Lord Rothschild Speaks on Geopolitics and Economic Situation

The master of debt and international banking, Lord Rothschild has spoken to his shareholders, and thus the world on his opinions of the future of economies worldwide.  Of course, he forgets to mention that he and other trillionaires and oligarchs control the world's money supplies, central banks, and therefore hold hostage nearly every market in the developed world.

Lord Rothschild Speaks: World in Most Dangerous ... http://t.co/mREKli2E1j pic.twitter.com/a7HQ96u56P
— #TechnocracyRising (@TwistedPolitix) March 6, 2015

What we need to see are the following reforms: #GlassSteagall, #MonetaryReformAct, #AuditTheFed, and #PublicBanking.  It's time to turn away from a debt based economy where private cartels privatize the gains, and socialize the losses.  Until you change the way money works, you change nothing.

The Money Masters (1996) [FULL DOCUMENTARY]

UNCED EARTH SUMMIT 1992 ON POPULATION REDUCTION - GEORGE HUNT PART 4 OF 4

UNCED EARTH SUMMIT 1992 ON POPULATION REDUCTION - GEORGE HUNT PART 3 OF 4

This classic video produced by George W. Hunt exposes how the progenitors of the hijacked environmental movement, people like Maurice Strong, the Rothschild family and David Rockefeller, always intended the scam to achieve global population reduction along with a global carbon tax based on a cap and trade system controlled by them.

UNCED EARTH SUMMIT 1992 ON POPULATION REDUCTION - GEORGE HUNT PART 1 OF 4

The Buttonwood Gathering 2015, Planning for #InclusiveCapitalism

Prince Charles, former US president Bill Clinton, the Bank of England governor Mark Carney and fund managers representing one third of the world’s investable income descended on London on Tuesday on a mission to try to solve capitalism’s current problems.

They will join 250 delegates from 37 countries and 35 business sectors representing assets under management of about $30 trillion (£18 trillion) at the Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, at the Mansion House and Guildhall.

Keynote speaker Lagarde told the conference: "In the past, economists have underestimated the importance of inequality. They have focused on economic growth, on the size of the pie rather than its distribution. Today, we are more keenly aware of the damage done by inequality.

"The recognition of this fact by the conference on inclusive capitalism is incredibly important for the long term prosperous future of all."

Prince Charles, Mr Clinton and Mr Carney will make speeches, along with the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, and Larry Summers, the former US Treasury secretary, who is now a Harvard professor.

Here is part 1:

Financial Capitalism, Bretton Woods II, and George Soros

Sunday, June 22, 2014: Valentin Katasonov, The 4th Media

“The goal is world power”

The expression «Bretton Woods II» is becoming more popular, and everyone has their own understanding of this vague formula. Some are nostalgic for the gold standard, while others would like to return to John Keynes’ idea of creating and introducing a supranational currency like the ‘bancor’, or using the special drawing rights issued in small amounts by the IMF in 1970 for the same purpose.

There are also those who believe that Bretton Woods II will be fundamentally different from the American and British projects discussed in 1944, and that the world should consist of several regional currency zones.

The expert community introduced the idea of a Bretton Woods II at the end of the 20th century. The Reinventing Bretton Woods Committee, headed by a certain Marc Uzan, was set up in 1994 on the back of the conference’s 50 year anniversary.

At an official level, the idea of a Bretton Woods II was first expressed by the Italian Senator Oskar Peterlini. At the height of the 2009 financial crisis, Peterlini officially presented a «Motion for the reorganisation of the international currency system: the new Bretton Woods» to the Italian Senate. The document was approved by a large number of deputies in the upper house.

Although the document mentioned nothing about a return to gold, it pointed out the need to control the issue of money, and the need to link it to real assets and commodities rather than financial assets. Attention was also focused on the fact that the world needs a financial system with fixed (constant) exchange rates and restrictions on the free cross-border movement of venture capital.

At the G20 meetings in Washington in November 2008 and London in April 2009, where ways out of the global financial crisis were discussed, the expression «Bretton Woods II» was also heard more than once.

In the midst of the financial crisis, radical proposals were put forward at G20, G8, G7 and other similar forums on the restructuring of the global monetary and financial system.

There was also talk of the need to convene a global «New Bretton Woods» conference at the UN, where it was expected that a number of important international agreements would be entered into, including: 1) a Global Economic Charter based on the proposals of German Chancellor Angela Merkel; 2) a Global Energy Charter put forward by the leaders of net energy-exporting countries; and 3) major amendments to the UN Charter, including the establishment of a Financial Security Council.

As soon as the threat of the global financial crisis had passed, however, political leaders immediately forgot about the «New Bretton Woods» projects.

At the end of the 20th century, the illusion emerged that the world might become unipolar and be controlled by Washington, and Pax Americana was built under the guise of globalisation. Today, however, Washington is losing its influence in the world, and chances are there will be no repetition of Bretton Woods.

George Soros’ New Bretton Woods

At the same time, it is possible to talk about a new Bretton Woods as the resuscitation of the project put forward by John Keynes 70 years ago that gained little support from those present. The most well-known and open supporter of this Bretton Woods alternative is financial speculator George Soros.

Back in November 2009, at the peak of the global financial crisis, the billionaire announced the preparation of a «New Bretton Woods» conference, and in April 2011, Soros made sure the conference took place. Details about it are few and far between.

Soros paid $50 million to assemble around 200 academics, businessmen and state leaders in New Hampshire under the aegis of his Institute of New Economic Thinking (INET).

The meeting included such well-known figures as the former chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Paul Volcker, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Nobel Laureate and a former vice president of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz, and renowned economist and director of The Earth InstituteJeffrey Sachs.

Soros’ event at Bretton Woods was as secret as the meeting of the Bilderberg Group. It is known, however, that the event took place under the catchword of Keynesian economics.

The particular role of China as a pole of the world economy and global politics was discussed, along with the need to move to a supranational currency, establish a global emission centre (global central bank), and restructure the global financial system.

George Soros as a mouthpiece of the Rothschild clan

It is well known that George Soros is a protégé of the Rothschilds, their mouthpiece. Through the public statements and actions of this financial speculator, renowned for his scandalous behaviour, it is possible to put together some idea of his bosses.

The Rothschilds are absolute cosmopolitans, they do not hold on to any kind of national identity, unlike the Rockefellers whom America needs, because the printing press and military-industrial complex it is called upon to protect are located in America.

In terms of Soros’ understanding of a global currency, therefore, then it is more likely a combination of a supranational currency and gold.

Soros has repeatedly declared that he sees China as the model for a new global financial order in place of the US. Soros has referred to the US as a burden on the global economy because of the falling dollar, noting the need for a new global currency in the form of the IMF’s special drawing rights.

Soros is sometimes regarded as an advocate of John Keynes’ ideas, but this misguided thinking arises from the fact that Soros is a critic of the market, believing it cannot be a self-regulating mechanism. In truth, Soros is against the state and state regulation.

He is an advocate of regulating the economy by means of major corporations and banks. Such regulation may be supplemented by regulation from supranational bodies. The institutes of the European Union, which Soros also had a hand in creating, may serve as examples of such bodies.

Soros does not like the European Central Bank, the European Commission and other bodies of European integration because they provide some kind of economic efficiency and improve people’s lives; he likes them because they are bringing the death of nation states closer, thus clearing a space for monopolies and banks.

George Soros makes no secret of the fact that he does not like America. Not because it wages destructive wars around the world, or because of the country’s huge social polarisation, or because its prisons contin more than two million people, with a further four or five millions American who were sentenced to imprisonment currently at large because the country does not have enough prisons, or because the US organised an all-out surveillance of every telephone conversation in America.

Soros does not like America because it still retains far too many attributes of a state. This is why Soros was one of Obama’s main sponsors during the pre-election presidential campaign. This also explains what initially seem to be certain illogical decisions and acts of the White House’s current occupant that are troubling the real patriots of America…

Properly speaking, Soros is an advocate of financial capitalism. Exactly the same capitalism that Austrian socialist Rudolf Hilferding, who took financial capitalism to mean bankocracy, or the dictatorship of banks, wrote about a century ago. This model of society is extremely reminiscent of a concentration camp.

While on the subject of Soros, one more Rothschild figure comes to mind – former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Like Soros, he also dislikes America and the American dollar, and is working on reducing the role of the green paper.

Among other things, it is well known that just before military action began against Libya in 2011, Strauss-Kahn met with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and gave his support to the idea of introducing a regional currency – the gold dinar.

This naturally displeased those in charge of the Federal Reserve System’s printing presses and served as the reason for the scandalous resignation of Strauss-Kahn and, slightly later, NATO aggression against Libya.

The new world financial order «in a broad cultural context»

The Rothchilds do not like national currencies, which they see as an anachronism of the 20th century; they interfere with the creation of a world government.

In order to get rid of national currencies more quickly, the nation state needs to be destroyed, and to accomplish this, every cultural and moral foundation of society must be undermined as much as possible.

Observing Soros is evidence that the billionaire is promoting the cultural degeneration of mankind. Soros supports the rights of the «oppressed minorities» to abortion, atheism, the legalisation of drugs, sexual enlightenment, euthanasia, feminism, single-sex marriages and so on.

He is in favour of globalisation in all its manifestations, mass immigration, and birth control. He promotes these ideas around the world through his Open Society Institute, which has branches in 60 countries (total expenditure on the institute’s activities is nearly $600 million a year).

There are many other political, financial and media veterans who help Soros with his propaganda work, including the former president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD),Jacques Attali. The striking similarity between the philosophies of Soros and Attali is astonishing.

Both are cosmopolitans to the core, both put their trust in the organisational role of banks, both fiercely attack what there is left of culture and religion, both talk about the need for a global central bank, a global armed forces and so forth. It feels as if they have a common boss and client.

I do not know whether the conversations that took place at the Mount Washington hotel in April 2011 went beyond the usual agenda of global financial forums, but there is no doubt that the ‘broad-minded’ Soros focussed on destroying the foundations of traditional society.

In his opinion piece published six months before the New Bretton Woods conference, Soros wrote: «Reorganising the world order will need to extend beyond the financial system.»

The billionaire is expressing the world view of his bosses for whom money, finance, exchange rates, gold fixing, securities, loans, derivatives, exchanges and other attributes of the modern financial system are just the means, not the goal.

The goal is world power

Federal Reserve Promoting Subprime Banking

Isn't this all the proof you need that the Federal Reserve is not out there to help YOU, the average citizen, but they are to help the banks, specifically their primary dealers, co-owners, you know, the BigBanks that nearly crashed the global economy in 2008 and will likely do it again in 2013.  Just read their own REPORTS! They are telling banks how to SUCK more money out of MORE people.  This time is different.  They are not "subprime" borrowers, they are the unbanked.

When will we learn their tricks?  If the stock market is at all time highs because they are printing money every month, and wars and global mayhem are at all time highs, then what do you think is next? Peace and harmony?

Bob Hunt at Fed of PA, on #underbanked "most significant fees incurred are maintenance and ATM withdrawal fees" bit.ly/11DZacD
— Twisted Politix (@TwistedPolitix) April 25, 2013

Isn't it about time you got educated on how the world REALLY works?

Rothschild Lead Banksters Plunder Cyprus Gold

Read this nonsense from CNBC and note my highlights in RED, then look at the gold charts for Friday 4/12.  The banksters are forcing Cyprus to sell its gold as a pilot for the rest of Europe and to flood the market and lower the price so other Rothschild controlled central banks could buy cheaper.  It is almost certain that the Cyprus gold will never actually be available for the public to buy.  The London fix does it again.  Go watch Goldfinger again.

"Why a Cyprus Gold Sale Isn’t Being Taken Seriously" Published: Thursday, 11 Apr 2013 | By: Jenny Cosgrave, Staff Writer

Sebastian Derungs | AFP | Getty Images

The Central Bank of Cyprus has denied plans to sell 400 million euros ($525 million) worth of its gold reserves as part of its EU bailout deal.

While the mere idea of a eurozone country liquidating its gold holdings has spooked the market in recent days, analysts have told CNBC it isn't such a big worry.

Gold hit its lowest level in a week on Thursday on worries about the potential Cyprus sale and as Wall Street banks turned more bearish on bullion.

European Commission documents published by the Financial Times showed Cyprus would commit to selling a majority of the gold held by its central bank as part of an international bailout.

(Read More: El-Erian: Unfortunately, the Cyprus Crisis Is Not Yet Over)

That raised fears that other heavily indebted peripheral euro zone countries might be forced to do the same.

Cyprus holds just 13.9 tonnes of gold, worth around 585 million euros, compared to 4,800 tonnes held globally. Under the draft EC plan,the country would sell 400 million euros ($525 million) worth of bullion or round 10 tonnes, a small amount by global standards, but still potentially the biggest bullion sale in Europe since 2009

Struggling euro zone members, Italy and Portugal have much larger gold holdings, and investors are worried that if they followed suit it would really roil the market.

"This would only become a major concern if countries with much larger holdings were forced to sell. However, among the other troubled euro zone members, only Italy and Portugal hold significant amounts of gold relative to their borrowing requirements," said Julian Jessop, head of commodities research at Capital Economics.

(Read More: Mystery Deepens: Has Cyprus Extended Capital Controls?)

There would also be significant political and legal obstacles, which may yet prevent even Cyprus from selling its gold, but the most important barrier is simply the weight of public opinion, said Jessop.

"At most, gold might be used as collateral for some government debt (an idea being promoted by the World Gold Council - Rothschild funded entity). However,the chances of large outright sales are very slim," he added.

BlackRock's Olivia Ker, who covers gold and mining sectors on the firm's natural resources equity team said there is concern about the possible contagion effects of Cyprus' actions on other euro zone countries.

But, she added, the EU treaty bans sales of central bank gold reserves in order to finance deficits.

"Gold reserves are held by central banks and it is actually forbidden under the EU treaty to directly finance government borrowings with central bank gold reserves, so it would be a big step if someone like Cyprus were to sell their gold reserves," she said.

There's another wrinkle, according to the analysts. If the euro zone crisis was so bad that governments were forced to sell their gold holdings, it might also spur investor demand fora safe-haven asset like gold.

(Read More: Why Gold Will Continue to Underperform) 

"If the crisis elsewhere in the euro zone escalates to the point where other, larger countries were desperate enough to consider selling their own gold, demand for safe havens would surely be so strong that there would be plenty of willing buyers – even at higher prices," said Jessop

James Sutton, client portfolio manager on J.P. Morgan's natural resources fund said more central banks are buying gold rather than selling, so there would be no shortage of potential buyers if Cyprus were to sell.

"If Cyprus were to sell it would not move the needle. Compared to Portugal and Italy, Cyprus is in an incredibly weakened position and the ECB would never let them get to that stage," he said.

Gold market on 4/12/2013:

Is there a connection to the assassination of President John F Kennedy and the nefarious Federal Reserve?

Is there a connection to the assassination of President John F Kennedy and the nefarious Federal Reserve?

This excerpt from iamthewitness.com suggests there is.

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve.

Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to print American money for the American people, as oppose to for the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite.

This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963 to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same day as President Kennedy was assassinated.

Another, and probably the primary, reason for Kennedy's assassination is however, the fact that he made it quite clear to Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, that under no circumstances would he agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state.  The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz on February 5, 1999, in a review of, Avner Cohen's book, "Israel and the Bomb," states the following,

"The murder of American President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program...The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option."

History Of Money - Part 1

THE HISTORY OF MONEY PART 1 from Xat.org

Let's Go FORWARD
Tell someone you are going to a convention of accountants and you might get a few yawns, yet money and how it works is probably one of the most interesting things on earth.

It is fascinating and almost magical how money appeared on our planet. Unlike most developments we enjoy, which can be traced back to a source, civilisation or inventor, money appeared in places then unconnected all over the world in a remarkably simular way.

Consider the American Indians using Wampum, West Africans trading in decorative metallic objects called Manillas and the Fijians economy based on whales teeth, some of which are still legal tender; add to that shells, amber, ivory, decorative feathers, cattle including oxen & pigs, a large number of stones including jade and quartz which have all been used for trade across the world, and we get a taste of the variety of accepted currency.

There is something charming and childlike imagining primitive societies, our ancestors, using all these colourful forms of money. As long as everyone concerned can agree on a value, this is a sensible thing for a community to do.

After all, the person who has what you need might not need what you have to trade. Money solves that problem neatly. Real value with each exchange, and everyone gaining from the convenience. The idea is really inspired which might explain why so many diverse minds came up with it.


BUT ALL IS NOT WELL


"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."
President James Madison

Money, money, money, it's always just been there, right? Wrong.

Obviously it's issued by the government to make it easy for us to exchange things. Wrong again!

Truth is most people don't realise that the issuing of money is essentially a private business, and that the privilege of issuing money has been a major bone of contention throughout history.

Wars have been fought and depressions have been caused in the battle over who issues the money; however the majority of us are not aware of this, and this is largely due to the fact that the winning side became and increasingly continues to be a vital and respected member of our global society, having an influence over large aspects of our lives including our education, our media and our governments.

While we might feel powerless in trying to stop the manipulation of money for private profit at our expense, it is easy to forget that we collectively give money its value. We have been taught to believe printed pieces of paper have special value, and because we know others believe this too, we are willing to work all our lives to get what we are convinced others will want.

An honest look at history will show us how our innocent trust has been misused.

Let's start our exploration of money with:


JESUS FLIPS (many coins) 33 A.D.


Jesus was so upset by the sight of the money changers in the temple, he waded in and started to tip over the tables and drive them out with a whip, this being the one and only time we ever hear of him using force during his entire ministry.

So what caused the ultimate pacifist to become so aggressive?

For a long time the Jews had been called upon to pay their temple tax with a special coin called the half shekelshekel. It was a measured half ounce of pure silver with no image of a pagan emperor on it.

It was to them the only coin acceptable to God.

But because there was only a limited number of these coins in circulation, the money changers were in a buyers market and like with anything else in short supply, they were able to raise the price to what the market would bear.

They made huge profits with their monopoly on these coins and turned this time of devotion into a mockery for profit. Jesus saw this as stealing from the people and proclaimed the whole setup to be. "A den of thieves". ¹

Once money is accepted as a form of exchange, those who produce, loan out and manipulate the quantity of money are obviously in a very strong position. They are the "Money Changers".


1. King James NT, Mt 21:13, Mr 11:17, Lu 19:46


MEDIEVAL ENGLAND (1000 - 1100 A.D.)


Here we find goldsmith's offering to keep other people's gold and silver safe in their vaults, and in return people walking away with a receipt for what they have left there.

These paper receipts soon became popular for trade as they were less heavy to carry around than gold and silver coins.

After a while, the goldsmith's must have noticed that only a small percentage of their depositor's ever came in to demand their gold at any one time. So cleverly the goldsmith's made out some receipts for gold which didn't even exist, and then they loaned it out to earn interest.

A nod and a wink amongst themselves, they incorporated this practice into the banking system. They even gave it a name to make it seem more acceptable, christening the practice 'Fractional Reserve Banking' which translates to mean, lending out many times more money than you have assets on deposit.

Today banks are allowed to loan out at least ten times the amount they actually are holding, so while you wonder how they get rich charging you 11% interest, it's not 11% a year they make on that amount but actually 110%.


THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)


King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.

The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.

Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.

He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.

The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?

Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).

What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.

These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.

It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.

This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.

Here's how they did it.

With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.

The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.

So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.

The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.

One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.

By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.

As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.

When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.

Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.

One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of:


THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)


A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild".

His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes.

Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems.

J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies.

"There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild."
19th century French commentator ¹

We will explore a little more about the richest family a little later, after we've had a look at:


1. Niall Ferguson, THE HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD, Money's Prophets, 1798-1848


THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION (1764 - 1781)


By the mid 1700's Britain was at its height of power, but was also heavily in debt.

Since the creation of the Bank of England, they had suffered four costly wars and the total debt now stood at £140,000,000, (which in those days was a lot of money).

In order to make their interest payments to the bank, the British government set about a programme to try to raise revenues from their American colonies, largely through an extensive programme of taxation.

There was a shortage of material for minting coins in the colonies, so they began to print their own paper money, which they called Colonial Script. This provided a very successful means of exchange and also gave the colonies a sense of identity. Colonial Script was money provided to help the exchange of goods. It was debt free paper money not backed by gold or silver.

During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. 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 ¹

America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.

In Response the world's most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.

This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.

Here is what Franklin said after that.

"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

"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 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's autobiography

By the time the war began on 19th April 1775 much of the gold and silver had been taken by British taxation. They were left with no other choice but to print money to finance the war.

What is interesting here is that Colonial Script was actually working so well, it became a threat to the established economic system of the time.

The idea of issuing money as Franklin put it "in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry" and not charging any interest, was not causing any problems or inflation. This unfortunately was alien to the Bank of England which only issued money for the sake of making a profit for its shareholder's.


1. Congressman Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska, Unrobing the Ghosts of Wall Street


THE BANK OF NORTH AMERICA (1781-1785) 


If you can't beat them, join them, might well have been his argument when arms dealer, Robert Morris suggested he be allowed to set up a Bank of England style central bank in the USA in 1781.

Desperate for money, the $400,000 he proposed to deposit, to allow him to loan out many times that through fractional reserve banking, must have looked really attractive to the impoverished American Government.

Already spending the money they would be loaned, no one made a fuss when Robert Morris couldn't raise the deposit, and instead suggested he might use some gold, which had been loaned to America from France.

Once in, he simply used fractional reserve banking, and with the banks growing fortune he loaned to himself, and his friends the money to buy up all the remaining shares. The bank then began to loan out money multiplied by this new amount to eager politicians, who were probably too drunk with the new 'power cash' to notice or care how it was done.

The scam lasted five years until in 1785, with the value of American money dropping like a lead balloon. The banks charter didn't get renewed.

The shareholder's walking off with the interest did not go unnoticed by the governor.

"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."
Governor Morris ¹


1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787, 7/2


FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (1791-1811)


It worked once, it will work again. It's been six years. There are a lot of new hungry politicians. Let's give it a try. And so there it was, in 1791, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). Not only deceptively named to sound official, but also to take attention away from the real first bank which had been shut down.

Its initials however gave a clear indication that Americans were once again being taken for a ride. And true to its British model, the name of the investors was never revealed.

Having gotten away with it a second time, some of them probably wished Amshall Rothschild had picked a different time to make his pronouncement from his private central bank in Frankfurt.

"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1790

Not to worry, no one was listening, the American government borrowed 8.2 million dollars from the bank in the first 5 years and prices rose by 72%. This time round the money changer's had learned their lesson, they had guaranteed a twenty year charter.

The president, who could see an ever increasing debt, with no chance of ever paying back, had this to say.

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."
Thomas Jefferson, 1798

While the independent press, who had not been bought off yet, called the scam "a great swindle, a vulture, a viper, and a cobra."

As with the real first bank, the government had been the only depositor to put up any real money, with the remainder being raised from loans the investors made to each other, using the magic of fractional reserve banking. When time came for renewal of the charter, the bankers were warning of bad times ahead if they didn't get what they wanted. The charter was not renewed.

Five month later Britain had attacked America and started the war of 1812.

Meanwhile a short time earlier, an independent Rothschild business, the Bank of France, was being looked upon with suspicion by none other than:


NAPOLEON (1803 - 1825)


He didn't trust the bank saying:

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since 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."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815

For both sides of a war to be loaned money from the same privately owned Central Bank is not unusual. Nothing generates debt like war. A Nation will borrow any amount to win. So naturally if the loser is kept going to the last straw in a vain hope of winning, then the more resources will be used up by the winning side before their victory is obtained more resources used, more loans taken out, more money made by the bankers; and even more amazing, the loans are usually given on condition that the victor pays the debts left by the loser.

In 1803, instead of borrowing from the bank, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the 3rd President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase.

Three million dollars richer, Napoleon quickly gathered together an army and set about conquering much of Europe.

Each place he went to, Napoleon found his opposition being financed by the Bank of England, making huge profits as Prussia, Austria and finally Russia all went heavily into debt trying to stop him.

Four years later, with the main French army in Russia, Nathan Rothschild took charge of a bold plan to smuggle a shipment of gold through France to finance an attack from Spain by the Duke of Wellington.

Wellington's attack from the south and other defeats eventually forced Napoleon into exile. However in 1815 he escaped from his banishment in Elba, an Island off the coast of Italy, and returned to Paris.

By March of that year Napoleon had equipped an army with the help of borrowed money from the Eubard Banking House of Paris.

With 74,000 French troops led by Napoleon, sizing up to meet 67,000 British and other European Troops 200 miles NE of Paris on June 18th 1815, it was a difficult one to call. Back in London, the real potential winner, Nathan Rothschild, was poised to strike in a bold plan to take control of the British stock market, the bond market, and possibly even the Bank of England.

Nathan, knowing that information is power, stationed his trusted agent named Rothworth near the battle field.

As soon as the battle was over Rothworth quickly returned to London, delivering the news to Rothschild 24 hours ahead of Wellington's courier.

A victory by Napoleon would have devastated Britain's financial system. Nathan stationed himself in his usual place next to an ancient pillar in the stock market.

This powerful man was not without observers as he hung his head, and began openly to sell huge numbers of British Government Bonds.

Reading this to mean that Napoleon must have won, everyone started to sell their British Bonds as well.

The bottom fell out of the market until you couldn't hardly give them away. Meanwhile Rothschild began to secretly buy up all the hugely devalued bonds at a fraction of what they were worth a few hours before.

In this way Nathan Rothschild captured more in one afternoon than the combined forces of Napoleon and Wellington had captured in their entire lifetime.

Should the US Nationalize the Four Horsemen?

January 25, 2012 — Dean Henderson

President Obama’s State of the Union address was geared towards refuting Republican claims that he is some kind of “European socialist” hostile to the “free market”. Had they the capacity to utilize facts in their purely ideological narrative, the Grand Old Party of doom & gloom would have realized that nearly all European countries have been under conservative control for the past decade – their collective supply-side economics experiment now teetering on the brink of another financial meltdown akin to what decades of Reagan/Bush policies brought the US in 2008.

Of particular interest were Obama’s remarks on energy, as he laid to rest the 2,000 job, no oil for the US, Keystone Pipeline fiasco by citing increased US oil exploration, integral government-funded natural gas extraction research and the need for clean energy.

But moving the US towards energy independence could take a quantum leap if Obama were to take a more radical approach. He should bypass the can’t-do righties, sign an Executive Order to nationalize the Rockefeller/Rothschild-controlled Four Horsemen (Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, Royal Dutch/Shell & BP Amoco) and launch the US Energy Company to replace the Department of Energy. Once accomplished oil & gas profits could be funneled into clean energy research & development.

The global elite know that energy is paramount to life. Control over energy means control over people. Four giant companies are now making a play to own not just all the oil, but virtually all energy sources on the planet.

Royal Dutch/Shell and Exxon Mobil are the heaviest and most vertically integrated of the Four Horsemen. These behemoths have led the charge towards horizontal integration within the energy industry, investing heavily in natural gas, coal and uranium resources.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Eastern Europe, Russia, the Balkans and Central Asia were opened to Big Oil. Exxon Mobil formed a joint venture with the Hungarian state oil company Afor before the Wall had even hit the ground. BP Amoco took a majority stake in Russia’s Lukoil.

According to Kurt Wulff of oil investment firm McDep Associates, the Four Horsemen, romping in their new Far East pastures, saw asset increases from 1988-94 as follows: Exxon Mobil-54%, Chevron Texaco-74%, Royal Dutch/Shell-52% and BP Amoco-54%. The Rockefeller/Rothschild Oil Cartel had more than doubled its collective assets in six short years.

Russia and Central Asia contain over half of the world’s natural gas reserves. Royal Dutch/Shell has led the way in tapping these reserves, forming a joint venture with Uganskneftegasin at a huge Siberia gas field in which Shell owns a 24.5% stake. Shell has been the world’s #1 producer of natural gas since 1985, often via a joint venture with Exxon Mobil.

In the US retail natural gas sector Chevron Texaco owns Dynegy, while Exxon Mobil owns Duke Energy. Both were key players, along with Enron, in the 2000 natural gas spikes that battered the economy of California and led to the bankruptcy of that state’s main utility provider, Pacific Gas & Electric. Exxon Mobil has extensive interests in power generation facilities around the world including full ownership of Hong Kong-based China Light & Power.

During the 1970s Big Oil invested $2.4 billion in uranium exploration. They now control over 1/2 the world’s uranium reserves, key to fueling nuclear power plants. Chevron Texaco and Shell even developed a joint venture to build nuclear reactors.

Exxon Mobil is the leading coal producer in the US and has the second largest coal reserves after Burlington Resources, the former BN railroad subsidiary which in 2005 was bought by the DuPont family-controlled Conoco Phillips. Royal Dutch/Shell owns coal mines in Wyoming through its ENCOAL subsidiary and in West Virginia through Evergreen Mining). Chevron Texaco owns Pittsburgh & Midway Coal Mining.

Seven of the top fifteen coal producers in the US are oil companies, while 80% of US oil reserves are controlled by the nine biggest companies. Both Royal Dutch/Shell and Exxon Mobil are hastily buying up more coal reserves.

Concentration of power across the energy spectrum is not limited to the US. In Columbia, Exxon Mobil owns huge coal mines, BP Amoco owns vast oilfields and Big Oil controls all of the country’s vast non-renewable resources. In 1990 Exxon Mobil imported 16% of its US-bound crude from Columbia.

The Four Horsemen have invested heavily in other mining ventures as well. Shell holds long term contracts with several governments to supply tin through its Billiton subsidiary, which has mines in places like Brazil and Indonesia, where it is that country’s largest gold producer. Billiton merged with Australia’s Broken Hill Properties to become the world’s biggest mining conglomerate- BHP Billiton.

Shell also enjoys cozy relations with the world’s 2nd largest mining firm- Rio Tinto- through historically interlocked directorates. Holland’s Queen Juliana and Lord Victor Rothschild are the two largest shareholders of Royal Dutch/Shell.

Shell recently began investing heavily in the aluminum industry. Shell Canada is Canada’s top sulphur producer. Shell controls timber interests in Chile, New Zealand, Congo and Uruguay and a vast flower industry with farms in Chile, Mauritius, Tunisia and Zimbabwe.

Yesterday, Shell’s BHP Billiton tentacle announced a $38.6 billion hostile takeover attempt of Canada’s Potash Corp. BHP Billiton already owns Anglo Potash and Athabasca Potash. Ownership of Potash Corp. would give them control over 30% of the global potash market. Potash is a necessary component in growing any agricultural crop.

BP Amoco, through its ARCO subsidiary, has become one of the world’s top six producers of bauxite, from which aluminum is derived. It has mines in Jamaica and other Caribbean nations.

Chevron Texaco controls over 20% of the huge AMAX mining group, the leading producer of tungsten in the US with extensive holdings in South Africa and Australia.

Exxon Mobil owns Superior Oil and Falconbridge Mining, Canada’s largest producers of platinum and nickel, respectively. Exxon also owns Hecla Mining, one of the world’s top copper and silver producers, and Carter Mining, one of the top five phosphate producers in the world, with mines in Morocco and Florida. Phosphates are needed to process uranium, while phosphoric acid is key to petrochemical production, which the Four Horsemen also control.

Another vehicle for Four Horsemen hegemony in the energy sector is the joint venture. For decades before Chevron merged with Texaco in 2001, the companies had marketed petroleum products in 58 countries under the Caltex brand. They also operated Amoseas and Topco as joint ventures before merging.

Caltex owns refineries in South Africa, Bahrain and Japan. In the Philippines, Caltex and Shell control 58% of the oil sector. When Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos introduced martial law in 1972, Caltex Vice President Frank Zingaro commented, “Martial law has significantly improved the business climate.”

Exxon and Mobil also shared many joint ventures around the world prior to their 1999 merger, including PT Stanvav Indonesia. Royal Dutch/Shell and Exxon Mobil established a North Sea joint venture called Shell Expro in 1964, while in 1972 Shell tied up with Mitsubishi in Brunei to supply oil to Japan.

Shell owns 34% of Petroleum Development Oman in partnership with Exxon Mobil. Saudi ARAMCO, the Iranian Consortium, Iraqi Petroleum Company, Kuwait Oil Company and the ADCO in the United Arab Emirates all represent(ed) Four Horsemen collusion.

In Iran & Iraq these cartels were nationalized. That’s why the Rockefeller/Rothschild Oil Cartel had us invade Iraq and has us now threatening Iran. Our boys die, our debt soars and who gets the first oil contract in Iraq- Royal Dutch/Shell. The 2nd goes to BP and the 3rd to Exxon Mobil. You get the picture.

Energy is paramount to life and vital to our national security.

That’s why President Obama should sign an Executive Order nationalizing the Four Horsemen, while replacing the Department of Energy with a US Energy Company focused on sustainable alternatives.