Money, Money, Money.

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money. - Lord Josiah Stamp, former Director of the Bank of England, and one of the richest men in Great Britain.

Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who writes the laws - Meyer Amschel Rothschild

Can you understand what Lord Stamp is saying? The banks don't have the money. It's as simple as that. The money does not physically exist. The banks do not have the money. They simply create it, with the flick of a pen as Lord Stamp suggests, or by typing a few numbers into a computer spreadsheet, and once they've done it they've got you by the jaffas. They'll send in the bailiffs to grab anything of value, even though all that they loaned you was thin air, or pieces of paper, or numbers on a computer. For that is what our money is today, virtual, but the power to create it lies in the hands of a very small number of people. The state does have the power to create money, as demonstrated by the decision by The Bank of England to swap dodgy mortgages for top quality Treasury Bills, but for whatever reason we rarely use it,instead borrowing from the privately-owned banks and thus making ourselves liable to interest and subject to the wishes of the privately-owned banks.

We borrow money from the privately-owned banks. We could very easily create it ourselves and be free of interest. But for some reason we don't. The decision to swap Treasury Bills for dodgy mortgages shows how insane our financial system is, for the following situation could occur, that we give the banks top quality Treasury Bills and then borrow money from one of those banks that uses those bills as collateral to raise the money that we then borrow!

Absolute insanity!

When you get underneath the economic and monetary doublespeak, our monetary system is fraud, pure and simple.

And your Member of Parliament knows it.

How Our Banking System Works

Sit down with your child, one pen and one piece of paper. You will act as banker and your child will act as customer. You must obey a liquidity ratio of 10%, i.e. you must have cash reserves no less than 10% of the total value of loans.

Now, ask your child to ask you for a loan of 5 pens. Your child may or may not do this, but if he/she does, tear a small piece off the paper you have, write on it "5 pens" and hand that piece of paper to your child, but you keep the one real physical pen. This is legally OK because your liquidity ratio is 1/5=20% so by law you can do this. But what about the morality? What about the sanity? Also write on another piece of paper, acting as your account manager,

my child o/d 5 pens

Now ask your child how many pens there are? Now ask your child to repay the loan of five pens, and demand that the loan be repaid in real pens. What did your child do and say to this request? If your child cannot repay in real pens, tell them that you will accept as repayment the piece of paper you gave them with "5 pens" written on it. Take that piece of paper from your child, forcefully if need be (this mimics the use of bailiffs on your children).

Now what do you "own"? One physical pen, and one worthless piece of paper with "5 pens" written on it. But in this crazy world, that worthless piece of paper with "5 pens" written on it is valid money and you can buy real stuff such as houses with it, i.e. you created your own money! But remember, it cannot be redeemed for 5 real pens because they never existed (in this example). Also remember that that newly created 5 pen note did not exist until your child asked for it. Thus the more people in debt, the richer you will become.

Now ask your child to ask you for a loan of 12 pens. Again, your child may or may not do this, but if he/she does, tear a small piece off the paper you have, write on it "12 pens" and hand that piece of paper to your child, but you still keep the one real physical pen. This is OK by law because in your vault you have 6 "pens" don't you which gives you a liquidity ratio of 6/12 = 50%. Also write on another piece of paper, acting as your account manager,

my child o/d 12 pens

Now, how many pens did you say you had to obey the liquidity law? One? or six? If we consider just the one real physical pen you are acting illegally because your liquidity ratio is 1/12 = 8.3%. But because you have the worthless piece of paper which implies it could be redeemed for 5 pens when in fact it can't because all that backs it is thin air because you created those pens out of nothing, you can use that piece of paper to satisfy the liquidity ratio!

So from one real pen, you are now able to create 12 pens out of nothing and "loan" them out!

Now ask your child how many pens there are?

Now ask your child to repay the loan of 12 pens, and demand that the loan be repaid in real pens. DO NOT ACCEPT REPAYMENT IN PAPER. DEMAND REPAYMENT IN REAL PENS. If your child cannot repay the "loan" of 12 pens forcefully take something off them, e.g. shoes. Again this mimics the use of bailiffs grabbing something real and of value as repayment when in reality you loaned your child absolutely nothing.

What did your child say and do to this demand?

What exactly did you loan to your child? Did you really "loan" them 12 pens? How could you when the pens didn't exist? Is the word "loan" acceptable? How can you demand repayment in real pens when they didn't exist in the first place? If they could not repay in real pens were you fair in forcefully taking their shoes off them as repayment, even though all you loaned them was nothing but a piece of paper? Should you have used the term "pen" on the pieces of paper you gave to your child when you never owned 12 pens (in this example)? Can you demand repayment at all, for what exactly did you "loan" to your child?

Were you fair with your child in giving them a piece of paper with "5 pens" written on it, accepting that as repayment and then using that piece of paper as a base from which to issue another piece of paper with "12 pens" written on it when those 5 pens never existed in the first place? And were you fair to demand repayment by forcefully taking the piece of paper with "5 pens" written on it, and by demanding repayment of the "12 pens" in real pens when you did not have the pens in the first place?

This is how our monetary system works. No joke! From something physical, like a pound coin, a bank can create money worth TEN times the value of the object, and lend that out in the form of a note, so that from one pound coin the bank will receive in repayment TEN pounds plus interest. And if the borrower cannot repay then the bailliffs are sent in to grab stuff that is of any value.

But there is a twist. In the above example, with you as banker and your child as borrower, you created the money out of nothing and issued the notes yourself. But in today's bizzaro banking world, the situation is even crazier! You would create the money, but The Bank of England would supply the notes and coins!!

How crazy is that?!

The private banks create the money, but do not issue any notes themselves, instead using The Bank of England to print their notes and issue the money, thereby implying that all our money is created by The Bank of England, when in reality it is the privately-owned banks who create the money! The Bank of England plays catch-up with the privately-owned banks through the Monetary Policy Committee, which gives the impression to us all that it decides monetary policy, when it does not, and it can be staffed by ex-employees who either held or currently occupy top positions in the major privately-owned banks who create our money in the first place, and are thus not neutral.

That is basically how our banking system works. It is one big con. The Bank of Fraud is alive and well in The City of London and causing misery, war and hunger across the globe for the benefit of a few.

In the United Kingdom, the most influential and powerful bank (allegedly) is The Bank of England, though some would argue the real power lies with a handful of international banks based in the City of London. The most powerful bank in the United States is the Federal Reserve. The two are linked. The same bunch of families behind the Bank of England are the same bunch of families behind the governance and creation of The Federal Reserve.

The Bank of England

Between 1694 and 1946 The Bank of England was not, as its name may suggest, a branch of the government of England, or Great Britain after the union with Scotland. No. In fact it was a privately-owned central bank. Over time it assumed the status of national central bank, and was the first such bank of its kind, so that its owners held the purse strings of Great Britain. They could dictate to the government of the day which policies would be implemented, and that was usually war and invasion. The Bank of England was created by William of Orange, who had been invited over from Holland to become King of England. The Bank of England financed the expansion of the British Empire with money created out of nothing}.

The 17th Century saw a great change in Great Britain. The Civil War saw brother fight brother, and ended with Oliver Cromwell admitting Jews into England for the first time after Edward I had expelled them in 1290 with his Edict of Expulsion. Cromwell had significant links to the Jewish community, particularly in Holland, who were wanting readmission into England. Cromwell was impressed by their commerce and riches. The Jews who are named as financiers and advisers/controllers of Cromwell are Fernandez Carvajal and Manasseh ben Israel. Carvajal was a businessman and military contractor, and was appointed by Cromwell as the chief contractor for the New Model Army, providing them with the best military equipment of the day. Manasseh ben Israel offered to finance Cromwell in his attempt at revolution. In 1921 excerpts from two letters were published in a journal called Plain English. These letters were between Cromwell and Ebenezer Pratt in Mulheim.

16th June, 1647 From O.C. (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), by Ebenezer Pratt. In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.

12th July, 1647 To O.C. by E. Pratt. Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.

Charles escaped and was tried. No English lawyer would draw up the charges against Charles, so Manasseh ben Israel's agent Isaac Dorislaus performed the deed. Cromwell then convened the Whitehall Conference in December 1655 to present Menassah ben Israel's petition that Jews be re-admitted to England. Cromwell supported ben Israel, but he was in a minority. A legal argument was supplied that argued that Edward's 1290 Edict of Expulsion did not originate with the Parliament so technically there was no legal restriction to their admittance. Jews were subsequently re-admitted into England.

There then followed an influx of Jewish merchants and businessmen from Holland to London, and curiously there were also three wars between England and Holland, ending in Holland's defeat. There had been a rapid development in banking in The Netherlands during the first half of the 17th Century, with significant banks in Amsterdam, Middleburg, Delft and Rotterdam. It was also, coincidentally, shortly after the Civil War that in England, banknotes as receipts for deposits at goldsmiths, began to be used as money. In 1688 the Immortal Seven, including Cavendish, Earl of Devonshire, invited William III of Orange-Nassau to become King of England. The feeling was that King James II was imposing Catholicism onto England, and William, as a Protestant and son-in-law of James, had more of a claim to the throne of England. William's invasion was financed by the wealthy Dutch Jew Solomon de Medina, who later became the first professing Jew to receive a knighthood, and that was from William. William soon opened England up to the Dutch bankers and merchants who had financed his invasion of England, who then began to move themselves and their fortunes there, leading to the demise of the Dutch Empire. In 1694, William created The Bank of England at the suggestion of William Paterson, who knew how similar banks in Holland and Venice operated. Paterson said this of the bank's operation;

"The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing."

In History of Money from Ancient Times to the Present Day, Glyn Davies says that in 1698, just four years after the creation of The Bank of England,

Davenant, a contemporary writer, estimates that the total value of coins in circulation is less than that of tallies, bills, banknotes etc. Increasingly the power of money creation is passing from the King, in charge of the mint, to the London money market and provincial banks. Political and constitutional power is also affected by this transfer of financial power.

The Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is the culmination of decades of trickery, manipulation and warmongering by European bankers to get a privately-owned central bank to be controlled from London established in the United States of America. The Federal Reserve is not part of the United States government. It is a privately-owned bank, with private stockholders.

The development of central banking in the USA since the War of Independence can be broken down into the following stages.

1. The Bank of North America
2. The First Bank of the United States
3. The Second Bank of the United States
4. The US Civil War 1861 - 1865
5. Post-US Civil War
6. The Federal Reserve

The following sections show how the idea and control of a privately-owned central bank in the USA was developed from London, and how paper money can be useful and necessary if the power to create it is in the correct hands. Colonial Scrip, a paper currency, did very well for the colonists, so much so it was banned in 1764 by Great Britain, which contributed greatly to turning the American colonists into revolutionaries. Where money is concerned, we must all be very careful, for with any power, the power to create money can be used for good or for evil.

The Bank of North America

in 1775 the Continental Currency, a paper currency with virtually zero backing by metal, was created to finance the revolution, but within a few years it had collapsed, and the revolutionaries were struggling for supplies. The Bank of North America was chartered by the Continental Congress in 1781 and opened in 1782 to finance the revolution with a new and stable currency. It was expected that Canada would join the rebellion against England so the bank was called the Bank of North America. It was controlled by Robert Morris out of Philadelphia, thought to be one of the richest men in the colonies. Morris was involved in import and export in his firm of Morris, Willing & Co., from which his fortune came. Due to his business acumen Morris was appointed Superintendent of Finance from 1781 to 1784. He was accused by Thomas Paine of making another fortune from war contracts during the American Revolution, allegedly siphoning off millions of dollars into contracts with the firms owned by himself and his friends, but an investigation found Morris innocent. Due to his power Morris was able to force through the charter for the bank. The Bank of North America was modeled on The Bank of England and used Fractional Reserve Banking. The bank's charter required initial investors to raise $400,000. Morris was able to raise some but not all of the this sum. He was able to get his hands on the gold loaned to the United States by France via Benjamin Franklin and have it deposited in the bank. He then used Fractional Reserve Banking, using the French gold as the base, to create the remaining sum for himself and his friends to establish the bank. The bank was given the monopoly of its notes being accepted for payment of all state and federal duties and taxes, and no other bank was allowed to operate within the United States. The bank was also allowed to lend its paper money to the Congress, and charge interest.

Through this power to create paper money that was partially backed by the gold of France, Morris was able to finance The American Revolution, occasionally at great personal cost to himself. For example, without Morris risking his personal finances and reputation, George Washington may not have had the supplies for the Battle of Yorktown which turned the War of Independence in favour of the revolutionaries. Morris finished the war almost broke, but after the war he returned to import and export and quickly rebuilt his fortune. He bought large tracts of land anticipating building towns and farms for the expected huge influx of immigrants to the new republic. However, the immigrants did not come, and Morris went broke, spending several years in debtor's prison. Congress passed a special law to get Morris released, and he died a few years later penniless.

Despite the monopoly the bank had with its notes, a lack of confidence in its paper money damaged the Bank of North America, and the bank lost its power outside of Philadelphia where it was based. In the following year in 1783 the Bank of North America was relegated from a central bank to a Pennsylvania state-chartered commercial bank.

The First Bank of the United States

Following the War of Independence, America was saddled with a huge foreign debt. George Washington asked Robert Morris (see above) to be the Secretary of the Treasury to find a solution. Morris declined, and proposed to Washington that Alexander Hamilton should take up the position instead. Hamilton had already created The Bank of New York in 1784. Morris had earlier published a report called "On Public Credit" in which he proposed the idea of a privately-owned central bank. Hamilton studied the works of Morris, and eventually produced a similar document, with a similar proposal to that of Morris; a privately-owned central bank. The United States would own one fifth of the stock, while the remaining stock would be owned by private investors, both foreign and domestic. This, of course, leaves the bank wide open to foreign ownership, particularly from bankers in London and Paris using agents and proxies.

The First Bank of The United States was given a 20-year charter in 1791. The President of the First Bank of the United States was Thomas Willing of Philadelphia, a business partner of Robert Morris. The charter for the bank made it the depository of the federal government, and made it the only bank with a national charter. The federal government only owned 20% of the bank, so who owned the rest? This made the bank essentially a privately-owned central bank. It used Fractional Reserve Banking to create millions of dollars in paper money on top of a $2 million base. The bank encouraged economic growth because the number of state and commercial banks increased significantly, and the Jeffersonian opponents of central banks did not move to repeal the banks charter before it was due to run out in 1811. In fact, the First Bank of the United States did what it was supposed to do; stabilise the new American economy, and pay off the debt incurred by the revolution.

The Second Bank of the United States

The 1812 War between The United States and Great Britain had as much to do with France as the main combatants. Great Britain was at war with Napoleon, and The United States was trading with France, so Great Britain impressed many American sailors on the Atlantic to fight for Great Britain. There were also some Americans who wanted to territorially expand The United States westward and into Canada, which Great Britain opposed. In fact, it was The United States who declared war on Great Britain, not vice versa.}} The war was financed on the American side by Stephen Girard, John Jacob Astor and David Parish. Girard had bought up the First Bank of the United States during its final years, and by 1811 was the First Bank's largest stockholder. Girard, like Robert Morris in the War of Independence, risked his own finances and reputation to finance the 1812 war.

The Second Bank of the United States was, like its predecessor, essentially a privately-owned central bank. It was given a 20-year charter in 1816. The government only owned 20% of the shares. So who owned the remaining 80% ? Stephen Girard was the largest initial private investor, purchasing over $3 million of the initial stock, which gave him a 10% stake. Girard had also been the largest private stockholder of the First Bank of the United States. The bank was to be the sole depository of Treasury funds, and its notes were to be accepted for payment of taxes, which gave the notes quasi-legal status. The banks notes were also to be redeemable in specie on demand, i.e. could be exchanged immediately for gold of the same value. The bank was proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander J. Dallas. Dallas was a wealthy Philadelphia lawyer, and a close friend, counsel, and financial associate of Girard. Dallas' appointment as Secretary of Treasury in 1814 was successfully engineered by Girard and his associate John Jacob Astor. According to Kenneth L Brown, the creation of The Second Bank can be attributed to Dallas, Girard, Astor and David Parish.

The Second Bank of the United States was the focus of a struggle between the President of the bank, Nicholas Biddle, and the President of the United States.

Nicholas Biddle

Nicholas Biddle was a very intelligent young man. He graduated from The University of Pennsylvania aged 13, and went to Europe to learn law, banking and finance, and at various times worked as secretaries to the American ambassadors to France and England. On his return to the USA in 1807 he practiced law and wrote articles. He was elected to the Pennsylvania state legislature, and to its state senate in 1810. Biddle had worked as secretary for James Monroe in England. When the charter for the Second Bank of the United States was in doubt in 1819, due to some very bad financial management, Biddle lobbied that it remain open, to which Monroe agreed, appointing Biddle to its board of directors. In 1823 Biddle was made President of the Second Bank of the United States, the last man to hold that position.

There are a few references that question the loyalty of the controllers of the bank;

• In Chapter 1 of "Secrets of the Federal Reserve", Eustace Mullins states that Biddle was an agent of James Rothschild of Paris.
• According to an internet article on Hermes-Press, David Parish was a New York agent for the Vienna branch of the Rothschilds.

Correspondence with N. M. Rothschild Archivists disputes these allegations and will be discussed later.

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson started as a debt-collecting lawyer and land-owner who at one time in 1789 was prepared to commit treason against The United States. Jackson was involved in some intrigue surrounding Spain's territory on the continent, the lower Mississippi, in which Jackson conspired to persuade settlers in the western states to cede from the United States and ally with Spain. In return the Spanish Governor of Louisiana Esteban Miro rewarded Jackson with a valuable piece of land next to the Mississippi, which Jackson turned into a slave plantation. In 1796 Jackson was elected to the House of Representatives. Aaron Burr began to groom Jackson for the Presidency. Burr was connected by marriage to the highest British Military and Intelligence circles in America, and had shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel for which Burr was convicted of murder, fled and ran for safety to the British to whom he offered his services for treason. In 1805/6 Burr and Jackson formed a conspiracy to seize Louisiana from the United States, as part of a grander attack on the United States by Great Britain in which Britain would seize Mexico. Burr spent a few weeks at Jackson's home The Hermitage to plan the conspiracy. When Jackson discovered how widely known the conspiracy was, he raised the alarm about the conspiracy and tried to blame General James Wilkinson. Wilkinson informed President Jefferson and blamed Jackson. Jackson was named as a co-conspirator. Burr was tried, but found not guilty because Burr's friend John Randolph was the foreman of the Grand Jury for the case and managed to limit the evidence submitted against Burr. After the trial Burr went to England and spent a number of years in exile, staying with the British Intelligence chief Jeremy Bentham, and returned to America in 1812. To boost Jackson's image as "patriotic war hero", right at the end of the 1812 war when the war was already lost the British sacrificed many of their own against Jackson, who slaughtered them from invincible positions with top riflemen from Kentucky under his command.

Burr had been grooming Martin van Buren for office since 1801. van Buren became head of the Bucktails, a faction within the Democratic Party, and pushed Jackson, with his image of "patriotic war hero", for President. In 1828 Jackson was elected as President.

Due to a legal obligation The Second Bank of the United States had to call in loans to pay off some international debt which was to be repaid in gold. Jackson was financially damaged by this, and Jackson subsequently hated big banks and became a firm believer in hard currency, which was used by Great Britain through Burr and van Buren to destroy the Second Bank of the United States, for it was financing the expansion of The United States into a powerful rival to Great Britain.

The Battle Between Biddle and Jackson

When Andrew Jackson was elected as President in 1828 the Second Bank of the United States had a large degree of public support. Due to Biddle's management it had stabilised and financed currency and the economy, and paid off most but not all debts. However, due to his mistrust of banks, Jackson soon set about destroying the Second Bank of the United States, the reason why he was manipulated into the Presidency. Opposing Jackson was Nicholas Biddle, head of the Second Bank of the United States. Seeing that Jackson was gaining support, Biddle tried to get the banks charter renewed early. In 1829 Biddle proposed a deal to Jackson; if Biddle could pay off all of America's foreign debt while Jackson was still President then Jackson would renew the bank's charter. Jackson refused, and became even more suspicious of the bank. Biddle then publicly requested that the bank's charter be renewed early, which Congress did.

But Jackson was still President, and he vetoed the renewal of the charter.

In his veto message to the Senate published July 10, 1832 Jackson pointed out the East Coast and foreign domination of the bank:

By documents submitted to Congress at the present session it appears that on the 1st of January, 1832, of the twenty-eight millions of private stock in the corporation, $8,405,500 were held by foreigners, mostly of Great Britain. The amount of stock held in the nine Western and Southwestern States is $140,200, and in the four Southern States is $5,623,100, and in the Middle and Eastern States is about $13,522,000. The profits of the bank in 1831, as shown in a statement to Congress, were about $3,455,598; of this there accrued in the nine western States about $1,640,048; in the four Southern States about $352,507, and in the Middle and Eastern States about $1,463,041. As little stock is held in the West, it is obvious that the debt of the people in that section to the bank is principally a debt to the Eastern and foreign stockholders; that the interest they pay upon it is carried into the Eastern States and into Europe, and that it is a burden upon their industry and a drain of their currency, which no country can bear without inconvenience and occasional distress.

And on the consequence of this foreign control of the stock;

Of the twenty-five directors of this bank five are chosen by the Government and twenty by the citizen stockholders. From all voice in these elections the foreign stockholders are excluded by the charter. In proportion, therefore, as the stock is transferred to foreign holders the extent of suffrage in the choice of directors is curtailed. Already is almost a third of the stock in foreign hands and not represented in elections. It is constantly passing out of the country, and this act will accelerate its departure. The entire control of the institution would necessarily fall into the hands of a few citizen stockholders, and the ease with which the object would be accomplished would be a temptation to designing men to secure that control in their own hands by monopolizing the remaining stock. There is danger that a president and directors would then be able to elect themselves from year to year, and without responsibility or control manage the whole concerns of the bank during the existence of its charter. It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions millet flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?

What was Jackson's solution?

If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger.

So Jackson vetoed the renewal of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. What did Biddle do?

Biddle began to use his influence in Congress and in the press. There were allegations that Biddle was able to line the pockets of those "on the make and on the take". As Congressman John Randolph, Aaron Burr's ally who had defended Burr in Burr's trial for treason, said,

Every man you meet in this house or out of it, with some rare exceptions, which only serve to prove the rule, is either a stockholder, president, cashier, clerk, or doorkeeper, runner, engraver, paper maker, or mechanic to the bank.

In 1832 Jackson went on perhaps the first national campaign for re-election as President in a contest against Henry Clay (though exactly how Jackson's campaign was financed I have been unable to determine). Clay was Biddle's ally, and it was Clay who first suggested the idea to Biddle to get the Bank's charter renewed early. Jackson's campaign slogan was 'Bank and no Jackson, or Jackson and no bank'. It worked. Jackson got 55% of the popular vote, Clay 37% and 8% for Wirt. In the electoral college, Jackson got 80%.

Jackson soon issued a statement that new government funds would no longer be deposited with The Bank of The United States, and that existing funds with the bank should be used up as soon as possible. New funds would be deposited into various state banks across the USA. This order was issued to Jackson's Secretary to the Treasury William Duane. Duane refused, and Jackson sacked him. Jackson appointed the man who had advised him to remove government deposits in the bank, and his then Attorney General, Roger Taney. Taney was very pro-slavery. Taney moved the Government deposits into "Jackson's Pet Banks", three of which were Taney's Union Bank of Baltimore, John Jacob Astor's Bank of Manhattan, which had been created by Aaron Burr in 1799, and Bank of Girard, owned by Stephen Girard. As a consequence Congress refused to accept Taney's appointment and Taney resigned, but Jackson instead appointed Taney as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Second Bank of the United States was not dead yet. Biddle began to cause an economic crisis by calling in loans, refusing to issue more loans, and demanding payment of state bank notes in gold. His idea was to show the USA what it would be like with out the bank. Biddle said;

This worthy President, thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken...Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress. Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction - and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the recharter of the Bank. My own course is decided. All other banks and all the merchants may break, but the Second Bank of the United States shall not break.

You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.

But Biddle could not contain himself, and he was frequently heard boasting of his power and how he had abused it. Word of these boasts got around and they were believed. As a consequence Jackson regained support and on April 4th 1834, less than a week after the censure, Jackson easily won votes that backed his decisions not to renew the charter of the bank and to pull federal funds out of the bank. There was also a decision to appoint a special committee to investigate the origin of the economic crisis.

This special committee demanded that Biddle show them the books of the bank and his correspondence with Congressmen relating to their loans and advances from Biddle. Biddle refused, and he also refused to testify before the committee in Washington. That was the end of the bank. And to add to Jackson's attempts to restore independence he had paid off the national debt incurred by the 1812 War.

Shortly after on 30th January 1835 Richard Lawrence tried to assassinate Jackson, but his two pistols both misfired. Lawrence was arrested, but found not guilty due to insanity. Jackson believed that Biddle and his pro-bank friends were behind it. Others believed that van Buren was behind it.

The charter for the Second Bank of the United States expired in 1836. In 1837 the Bank of England, which had been under Rothschild control since 1825, divested itself of all its American holdings, throwing out all its American paper, and refusing credit to American notes and stocks. This did not start, but did contribute to, the 1837 Panic.

The Jacksonians in The Democratic Party tried to outlaw Fractional Reserve Banking within the USA. Many western states did outlaw Fractional Reserve Banking, but this was repealed a few years later by the Whigs (Republican Party) so that by the time of the US Civil War eighteen of the thirty three states allowed a system called "free banking". This allowed the banks to operate a fractional reserve system but restricted the base for the credit expansion to government debt e.g. a government bond, and not just any form of money. Martin van Buren, and eventually President James Polk in 1846, installed the Independent Treasury System (ITS), which lasted until the Civil War. This ITS severed the federal government from the banking system and placed its finances on a purely hard money, specie basis, which the government paid all its revenue into and from which it paid all its dues.

But the European/Freemasonic-engineered US Civil War would change all that.

The 1861 US Civil War

This next subsection is relatively long due to the activities and relationships of Albert Pike, the alleged source of the three-world-war plan proposed in this book.

The accepted reason, and pushed as standard history, as to why the US Civil War of 1861 occured is that the USA was divided over the issue of slavery, so they fought each other. The North, we are told, wanted to free the slaves, and the South wanted to keep them. Yes, slavery was an issue, but only a secondary issue, and only after the war had begun. The reason as to why the USA was divided and fought each other goes much deeper and uglier than this. The main reason can be traced to Freemasonry and the European bankers based in London and Paris.

The London bankers were very concerned about the financial independence of the USA, for it threatened the power of London. A nation the size of the United States of America could quite easily become the dominant economic force in the world and so to them it had to be contained. So the London bankers and their agents set about breaking the USA into two halves before it got too powerful. Prime Minister Lord Palmerston was very keen on the idea. William Gladstone wrote

"Lord Palmerston desired the severance as a diminution of a dangerous power, but prudently held his tongue."

Between 1841 and 1845 there was a series of six meetings of the Supreme Council of European Freemasonry. It was decided at these meetings that the USA would have to be divided and placed into debt to them. Two 33rd degree Freemasons of the Scottish Rite, the most popular rite in America, were given this task. The issue decided upon to split the USA was slavery. The two Freemasons eventually selected were Caleb Cushing controlling the North, with Albert Pike controlling the South. The idea was to break one nation in credit into two smaller nations in debt.

Cushing was related by blood, as cousin, to the opium trading John Perkins Cushing of Boston. His Freemasonic credentials are that following the Morgan affair, Cushing advised that, although a Freemason himself, all Masonic Lodges be closed, which they promptly were. In 1843 he was appointed as US Ambassador to China, and impressed on the Chinese Emperor the necessity for opium trading, both British and American, in China for normal US-China relations. Cushing obtained a position as Attorney General under President Franklin Pierce in 1853, after Cushing had manipulated Pierce into that position with the consent of soon-to-be President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis and Scottish Rite Chief John Quitman (see below), with Pierce's campaign expenses paid for by Rothschild agent August Belmont. Cushing wrote extensively against slavery, thus inciting hatred of the South who were using slavery to farm the cotton. Cushing had already encouraged an employee of his, William Lloyd Garrison, to write and lobby for a disunion of the North and South on the grounds that the North would be morally better off without the slave-owning South. For this purpose Garrison created the newspaper The Liberator, formed The New England Anti-Slavery Society, and became President of the American Anti-Slavery Society (which adopted Garrison's disunion thesis).

The origin of the pro-slavery movement was also in the North. The Knights of the Golden Circle was informally created in Ohio by another 33rd Degree Freemason, Killian Henry Van Rensselaer, Sovereign Grand Commander of the mid-west States. Its agenda was to form a breakaway slave-owning alliance of the Southern States and Mexico. It quickly moved down the Mississippi river, gathering members, until George Bickley became President of the American Legion of The Knights of the Golden Circle. John Quitman was appointed to the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite in 1848, and was in charge of Freemasonry in the South, spreading the AASR into and across Mississippi and Louisiana, becoming Governor of Mississippi in 1850. While in this position, Quitman assisted Narcisco Lopez in his attempt to capture Cuba. In 1853, President Pierce, who Quitman agreed to be President-elect with Cushing, encouraged Quitman to take Cuba as a slave plantation. Quitman owned four slave plantations, with a total of about 450 slaves. Quitman's ideas coincided with those of The Knights of the Golden Circle. In John A. Quitman and His Slaves: Reconciling Slave Resistance with the Proslavery Defense, Robert E. May discusses Quitman's politics and attitude towards slavery.

Quitman, like most southern radicals, has received inadequate consideration from historians, and virtually nothing has been said about his own plantations and slaves...Nonetheless, Quitman's position on slavery falls solidly within the general contours of the proslavery argument. He asserted that the history of the Negro race over five thousand years proved that blacks were incapable of self-support and that they would relapse into "barbarism" without the "protecting care and supporting intellect of the white Caucasian man."' God, therefore, had willed this benevolent mission to whites, and the South's acceptance of this duty had led to its prosperity and been beneficial to the nation at large. Speaking in Congress in 1856 he lectured his Republican colleagues that "negro slavery, as it exists in the South, has not only been hitherto one of the chief sources of our national prosperity, but is...an element of moral and military strength...

Repeat, Quitman was a member of the Supreme Council of the AASR tasked with expanding the Scottish Rite across the Southern States. Quitman would frequently whip his slaves for very minor offences, such as picking trashy cotton.

When Quitman died in 1858, Albert Pike was appointed to replace him, and to reorganise the Supreme Council and AASR in the South in preparation for secession. Pike had joined Quitman in his Mexican campaigns, and had initially been sent to Arkansas by Caleb Cushing (see above), who helped organise Pike's political apparatus with appointments of certain people to certain positions. While in Arkansas, Pike formed the Arkansas branch of the secretive, virulently xenophobic and anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Party, and at their convention in 1856 Pike and several other Southern members stormed out complaining the party was insufficiently pro-slavery.

In The Ashlar, edited by Allyn Weston and Charles Scott, a report on the funeral of John Quitman held by the Freemasons in Washington DC on 30th March 1858 is given from The New York Courier.

"SORROW LODGE," AT WASHINGTON. ON the evening of the 30th March, says the correspondent of the Philadelphia Inquirer, good people who were abroad had fears that the "Knights of the Golden Circle" had invaded the metropolis. Stalwart men were to be seen, wearing various insignia, but all armed with swords. About 8 o'clock a long procession came up the avenue, and it then leaked out that the Freemasons were performing funeral rites in honor of Gen. Quitman, who was a Sovereign Inspector-General of the thirty-third and last degree. His comrades in the Supreme Council (of the Southern jurisdiction,) held this "Sorrow Lodge." It was opened in the Master Mason's degree, and thus when the procession filed into the Unitarian Church, the regalia of all the various grades were seen, from the gorgeous apparel of the Knights Kadosh and Rose Croix to the plain aprons of the Blue Lodges. A finer display of the different descriptions of regalia was probably never seen by the astounded outsiders, who found themselves designated as "profanes." A. G. Mackey, of South Carolina, was Venerable Master; G. M. Hillyer, of Mississippi, Senior Warden; Chancellor Scott, of Tennessee, Junior Warden ; Luke E. Barber, of Arkansas, Senior Deacon : J. C. Pierson, of Minnesota, Junior Deacon ; Rev. Mr. Haley, Chaplain. With them in the "East" sat Vice-President Breckenridge, and about a dozen of the thirty-third degree. The church was decked in black, and before the Venerable Master's chair was a coffin, on which was a General's sword, a Masonic collar, gloves and apron, the square, compasses, and a red rose. Around the coffin burned three black tapers. The ritual was impressive, especially the part where the three lights were successively extinguished. Later in the evening they were re-lit, showing the resurrection of the body. The "grand honors" were given around the coffin by twenty-seven selected Brothers, standing under the sign of the "Good Shepherd." An able oration was delivered by Albert Pike, of Arkansas. To-day the Masonic visitors have gone to Mount Vernon, under escort of the Knight Templars of this city.—N. T. Courier. "

Note that Albert Pike gave the 'able oration' at the funeral of the vehement slave-owner John Quitman.

Indeed, in Pike's Ex Corde Locutiones: Words from the Heart Spoken of His Dead Brethren, the first person Pike writes of is Quitman. His sickening eulogy for Quitman reads in part,

When the world has wearied of lamenting the loss of even its most illustrious dead, the friends that loved and the family that idolized, still mourn for him with a softened melancholy, and drop their tears of chastened sorrow upon his grave.

On the seventeenth of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty eight, a great and good man died; and a mighty Republic, with, as it were, "a cry of lamentation, a voice as of one agony", uttered its anguish at the unexpected loss of one of her purest statesmen and bravest soldiers...

Accordingly it hath pleased the Supreme Council of the Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General of the 33rd and last Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States, to hold this Lodge of Sorrow in remembrance of him, and to require me to say what is becoming the occasion, in regard to himself, his nature, and the actions of his life. I purpose now to do so, as Masonry requires, not in the language of adulation and indiscriminate eulogy, but in that of the simple truth.

...Our illustrious brother had acted well his part in the drama of life. He had been an affectionate father, a kind neighbour, an upright citizen. Simple, courteous, dignified in his deportment, singularly quiet and unostentatious, most gentle in his manners, having always comanded the respect and esteem of all, even those whose views and opinions most widely differed from his own, he had at all times and everywhere exhibited a unswerving devotion to principle and a singular integrity which distinguished alike his political and private life.

...Such a man of high principle, of stern integrity, of warm heart and generous impulses, with a mind well-informed, cultivated and refined, and a spirit generous, unselfish, noble and unchivalric; the poor man's friend, the advocate and defender of individuals oppressed, and nations under the brutal heel of tyranny,- it was but natural that he should seek early admission among the Initiates, and become a zealous and energetic member of the Great Order.

On his return from Mexico, in 1848, he received, in Charleston, the 33rd Degree, and became by election, an active member of the Supreme Council, which now holds this lodge of sorrow in his memory.

And on and on and on... Pike cannot contain his sycophancy. No mention of Quitman's slave plantations, slaves, or his campaigns to expand slavery into Mexico and Cuba. But here's a question; how did Pike know Quitman so well? (or not)

This duo of long-time chums Cushing and Pike were helped by yet another 33rd Degree Freemason, the British Intelligence goon Giuseppe Mazzini. Mazzini had previously created a terrorist/revolutionary network throughout Europe, called Young Europe, to destabilise the European monarchies and their empires. To this network Mazzini added Young America, and campaigned for slavery.

The economic infrastructure of the USA was such that the South was mainly agricultural and the North was manufacturing and industrial. As such the South imported most of its manufactured goods from the North, and the North bought the cotton from the South. However European manufactured goods were cheaper than those from the North, so the South began to purchase from Europe. The politicians in the North placed stiff import duties on all goods from Europe that were then also manufactured in the North, trying to drive the South into buying from the North. In retaliation Europe stopped buying its cotton from the South. So the South was penalised twice; manufacturers in the North could charge higher prices to the South, and the South lost a valuable market in Europe. As cotton in the South was from slave-plantations, the issue of slavery was 'ideal' to drive a larger wedge between the North and the South.

Standing in the 1860 Presidential election were Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas, John C. Breckinridge and John Bell. Breckenridge was a supporter of slavery and the South, but it was manipulator Caleb Cushing, thought to be anti-slavery (see above), who ran Breckenridge's campaign! Breckenridge also joined Pike in Pike's Supreme Council of the AASR, and when the civil war broke out, he served in the Confederate Army first as Brigadier General and then as a Major General.

Pike also appointed Howell Cobb, Secretary to the Treasury under pro-slavery President James Buchanan, to his Supreme Council. Cobb resigned upon Lincoln's election, and became President of the convention that created the Confederacy, serving as the Confederacy's President for two weeks before Jefferson Davis took up the position. Cobb was Governor of Georgia about the same time that Quitman was Governor of Mississippi, and in 1859 was President of Georgia's Cotton Planter's Convention. We find in Masters & Lords: Mid-19th-century U.S. Planters and Prussian Junkers by Shearer Davis,

According to Georgia historian Ralph B Flanders, Cobb's Scriptural Examination of the Institution of Slavery (1856) was "the best expression of the moral and theological defense of slavery". Although Cobb admitted that some "hard masters" committed "illegal excesses" in punishing their slaves, he also insisted that we "have to control a race of human beings who are under the influence of the most depraved and vicious propensities that ever marked the character of the debased; individuals of which race seem to be incapable of redemption, either by kindness or severity".

Yet another of Pike's Confederate friends was John Toombs, who Pike considered for elevation to his Supreme Council as representative for Georgia, even though Toombs was not even a Mason at the time! Toombs' money came from slave-farmed cotton. He was Secretary of State of The Confederacy before joining the Confederate Army as Brigadier-General. It was Toombs who proposed the idea of an Indian Commissioner for the Confederacy, and no doubt got Pike appointed to that position. Pike had this to say about Toombs in his Ex Corde Locutiones: Words from the Heart Spoken of His Dead Brethren;

Emeritus Inspector General, who was an ative member of our Supreme Council during the years 1872 to 1880,.... He was a member of the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States, sitting at Montgomery; and for a time Secretary of State, after which he served with valor and distinction as Brigadier-General in the field. After the war he was for a time Europe...For his acts of generosity were as large as his nature was; and for this our Supreme Council also had reason to know, by his generous assistance freely given, to enable it to print its works.

...But our Brother Robert Toombs will live long in the memory of the people of this state; for they have loved him and been wonderfully proud of him, and he served them with all his might and soul. Also, he greatly endeared himself to those of us who sat with him in the Supreme Council, some of whom had known him well for many years. It is always to one's profit to know a man of a great and noble nature, and something to be spoken of pride in other days.

The Romans deified their dead, and the calendars of the oldest Churches in the world are filled with the names of Saints who were devout men and women. Masonry should enshrine in its heart the great men whose death is its irreparable loss, and as the years pass, their memories should become more precious to it. 'For time consecrates; and what is gray with age becomes religion'.

This letter will be read aloud in each Body of our Obedience upon its receipt; and the Altar and Working-Tools of each Body will be draped in black during the full space of sixty days thereafter, during which time every Brother will wear the appropriate badge of mourning.

Given at the Grand Orient of the aforesaid, this 17th day of December, 1885, V E , and of the Supreme Council of the 85th year

Albert Pike, 33 degree,

Grand Commander

It was Toombs who paid the printing expenses for Pike's Morals and Dogma.

Toombs returned to the USA from exile in Paris in 1867, whereupon he had a quiet word in Freemason President Johnson's ear (the guy who had pardoned Pike and was shortly after given the 4th to 32nd Degree of the AASR in one session), and was never prosecuted. Toombs did not swear the oath of allegiance upon his return.

Cobb and Toombs co-wrote the draft Confederate Constitution, which was adopted on 11th March 1861 at the Montgomery convention.

Albert Pike sure had some real nice friends!!

The issue of slavery in the war was initially bogus. During his 1860 Presidential campaign Lincoln stated that he had no intentions to abolish slavery, and even after the war had started he said;

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it. And if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it. And if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would do it.

In fact, although Lincoln did think that slavery was immoral, he believed in the separation of the races, believing that there was a difference between the races that should forbid them living in social and political equality, and he also believed that the white race was the superior race.

To add to this there was also a desire of Europe to control Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine laid down the law to Europe; America would not interfere in European affairs, and in return America assumed that Europe would not interfere with affairs on the American continent, i.e. Latin America was out of bounds to Europe. If the USA could be embroiled in a Civil War it would be unable to fight whatever European troops landed in Mexico. Almost as soon as the first shot was fired in the Civil War France landed troops in Mexico and installed Ferdinand Maximillian as its puppet. Ferdinand and the South allied and it was expected that the Knights of the Golden Circle would be able to form a breakaway nation consisting of some Southern states and Mexico. It was also expected that an exhausted North could be taken over from Canada, so Great Britain landed troops in Canada.

One man who saw through all this was Otto von Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany. He wrote;

The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over Europe and the world. Of course, in the "inner circle" of finance, the voice of the Rothschilds prevailed. They saw an opportunity for prodigious booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies burdened with debt to the financiers in place of a vigorous republic sufficient unto herself. Therefore they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to drive a wedge between the two parts of the Union. The rupture between the North and the South became inevitable; the masters of European finance employed all their forces to bring it about and to turn it to their advantage.

One of the 'emissaries' von Bismarck refers to was Mazzini.

Another man a who saw through this and actually involved himself in the Civil War to defend the Union was Tsar Alexander II of Russia. In 1863, halfway into the Civil War, he sent his Baltic Fleet first to New York and then to Alexandria, Virginia, and his Pacific Fleet to San Francisco. Their purpose was to blockade the American ports to stop aid from Europe reaching the Confederate armies. After the Crimean War, in which Great Britain and France fought Russia, Russia was in vengeful mood, though vengeance was not the primary motive. Alexander gave orders that if either England or France actively intervened and gave aid to the South, Russia would consider such action as a declaration of war. England and France did not dare to take on both the USA and Russia, and aid to the Confederacy had to be smuggled in.

So why would the Tsar of Russia send his Navy to aid Lincoln, even though there was no treaty signed between them? The Freemason and British Intelligence stooge Giuseppe Mazzini had established a revolutionary/terrorist network throughout Europe which played a major part in the 1848 revolutions by preparing Europe for the publication of The Communist Manifesto and helping in its distribution. During the 1848 revolutions the Russian Monarchy and Empire was untouched and survived intact, unlike France, Austria, etc. So Mazzini expanded his revolutionary/terrorist Young network to include Young Russia, and several other Young organisations focused on the Baltic and Eastern European states in the Russian Empire. The purpose of this Young network was to incite the smaller member states of the Russian Empire, e.g. Poland, to rebel and seek independence from the Russian Empire, thus weakening the power of that Empire. This would lead to British supremacy over Europe and eventually the rest of the world. Tsar Alexander II knew who Mazzini worked for, his modus operandi, and his function, and could see that Mazzini had decided to target the Russian Empire for destabilisation. Tsar Alexander II wanted to stop the London-based bankers from dominating the world! He had already denied them establishing a privately-owned central bank controlled from London in Russia, and could see that a similar bank in the USA would mean disaster for the world.

So what happened to von Bismarck and Alexander II? Perhaps more importantly, what happened to Russia and Germany? They were tricked into fighting and destroying each other in World War 1 and World War 2. The Rothschilds had been rumbled by the leaders of both Russia and Germany, Bismarck and Alexander. If the leaders knew then there was probably a significant part of those nations that knew what the game was too. They had to be destroyed, to minimise their resistance to the Rothschilds plans for global domination. Hence, you will see why several opportunities to shorten World War 2 were refused in favour of the total destruction of Germany and the secret agreement between FDR and Stalin called Operation Keelhaul.

So by the late 1850's Pike, Cushing and Mazzini were capitalising on the economic arguments between the industrial North and agricultural South by raising the issue of slavery and dividing the USA even more. The first state to leave the Union was South Carolina on 20th December 1860. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas quickly followed suit. Alabama joined the rebellion on 8th February 1861. Freemasons led all these states, and they elected yet another 33rd Degree Freemason, and member of the Knights of the Golden Circle, Jefferson Davis as the President of the Confederacy. In early 1861 Confederate troops seized a number of forts in South Carolina, which included Fort Sumter. The Freemason General Beauregard was sent to capture Fort Sumter. and bombarded the fort between April 12-14th. This is the event that started the Civil War. As planned, you can see that senior Freemasons were seceding from the Union and ordering bombardments to start the war.

The initial stages of the war did not go so well for either side. Support for Lincoln was beginning to wane as the Union did not win quickly and decisively. To arouse support, Lincoln changed his attitude towards slavery and in 1862 issued The Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that the war was indeed over slavery. Due to this declaration no European country was able to persuade its army to fight for the Confederacy, and thus overt assistance for the Confederacy from Europe was virtually impossible. Covert European assistance was given, and one man who profited from this was Thomas W House, the father of the Anglophile "Colonel" Edward Mandel House who was Woodrow Wilson's most influential and intimate adviser on the creation of The Federal Reserve and World War 1.

When money was getting short for the Union, Lincoln received a proposition from the European bankers, the same bankers who had planned the Civil War. Lincoln could have as much money as he wanted to save his beloved Union and defeat the Confederacy, but he had to agree to a privately-owned central bank that they controlled. Lincoln declined and instead created his own money, called Greenbacks. This money was interest-free, was printed by the government, and was acceptable as payment for taxes which made them acceptable to the economy. It was this act of Lincoln that saved the Union, because he was then able to pay the armed forces and suppliers without having to borrow paper money from bankers at enormous rates of interest.

WHY DON'T WE DO THIS???

What was the response of the London bankers to this 'outrageous' action of Lincoln printing his own money? The Hazard Circular in The Times of 1865 said it all;

If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then the Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.

We don't print our own money because our leaders suspect they will be assassinated, or worse, e.g. their children will be kidnapped and brutally murdered. The European bankers were scared of what Lincoln had done by issuing his Greenbacks, scared that the idea of government-issued money, and not banker-issued money, would show to the rest of the world what a world free of banker-issued money would be like; BRILLIANT!!

Lincoln's Secretary to the Treasury Salmon P Chase submitted the National Banking Act 1863, which proposed a network of federally chartered national banks coordinating monetary policy across the nation, i.e. a privately-owned central bank in disguise, which would issue paper money and be able to create money based on government bonds on deposit at the bank, i.e. use Fractional Reserve Banking. It was passed in 1864, substantially watered down, but the core was still there in the act that was passed. The European bankers, though not quite obtaining their ultimate goals of breaking America and having the pieces indebted to them, did at least come away from the Civil War with a privately-owned central bank of sorts. Chase was honoured with a bank named after him, the Chase Bank, which later amalgamated with one of the Rockefeller banks now called the Chase Manhattan Bank, which is now J P Morgan Chase, employing Tony Blair as adviser as of January 2008.

Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. At the inquiry into Lincoln's assassination it was revealed that Booth was a 33rd degree Freemason, and that another 33rd degree Freemason Judah P Benjamin had ordered the assassination. Lincoln's Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, another 33rd Degree Freemason, was later found to have covered up some parts of the conspiracy. Izola Forrester, Booth's granddaughter, later revealed that Booth had survived the assassination and lived for a long time after, and that he was also a member of the Knights of the Golden Circle.

Judah Phillip Benjamin was yet another slave-owner, owning of 150 on his plantation Belle Chasse, until he was elected as Senator of Louisiana in 1852. Before this he started a lawyer partnership with John Slidell and Frederick Daniel Conrad. Slidell was Confederate Ambassador to France, and married his daughter off to Rothschild relative and agent, Baron Frederick d'Erlanger, who then financed the Confederacy. Benjamin's work for the Confederate Government was first as Attorney General, then Secretary of War, and then Secretary of State. He was constantly at the side of and advising President Jefferson. Benjamin was also chief of the Confederate Secret Service. Upon the assassination of Lincoln, he fled to England and worked his way into becoming Queens Counsel(QC) in 1872. A cipher to unlock some codes found in Booth's trunk was found among Judah Benjamin's possessions.

At the trial of Lincoln's assassins, it was revealed that

• Jefferson Davis had appointed Jacob Thompson and Clement Clay to head the Confederate Secret Service, who operated out of Montreal, Canada, with a war chest of $5 million. They terrorized the North with operations such as burning hotels and plotting to poison the water supply of New York, and to blow up The White House.
• After meeting with the Confederate Secret Service in Autumn 1864, Booth was first to attempt to kidnap Lincoln, but after a meeting on 27th March 1865 between co-conspirator John Surratt, Judah Benjamin and Jefferson Davis in Richmond, Va., this rapidly moved onto assassinating several Union political and military leaders.
• On 10th April 1865, authorities in Montreal were warned about the plots to kill Union leaders, and one Confederate explosives expert plotting to blow up The White House was swiftly arrested that same day.
• On April 14th Lincoln was assassinated by Booth, and at the same time an assassination attempt was made by Lewis Powell on the life of Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward, who survived being stabbed in the face several times.

Clement Clay reported to Judah Benjamin. Benjamin burned all the papers of the Confederate Secret Service (CSS) in his possession in April 1865. The CSS agent in Great Britain was James Bulloch. After the war, many senior members of the Confederacy, including Davis, retired to and found sanctuary in Canada. Albert Pike also fled there to be with his fellow exiled Confederates after the war, fearful of being arrested for treason. Assisting Thompson and Clay were Col. St. Leger Grenfell of Great Britain, and George N Sanders. Grenfell was a mercenary, had ran the Union blockades, and served as General Morgan's Chief of Staff. Sanders was founder of Young America.

Following the war, elements in the South continued their oppression and terrorism of negroes through the Ku Klux Klan. There is some argument about Pike's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Some say he started it to continue the fight of the KGC. Some say he joined it at first, but left when the real violence started. Some say he was Chief Justice of the KKK. Some, mainly Masons, say that there is no documentary evidence indicating that Pike had anything to do with the KKK. The strongest source of allegations into Pike's relationship with the KKK is Ku Klux Klan: Its Origin, Growth and Disbandment by Walter L Fleming. According to Anton Chaitkin, in How the KKK got into the U.S. Justice Department, Fleming cites Pike's Masonic colleagues and KKK co-founders as sources for the claims that Pike was deeply involved in the KKK at its beginning, and acted as its Chief Judicial Officer in charge of internal disciplinary and counter-intelligence.

During the US Civil War an English officer curiously travelled with and observed the Confederate Army. Captain Fremantle was an officer in the Coldstream Guards. He somehow managed to get six months leave to travel with and 'observe' the Confederate Army. Fremantle is mentioned in the film Gettysburg. He travelled with one of the most respected and able officers of the Confederate Army, General Longstreet. Fremantle was introduced to President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis by Judah P. Benjamin. Benjamin's role in the assassination of Lincoln is given above. Upon his return to England, Fremantle wrote Three Months in the Southern States: April, June, 1863, in which he reported his observations of and feelings for the slave-owning Confederacy. His preface reads

AT the outbreak of the American war, in common with many of my countrymen, I felt very indifferent as to which side might win; but if I had any bias, my sympathies were rather in favor of the North, on account of the dislike which an Englishman naturally feels at the idea of slavery. But soon a sentiment of great admiration for the gallantry and determination of the Southerners, together with the unhappy contrast afforded by the foolish bullying conduct of the Northerners, caused a complete revulsion in my feelings, and I was unable to repress a strong wish to go to America and see something of this wonderful struggle.

Having successfully accomplished my design, I returned to England, and found amongst all my friends an extreme desire to know the truth of what was going on in the South; for, in consequence of the blockade, the truth can with difficulty be arrived at, as intelligence coming mainly through Northern sources is not believed; and, in fact, nowhere is the ignorance of what is passing in the South more profound than it is in the Northern States.

In consequence of the desire often expressed, I now publish the Diary which I endeavored, as well as I could, to keep up day by day during my travels throughout the Confederate States.

I have not attempted to conceal any of the peculiarities or defects of the Southern people. Many persons will doubtless highly disapprove of some of their customs and habits in the wilder portion of the country; but I think no generous man, whatever may be his political opinions, can do otherwise than admire the courage, energy, and patriotism of the whole population, and the skill of its leaders, in this struggle against great odds. And I am also of opinion that many will agree with me in thinking that a people in which all ranks and both sexes display a unanimity and a heroism which can never have been surpassed in the history of the world, is destined sooner or later, to become a great and independent nation.

We see here Fremantle's sympathy for the South, which goes some way to explain how he managed to obtain leave to 'observe' the Confederate Army, and meet with some of the most powerful members of the Confederacy; General Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Judah Benjamin.

Post-US Civil War

Following the Civil War the bankers began to call in money. The amount of dollars in circulation in the 20 years after the civil war is given in the table below.

Year	Total Dollars (billion)	Per Capita
1866	1.8	50.46
1867	1.3	44
1876	0.6	14.6
1886	0.4	6.67

Ernest Seyd was sent to America to demonetize silver, and was given £100,000 to bribe Congress for that matter, and to request more if necessary. Senator Daniel of Virginia stated in a speech to Congress May 22, 1890

"I take from the Bankers Magazine of August, 1873, a little extract. It says, `In 1872 silver being demonetized in Germany, England, and Holland, a capital of 100,000 pounds ($500,000.00) was raised Ernest Seyd was sent to this country with this fund as agent for foreign bond holders to effect the same object (demonetization of silver)'."

This is further corroborated by a sworn statement by Mr. Frederick A. Luckenbach. Luckenbach swore that after dinner at Seyd's house, Seyd admitted to Luckenbach that he was sent to America to demonetize silver. The following is an extract from that sworn statement. Seyd began the conversation;

"If you will pledge me your honor as a gentleman not to divulge what I am about to tell you while I live, I will convince you that what I said about American Congress is true." I gave him the promise and then he continued: "I went to America in the winter of 1872-3, authorized to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetizing silver. It was in the interest of those I represented--the GOVERNORS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND--to have it done. I took with me 100,000 pounds sterling (500,000.00 United States money) with instructions that if it was not sufficient to accomplish the object to draw for another 100,000 pounds or as much more as was necessary." He told me that the German bankers were also interested in having it accomplished. He said, "I saw the committees of the House and Senate and paid the money and stayed in America until I knew the measure was safe."

This demonetization of silver via the Coinage Act 1873, along with the contraction of supply of paper dollars, led to a severe contraction of total money supply, and subsequent panics in America. America was basically on a gold standard, and under banker control, for there was little money, while the banks could create it (if they wanted). The Silver Commission of 1876 reported that the fall of the Roman Empire occured due to a similar monetary policy that the United States had experienced in the years following the Civil War.

But this was still not enough. In 1877 The American Banker's Association distributed a letter to its members and other bankers via its Secretary James Buel,

"It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money.

To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation."

Another circular from the American Banker's Association planned a panic three years in advance!

"On Sept 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On Sept 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price... Then the farmers will become tenants as in England..." - 1891 American Bankers Association as printed in the Congressional Record of April 29, 1913

The Coinage Act of 1873 had by then become known as "the crime of '73". The American people wanted silver monetized. William Jennings Bryan opposed the gold standard, and ran for the American Presidency several times. His monetary arguments stalled the central bankers for nearly two decades.

The following Bankers' Manifesto 1892 was read to Congress by Charles A Lindbergh, and demonstrates the power and manipulation of the bankers, but also their fears.

"We must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them. At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation. The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism. The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party. By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

The Federal Reserve

Since the Civil War of 1861 the bankers had tried to wreak havoc with the US economy by expanding and contracting the money supply to cause booms and busts. There were panics in 1873, 1884, 1893 and 1907. These panics were manufactured. Senator Robert Owen, who owned a bank and co-sponsored the Federal Reserve Act, testified to Congress that in 1893 he received a circular from the National Bankers Association that started the 1893 Panic. It stated;

"You will at once retire one third of your circulation and call in one half of your loans."

The 1907 Panic was started and managed by JP Morgan. Morgan sparked a run on the Knickerbocker Bank by starting a false rumour about its insolvency. Members of the public rushed to withdraw their deposits at the The Knickerbocker Bank, causing a bank run. The Knickerbocker Bank along with a number of other banks closed, and some directors and investors committed suicide over the losses. The theory behind these manufactured panics was to cause sufficient economic chaos to provoke calls for a central bank to control monetary and thus economic policy. One man who spoke out in favour of establishing a central bank and putting it under the control of the bankers was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was at one time the President of Princeton University and the Governor of New Jersey. During the 1907 Panic, which was manufactured and managed by JP Morgan, Woodrow Wilson said;

"All this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P. Morgan to handle the affairs of our country."

After this manufactured panic Paul Warburg was commissioned by Kuhn, Loeb & Co to lobby, by writing and lecturing, for banking reform. Warburg was a member of the European Warburg banking dynasty, directly descended from the Abraham del Banco family of Venice. He was paid an annual salary of $500,000! Another consequence of the 1907 Panic was The Aldrich-Vreeland Act which was passed by Congress in 1908. Part of this act created the National Monetary Commission to investigate the problems with banking in the USA and to recommend solutions to stabilise the economy. The Chairman of this Commission was co-sponsor of the act, Senator Nelson Aldrich. Aldrich was known as "Morgan's Floor Broker in the Senate". His daughter Abby also married John D Rockefeller Jr. So Aldrich was in the bankers' pockets. He spent two years and $300,000 touring Europe, consulting European bankers on central banking methods. In 1910, after his lavish trip to Europe, Aldrich arranged one of the most infamous meetings of all time on a train carriage at the private resort of JP Morgan on Jekyll Island, Georgia.

This meeting on Jekyll Island was held in secret and its purpose was to lay the groundwork for an act, as a solution from the National Monetary Commission, to create a central bank which appeared to be owned and controlled by the government but which was in reality privately-owned and controlled. Invited to meet with Aldrich were

• Charles D Norton, First National Bank (owned by JP Morgan)
• Henry P Davison, senior partner of JP Morgan & Co.
• Frank A Vanderlip, President of National City Bank (owned by the Rockefellers)
• A Piatt Andrew, Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury
• Benjamin Strong, head of Bankers Trust Co. (owned by JP Morgan)
• Paul Warburg, partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

So Morgan and Rockefeller were very well represented at this meeting. The American public weren't. Morgan was an agent for the London based Rothschilds, who had also financed the Rockefeller dynasty. Kuhn Loeb & Co, was owned by Jacob Schiff, who was also a Rothschild man. So in effect this meeting was between Rothschild agents to discuss how to trick the Congress into enslaving the American public by foisting upon them a privately-owned central bank.

Paul Warburg was the man who proposed the theory for the recommendation that came out of this meeting. There was much argument as to what to call the recommendation. Warburg, as the cool and logical banker, wanted to call it the Federal Reserve. The use of the word "Federal" would imply that the government would be in complete control of the proposed central bank, and the use of the word "Reserve" would imply that there would indeed be reserves to call upon should another economic crisis arise. But the politician Aldrich won and the recommendation came to be known as the Aldrich Bill. But Warburg was right. Due to the well known association between Aldrich and JP Morgan there was deep suspicion about the Aldrich Bill and it was looked upon with skepticism. Charles Lindbergh, Congressman from Minnesota, was one the major opponents of the Wall Street bankers and industrialists, called "The Money Trust", who were suspected of being behind the Aldrich Bill. On 15th December 1911 he spoke in front of the House of Representatives and said;

The Aldrich Plan is the Wall Street Plan. It is a broad challenge to the government by the champion of the money trust. It means another panic, if necessary, to intimidate the people. Aldrich, paid by the government to represent the people, proposes a plan for the trusts instead.

The favourite to win the 1912 election for US President was Republican Howard Taft. The problem for the Money Trust was that Taft opposed the Aldrich Bill, correctly believing that the bill did not give government enough control over money supply. One man who did support the Aldrich Bill was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had received substantial financial support from Wall Street, and was particularly close to Andrew Carnegie. In fact Wilson was a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation. Wilson also praised JP Morgan as a great American leader. Wilson was also a Democrat. To make sure that Wilson was elected as President the Money Trust embarked on yet another scheme of deception which involved two actions; the first was to split the Republican vote by persuading an anti-Taft candidate to run against Taft, and the second was to get Woodrow Wilson nominated as the only Democrat candidate. The Republican persuaded to run against Taft was Teddy Roosevelt. Persuading Roosevelt to run against Taft were George W Perkins and Frank Munsey. Munsey was JP Morgans agent in the newspaper business, and Perkins had worked for JP Morgan & Co. but had resigned to assume a larger political role. So in reality we once again find JP Morgan as the man pulling the strings, this time manipulating the result of the election for the Presidency.

The man behind the nomination of Woodrow Wilson as the only Democrat candidate was "Colonel" Edward Mandel House. House was Wilson's shadow, advising and supervising Wilson. House was also close to JP Morgan. The man who financed Wilson's election campaign was Cleveland H Dodge, Director of the National City Bank. National City Bank was owned by the Rockefellers, senior members of the Money Trust. Wilson also received substantial financial support from Jacob Schiff, who owned Kuhn, Loeb & Co. who were paying Paul Warburg's astronomical salary to lobby for the Federal Reserve.

The Money Trust was actually financing all three candidates of the 1912 election. Through this method they were able to buy newspapers and finance tours for the three candidates, but not in equal proportions, so that Wilson received enough positive coverage and Taft enough negative coverage to enable Wilson to win. Wilson won with only 42% of the vote, and Roosevelt had performed his task of splitting the Republican vote. The Money Trust had their men, Wilson and House, for the two were inseparable, in the White House.

An acceptable solution to the banking crisis that had inspired The Aldrich Plan had still not been achieved, and The Aldrich Plan was resurrected, but under a different name. The Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee was Carter Glass of Virginia. He was tasked with finding the solution. Glass was not an expert in banking and hired Henry Parker Willis for advice. Willis was a former student and protegé of Professor J Laurence Laughlin. Laughlin had been chosen to head the National Citizens League, which was created and financed by the Money Trust to give the Aldrich Plan an air of academic respectability. With this appointment of Willis Glass was doomed to receive advice via Willis from the Money Trust. Glass was also courted by Colonel House. The bill eventually proposed by Glass was consolidated with a similar bill from Senator Robert Owen, and the Glass-Owen Bill was formed. Like Aldrich, Owen had toured Europe studying central banking methods, and his bill proposed a bank similar to that of the central banks of England and Germany, which were controlled by the Rothschilds and the Warburgs. To try to give the idea of some measure of support outside of the Money Trust, a series of public hearings was arranged. However, opponents of the Money Trust, such as Charles Lindbergh, were not allowed to speak. The one-sided hearings were reported in the press, and the American public were given the impression the Glass-Owen Bill was acceptable to the banking community as a whole. The Glass-Owen Bill was also discussed at the American Bankers Association. Again, opponents of the bill were not allowed to speak. Aldrich and Vanderlip then began to "oppose" the Glass-Owen Bill. The bill was highly technical, and very few people understood it. By appearing to oppose the Glass-Owen Bill, Aldrich and Vanderlip were tricking the American public into believing that the Money Trust opposed the bill, when in fact the Money Trust, through Willis and Laughlin and Warburg and House, had written it. This false opposition of Aldrich and Vanderlip caused some concern among several members of the money trust. To ease their minds Paul Warburg listed the main points of the original Aldrich Bill and the Glass-Owen Bill for them, and said;

Brushing aside, then, the external differences affecting the 'shells', we find the 'kernels' of the two systems very closely resembling and related to one another.

The Glass-Owen Bill was renamed The Federal Reserve Bill, and it was voted through on 23rd December 1913. Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Bill. Paul Warburg commented to Colonel House;

Well, it hasn't got quite everything we want, but the lack can be adjusted later by administrative process.

After the vote for the Federal Reserve Bill, Charles Lindbergh, the great opponent of the Money Trust, told Congress;

This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized. This is the Aldrich Bill in disguise.

So what is so special about the Federal Reserve that the bankers would go through such deception and manipulation, spending millions of dollars of their own cash in the process, to get the Federal Reserve established?

The Federal Reserve is a privately-owned cartel of banks, such as one that Natwest and Barclays could form if they wanted. But they also have the sole right to print the nations money and act as the lender of last resort. The Federal Reserve basically works like this;

1. The government of the USA wants to raise revenue, probably for a war
2. It sells bonds on the open market
3. the public and investment houses buy what bonds they want and can
4. by law the Federal Reserve then has to buy the remaining unsold bonds. The bonds are bought with created money that did not exist!
5. the member banks of the Federal Reserve can then use the bond i.e. debt instrument, as collateral and use fractional reserve banking to create in money a multiple of its value!

The Federal Reserve is basically a gigantic paper money-creating scheme...IN PRIVATE HANDS! This also explains why the USA has been involved in so many major wars. Wars require the government to raise revenue, and the bigger the war and the longer the war, the more money the government needs. The Federal Reserve Act forces the US government to get most of its money from the Federal Reserve member banks, who in turn use the IOU notes/bonds from the government as collateral to create at least 10 times their value in paper money. NOTHINGS BACKS THE PAPER MONEY. IT IS ONLY PAPER. The profits from this scheme are obviously absolutely astronomical. The member banks are controlled by the Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockefellers, Schiffs, etc i.e. THE MONEY TRUST. There are two classes of shares in the Federal Reserve; Class A shares, the shares with the real power, CANNOT be sold on the market and are instead passed down from generation to generation within special families. Can you guess which families own these Class A shares?

One last thing to ease your mind; The Federal Reserve has NEVER been audited!!!

So Who Owns The Federal Reserve?

An investigation was held in 1976 into the government of The Federal Reserve, and the results published in Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence showed the private ownership of The Federal Reserve. The dominant names were Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Schiff, Warburg, Schroder, Lehman (see chapter People for a brief on some of these and how their personal relationships go back centuries). In 1913 we see the same names appear in the manipulation to get The Federal Reserve created, so why should we not think the same names are still there?

Comment

The following chapters will show what people with bad intentions can do when they have the power to create money. If that power is in good hands, then the money will be created for good purposes. If that power is in bad hands it will be created for bad purposes. The events of last century prove conclusively that the power to create money is in bad hands, and has been used for bad purposes.

Money is whatever is acceptable to both vendor and purchaser. For the best part of the last millenium, a form of money called the Talleystick was used. Talleysticks were long pieces of uniquely carved wood split down the middle lengthways, with the monarch keeping one half and the other spent into the economy. They were accepted as payment of taxes, and thus had a built-in value. Money is accepted as payment for goods and services if the vendor knows he or she can pass it on in exchange for other goods and services. The danger is if the power to create money is given to bad people with bad intentions. If such people can create money easily, e.g. in the form of printed paper money or numbers on a computer, then we had better watch out. Easily created money can drive the economy into areas the general population does not want, but the population has to follow the money because they 'need the money'. So if, following the American Revolution, the colonies wanted to use paper money backed partially by metal then that would be good enough because everybody knew the paper could be used everywhere in the colonies in exchange for goods and services, and if it was necessary to convert to gold they could. The bank stabilised the economy and the new nation of The United States of America grew. The currency that the Bank of North America, The First Bank of The United States and The Second Bank of The United States issued was basically paper money, just like the Colonial Scrip that scared the British into passing the Currency Act in 1764 which effectively banned Colonial Scrip. Similarly, Lincoln's Greenbacks were...paper money, but debt-free and acceptable as payment of taxes, just like Talleysticks.

There appears to have been a campaign to distort the control, ownership and intention of the Bank of North America, The First Bank of the United States, and The Second Bank of the United States. The Bank of North America financed the American revolution, so the idea of such an institution would have to be damaged so similar institutions to finance revolutions would be looked upon with suspicion and thus any revolution would probably fail. Similarly, The First and Second Banks of North America financed the growth of America, so the ideas of such institutions also would have to be damaged in a similar way so that if a revolution against the New World Order was successful it would probably fail during the expansion of the new nation when it ran out of money. The two theories are

1. international bankers, and in particular the Rothschilds, were the force behind The First Bank of the United States and The Second Bank of the United States, and that the 1812 War was due to the charter of the First Bank of the United States not being renewed.
2. The Bank of North America, The First Bank of the United States and The Second Bank of the United States were genuine attempts, like Colonial Scrip, to independently finance the American revolution and the growth of The United States of America in its early years.

Two references were mentioned above that questioned the loyalty of the controllers of The Second Bank of the United States. I asked the archivist at N. M. Rothschild about the relationships between the Rothschilds and The First Bank of the United States and The Second Bank of the United States, the relationship between James Rothschild and Nicholas Biddle, and the relationship between Salomon Rothschild and David Parish. I was directed towards the acclaimed work on the Rothschilds, The House of Rothschild : Money's Prophets 1798 - 1848, by Niall Ferguson, and also visited the American department of the N. M. Rothschild archive on their website, from which the following is taken;

1. Nicholas Biddle was not an agent of James Rothschild. However, in 1837, after The Second Bank of the United States had been destroyed as a central bank, Biddle did write to James proposing some business between the Second Bank of The United States and the Rothschilds regarding cotton. James was enthusiastic about this proposition, against the advice of his brothers, and accepted the deal, but the business went sour when cotton prices plunged. The Second Bank of The United States did appoint the Rothschilds as their agents in Europe, replacing Baring's, for a payment to the French Government, but only in 1834 when the bank had already been destroyed by Jackson.
2. David Parish, who played a minor role in the creation of the Second Bank of the United States, has been referred to as an agent of Salomon Rothschild in Vienna, thus implying that The Second Bank of the United States was a Rothschild creation. Parish was not an agent of Salomon, but he was a short-term business partner, and that business only began in 1820 when they were awarded the right to run a lottery in Vienna. Their relationship was short-lived. After becoming a business partner with the Rothschilds, Parish lost other business with the Austrian Government to Salomon and subsequently lost most of his own and his father's money. Parish felt he had been stabbed in the back by Salomon who Parish alleged used Parish to worm his way into controlling Prince Metternich. Parish drowned himself in the Danube, vowing to discredit the Rothschilds, writing letters before his death to his brothers, Metternich and Salomon setting out his allegations.

This then implies to me that the three banks mentioned in this section were of good intent and did their job, particularly when the association between Jackson and Aaron Burr is taken into account, and show what a central bank in the right hands issuing paper money can do.

However, I still feel uneasy that all three of the aforementioned banks were essentially privately-owned, because the United States Government held only 20% of the shares and thus had only 20% say in the direction the bank took. Why were the banks not 100%? It may well be due to the fact that the new American government was skint, with no gold or silver whatsoever, and relied upon private investors in a central bank to provide the gold, silver, etc. through subscriptions to the banks with which to pay off debts incurred in the wars and revolutions. It appears that under good management the banks did their job.

But, as will be suggested in the chapter on The United States of America and in the section on Freemasonry in the chapter on Organizations, if America itself is part of a long range plan spanning centuries, which I believe is the case, then those banks had to succeed and build America. Why were they 80% privately-owned? Who held those shares, particularly those that President Andrew Jackson referred to in his veto message? I must say that I have some sympathy for Jackson's position; for the national bank to be so controlled by rich foreigners and their allies on the East Coast is a big threat to the American people and their nation. Under the advice of some British-allied advisers, his hatred of rich bankers controlling a central bank issuing paper money was used to rally support in the American public to destroy the Second Bank of the United States. Yes, Jackson did pay off the debt, but by the time Jackson was elected as President in 1828 Biddle had almost paid the debt off! Yet Jackson is made the hero because the debt was retired under his Presidency.

Does the case of the Slaves on La Amistad Give us a clue?

La Amistad is the name of a schooner seized in 1839 by the United States Navy off the coast of Connecticut, which at the time was pro-slavery. The slaves on board had been kidnapped and transported to Havanna, Cuba, where they were sold to the Queen of Spain and put on board La Amistad to be transported to a slave plantation on Cuba. During this final journey the slaves revolted, and seized control of the ship. They ordered the men who had purchased them to sail them back home, eastward, which was done during the day, but at night the ship was steered westward, to be eventually seized by the US Navy. The story of the slaves of La Amistad is told by Steven Spielberg in his film Amistad.

The Amistad slaves endured three trials before they were allowed to go free and were given transport back to their homes.

They won their first trial and were allowed some freedom on bail, but the trial judge felt his court did not have jurisdiction and that a District Court should try the case. So a second trial followed in a Judge-only no-jury court. The judge in this second trial was Andrew Judson. Judson had been appointed as District Judge of Connecticut by President Andrew Jackson. This was after Judson had managed to pass the "Black Law" which stated that a black child could only receive an education with the consent of all the local townspeople. Judson was emotionally driven into this act of racism after his neighbour in Canterbury, Conn., a Quaker called Prudence Crandall, decided to teach a coloured girl called Sarah Harris in Crandall's own school. Judson and most of Canterbury went berserk over Crandall's decision. Judson was maddened enough to run for local political office, and upon his election he lobbied for the "Black Law", which was passed and enforced. Crandall's school was then closed, and she was also chased out of not just the town of Canterbury, but the state of Connecticut! Judson was also an active member of the American Colonization Society (ACS). The ACS was formed by American citizens concerned at the number of freed African slaves who thought it would be best for them and America if the freed African slaves were shipped back to Africa. Liberia was created and managed by the ACS for this purpose.

Despite his racism, however, Judson found that the Amistad slaves should be set free and their purchasers arrested. The decision was then appealed by District Attorney Holabird at the request of...President Martin van Buren.

Former President John Quincy Adams agreed to argue the Amistad slaves' case for them in front of the Supreme Court. Adams' father John was one of the Founding Fathers, and he was also anti-slavery and very anti-Masonic, running unsuccessfully on the Anti-Masonry Party ticket. Over two days Adams argued his points that the La Amistad slaves be set free, and he won convincingly, with only one Supreme Court judge Justice Baldwin voting against him.

So in the case of La Amistad we see President Martin van Buren, who had engineered Jackson for Presidency and who worked for the destruction of The Second Bank of The United States, appealing the decision of a racist judge, who had been appointed by Jackson, to free the La Amistad slaves. John Quincy Adams, who argued that the slaves be set free and who was also very anti-Masonic, supported the Second Bank of the United States.

Does this give us a clue as to the psyche and allegiance of those involved in the movement to destroy The Second Bank of The United States?

A Successful Challenge to The Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve is 100% privately-owned. The trickery employed to get it created is detailed above. However, it has been shown to be the incredible fraud that it is in a law case with tragic consequences.

On 7th December 1968 Judge Martin Mahoney presided over the case First National Bank of Montgomery (Minn.) v Jerome Daly. The case was concerned with the foreclosure on a mortgage assigned to Jerome Daly. The First National Bank of Montgomery had foreclosed and was suing Daly for the land associated with the mortgage deed. During the trial the president of the First National Bank of Montgomery (Minn.), which is a member of The Federal Reserve, admitted under oath that the bank had created money for a mortgage by a simple bookkeeping entry. The judge and jury therefore found that the mortgage was null and void! Judge Mahoney died a few months later of a heart attack. The coroner stated that the heart attack was brought on by "unusual circumstances at the death scene and the controversy he was involved in at the time".

So now with a very privately-owned central bank in their hands, which is still able to create virtually unlimited quantities of paper and electronic money as shown by the Daly case above despite the fact that such a scheme was shown to be illegal, the bankers could begin to finance their scheme for three world wars.