTERICAL THAT GERMANS AND JESUITS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRODUCING THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION AND INTRODUCING THEM TO THE RUSSIAN COURT?

Investigate the role of the German Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna with Nilus in the Russian court. Read about Goedsche, the German forger, who wrote an anti-jew novel called Biarritz which formed a good part of the later Protocols motif -- and just coincidentally, Serge Nilus lived in Biarritz for some years with his mistress.
Sir John Retcliffe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In his 1868 book Biarritz, Goedsche plagiarized a book by the French satirist Maurice Joly, The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, ...


The governors of the Bank of England are consistently non-jewish. "thetruthseeker" is simply a UK-based anti-jew website, which has promoted many lies.

EUSTACE MULLINS WAS A LIAR. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. HE IS THE SOURCE OF MANY OF THE ANTI-JEW LIES.


THE ROTHSCHILDS DID NOT FUND WEISHAUPT. THE BANKING ESTABLISHMENT WAS NOT EVEN IN EXISTENCE AT THAT TIME.

The Rothschild banking family of England was founded in 1798 by Nathan Mayer von Rothschild (1777-1836) who first settled in Manchester but then moved to London. Nathan was sent there from his home in Frankfurt by his father

During the early part of the 19th century, the Rothschild's London bank took a leading part in managing and financing the subsidies that the British government transferred to its allies during the Napoleonic Wars. Through the creation of a network of agents, couriers and shippers, the bank was able to provide funds to the armies of the Duke of Wellington in Spain and Portugal. In 1818 the Rothschild bank arranged a £5 million loan to the Prussian government and the issuing of bonds for government loans. The providing of other innovative and complex financing for government projects formed a mainstay of the bank's business for the better part of the century. N M Rothschild & Sons financial strength in the City of London became such that by 1825-6 , the bank was able to supply enough coin to the Bank of England to enable it to avert a liquidity crisis.

Nathan Mayer's eldest son, Lionel de Rothschild (1808-1879) succeeded him as head of the London branch. Under Lionel the bank financed the British government's 1875 purchase of a controlling interest in the Suez Canal. Lionel also began to invest in railways as his uncle James had been doing in France. In 1869, Lionel's son, Alfred de Rothschild (1842-1918), became a director of the Bank of England, a post he held for 20 years. Alfred was one of those who represented the British Government at the 1892 International Monetary Conference in Brussels.

The Rothschild bank funded Cecil Rhodes in the development of the British South Africa Company and Leopold de Rothschild (1845-1917) administered Rhodes's estate after his death in 1902 and helped to set up the Rhodes Scholarship scheme at Oxford University . In 1873 de Rothschild Frères in France and N M Rothschild & Sons of London joined with other investors to acquire the Spanish government's money-losing Rio Tinto copper mines. The new owners restructured the company and turned it into a profitable business. By 1905, the Rothschild interest in Rio Tinto amounted to more than 30 percent. In 1887, the French and English Rothschild banking houses loaned money to, and invested in, the De Beers diamond mines in South Africa, becoming its largest shareholders.

By the end of the 19th century, the introduction of national taxation systems had ended the Rothschild's policy of operating with a single set of commercial account records resulting in the various houses gradually going their own separate ways. The coherence that had worked so well for the five brothers and their successor sons had all but disappeared by World War I. In Britain, the introduction of estate taxes resulted in Rothschild inheritors handing over multi-millions to the government that brought an end to the passing down of their great mansions. However, the estate tax relative to the bank and corporate assets was far more detrimental long-term because it restricted growth at a time when publicly owned banks were expanding rapidly with huge resources raised on capital markets.

The decline of the French and British Empires particularly after World War I along with increased nationalization by governments restricted growth potential for the Rothschilds. However, business analysts generally agree that their failure to shift their focus to opportunities in the United States, where the greatest industrial expansion in history was occurring, is a major factor in the Rothschild bankers of today being only a minor player in the global economy.

CHAPTER TWO

Creation of the Bank of England:Not a Jewish Conspiracy


Our current banking system and method of issuing currency is the greatest manipulation and method of enslavement devised in our material world. This process was patterned on procedures developed in banks in Amsterdam and Hamburg, but also found in ancient Babylon. Later, English rulers and merchants used these same processes in creating the Bank of England in 1694. In addition, there was a philosophy introduced with the purpose of a debt in perpetuity for the citizens of England. A national debt that citizens are never able to pay off.

There are many individuals who focus on blaming the Jewish banking powers as the sole creators of currency creation and usury. No doubt a Jewish element had used these practices but they were not involved in creating the Bank of England. I consider this blaming of Jewish bankers, a red herring to divert culpability from the Crown of England in creating and sustaining these processes during the last three centuries. These processes have now expanded world wide.

Let us review some of the facts involved in the creation of The Bank of England:

In 1693, William Paterson proposed that the "Bank of England" be based on the idea of a "Fund of Perpetual Interest" which creates a permanent National Debt. Backers of Paterson's idea were impressive. The spokesman was Michael Godfrey, a merchant of great substance. Other supporters were members of the leading City Livery Companies. Many were Members of Parliament and many were directly associated with the government of the City. Of the first twenty six members of the Court of Directors, six subsequently became Lord Mayor. All were solid in their support of the "Glorious Revolution" which was Protestants versus Catholics. All were Protestants.

The promoters had in mind a bank of issue which involved creating their own currency. They had long known that the most profitable source of income to the Goldsmith-Bankers were in their own "notes", which passed from hand to hand in the limited area where they were recognized. It would greatly enhance profits for a bank, if they could issue notes which would be recognized and accepted over an area far wider than any that the goldsmiths could command.

The Committee of the House of Commons, which grasped the implications, rejected Paterson's scheme. These far-reaching and historic proposals were later deliberately placed, with obscure wording, at the end of an ordinary finance bill. The bill related to taxes on liquor, ale and custom duties. This process of concealing the intent of the bill contributed to it's passing. Later, this underhanded process of introducing banking legislation appeared throughout the world.

The Act received the Royal Assent on 25th April 1694. Opponents of the Bank, in Privy Council, tried to get the granting of the commission postponed. Their attempt was stopped by the Queen, under specific orders of King William III who was away on a military campaign. On the 15th of June, a commission was issued under the great seal, to which was attached a draft of the proposed Charter. Sir William Ashurst, the Lord Mayor, and other city merchants were named as commissioners.

The corporate books were opened at Mercers Chapell on June 21st. The Book of Subscriptions first shows a sum of 10,000 pounds in the names of the King and Queen, followed by 1,267 individual shareholders. In all, there were 11 contributors of the permitted maximum amount of 10,000 pounds. They were the Earl of Portland, 6 individuals described only as Esquires, James de la Brettoniere of London, William Brownlowe of Woodcott, Surrey, Thomas Howard of Westminster, Thomas Mulsoe of the Middle Temple, Anthony Humberstone and Anthony Parsons (both of London). The remaining 4 subscribers of the maximum amount allowed were elected members of the first court of directors. They were Sir John Houblon and his brother Abraham, Theodore Janssen and Sir William Scawen.

The Governors and Directors were to be chosen each year between March 25 and April 25, by those shareholders who held no less than 500 pounds in stock. 633 shareholders were qualified to vote and this was done in Mercers Hall on Tuesday July 5th, 1694 at 8 a.m.. From this vote, the first Court of Directors was elected. The names inscribed in the Charter are:

Sir John Houblon (Governor)

Michael Godfrey (Deputy Governor)

Sir John Huband BT Sir James Houblon KT

Sir William Gore KT Sir William Scawen KT

Sir Henry Furnese KT Sir Thomas Abney KT

Sir William Hedges KT Brook Bridges

James Bateman George Boddington

Edward Clarke James Denew

Thomas Goddard Abraham Houblon

Gilbert Heathcote Theodore Janssen

John Lordell Samuel Lethieullier

William Paterson Robert Rathworth

John Smith Obadiah Sedgewick

Nathaniel Tench John Ward

The Charter was sealed at Powis House, Lincoln Inn Fields by Sir John Somers, Keeper of the Seal on July 27th. The 6th act of the 1694 Bank Act was evidently designed to prevent the bank from ever falling into the hands of a clique (through returning Directors) because two thirds could not be re-elected. This was faithfully observed until 1872. In that year, the proportion retiring was changed, and in 1892, the practice was dropped.

It is interesting to see the disinformation put forward on the theory of a Jewish conspiracy in developing the Bank of England. Many have pointed to Nathan Amschel Rothschild as being a great influence. Not only was he not yet born but the first Rothschild Merchant Bank was not created until the early 1800s, approximately one hundred and ten years later. There is even an instance where the Bank of England refused to honor the Rothschild Merchant Bank notes. The course of action taken by Nathan Rothschild, was to send one of his clerks, on the hour, with Bank of England notes for conversion throughout one day. The Bank of England Directors convened with him that evening and agreed to honour the Rothschild's Merchant Bank issue from that day onward. This illustration, as well as the process used for creating the Bank of England, shows us that no Jewish banking conspiracy controlled the Bank of England at that time.

The creation of this bank was done through the efforts of English Merchants and Goldsmiths, stimulated and ordered by the King and Queen of the realm. Later, the Rothschild's influence on British economics increased dramatically because of events surrounding the Battle of Waterloo. A quick recap of this famous battle will clarify the way the Rothschilds benefited.

The alliance against Republican France had two major armies in this area. The Duke of Wellington was Commander in Chief of an army of 110,000 to 130,000 (depending on the various historians research) which was made up of Belgiums, Hanoverians, Netherlands, Nassaueans and English troops. Marshal Blucher had about 120,000 men in the Prussian army. These troops were spread out and battles developed wherever a massing of troops occurred. The heavy fighting spanned a three day period culminating at Waterloo. France had approximately 125,000 troops in all. Using approximately 65,000 French troops, they engaged Marshal Blucher and the Prussian force of 85,000 troops at Ligny and caused them to flee. This news caused a panic in London's Stock Exchange.

On the second and third day, the French troops (minus 30,000 under Marshal Grouchy sent to destroy the routed Prussian army) attacked Wellington and his army which consisted of 65,000 (some claim only 24,000} British troops backed up by 60,000 troops from Belgium, Germany and Netherlands. The second day's fighting centered around a crossroad community called Quatre Bras. There the battle wavered, depending on the amount of reinforcements thrown in the fight. Neither side had a decisive victory. That evening, Wellington withdrew from Quatre Bras to a more advantageous position that he had reconnoitered months before, known as Mont St. Jean. There, the British troops managed to hold their defensive position while Marshal Blucher was able to reorganize some of his troops and elude Marshal Grouchy. He gradually reinforced Wellington's army at a most critical time and attacked with over 52,000 Prussian troops. The French army of the North, at Waterloo eventually broke and was decimated throughout the night. Portions of this information were compiled by the victors over thirty years after the Battle of Waterloo. There are many gaps in information.

Historians, sympathetic to monarchies, have not clearly stated why Napoleon engaged these combined armies. He hoped to link with former Republican allies in Brussels. These historians usually ignore the fact that Russia and Austria had over 550,000 troops moving on France at that time. This was a concerted attack against the potential re-establishment of Republics by the Monarchies of Europe.

In any event, the results of the 18th of June fighting became known to the Rothschild's and the information was delivered to England in spite of a fierce channel storm. While British shareholders, believing that the battle was lost, were dumping their various stocks, the Rothschild's, being the sole owners of news of the victory at Waterloo, were able to tremendously increase their holdings at bargain prices. This is how they became a foremost power in the British economy. Another opportunity for the Rothschilds to greatly increase their influence in England was due to their involvement in stopping the stockmarket crash of 1825. They brought in a large amount of gold from Paris to shore up finances in England.

These historical facts disprove that there was ever a Jewish conspiracy in the creation of the Bank of England in 1694. The Bank of England became historically known as a stronghold of the Whigs and a bulwark of the Protestant Succession.



How U.S. Gold Reserves Were Stolen


In July, 1927, the directors of the Bank of England [Montagu Norman], the New York Federal Reserve Bank [Benjamin Strong], and the German Reichsbank [Hjalmar Schacht], met to plan a way to get the gold moved out of the United States, and it was this movement of gold which helped trigger the depression. By 1928, nearly $500 million in gold was transferred to Europe.





MARCH 10, 1928: The United States pays three hundred million dollars to Germany to reimburse them for property taken during World War One.







Montagu Norman himself, along with King Edward VIII, Lady Astor and Sir Neville Chamberlain, was one of the strongest supporters of Hitler in the British aristocracy. Norman put his personal prestige on the line in September, 1933 to support the Hitler regime in its first attempt to float a loan in London. The Bank of England's consent was at that time indispensable for floating a foreign bond issue, and Norman made sure that the "Hitler bonds" were warmly recommended in the City."


Norman's grandfather had been a very successful banker and a partner in the New York bank of Brown Brothers & Co. By the early 1930's the bank was known as Brown Brothers, Harriman, and was run by W. Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W. Bush.



Their firm was an important financial backer of Hitler - See Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony Sutton, Ch.4, p.74. In 1942 another Bush-Harriman enterprise, the Union Banking Corporation, was seized by the Federal Government for its support for Nazi Germany under the Trading With the Enemy Act. - See George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, chapter 2.



Sir Montagu Norman and Benjamin Strong operated in tandem, with frequent meetings and constant contact, to create the financial bubble of the 1920's that Norman saw as necessary to insure the primacy of the gold-based British pound. Here is how Tarpley explains it,



Montagu Norman's golden pound would have been unthinkable without the puppet role of Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Since the pound was grotesquely overvalued, the British were running a balance of payments deficit because of their excess of imports over exports. That meant that Norman had to ship gold from the Bank of England in Threadneedle Street across the Atlantic. The British gold started to flow towards New York, where most of the world's gold already was.



The only way to stop the flow of gold from London to New York, Norman reasoned, was to get the United States to launch a policy of easy money, low interest rates, reflation, and a weak dollar - in short, a policy of inflation. The key to obtaining this was Benjamin Strong, who dominated the New York Fed, and was in a position to dominate the entire Federal Reserve system which was, of course, independent of the "political control" of the US government which these oligarchs so much resented.



In essence, Norman's demand was that the US should launch a bubble economy. The newly-generated credit could be used for American loans to Germany or Latin America. Or, it could be used to leverage speculative purchases of stocks.



Very soon most of the new credit was flowing into broker call loans for margin buying of stocks. This meant that by advancing a small percentage of the stock price, speculators could borrow money to buy stocks, leaving the stocks with the broker as collateral for the loans. There are many parallels between the measures urged for the US by Norman in 1925 and the policies urged on Japan by London and Wall Street in 1986, leading to the Japanese bubble and their current banking crisis.



In 1925, as the pound was returning to gold, Montagu Norman, Hjalmar Schacht and Charles Rist, the deputy governor of the Banque de France visited Benjamin Strong in New York to mobilize his network of influential insiders for easy money and low interest rates in the US. Strong was able to obtain the policies requested by Norman and his European puppets.



Norman & Co. made a second pilgrimage to Wall Street between 28 June and 1 July 1927 to promote American speculation and inflation. On this second lobbying trip, Norman exhibited grave concern because the first half of 1927 had witnessed a large movement of gold into New York. Strong and his cabal immediately went into action.



The second coming of Norman and Schacht in 1927 motivated Strong to force through new reflation of the money supply in July and a further cut in the US discount rate in August of that same year.



This artificially induced inflationary bubble made an American economic collapse inevitable.



Norman knew it, Strong knew it, and his colleague Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of the Treasury from 1921-1929, knew it as well. In fact, Mellon seemed to welcome an American financial crisis, saying,



It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.




GERMAN CAPITALISTS ASSUME LEADERSHIP



The Germans were the most responsible for rebuilding the Russian industry. Plants unmanned since the Communists seized power began to function. Much of the assistance came as a result of the German Trade Agreement of 1921, and the Papallo economic, military, and trade protocols. Germans assumed leadership in most large industrial and mining enterprises. "As late as 1928, Soviet industry was run by a partnership of German and prerevolutionary engineers independent of nominal Party control."



The assistance of the Germans was tremendous and without question saved Lenin and the Communist system.



"The first modern aircraft factory in Russia was built by the German Junkers concern. Thus, Soviet air power was born. Large numbers of Soviet engineers and workers were trained; many hundreds of Russian pilots were thoroughly instructed by German pilots; and the first Russian airline network was created."



THE GERMANS HAD MILITARY REASONS FOR HELPING THE BOLSHEVIKS



It is understandable why the German government under the Kaiser would have helped the Bolsheviks , since the Communists (Bolsheviks) had promised to remove Russia from the eastern front in World War I if the Germans would help them come to power. And there is no question but what substantial German help was provided. This us clearly indicated from the following quote made on December 3, 1917, by Von Kuhlmann, minister of foreign affairs to the Kaiser:

"It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under varying labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ Provda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the original narrow base of their party."



Lenin and German Assistance for the Bolshevik Revolution
Lenin returns to Russia with help from Germany
German Assistance
The Sisson Documents
The Tug-of-War in Washington
Footnotes


"It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under varying labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ Pravda, to conduct energetic propaganda and appreciably to extend the originally narrow base of their party."



Von Kühlmann, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Kaiser, December 3, 19 17



German Assistance


In April 1917, Lenin and a party of 32 Russian revolutionaries, mostly Bolsheviks, journeyed by train from Switzerland across Germany through Sweden to Petrograd, Russia. They were on their way to join Leon Trotsky to "complete the revolution." Their trans-Germany transit was approved, facilitated, and financed by the German General Staff. Lenin's transit to Russia was part of a plan approved by the German Supreme Command, apparently not immediately known to the Kaiser, to aid in the disintegration of the Russian army and so eliminate Russia from World War I.



The possibility that the Bolsheviks might be turned against Germany and Europe did not occur to the German General Staff. Major General Hoffman has written, "We neither knew nor foresaw the danger to humanity from the consequences of this journey of the Bolsheviks to Russia." [1]



At the highest level the German political officer who approved Lenin's journey to Russia was Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg , a descendant of the Frankfurt banking family Bethmann, which achieved great prosperity in the nineteenth century.



Bethmann-Hollweg was appointed chancellor in 1909 and in November 1913 became the subject of the first vote of censure ever passed by the German Reichstag on a chancellor. It was Bethmann-Hollweg who in 1914 told the world that the German guarantee to Belgium was a mere "scrap of paper." Yet on other war matters -- such as the use of unrestricted submarine warfare -- Bethmann-Hollweg was ambivalent; in January 1917 he told the kaiser , "I can give Your Majesty neither my assent to the unrestricted submarine warfare nor my refusal."



By 1917 Bethmann-Hollweg had lost the Reichstag's support and resigned -- but not before approving transit of Bolshevik revolutionaries to Russia. The transit instructions from Bethmann-Hollweg went through the state secretary Arthur Zimmermann -- who was immediately under Bethmann-Hollweg and who handled day-to-day operational details with the German ministers in both Bern and Copenhagen -- to the German minister to Bern in early April 1917.



The Kaiser himself was not aware of the revolutionary movement until after Lenin had passed into Russia.



While Lenin himself did not know the precise source of the assistance, he certainly knew that the German government was providing some funding. There were, however, intermediate links between the German foreign ministry and Lenin, as the following shows:



Lenin's Transfer to Russia in April 1917



Final decision: Bethmann-Hollweg (Chancellor)
Intermediary 1: Arthur Zimmermann (State Secretary)
Intermediary 2: Brockdorff-Rantzau (German Minister in Copenhagen)
Intermediary 3: Alexander Israel Helphand (alias "Parvus")
Intermediary 4: Jacob Furstenberg (alias "Ganetsky")
Lenin, in Switzerland


From Berlin, Zimmermann and Bethmann-Hollweg communicated with the German minister in Copenhagen, Brockdorff-Rantzau. In turn, Brockdorff-Rantzau was in touch with Alexander Israel Helphand (more commonly known by his alias, Parvus), who was located in Copenhagen. [2] Parvus was the connection to Jacob Furstenberg, a Pole descended from a wealthy family but better known by his alias, Ganetsky. And Jacob Furstenberg was the immediate link to Lenin.



Although Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg was the final authority for Lenin's transfer, and although Lenin was probably aware of the German origins of the assistance, Lenin cannot be termed a German agent. The German Foreign Ministry assessed Lenin's probable actions in Russia as being consistent with their own objectives in the dissolution of the existing power structure in Russia. Yet both parties also had hidden objectives: Germany wanted priority access to the postwar markets in Russia , and Lenin intended to establish a Marxist dictatorship.



The idea of using Russian revolutionaries in this way can be traced back to 1915. On August 14 of that year, Brockdorff-Rantzau wrote the German state undersecretary about a conversation with Helphand (Parvus), and made a strong recommendation to employ Helphand, "an extraordinarily important man whose unusual powers I feel we must employ for duration of the war ...." [3] Included in the report was a warning:



"It might perhaps be risky to want to use the powers ranged behind Helphand, but it would certainly be an admission of our own weakness if we were to refuse their services out of fear of not being able to direct them." [4]



Brockdorff-Rantzau's ideas of directing or controlling the revolutionaries parallel, as we shall see, those of the Wall Street financiers. It was J.P. Morgan and the American International Corporation (AIC) that attempted to control both domestic and foreign revolutionaries in the United States for their own purposes.



A subsequent document [5] outlined the terms demanded by Lenin, of which the most interesting was point number seven, which allowed "Russian troops to move into India"; this suggested that Lenin intended to continue the tsarist expansionist program.



Zeman also records the role of Max Warburg in establishing a Russian publishing house and adverts to an agreement dated August 12, 19 16, in which the German industrialist Stinnes agreed to contribute two million rubles for financing a publishing house in Russia . [6]



Consequently, on April 16, 1917, a trainload of thirty-two, including Lenin, his wife Nadezhda Krupskaya, Grigori Zinoviev, Sokolnikov, and Karl Radek, left the Central Station in Bern en route to Stockholm. When the party reached the Russian frontier only Fritz Plattan and Radek were denied entrance into Russia. The remainder of the party was allowed to enter. Several months later they were followed by almost 200 Mensheviks, including Martov and Axelrod.



It is worth noting that Trotsky, at that time in New York, also had funds traceable to German sources. Further, Von Kuhlmann alludes to Lenin's inability to broaden the base of his Bolshevik party until the Germans supplied funds. Trotsky was a Menshevik who turned Bolshevik only in 1917. This suggests that German funds were perhaps related to Trotsky's change of party label.