“The Rothschild legend has long ago outrun the facts.  This is the Rothschilds’ own fault.  They are even more reticent and aloof than other merchant bankers when family matters are concerned.  They developed the technique of absolute discretion to perfection.  Their family labyrinths are complex…..Significantly, no Rothschild-approved history of the family has yet appeared.  A whole library of books exists about the Rothschilds.  All were written without their blessing, often against their wishes, mostly without their co-operation, and sometimes they have protested in court against them.”

On rare occasion, the human spirit is sufficiently antagonized and, consequently, energized by grinding adversity that triggers a deep personal resolve to reverse the injustice. The origins of the Rothschild family appear to be the perfect case of this phenomenon.  Frederic Morton, in his The Rothschilds—A Family Portrait (1961), tells it best:

“The patriarch was a tall, gentle person with a scholar’s hunch to his narrow shoulders.  In his smile there hovered a not very businesslike twinkle.  A strange dream must have stirred inside the man; something prompted him to consistently peculiar choices.  The most peculiar of all resulted, on spring day of 1764, in his return to his native Frankfurt on the Main (the Main River).  (Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s) ancestors had long been small merchants in the town ghetto.  But his best prospects lay elsewhere.  As the brightest in a brood of children, he had been sent to a Yeshiva (an Orthodox Jewish seminary) near Nurnberg (Nuremberg, Germany) to become the family pride—a rabbi.  He studied well, but briefly.  Both his parents died, and with them the source of tuition.  Luckily, some relatives secured for young Mayer an apprenticeship in the banking house of Oppenheimer at Hannover.  Another lad in his position would have clung to just that city.  Germany was still a patchwork of principalities, each with laws unto itself.  In contrast to Frankfurt, Hannover tolerated Jews—tolerably.  Mayer did well.  His path was clear: to stay at Oppenheimer’s; to advance; to become chief clerk; and, with God’s help, possibly even to die a partner.  Instead, Mayer went home.  He did the wrong thing and became immortal.  Yet when he re-entered Frankfurt that spring day, not a shred of grandeur greeted him, only petty humiliation.  Crossing the River Main, he had to pay a Jew toll.  From afar he could see, and smell, the quarter where he had been born twenty years earlier.  The ghetto brimmed along a single dark alley, just twelve feet broad.  It stretched, one observer later said, ‘between the city wall and a trench.’”

Frederic Morton continued:

“On his way Mayer could not escape the street urchins whose favorite amusement was to shout, ‘Jew, do your duty!’—whereupon the Jew had to step aside, take off his hat, and bow.  Having thus entertained the local children, Mayer reached the heavy chains with which soldiers manacled the Judengasse (Jew’s Street) every night.  Inside, the ghetto was not very encouraging either.  Shops spilled heaps of secondhand clothes and soiled household goods into the alley; this welter reflected an ordinance that barred Frankfurt Jews from farming, from handicrafts, even from dealing in nobler goods such as weapons, silk or fresh fruit.  And the young Jewish girls Mayer encountered—they, too, were subject to the stern hand of the gentile.  Another city edict limited the Jews to five hundred families and to no more than twelve marriages a year.”

“Even when Mayer reached his own block and an old friend hailed him with ‘Heh, Rothschild!’ that very word could only be a reminder that he really had no family name at all.  It was a privilege of his race did not possess.  To invent some sort of identification, Jews often used the house signs which predated numbered addresses.  Mayer’s ancestors had once lived in a house with a red shield (Rothschild) at the more prosperous end of Jew Street.  The name still stuck, though the family had declined to a danker, humbler place behind the Sign of the Saucepan.  It was at the Saucepan (the house he rented) that Mayer finally turned in.  He walked through a gloomy and littered court to the back-yard quarters where his brothers Moses and Kalmann ran a secondhand shop.  It was here that he reached the end of his journey and the beginning of an epic.”

Niall Ferguson’s The House of Rothschild:  Money Prophets, 1798-1848 (1998), contains two insights of 18th century eyewitnesses who described Jew’s Street in Frankfurt in their time:

1.  Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749-1832, poet, novelist, playwright, and a Frankfurt resident of a Lutheran family, who, therefore, did not live in the Judengasse ghetto , wrote,

“The lack of space, the dirt, the throng of people, the disagreeable accents of the voice—altogether, it made the most unpleasant impression, even upon the passer-by who merely looked through the gate.  It was a long time before I dared to go in there alone, and I did not return there readily when once I escaped from that multitude of people, all of them with something to hawk, all indefatigably buying or selling.”

2.  Ludwig Borne, 1786-1837, journalist, political philosopher, and a Frankfurt resident, who lived in the Judengasse ghetto, remembered, in anger rather than nostalgia,

“…a long dark prison, into which the highly celebrated light of the 18th century has not yet been able to penetrate. Stretching ahead of us lay in immeasurably long street, near us just enough room to reassure us that we could turn around as soon as the wish overcame us. Over us is no longer sky, which the sun needs in order to expand in his breadth; one doesn’t see sky, one sees only sunlight. An evil smell rises everywhere around us, and the cloth that is supposed to shield us from infection serves also to catch the tears of compassion or to hide the smile of malice from the gaze of the watching Jews. We set our feet down skittishly and carefully so that we don’t step on any children. These swim about in the gutter, creep about in the filth innumerable as vermin hatched by the sun from the dung heap. Who would not indulge these little boys in their small desires?  If one were to consider play in childhood as the model for the reality of life, then the cradle of these children must be the grave of every encouragement, every exuberance, every friendship, every joy in life. Are you afraid that these towering houses will collapse over us? Oh fear nothing! They are thoroughly reinforced, the cages of clipped birds, resting on the cornerstone of the eternal ill-will, well walled up by the industrious hands of greed, and mortared with the sweat of tortured slaves. Do not hesitate. They stand firm and will never fall.”

Niall Ferguson wrote,

“Having originally been designated a ghetto at a time when the Jewish population was little more than a hundred, the lane was horribly overcrowded:  by 1711 there were no fewer than 3,024 people living there.  Accommodating them all in such a small area required a high degree of architectural ingenuity: houses were just eight feet wide and had up to four stories, and behind each row an additional row was constructed…..In the 1780s it was estimated that average mortality among Jews was 58% percent higher than among Gentiles. A traveller in 1795 observed, how most of the people among the Frankfurt Jews, even those who are in the blooming years of their life, look like the walking dead.. Their deathly pale appearance sets them apart from all the other inhabitants in the most depressing way.”

It is important to try to internalize (to understand more deeply by putting yourself in the shoes of the other) the profound racism described above.  Here is a summary of restrictions required of Jews living and working in Frankfurt:

• Paying a Jew toll for crossing a bridge.

• Paying a Jew toll for overnight travel.

• Paying double the amount of toll paid by a Gentile when entering the town.

• Paying a poll (body) tax.

• Confined in the ghetto every night, Sundays and during Christian festivals, with the ghetto gates locked with heavy chains during these curfew periods.

• Forbidden to walk more that two abreast in the city of Frankfurt.

• Barred from entering parks, inns, coffee houses, the promenades around the town’s picturesque walls, or come near the town’s ancient cathedral.

• Could only enter the town hall by the back entrance.

• Permitted to visit the town market, but only during set hours, and forbidden to touch the vegetables and fruit there.

• Forbidden to engage in farming, handicrafts, or from dealing in goods such as weapons, silk or fresh fruit.

• Clustered in a tiny section of Frankfurt ‘against the city wall and a trench.’

• Required to step out of the way, remove your hat and bow, if a Gentile of any age commanded you, “Jew, do your duty”.

• Jewish population control: no more that 500 families, 12 marriages a year, and the age of marriage fixed at 25.

In trying to understand how such incredible inhumanity can be visited upon disenfranchised groups, I could not help thinking of the stories  I had been told about the Penal Laws imposed by the same concealed power on my Irish grandparents, who came to America from Ireland in the early 1900s.  According to Edmund Burke,

“these Laws were a machine of wise and elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment, and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man.”

The Irish Penal Laws

• Language:  A ban on speaking Gaelic, the Irish native tongue.

• Religion: All Catholic parishes were left intact, but priests had to be registered.  All other clergy were forced to leave the country on pain of death.  No Catholic church could have a steeple or a bell.   When allowed, new Catholic churches were to be built from wood, not stone, and away from main roads.

• Marriage:  Ban on intermarriage of Irish Catholics with Protestants.

• Education: No Catholic could teach school or send their children abroad for education.

• Social position: All government officials, lawyers, doctors were forced to swear an oath to the falsity of the Catholic religion.

• Arms, property, franchise:  No Catholic could bear arms, or join the armed forces, or keep a horse worth more than 5 Pounds. If a Protestant saw a Catholic with a valuable horse, he could purchase it for 5 Pounds. Only if he can farm, could the eldest Catholic son inherit his father’s property. No Catholic could purchase land or hold a lease for more than 31 years. Ban on Irish Catholic inheriting Protestant land.  The vote was only allowed to people who would deny the Roman church and take Protestant communion. Later the laws directly disenfranchised all Catholics.

• Trade and manufacture destroyed: Irish Congress was destroyed so that there would be no trade competition with England. Protestants suffered more than Catholics since the papist majority was hardly involved in commerce.

• Exports forbidden: Exports to the West Indies were banned as was the export of cattle to England.

• Wool trade ruined. A duty imposed on all Irish wool and on all manufactured woolen articles effectively ended the wool trade.

• Smuggling. Wool was smuggled to France and wine, brandy and silk return to the country. All classes of people engaged in the smuggling trade.

• Ruin of manufacturing:  Beer, malt, hats, cotton, silk, gunpowder, ironware manufacturing were destroyed by legislation.

• Persecution of Presbyterians in Northern Ireland’s Ulster:  The Ulster settlement in Northern Ireland consisted of Scotts who had fled Scotland to escape religious persecution.  The Penal Laws disenfranchised and discriminated against them.

The result of the Penal Laws was to impoverish the vast majority of Ireland’s population, attempt to ruin its identity and future, and trigger a diaspora of approximately 80 million Irish emigrants (which included their descendants) to the United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, the Caribbean, and continental Europe, which is 17.7 times the current population of Ireland at 4.5 million.  In addition, 400,000 Irish Presbyterians left for America, taking their well-organized and industrious communities and their prosperous business class with them.  Their bitter feelings for the British led to their active involvement in the American Revolution far out of proportion to their actual numbers.

On reflection, the Irish folklore with which I am acquainted made me believe that this deeply dehumanizing behavior of the British was the root of Irish fatalism and a “gallows” humor that, I believe, is a key part of our ethnic perspective—–and no wonder.  I carry a bit of this perspective within me, in that, over time I have come to believe that the national character of the British aristocracy is stained by ruthless, contemptuous, and predatory behavior (exacerbated by its deeply psychotic Venetian roots) that they have unleashed on the world.  And I attribute this behavior to their exclusive educational system that bred and trained the young of their tiny privileged class to embrace the ideal of “Empire.”  Unfortunately, the Irish could not overthrow the British, but we Americans did just that.

Or did we?

In contrast, the treatment of the Frankfurt Jews and Jews in other European centers, in the 18th century, can be seen differently.  Yes, they were the victims of horrendous  oppression, disenfranchisement, segregation, and all forms of discrimination, but, to their enormous credit, they were, at the same time, recognized as indispensable by, (i) the royal families of Europe, (ii) their governments, (iii) the Gentile merchants, and (iv) the Gentile guilds of tradesmen throughout Europe.  This indispensability had to do with providing lending and investment services that were the vital lubricant enabling operations of all sizes to cover their cash shortfalls. These lending services had a variety of purposes, namely:

• Maintaining Status:  Royal families who had overspent and were in need of large funds to shore up or advance their status.

• Territorial Expansion and War: Royal families and the governments unable to increase taxes or borrow additional funds from normal channels, who needed funds to cover the expenses of territorial expansion, overseas colonial expansion, and war.

• Currency Exchange and Factoring:  Buying and selling coin currency in circulation to facilitate payment of business invoices in local currency; directly buying and selling business invoices for a fee.

• Organizing Syndicates of Large Investors:  For larger start-up enterprises and their expansions, such as railroads, canals, and manufacturing,  the bringing together of large investors into a group enabled large fundings to be organized.

• Deposit Banking:  Taking in the coin currency of depositors, safeguarding the deposits, and lending to the community of individuals and businesses in much larger total amounts than the total amount of the deposits held in the bank (referred to as “fractional-reserve banking”), and working with other banks to settle the payments of its depositors to owed parties who are depositors at other banks.

• Business Interruptions:  Merchants and guilds in need of funds to cover cash shortfalls due to destruction of property and material by fire, flood or storm.

• Business Continuity: Funding needed that naturally results from the timing of receiving payment for services and the timing of having to pay for their costs of operation.

Niall Ferguson wrote:

“More than most German towns in the 18th century, Frankfurt was a businessman’s town. At the junction of several major trade routes linking the towns of South Germany to the Hanseatic ports of the North, and linking Germany as a whole to the economies of the Atlantic seaboard, the Baltic and the near East, its prosperity was bound up with the two annual fairs in the autumn and the spring which had been held in the town since the Middle Ages. And because of the enormous (variety) of coinage circulating in Europe up until the late 19th century, the town’s commerce necessarily went hand in hand with banking; in particular, money-changing and bill-brokering. In addition–and in some ways more importantly–Frankfurt acted as a financial center for the Princes, Arch Dukes and Electors who governed the numerous petty territories of the region. The revenues from their lands and subjects and the expenditures of their courts made these rulers the biggest customers of the pre-industrial German economy, even if most of them were considerably less well off than their counterparts in the English aristocracy. In particular, the fact that the majority generally spent more than they earned created lucrative, if sometimes risky, opportunities for German bankers.”

“Perhaps the most successful firm in this field prior to 1800 was that of Simon Moritz and Johann Philipp Bethmann, both Gentiles. Yet there is no question that, by the later 18th century, it was Jews who had come to be seen as the most enterprising operators when it came to money-changing and all kinds of lending. After more than a century of scholarly reflection on the subject, it is still hard to say quite why this was. Any advantage Jews enjoyed over Gentile financiers can have been only an indirect result of their system of education: Mayer Amschel Rothschild once recalled that in my youth I was a very active merchant, but I was disorganized, because I had been a student (of the Talmud) and learnt nothing (about business).  Probably membership of a tightly knit outsider group helped when it came to constructing credit networks. And perhaps there was a kind of business ethic derived from Judaism. But these points can be made with equal force about other religious minorities, as they were by Max Weber, who unconvincingly contrasted the Protestant ethic with the Jewish ethos of politically and speculatively oriented pariah capitalism.  The least unsatisfactory answer is that, at a time when most fields of economic activity were closed to them, Jews had little alternative but to concentrate on commerce and finance. At the same time, their Gentile rivals in those fields probably tended to exaggerate the extent of the Jewish threat to their business. The non-Jewish bankers of Frankfurt were complaining as early as 1685 that the Jews had torn the bills trade from their hands–a claim which led to a ban on Jews entering the stock exchange. Twelve years later the Council was trying, not for the last time, to prevent Jews from renting warehouses in the Fahrgasse the town’s main street.”

“By the mid–18th century Frankfort Jews were acting as agents for the Palatinate (a county territory administered by a hereditary ruler subject to a higher ruler), the Electorate of Mainz, the Grand Duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, the Kingdom of Prussia, the imperial court in Vienna, as well as Hesse-Kassel and Saxe-Weimar.  (For example) Low Beer Isaak was court agent to the Prince of Nassau-Saarbrucken in 1755, while David Mayer Kupl challenged the dominance of the Kann family when he became imperial court agent at around the same time.  Such men formed a rich and privileged elite within the Judengasse.”munities, which denied them access to harbor and trading opportunities. In such situations, the trader, in the absence of maritime or international law, used to go well armed, and if necessary open the door to trade at the point of a gun. Where persuasion to trade is implemented by the actual use or the threat of violence, one might speak of booty capitalism. The term is appropriate: under conditions of forced transactions one can hardly speak of an exchange of commodities by peaceful bargaining. The exchange is, in fact, a polite facade for direct appropriation by violence. Slaves have been one of the most favored commodities appropriated in this fashion. It has been an old tradition of Occidental merchants to establish trading posts and stable places abroad. Thus, the Hanseatic League maintained trading posts on the Volga as well as on the Thames. Trading companies have engaged in overseas trade, and in due course acquired favorable sites, called factories.  Thus the British East India Company established its factories in India. From such a trading post, resident stewards expanded their operations, and in due course, acquired considerable territorial domains. Increased holdings brought in their train increased tensions and dangers, political, military and economic. Accordingly, a military establishment had to secure the colony. Westerners residing in the trading posts and becoming acquainted with the problems of the surrounding territories naturally discovered occasions and opportunities for further expansion by entering the politics of the particular region and exploiting them for their own advantage. In short, booty capitalist adventures have led to colonial capitalism.”

Colonial Capitalism:  “Colonial capitalism has typically established the plantation system, which thrives on an intensive cultivation of tropical and garden produce such as tea, cotton, tobacco, sugar, and in the age of the automobile, rubber. It is a further characteristic of the plantation that it utilizes slave or forced labor. The most significant areas of such plantation systems have been in the North African grain belt, in the Portuguese, French, Dutch, and British domains in India, and in the Southern states before the American Civil War.”

Further Insights:  “The entrepreneurs (participating in) early modern capitalism have struggled against all the odds of jurisdictional handicaps, the closure policies of guilds and politically privileged monopolists, and the mercantilist police state. Their slogan, laissez-faire, was directed against the feudal vestiges of guild policies, as well as against politically privileged monopolists. The autonomy of the pacified market appeared to them as the ideal field of operations, and the establishment of such a market as a fulfillment of freedom. The free market was thus the economic precondition and result of free enterprise; this market became world-wide and based in gold, and free migration of people knit together the system as a whole.”

“19th-century capitalism approximated the goal of an economic order knit together by markets. To be sure, vestiges of previous economic orders existed, especially in the rural economies of continental Europe, and a good many artisan establishments survived. But the dynamics of the economic order did not rest upon these vestiges; it was controlled by market-oriented free entrepreneurs. These agents enrolled a labor force in their expanding capitalist enterprises, which gradually came to permeate all branches of production and distribution. The right of the owner freely to dispose of interchangeable goods came to include such previously immobile items as land, and the initiative of the enterprise fed upon continuously expanding business opportunities.”

“Legally guaranteed monopolies in trade, handicraft, and industry were broken down. Legislation which confined itself to the formal rules of the game replaced municipal statutes and guild rules that restricted those who could play the game. Free mobility became a recognized right of the citizen. Everyone could leave his place of birth and move where he pleased; emigration and immigration were legally facilitated through the free handing out of passports and the relatively free admission of newcomers to all localities. All national currencies had fairly stable relations to gold, and international trade in capital and commodities flourished.”

“States minimized direct political intervention in the economic order. For the implied assumption that ran through the laissez-faire system was that the automatic steering of the whole process of expansion would work out in the interest of all economic agents. A harmony of interests between the individual profiting in the process of expansion and the public good was taken for granted by the advocates of the system. At the dawn of the system, it was possible for theoreticians like Adam Smith, “the fountainhead of the theory of economic liberalism, to think in terms of further increasing the relatively equal distribution of private property. This was the central meaning of equality of opportunity: that every man of initiative and talent could enter the competitive race on equal terms with his competitors. Since at the start of the race, men were assumed to be more or less equally endowed, the different degrees of their success could be ascribed to their personal merit and initiative.”

Where Did the Rothschild Family Fit In This Political/Economic Order?

Now we can determine where Mayer Rothschild’s family was positioned in the political/economic order as described above.  Of course, the family started as merchants of second-hand clothing and other used merchandise.  But, with the good fortune of Mayer’s familiarity with rare coins and his blossoming connection with Prince William at Hanau, the family was propelled into the very top rung of lending to royal families and governments and currency exchange and factoring, as well as buying and selling precious metals such as gold and silver in large quantities.  Accordingly, the family found itself in political capitalism, acknowledging that the family’s early life in Judengasse was one of oppression, segregation, disenfranchisement, and of all forms of discrimination.

But, what about Weber contrasting the Protestant ethic with the Jewish ethos of politically and speculatively oriented pariah capitalism to explain the connection of cultural influences in religions to the shaping of economic systems within Western civilization.  In his studies of religions, Weber began to form his theory around the absence of capitalist economies in the societies corresponding to religions found in China, India, and ancient Judaism.  And, correspondingly, as his theory matured, he focused on the Protestant religion as possibly having the strongest influence in shaping capitalist economies.  In his Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he noted that the post-Reformation shift of Europe’s economic center away from Catholic countries such as France, Spain and Italy, and toward Protestant countries such as the Netherlands, England, Scotland and Germany.  He also noted that societies having more Protestants were those with a more highly developed capitalist economy.  Similarly, in societies with different religions, most successful businessmen were Protestant.

George Ritzer, in his Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics (2009), notes that Weber argued that Roman Catholicism impeded the development of the capitalist economy in the West, as did other religions such as Confucianism and Buddhism elsewhere in the world.  He wrote,

“In particular,” he wrote, “the Protestant ethic (or more specifically, Calvinist ethic) motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures…..the believers thus justified pursuit of profit with religion, as, instead of being fueled by morally suspect greed or ambition,  actions that were motivated by a highly moral and respected philosophy.”

Reinhard Bendix, in his Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait (1977), wrote,

“Weber showed that certain types of Protestantism—notably Calvinism—were supportive of rational pursuit of economic gain and worldly activities dedicated to it, seeing them as endowed with moral and spiritual significance.”

Weber wrote:

‘…in a time in which the beyond meant everything, when the social position of the Christian depended upon his admission to the communion, the clergyman, through his ministry, Church discipline, and preaching, exercised an influence which we modern men are entirely unable to picture.  In such a time the religious forces which express themselves through such channels (were) the decisive influences in the formation of national character.’

In Austria, matters were roughly the same.  Count Buol-Schauenstein, the President of the Austrian Federal Diet (Austria’s highest legislative body) remarking about Jews as a race, wrote:

“This nation (the Jews), which never amalgamates with any other, but always hangs together to pursue its own ends, will soon overshadow Christian firms; and with their terribly rapid increase of population they will soon spread over the whole city (speaking about Vienna) so that a Jewish trading city will gradually arise beside our venerable cathedral.”

The fear of effective business competition appears to have been a primary cause of the discrimination faced by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, his family and the residents of Judengasse. In a perverse way, it seems that the institutionalized oppression orchestrated by Frankfurt’s Gentile banking and business firms galvanized the resolve of this patriarch of the Rothschild family.   Frederic Morton wrote:

“He had begun to develop, with more enthusiasm than profit, a new department in the secondhand store:  he traded in old coins.  The years in the Yeshiva still lived in him.  He was a rabbi manque (failed to have become the rabbi he might have been) and carried on his bent back old racial longings for poetry and lore.  The dinars and thalers (certain rare coins) he now bought up; the obscure mintages from Russia, from the Palatine (an official or feudal lord having local authority) and from Bavaria; those he could analyze, annotate, interpret, explain, describe, relate—but not sell.  Or so it seemed at first.  In Jew Street there was too great a need for current money to bother with the retired kind.  Nor were Christian burghers (merchants) more receptive to such trinkets.  It was necessary to go farther, into the manors and castles around Frankfurt.  Mayer ventured forth.  After all, he had the shadow of a connection; back in Hannover he had run errands for a General von Estorff, now attached to the court for Prince William at Hanau.  In the state and cultural region of Hesse, the site of a 16th century settlement, 25 kilometers east of Frankfurt, of Protestant refugees from France and the Netherlands who brought high class trade, their knowledge of jewelry and production of other luxury items, under the protection of Count Philipp Ludwig II.  Out of this tradition, goldsmiths are still educated in Hanau.”

Hanau is 15 miles to the east of Frankfurt am Main.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild Connects With Prince William Through General von Estorff

Frederic Morton wrote:

“And the General deigned to remember.  Mayer found that the General’s courtier friends showed a nice interest in his quaint coins and heirlooms.  They listened to his surprisingly learned numismatic (knowledge about coins, metals and paper currency) chatter.  They were amused by the ghetto music with which he celebrated his wares.  They fingered the catalogue written with such loving flourishes.  And then they bought!  They bought again from time to time.  Mayer, emboldened, sent his curlicue-embellished catalogues to princes and princelings all around.  One day he was ushered into the presence of (Prince) William himself.  His Highness, legend claims, had just won at chess and therefore regarded the world kindly.  Mayer sold him a handful of his rarest medals and coins.  It was the first transaction of a Rothschild with a chief of state.”

“(Mayer Rothschild) returned to Jew Street, triumphant but not rich.  He had thoughts about marriage, but the upkeep of his family could not depend on random euphoria in high places.  So Mayer instituted in the House of the Saucepan a Wechselstube—a rudimentary bank where the multifarious (many and of various types of) currency of the Germanies (the various German principalities) could be exchanged.  The fairs held in Frankfurt brought all sorts of ducats, florins, carolins and what-nots into town.  From this diversity Mayer now steadily profited.  Mayer bought out some needy coin collectors.  With his newly bolstered line he attracted the Duke Karl August and other spectacular customers paying drab prices.”

“How he hovered over his catalogues.  How carefully he had them printed now, in complicated Gothic letters!  How he kept revising their elaborate title pages, how he worked on their phrasing which, even for those days, seemed a bit odd and archaic….And, indeed, Mayer really began to write.  They were letters of practical import, petitions to various local princes.  Yet their convoluted charm and their painstaking love of formalities sometimes lapsing into ghetto idiom (unique expressions and phrases that come from a particular region)—all that seemed typical Mayer.”

Mayer Amschel Rothschild Gains Recognition As Agent To Prince William—A Step Away From Being a “Court Lender”

Then, the first tiny breakthrough occurred after writing the following letter to Prince William of Hanau:

“It has been my particular high and good fortune to serve your lofty princely Serenity at various times and to your most gracious satisfaction.  I stand ready to exert all my energies and my entire fortune to serve your lofty princely Serenity whenever in future it shall please you to command me.  An especially powerful incentive to this end would be given me if your lofty princely Serenity were to distinguish me with an appointment as one of your Highness’ Court Factors.  I am making bold to beg for this with the more confidence in the assurance that by so doing I am not giving any trouble; while for my part such a distinction would lift up my commercial standing and be of help to me in so many other ways that I feel certain thereby to make my way and fortune here in the city of Frankfurt.”

Frederic Morton continues:

“And sure enough, on day, on September 21, 1769, passers-by in the poor end of Jew Street had something new to look at.  A stooped young man with a black beard was nailing a sign onto the Saucepan house.  It bore the arms of Hesse-Hanau, and underneath proclaimed in gilt characters (author’s font choice):

M.A. Rothschild,
by Appointment
Court Factor to His Serene Highness,
Prince William of Hanau

“Now, a factorship (a business agent relationship or business agency) was a commonplace honor.  The appointment only confirmed publicly that the appointee had done business with the court.  It carried no obligations on the part of the prince, gave no magic fillip (no stimulus or boost) to Mayer’s career.  Yet it created a certain excitement in the neighborhood.  The Saucepan landlord was impressed and agreed to sell a quarter-share of the house to the three (Rothschild brothers)—something Mayer long wanted.  (On the courting front) Gutele Schnapper’s father, hitherto reluctant, let her become the new dignitary’s wife.  The (arrangement with the Prince) also exempted its owner from a few of the disadvantages from which Jews suffered; a kind of passport, it made traveling a little easier.”

“But Mayer Rothschild, through a kind of relentless determination, did find a way through this thick, racist oppression.  One wonders whether he came back to Frankfurt because of its proximity to Hanau, a royal seat of power.  No one seems to know.  In any case, he began to concentrate on the one thing that would give him access to Prince William, namely, developing an expertise in trading (buying and selling) rare coins, then, later, offering a place to exchange various coin money of the German principalities that was in circulation.  Then, he achieved a formal, publicly recognized working relationship with a head of state, Prince William.  And, in his dealings with Prince William’s Court, Mayer learned the protocol (the official procedure or system of rules governing affairs of state of diplomatic occasions) of the Court and especially how to flatter bureaucrats and the aristocracy they serve in a unique manner that disarmed their racist mind-set.”

Frederic Morton continued:

“No trumpets announced the Rothschild accession to world power.  At the end of the 1780s, Mayer Rothschild meant little or nothing to Prince William in his high castle at Wilhelmshohe.  Mayer’s name remained entirely inconspicuous in the Frankfurt ghetto itself.  The premise of the family’s conquest lay in the very unobtrusiveness of their crouch and the silence of their leap.  Their aim was so high; compared with it, their position so low; their first foothold so precarious, their resources so feeble; any alerted rival could have destroyed them with a single stroke.  Yet the three (crucially important) devices by which Mayer’s house was to overwhelm a continent were already doing their work in miniature:

• The Rothschild clientele consisted, to a calculated degree, not of other bourgeoisie (the middle class of the merchant/business kind), but of some of the noblest personages in Germany—and never mind if their high positions exacted low profits.

• Rothschild courted the Landgrave (another title of Prince William) with low prices (thus faithfully imitating William’s own tactics with the imperial palace in Vienna).  This earned Mayer the increasingly crucial cooperation of Buderus (Carl Buderus) who, as the prince’s financial lieutenant, exerted influence over the greatest money hoard in Europe.

• Mayer had sons.  This was, and is, the simplest, most important power instrument of all:  to have sons.  In essence the dream poem in Mayer’s soul was dynastic.  All the connection-making, the storytelling and charming, the bit-by-bit selling he did at local courts was dynastic investment.  Had he not been a father, it would have been vain gesticulation; he would have died unknown, a species of feckless Semitic troubadour.  All his travail turned out to be the perfect seed for his children to grow and pluck; and all their tireless harvesting toil would be but new sowing for their children and their children’s children.”

About the sons, Morton wrote:

“First came Amschel, future treasurer of the German Confederation.  Then Salomon, who in the end achieved exactly the exalted station in imperial Vienna that remained Landgrave William’s perpetual daydream.  Then Nathan, who rose to more power than any other man in England.  Then Kalmann, who would the Italian peninsula around his hand.  Then Jacob, who was to lord it in France during Republic and Empire.  In the beginning, of course, those five, together with their five sisters, were just an eager litter of ghetto apprentices, taking the load off Mayer’s stooped shoulders.  They ran errands, manned counters, added figures.  Success itched in their bones.  Yet their gentler father was needed to release it.  A precedent established itself to pattern the future:  in the House of Rothschild, brilliance may be individual but accomplishment is joint.  Brothers and cousins complement each other, and so do generations.  The harsh, tremendous new energies in the House of the Green Shield might have foundered if not for Mayer Amschel.  He softened them.  He supplied graciousness, the one thing the brothers would always lack.  He put forward a pleasant face at a time when the skill of pleasing was still more useful than the ability to negotiate.  In other self-made success stories the more polished sons build from the spadework done by the father.  Here the father put the subtle touches on the sledgehammer schemes of his boys.”

“When Mayer finished training his five sons in how to navigate effectively at this highest level of royal government and the highest level of the aristocracy, the Rothschild family’s power could not be surpassed anywhere in the world.  All that was missing was the opportunity to build the first level of Rothschild wealth from which to make Rothschild loans to the various, cash-deprived royal governments that could not tax their subjects any further and had already exhausted most all sources from whom they could borrow money.”

Morton wrote:

“Soon the Green Shield team fanned out in all directions.  In every stagecoach a young, round-faced Rothschild sat, portfolio wedged under one arm, eyes avid but impenetrable.  And Mayer himself followed, soothing where there had been too much sharpness, conciliating and smiling as consummately as his sons had argued and promoted……Napoleon was inventing imperial France, Corsican thunder rolled down the shores of Europe.  But in Frankfurt another brand-new power reached beyond national borders.  It marched on tip-toe, and not with hobnailed boots.  Mayer Rothschild executed in total secrecy his first important loan operation involving a foreign state.  Someone once said that the wealth of Rothschild consists of the bankruptcy of nations.  There is more to it than that, of course.  But certainly the family’s initial international coup took place in 1804, when the entire treasury of Denmark consisted of a deficit.  Mayer, kept (informed) by his silent agent, Buderus, knew the fact well.  He knew furthermore that Landgrace William suffered from an almost unbearable surplus (huge profits), much coming from renting his Hessian army units as mercenaries.”

“Mayer Rothschild had already solidified his relationship with Buderus, the Prince’s senior financial advisor, by offering Buderus a silent partnership to participate in Rothschild profits in transactions with the Prince’s court.  This form of bribery led to the kind of inside information that shaped what happen next.”

Morton wrote:

“Highness (the Prince), therefore, was beyond doubt willing to help out Denmark—particularly since a kingdom makes pretty good collateral.  Only, the Danish monarch was Highness’ uncle.  It’s always bad business to show poor relations how rich you are:  loans within the family can easily degenerate into gifts.  The one thing to do was to make the loan incognito.  Not through Bethmann Brothers, of course, or through Rueppell & Harnier, or any of the other big banks identified with his Highness.  Why not use an obscure but efficient outfit; an outfit which would turn the trick for a smaller commission, yet with guaranteed anonymity; an outfit—well, let’s see now…..an outfit, say, like Rothschild’s?”

“Mayer just dropped his intricately wrought hint to Buderus.  Buderus redropped it into Highness’ ear.  Highness smiled.  From Frankfurt to Copenhagen the stagecoaches began to swarm with Mayer’s boys.  Bethmann Brothers and Rueppell & Harnier, the big Frankfurt bankers, did not notice anything at first.  After a while, though, they could not help wondering…..Furthermore, quite some time had passed since the Landgrave had last asked them to arrange foreign loans.  Inquiries directed to his Highness’ treasurer, the Honorable Herr Buderus, receive polite impassive answers.  Questions put to Copenhagen met with a most curious statement:  all Danish loans, replied the finance minister, had been handled by people acting for some nameless but terribly nice millionaire.”

What people?, exclaimed Bethmann Brothers.

“….schild something.  These people moved so fast it was hard to catch their names.”

“….schild?  Rothschild?  Rothschild!”  Bethmann Brothers were in an uproar of investigation.  And the cat was out of the bag.  Those ghetto hawkers!  Daring to undercut the most powerful and long-established bankers in Germany!  Furious appeals went out from Bethmann and Rueppell & Harnier to the Danish government, to the Landgrave, even to Buderus…..broadside after broadside crashed against the Jew Street schemers, who were still, after all, chained in at night (remember the gates at each end of Judengasse were locked nightly by the Frankfurt police under the restrictions).  In the end, the shouting did no more than make the shouters hoarse.  That family was simply too useful to his Highness.  Buderus said so, and the prince knew it for the truth.  Their energy, their funny accents, their ubiquity had become indispensable.  The last quality was decisive.  They were everywhere.  One father and five sons had become a preternatural force that devoured distance, precedents, limits and frontiers.” (the very beginning of the later “debt-dependency” phenomenon for his Highness).

Prince William’s Kingdom Was the  Wealthiest in Europe Due To Deadly Ingenuity

Prince William’s father, Landgrave Ferderick II, hit upon a novel way to build a cash machine.  He rented his army out to any royal government that needed an additional contingent of trained troops.

Federic Morton continues:

“(Prince William) was the first great royal burgher (merchant).  Like his father, William trafficked in valor.  But the son squeezed out of this commodity a good deal more than had papa.  William conscripted (instituted a draft rather than just accept army volunteers) his male subjects and processed them for the auction block.  He refined and perfected his troops; he shined and sharpened them on the parade grounds; he made sure of the officers’ pigtails and the enlisted men’s muskets.  And when a batch was ripe and enticingly packaged, he sold the lot to England, which used ‘the Hessians’ to keep peace in the colonies.”

“William’s merchandising of the peacekeepers brought him enormous wealth.  Every time a Hessian was killed, the prince received extra compensation to soothe him for the victim’s trouble.  The casualties mounted, and therefore his cash.  This he loaned out, with shrewd lack of prejudice, to just the right people—candlestick makers with impeccable credit ratings or kings who paid interest in the form of favors.  Between the influx of royal dispensations and bourgeois thalers, he became the richest ruler in Europe.  Quite probably he amassed the greatest personal fortune between the Fuggers and—the Rothschilds.”

The Fugger family, consisting of international mercantile bankers and venture capitalists, replaced the famed Medici family who influenced all of Europe during the Renaissance (14th to the 17th century.

Mayer Rothschild Is Entrusted With More of the Prince’s Wealth and “Court Lenders” Did the Rothschilds Become

After rigorous financial training and apprenticeship, and using Frankfurt as the base, the Rothschild family opened branches in Naples, Vienna, Paris and London.  The Rothschild organization adhered initially to the traditional royal and aristocratic model of maintaining tight control through arranged marriages, including between first or second cousins, and later, through marrying into the aristocracy or financial dynasties.

G. Edward Griffin picks up the Rothschild family narrative:

“Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, the brothers conducted important transactions on behalf of governments of England, France, Prussia, Austria, Belgium, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Brazil, various German states, and other small countries.  They were the personal bankers of many of the crowned heads of Europe.  They made large investments, through agents, in markets as distant as the United States, India, Cuba, Australia, and South Africa.”

Derek Wilson, in his Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty (1988), wrote:

“Those who lampooned or vilified the Rothschilds for their sinister influence had a considerable amount of justification for their anger and anxiety.  The banking community had always constituted a fifth estate whose members were able, by their control of royal purse strings, to affect important events.  But the House of Rothschild was immensely more powerful than any financial empire that had ever preceded it.  It commanded vast wealth.  It was international.  It was independent.  Royal governments were nervous of it because they could not control it.  Popular movements hated it because it was not answerable to the people.  Constitutionalists resented it because its influence was exercised behind the scenes—secretly.”

G. Edward Griffin wrote:

“Secrecy, of course, is essential for the success of a cabal, and the Rothschilds perfected the art.  By remaining behind the scenes, they were able to avoid the brunt of public anger which was directed, instead, at the political figures which they largely controlled.  This is a technique which has been practiced by financial manipulators ever since, and it is fully utilized by those who operate the Federal Reserve System today.”

Derek Wilson wrote:

“Clandestinity (tight security) was and remained a feature of Rothschild political activity.  Seldom were they to be seen engaging in open public debate on important issues.  Never did they seek government office.  Even when, in later years, some of them entered parliament, they did not feature prominently in the assembly chambers of London, Paris or Berlin.  Yet all the while they were helping shape the major events of the day: by granting or withholding funds; by providing statesmen with an official diplomatic service; by influencing appointments to high office; and by an almost daily intercourse with the great decision makers.”

Extraordinary Profit-Taking From Large-Scale Smuggling Operations

A great deal of the Rothschild wealth had been accumulated before its expansion to England.  The intricate family connections through Europe had accumulated to such an extent that they were unparalleled by other such networks, either by governments or by financial combinations. The network grew up around the long-established and extensive smuggling operations of the Rothschilds that were the result of privileges granted by many governments that received Rothschild’s extraordinary banking services revolving around trading in gold and silver in bulk, lending in large scale mining and railroad ventures, and government bonds.  Rothschild couriers, shippers and agents moved black market items such as cotton goods, yarn, tobacco, coffee, sugar and indigo that provided profits far in excess of the interest earned by Rothschild government lending operations.

When Nathan Mayer Rothschild opened N.M. Rothschild & Sons in London in 1811, the 1803-1815 Napoleonic Wars between England (and its allies) and France was reaching its climax.  He picked the optimal time to offer his firm’s unique banking and smuggling services to the British government.

G. Edward Griffin continues:

“One of the most fascinating and revealing episodes to be recorded by Rothschild biographers concerns the smuggling of a large shipment of gold to finance (England’s) Duke of Wellington who was attempting to feed and equip an army in Portugal and in the Pyrenees mountains between Spain and France.  It was not at all certain that Wellington would be able to defeat Napoleon in the coming battle, and the Duke was hard pressed to convince bankers and merchants in Portugal and Spain to accept his written promises-to-pay (the Bank of England’s unbacked paper money), even though they were officially guaranteed by the British government.  These notes (the unbacked paper money) were deeply discounted (the bankers and merchants in Portugal and Spain would not accept the face value of the unbacked paper money that was written on the paper, but, instead, discounted the paper money at a much lesser value in purchase transactions and Wellington was desperate for gold coin which the bankers and merchants would accept at the face value inscribed on the coins).”

According to Frederic Morton, Nathan Rothschild was quoted as saying at a dinner party several years after the successful gold delivery to the Duke of Wellington:

“The East India Company had 800,000 Pounds worth of gold to sell.  I went to the sale and bought it all.  I knew the Duke of Wellington must have it.  The government sent for me and said they must have the gold.  I sold the gold to them, but they didn’t know how to get it to the Duke in Portugal.  I undertook all that and sent it through France (using Rothschild’s established smuggling network) .  It was the best business I have ever done.”

That Rothschild transaction was highly profitable, as Nathan Rothschild mentioned, but the next Rothschild transaction, which is still, today, murky in its detail, lay outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past could convincingly point to its possibility, and second, it carried an extreme impact.  Because the event has been interpreted in different ways by historians and other sources, we will let you decide which explanation, if any, makes the most sense to you:

Frederic Morton wrote:

“To the Rothschilds, (England’s) chief financial agents, Waterloo (the June 18, 1815 final battle of the Napoleanic Wars, commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte for the French, and commanded by the Duke of Wellington for the English) brought a many million Pound scoop.  (Upon hearing of the Duke’s victory over Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces) a Rothschild agent jumped into a boat (to cross the English Channel to England to give Nathan Rothschild the news).  On June 20, 1815, Nathan made his way to London, beating Wellington’s envoy by many hours) to tell the (British) government that Napoleon had been crushed; but his news was not believed because the government had just heard of the (British) defeat at Quatre Bras (a smaller battle on the 16th of June, 1815).  Then he proceeded to the Stock Exchange.  Another man in his position would have sunk his work into (buying English government bonds, already depressed by the bad news about the defeat at Quatre Bras, knowing the bonds would jump in value once the victory at Waterloo was announced).  But this was not Nathan Rothschild.  He leaned against his pillar (where the Rothschild firm positioned itself in the Stock Exchange).  He did not invest.  He sold.  He dumped (English government bonds) and (their) value dropped more.  “Rothschild knows,” the whisper rippled through the Exchange.  “Waterloo is lost.”  Nathan kept on selling….the (government bonds) plummeted—until, a split second before it was too late, Nathan suddenly bought a giant parcel for a song.  Moments afterward the great news broke, to send (government bonds) soaring.  We cannot guess the number of hopes and savings wiped out by this engineered panic.”

Commentary:  From this point forward, watch for the “engineered financial panic” to become a standard part of the Rothschild playbook, particularly in America, where they engineered the financial panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1882-85, 1893 and 1907, leading to America’s Great Depression.

Victor Rothschild’s The Shadow of a Great Man (1984) and Niall Ferguson’s The World’s Banker: The History of the House of Rothschild (1998) had this interpretation (first, Victor Rothschild):

“This legend originated in an anti-Semitic French pamphlet in 1846, was embellished by John Reeves in 1887 in The Rothschilds: The Financial Rulers of Nations and then repeated in other later popular accounts, such as that of Morton.  Many of the alleged facts stated are incorrect.  For example, it has been shown that the size of the market in government bonds at the time would not have enabled a scenario producing a profit of anything near 1 million Pounds.  Historian Niall Ferguson states that the Rothschild’s couriers did get to London first and alerted the (Rothschild) family to Napoleon’s defeat; however, since the family had been banking on a protracted military campaign, the losses arising from the disruption to their business more than offset any short-term gains in bonds after Waterloo.  Rothschild capital did soar, but over a much longer period:  Nathan’s breakthrough had been prior to Waterloo, when he negotiated a deal to supply cash (gold coin) to Wellington’s army.  The family made huge profits over a number of years from this governmental financing by adapting a high-risk strategy involving exchange-rate transactions, bond-price speculations, and commissions.”

Then, Niall Ferguson:

“The basis for the Rothschild’s most famously profitable move was made after the news of British victory had been made public.  Nathan Rothschild calculated that the future reduction in government borrowing brought about by the peace would create a bounce in British government bonds after a two-year stabilization, which would finalise the post-war restructuring of the domestic economy.  In what had been described as one of the most audacious moves in financial history, Nathan immediately bought up the government bond market, for what at the time seemed an excessively high price, before waiting two years, then selling the bonds on the crest of a short bounce in the market in 1817 or a 40% gain.  Given the sheer power of leverage the Rothschild family had at its disposal, this profit was an enormous sum.”

Griffin’s account closely follows Morton’s with two additional comments:

“Nathan Rothschild’s engineered panic resulted in (acquiring) the dominant holding of England’s entire debt at but a tiny fraction of its worth.”

“The New York Times, in its April 1, 1915 edition, reported that Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild had attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book written by Ignatious Balla titled The Romance of the Rothschilds on the grounds that the Waterloo story about his grandfather was untrue and libelous.  The court ruled that the story was true, dismissed the suit, and ordered Rothschild to pay all court costs.”

In trying to trace that article, we came up with this, which we believe Griffin was speaking of.  Note that the date is different (by three years), and the judge didn’t rule that the story was true, instead, he summarily dismissed the application for an injunction:

The New York Times, November 27, 1912 edition has an article that reads:

ROTHSCHILDS SUE TO SUPPRESS BOOK

Seek Injunction in England to Prevent Publication of a Romance of Their Family.

WATERLOO TALE IS REVIVED
____________________________

Story of How Nathan Used Advanced
News of Result Declared Libelous,
but Judge Refused Injunction.

___________________________

Special Cable to The New York Times.

LONDON, Nov 27.—Literary London is keenly interested in the efforts which are being made by the London house of Rothschilds to stop the publication of a book dealing with the history of the famous financial family.  The volume is entitled The Romance of the Rothschilds, and the publisher is Everleign Nash, who, it is understood, told his friends that he was determined to go on with the book despite the objections of the Rothschilds.  Arrangements have also been made by Nash for simultaneous publication of the romance in America by the Putnams.  The Rothschilds applied to Justice Bailhache, England’s newest member of the bench, in chambers, for an injunction against Nash.  As reports of such proceedings in camera are prohibited, no mention of the case has been made in any English papers for fear of incurring prosecutions for contempt of court.

Judge Bailhache’s hearing on the application for an injunction occupied twenty minutes, it is stated.  The counsel for the Rothschilds argued that the book contained libelous matter and instanced a story which he alleged it contained of how Nathan Rothschild, founder of the London branch of the firm, made a large amount of money after the Battle of Waterloo.  Nathan was in Paris when he received private word that Napoleon had been defeated on the Belgian battlefield.  He posted to London in hot haste and arrived at the Stock Exchange next morning, worn, weary and travel stained.

The London Stock Exchange was at the time alive with reports that Wellington had been worsted and stocks were tumbling.  Rothschild, who could have stopped the slump with a single word announcing Napoleon’s defeat, said nothing.  His woebegone appearance, due really to the fatigue of his hurried journey, was attributable to his depression over the financial losses he was supposed to have incurred, and some of his friends openly expressed their sympathy with him.

According to the story told in The Romance of the Rothchilds, Nathan not only allowed them to remain under that false impression, but encouraged it.  Meanwhile, his agents were quietly buying up all the (government bonds) they could obtain in preparation for the rise which followed the receipt of news that it was Wellington, not Napoleon, who had gained the day on the field of Waterloo.

As the counsel for the Rothschilds cited this story as ground for injunction, Justice Bailhache interposed the remark, It’s a long time since Waterloo.   Other arguments advanced by the Rothchilds counsel were equally without effect on the Judge, who summarily dismissed the application for an injunction.  Notice of appeal  was given by the Rothschild lawyers, and it is expected that unless the Rothchilds prefer to avoid the publicity of a trial in open court the matter will soon be heard from again.

Mr. Nash, when seen this afternoon, refused to speak of the matter as being a case which was in a sense sub judice (under judicial consideration and prohibited from public discussion).  In another form the story of Nathan Rothschild’s Waterloo coup appears in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The sensitiveness of the Rothschild family was recently shown by their action toward the play, The Five Frankfurters, on its production in Germany and later on its being brought out here.  The objections to its production here are reported to have taken the form of representations to the Lord Chamberlain’s office.  The censor, however, saw no reason for not licensing the play.  This was given at the Lyric Theatre with such great success on the opening night that the subsequent short run of the piece was a cause of much astonished comment.  Among the theories suggested to explain the mystery was that the withdrawal of the piece in apparently the full tide of success was not unconnected with financial inducements, which the house of Rothschild was well qualified to make.

The Culture of International Banking Reflected By Rothschild Folklore

Of the six biographies of the Rothschilds that we reviewed—by John Coleman, Count Corti, Niall Ferguson, Herbert Kaplan, Frederic Morton, and Derek Wilson, we found Frederic Morton’s 1961 work to be extraordinary.  He is not an historian, but rather a novelist who approached his task as if drawing a family portrait.  He wrote:

“My basic calling is that of a novelist; instinctively I dig for character, even in nonfiction.  There was much to dig for while interviewing and researching for this book.  Now and then I was lucky to strike a mother lode.  Perhaps that is one reason why this Rothschild biography, preceded by scores of others on the subject, was the first to become an international bestseller.  It led the list in the United States as well as in Britain, and did almost as well in South America and Israel…..Then in 1970, rehearsals began for the Broadway musical The Rothschilds….(followed by a 1990 revival).  In the new version, Off-Broadway  these Rothschild (characters) are much more mine than their (earlier) Broadway incarnation.  Yes, they overcome kings through their mastery of the market.  But it is through strength of principle that they keep their soul.  Off-Broadway the emphasis is on their truer triumph:  they show how a father, a mother and their children can, by their joint resolve, defeat the prejudice that confines them to a mean margin; and how their victory first redeems them, then works for the reclamation of others.  The family as instrument of cohesion.  The family as wellspring of power.  The family as organ of conscience.  Animating this trinity is a spirit that fascinated me throughout the writing of The Rothschilds.  Perhaps I longed for just such a spirit in the terrifying ghetto the Gestapo once made out of a grand staircase.  At any rate it is a spirit I hope to share with the readers of this new edition.”

Frederic Morton provides more Rothschild folklore: the Rothschild sons lack of “breeding” in the eyes of their aristocratic clientele:

“What (the father) could not bequeath to his sons was his personality.  They had no pliant dignity, no easy graciousness, no savoir-vivre (good manners) with which to beguile a prince or flirt in a salon.  Their fortune was the product of elemental vigor and precision-timed craft.  These had served them well during the urgencies of war.  But now older values resumed their accustomed place.  One didn’t smuggle at the Congress of Vienna.  One danced.  The Rothschild boys were not dancers; they would not do as bankers…..In France the situation seemed even worse….The old patrician bankers were back, calling the tune from their drawing rooms…..The new French government prepared a great loan of 350 million francs and entrusted it to Ouvrard, a distinguished French financial name, and to Baring Brothers, fashionable English bankers…..The loan, (without) Rothschild, became a great success.  In 1818 negotiations began for an additional issue of some 270 million francs.  Again Ouvrard and Baring were front runners; the Rothschilds, futile haunters of the finance ministry.  This loan, though, was to liquidate the French war indemnity.  Its ultimate disposition would take place at a conference with the victorious powers at Aix-la-Chapelle.  In terms of family history, the forgotten congress at Aix is a much more important landmark than the still notorious scoop of Waterloo.  Aix marked the first social confrontation between the great world and the newly great Rothschilds.”

“It began as a round of banquets and soirees a la Congress of Vienna, with the Rothschilds fascinated and frozen out like children before a Christmas window.  It climaxed with a furious thunderclap.  And when the roar subsided, the children were in possession of the store.  Nobody foresaw this development during the first week, possibly not even Salomon and Kalmann, who attended as family representatives…..the most expensive tailors had fitted them vests and cravats of the finest material.  Their coaches glittered.  They horses shone.  What if their grammar was a little primitive?  Yet it was all no use.  Whenever the brothers wanted to see Prince Metternich, he was just being feted by the Duke de Richelieu.  Lord and Lady Castlereagh could not be found, since they kept driving about with Prince Hardenberg.  The Rothschilds were left out of all these cordialities.  Baring and Ouvrard, their rivals, seemed included everywhere.  Only secretaries were available, and the secretaries smiled coolly:  Yes, negotiations with Baring and Ouvrard were proceeding toward a conclusion.  Why change partners in mid-waltz?  Hadn’t Baring and Ouvrard succeeded with the 1817 loan?  Weren’t the bonds of the 1817 loan rising on the Paris bourse that very moment?”

“The Rothschilds decided to try once more.  They completed their purchase (bribery) of Friedrich von Gentz, a brilliant publicist, friend to Metternich, and man-about-congress.  They took a big option (payoff) on David Parish, a stylish young banker sporting good connections with Baring.  They bought every buyable social grace in sight…..Everything was in order.  Nothing worked.  In the salons, one was amused by the puzzlement in Kalmann’s face, by the Levantine frowns of Salomon.  Unnoted in the general merriment went another circumstance:  the couriers who entered and left the brothers’ residence with growing frequency.”

Becoming Part of the Rothschild Playbook:  Another “Engineered Financial Panic”

Frederic Morton continued:

“Through October, 1818, Aix bowed, gamboled, promenaded and ignored those Rothschild clods.  On November 5th something strange happened.  The French government bonds, the famous loan of 1817, began to fall after a year’s steady rise.  Day after day they dropped more steeply.  And not only that—other securities wavered.  Tempests came down out of a blue sky.  A crash loomed, not just in Paris, but in bourses (stock markets) all over Europe.  The music stopped at Aix.  The noble gentlemen stood about dazed in the suddenly suspended splendor.  After all, one had made one’s little investments.  It was the princes who frowned now while, curiously, Kalmann and Salomon smiled.  A rumor shivered through the drawing rooms.  Could those Rothschilds have…….”

“Those Rothschilds had.  With their boundless reserves they had bought the rival issued bonds for weeks and weeks, bulling (buying in expectation of selling higher) the paper while secretly cornering it.  And then, in one relentless swoop, the boys had dumped the whole appalling load.  Across the entire Continent the underpinnings of finance groaned.  The great world knew now what it meant to cut a Rothschild.”

“(Prince) Metternich, the Duke de Richelieu, Prince Hardenberg did what must be done.  A stern interview ensued between them and Ouvrard and Baring, in whose (as yet unborn) new loan they had already reserved parcels on their own account.  One talked; one parted; the loan-to-be dissolved into nothing.  Then Salomon and Kalmann were bowed into the presence, and lo! their clothes were now the very eye of fashion, their money the darling of the best borrowers.”

“And as the music began again, and two princesses obediently took the arms of two stout, round-faced men, everyone knew that it had happened at last.  Europe had become richer by a great name.  The boys had become The Rothschilds.”

The boys had become The Rothschilds, and 1818 may very well have been the last time the Rothschild family could have been reined in.  That thunderclap demonstration by the Kalmann and Salomon should have been seen for what it was:  the use of a weapon that only they possessed, due to their unimaginable wealth.  At that moment, they were the tiny viral nucleus of today’s concealed power and, when they came out from behind their concealment to show their unrivaled power, they should have been investigated, and safeguards and severe penalties installed in all bourses to abolish those Rothschild practices, which were the source of their power.  But instead the European royalty was cowed.  It lost its moment and, thereby hastened its demise as the dominant power to a court lender.

There is a saying that the human mind has the capacity to process up to five or six concepts simultaneously.  But to process more concepts all at once, the human mind can only continue to function if the concepts are embedded in a story or parable.  This story by Frederic Morton (the novelist) about how things actually work in the world is just such an example.  Morton could simply have provided a list of lessons learned, but he wrapped all of them up in a compelling narrative that will be remembered and, hopefully, internalized (become a part of one’s permanent learning and kept as a tool for future applications).  An interesting sidenote: Frederic Morton, as a Austrian Jew by birth, knew the brutal and deeply disturbing anti-semitism of Austria and Germany and how incredibly hard it would have been for Mayer Rothschild to succeed in that grossly uneven social and economic environment.  Morton stated in his introduction:

“The Rothschilds entered my life long before I sat down to write their story.  At the age of fourteen I was introduced to this glistening subject under the most glowering circumstances.  The time:  July 1939.  The place: the Jewish Affairs Office of the Gestapo (the infamous secret police of Nazi Germany) in Vienna (see map above).  With the Anschluss (the takeover of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938) the (Jewish Affairs) Office had taken over the great palace of Baron Louis de Rothschild on the Prinz Euger Strasse (street named after Prince Eugene of Savoy [1663-1736], one of the most successful military commanders in European history); and that’s where we stood in line—my father, my mother, my younger brother and I, applying for the passports we needed to be saved.  All day we inched and trembled our way up a grand staircase white as ermine.  SS men (a special Nazi security force that supported the Gestapo and that manned the concentration camps) shouted ‘Stand straight’ the moment any of us leaned on the exquisitely carved balustrade (the railing of the stairs).  They acted like guards in a museum whose splendor awed and enraged them at the same time.  In my own mind, horror could not keep out wonder: could human beings ever have lived amid such fairytale marble?”

“In the spring of 1960, I was ushered into the sternly paneled executive suite of Baron Guy de Rothschild, in the Paris headquarters of Rothschild Freres (Freres is “brothers” in French) at 21 rue Laffitte.  The Baron, head of the French (Rothschild) bank, seemed a bit aloof, distracted by a busy schedule.  Yet he was observant enough to detect what I was trying to disguise: my nervousness.  He asked for its reason.  I said that this was my second visit in a Rothschild house and that my agitation might relate, in part, to memories of the first.  Well, asked monsieur le baron, ‘what about that first time?’  I told him about the endless hours spent on his cousin’s staircase in Vienna.  Instantly the Baron warmed: ‘You stood in line all day?  As a child?  Didn’t you get hungry?’  I confessed that hunger had not been the predominant emotion.  Just the same, the Baron said it would seem that our family owes you some nourishment.  He picked up the telephone and arranged lunch for my wife and me at the great family estate of Ferrieres.  The meal led to other introductions within the clan.”

The Rothschild Family Perfected A Role That Transcended Banking

The confusion among the general public about the financing of governments lies again in the sometimes intentional misuse of language.  For example, the Rothschild family carried out a transition that is not well understood.  Their patriarch began in buying and selling rare coins and then a service to facilitate the exchange of various coin money of the German principalities that was in circulation.  Then, came the breakthrough:   finding avenues for Prince William of Hanau to invest his vast wealth.  The fees earned from this investment advice was the springboard that enabled the Rothschilds to begin lending their profits to different monarchies throughout Europe.  In this transition, the Rothschilds held no depositor funds, nor did they participate in commercial lending, nor provide other traditional banking services.  Instead, they were Court Lenders.  And then, in their famous service to the British monarchy before the Battle of Waterloo, they wrapped three services into one:  (i) they bought an enormous quantity of gold, (ii) they lent it to the British monarchy, and (iii) they smuggled the gold to Lord Wellington on the Continent, thereby transcending the banking role.  And in so doing, they increasingly became financial partners of monarchies, and, ultimately, concealed rulers of monarchies and other forms of governments of nation-states, especially in the financing of wars prosecuted by all forms of governments.

The historian Richard Lewinshon, in his The Profits of War Through the Ages (1937) wrote:

“Although often called bankers, those who financed wars in the pre-capitalist period were not bankers in the modern sense of the word.  Unlike modern bankers, who operate with money deposited with them by their clients, they generally worked with the fortune which they themselves had amassed or inherited, and which they lent at a high rate of interest.  Thus those who risked the financing of a war were for the most part already very rich, and this was the case down to the seventeenth century.”

“When they agreed to finance a war, these rich lenders did not, however, always attach great importance to the rate of interest.  In this respect they often showed the greatest compliance to their august clients.  But in return they secured for themselves privileges which could be turned into industrial and commercial profit, such as mining concessions, monopolies of sale or importation, etc.  Sometimes they were given the right to appropriate certain taxes as a guarantee of their loans.  So though the loan itself carried a very real risk and often did not bring in much interest, the indirect profits were very considerable, and the lenders leniency well rewarded.”

Benjamin Disraeli, the Prime Minister of England, adds to this operational profile in his book of fiction Coningsby (1844).  The character—Sidonia—was a thinly veiled likeness to Lionel de Rothschild.  Disraeli wrote:

“Europe did require money, and Sidonia (the fictional lender to governments) was ready to lend it to Europe.  France wanted some; Austria more; Prussia a little; Russia a few millions.  Sidonia could furnish them all…..It is not difficult to conceive that, after having pursued the career we have intimated for about ten years, Sidonia had become one of the most considerable personages in Europe.  He had established a brother, or a near relative, in whom he could confide, in most of the principal capitals.  He was lord and master of the money market of the world, and of course virtually lord and master of everything else.  He literally held the revenues of Southern Italy in pawn; and monarchs and ministers of all countries courted his advice and were guided by his suggestions.  He was a man without affections.  It would be harsh to say he had no heart, for he was susceptible of deep emotions, but not for individuals.   The individual never touched him.  Woman was to him a toy, man a machine.”

G. Edward Griffin helps shape this operational profile:

“One of the great puzzles of history is why governments always go into debt and seldom attempt to put themselves on a ‘pay-as-you-go’  basis.  A partial answer is that kings and politicians lack the courage to tax their subjects the enormous sums that would be required under such an arrangement.  There is also the deeper question of why the expenditures are so high in the first place.”

“Given the mentality of the world’s financial lords and masters, as Disraeli described them, it is conceivable that a coldly calculated strategy has been developed over the years to insure this result.  In fact, the historical evidence strongly suggests that just such a plan was developed in eighteenth-century Europe and perfected in twentieth-century America.  For the purposes of hypothetical analysis, let us identify this strategy.”

“Let us imagine a man who is totally pragmatic. He is smarter and more cunning than most men and, in fact, holds them in thinly disguised contempt.  He may respect the talents of a few, but has little concern over the condition of mankind. He has observed that kings and politicians are always fighting over something or other and has concluded that wars are inevitable. He also has learned that wars can be profitable, not only by lending or creating the money to finance them, but from government favoritism in the granting of commercial subsidies or monopolies. He is not capable of such a primitive feeling as patriotism, so he is free to participate in the funding of any side in any conflict, limited only by factors of self-interest. If such a man were to survey the world around him, it is not difficult to imagine that he would come to the following conclusions which would become the prime directives of his career:

1. War is the ultimate discipline to any government. If it can successfully meet the challenge of war, it will survive. If it cannot, it will perish. All else is secondary. The sanctity of its laws, the prosperity of its citizens, and the solvency of its treasury will be quickly sacrificed by any government in its primal act of self-survival.

2. All that is necessary, therefore, to ensure that the government will maintain or expand its debt is to involve it in war or the threat of war. The greater the threat and the more destructive the war, the greater the need for debt.

3. To involve a country in war or the threat of war, it will be necessary for it to have enemies with credible military might. If such enemies already exist, all the better. If they exist but lacked military strength, it will be necessary to revive them with the money to build their war machine. If an enemy does not exist at all, then it will be necessary to create one by financing the rise of a hostile regime (or a menace such as terrorism).

4. The ultimate obstacle is a government which declines to finance its wars through debt. Although this seldom happens, when it does, it will be necessary to encourage internal political opposition, insurrection, or revolution to replace that government with one that is more compliant to (the will of this tiny group).  The assassination of heads of state could play an important role in this process.

5. No nation can be allowed to remain militarily stronger than its adversaries, for that would lead to peace and a reduction of debt. To accomplish this balance of power, it may be necessary to finance both sides of the conflict. Unless one of the combatants is hostile to our interests and, therefore, must be destroyed, neither side should be allowed a decisive victory or defeat. While we must always proclaim the virtues of peace, the unspoken objective is perpetual war.”

“Whether anyone actually put this strategy into words or passed along from generation to generation is not important. In fact, it is doubtful it has ever worked that way. Whether it is the product of conscious planning or merely the consequence of man responding to the profit opportunities inherent in fiat money (paper money unbacked by gold or silver), the world’s financial lords have acted as though they were following such a plan and this has become especially apparent since the creation of the “central bank” phenomenon three centuries ago.”

The Beginning of Where We Are Today:  The Concealed Clique Insinuates Itself as a Lender to American States and American Industries

In The History of Foreign Investment in the United States to 1914 (1989), Mira Wilkins wrote:

“While the US federal government was satisfying its creditors and paying off its obligations, state governments raised their borrowings. It is not known exactly when foreign holdings in state securities exceeded those in federal government bonds probably in the early 1830s. By 1838 state debts outstanding came to $172 million, a larger debt than the federal government had ever owed. As we will see, the foreign investment complement of that debt came to at least $65 million ($1.3 billion in 2011 dollars) a larger foreign obligation than had ever been assumed by the federal government.  States fronted for private banks and canal and railroad companies, substituting the stronger credit of a sovereign (state) entity for the inability to provide sufficient creditworthiness on their own.”

“In 1803 (the British bank), Barings Brothers & Company, had been appointed general agents for the U.S. federal government; over the years the firm enlarged its participation in American business. As noted, the Barings owned securities of the First Bank of the United States. From 1810, (the bank) Prime, Ward & Sands and its successors were the principal Baring correspondents in New York. During the war of 1812, Baring Brothers & Company continued to help maintain the credit of the United States, but the house refused to sell new federal issues in London. After the war, the Barings became associated with the new Second Bank of the United States, a connection that would, over time, become intimate.  Alexander Baring’s brother-in-law, Pierre Labouchere, headed the Amsterdam (bank) of Hope & Company from 1802-1811. Recall that Barings and Hope & Company had in 1803 cooperated in arranging the marketing of $15 million of U.S. federal government securities to pay for the Louisiana Purchase ($219 million in 2011 dollars).  Other transactions included selling bonds of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Louisiana, as well as municipal securities of New York City, Boston and Mobile, Alabama.”

“Meanwhile, by the mid-1820s, Alexander Baring was forced to share with Nathan Rothschild his reputation as the leading spokesman among financiers for conservative investment and marketing policies. The London Rothschild house had been established by Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836); the firm was called N.M. Rothschild until the founder’s death, and thereafter N.M. Rothschild & Sons. The Paris Rothschild house was led by Nathan Rothschild’s brother James de Rothschild (1792-1868). In 1821 the Rothschilds’ first American agents, Robert and Isaac Phillips in Philadelphia, had been appointed. A dozen years later (in 1833), Robert Phillips introduced the New York firm of J.L. & S. Joseph & Company to the Rothschilds.”

“In 1834 Nathan Rothschild began to buy and to sell American state government securities. That year, the firm R. & I. Phillips, acting for both the British and French Rothschilds, arranged for N.M. Rothschild, London, to become the financial agent for the U.S. federal government (as of January 1, 1835), replacing Baring Brothers. By the fall of 1835, the Rothschild London house had become actively involved in marketing American state government securities.”

“Then, in the panic of 1837, both of its former U.S. agents, failed. Indeed, a young man sent by the Rothschilds, August Belmont, arrived in New York in the midst of the Panic. His first letter to the London Rothschilds told of the bankruptcies of the former agents serving the Rothschilds.  Belmont asked the London and also the Paris Rothschilds for instructions and for full authority, which he received, and he became and remained until his death (in 1890), when his son took over the Rothschild representative in New York. His most recent biographer says his initial salary was $10,000 a year ($190,000 in 2011 dollars).”

“Not all the financial intermediaries for American state securities abroad were European. The Second Bank of United States, the Morris Canal and Banking Company, and George Peabody (an American in London) were among the American concerns and individuals in the 1830s moving state bonds outside the country. It should be noted, however, that there were large European investments in the first two of these firms, and that Peabody although an American had become resident in London. Representative James Garland told Congress in 1838 that of all the state securities outstanding, at least $65 million were held abroad, principally in England. This would represent about 38% of state securities outstanding.”

“As the (Second) Bank of the United States—and its London agent—became overextended, European bankers required collateral in the bank’s own securities and more often in state securities. The London Rothschilds London and Hope & Company, Amsterdam, came to the bank’s rescue after it suspended specie payments in October 1839. In return, the bank pledged with these houses $12.2 million in Pennsylvania and Mississippi state securities.  As states reneged on their obligations, rumors (in America) spread of war with Great Britain unless the federal government funded the debts of the individual states. Congress did nothing, nor did Downing Street, which informed British investors that their loans were their own responsibility.”

In such disrepute was American credit by 1841-42 that even the Barings House turned down issues of the federal government. So did the Rothschilds.  Baron James de Rothschild told an American contact in January 1842:

“You may tell your government that you have seen the man who is at the head of the finances of Europe, and that he has told you that they (the U.S. Treasury) cannot borrow a dollar, not a dollar.”

The Rothschilds had been involved in the futile effort to bail out the First Bank of the United States and, in exchange, had taken as collateral state securities (that lost most of their value).  No distinction was made in England (or on the Continent) between different types of American securities; the United States was branded as a nation of swindlers.  Americans abroad faced mortification and disgrace because of their countrymen’s behavior.  Thus in the 1840s, the flow of foreign capital money to the United States virtually evaporated.

Certain of the Concealed Clique’s Schemes Begin Surfacing as Financial Panics

But, we’re getting ahead of ourselves.  To understand how patient and relentless the concealed power is in its quest to regain control of America’s financial system, we have to watch carefully for when their concealed schemes break the surface and can be analyzed.  These machinations cause great disturbances on the water’s surface when  investors, just like schools of fish, practically jump out of the water and out of their skins  as they try to escape something that cannot be seen below the surface, like a great shark about to devour them.  And that’s when we can get at least a partial look at the great shark.  These great disturbances on the water’s surface are called “Financial Panics.”

The Financial Panic of 1792

You will recall that it was Alexander Hamilton’s ambition to have the First Bank of the United States, which he succeeded in forming on February 25th, 1791, to closely resemble William Paterson’s fraudulent Bank of England in its structure and its workings. Hamilton got his wish, in spite of the unceasing opposition of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to Hamilton’s Federalist agenda.  Jefferson wrote:

“Although all the nations of Europe have tried and trodden every path of force and folly in a fruitless quest of the same object, yet we still expect to find in juggling tricks and banking dreams, that money can be made out of nothing, and in sufficient quantity to meet the expense of heavy war.”

“The crisis, then of the abuses of banking is arrived.  The banks have pronounced their own sentence of death.  Between two and three hundred millions of dollars of their promissory notes are in the hands of people, for solid produce and property sold, and they (the banks) formally declare that they will not pay them….Paper was received on a belief that it was cash (gold), and such scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity itself to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice and of swindlers.  It is a wise rule never to borrow a dollar without laying a tax at the same instant for paying the interest annually and the principal within a given term…..We shall consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves…..the earth belongs to the living, not the dead….We may consider each generation as a distinct nation with a right to…..bind themselves, but not the succeeding generation……The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.”

It took no time at all for Jefferson’s insight to be validated.  The First Bank of the United States was formed on February 25th, 1791.  On July 4th, 1791, it made ownership of the Bank available to investors, which gave rise to six weeks of heated financial speculation at a level and with an intensity unfamiliar to the stock exchanges (New York and Philadelphia) where the offering took place.  Both exchanges experienced a collapse in market activity on or about August 15th, 1791, and Hamilton used funds of the First Bank of the United States to help the Bank of New York and its counterpart in Philadelphia restore orderly market conditions (the earliest bailout)  It was a mess and Hamilton’s actions telegraphed the message that the First Bank of the United States saw itself in the role of a lender of last resort, a perilous message that gave the impression on Wall Street, very early in its history, that it could count on the First Bank of the United States for support if it got in trouble.  In other words, Hamilton’s actions helped significantly to make the culture of Wall Street much less responsible for its actions and its mistakes.

The First Bank of the United States commenced its operations on December 12th, 1791. According to Stanford University economic historian, David J. Cowen, “By the end of its first two weeks of business, the Bank had loaned into the private sector nearly $1 million ($13 million in 2011 dollars).  In his The First Bank of the United States (1910), John Holdsworth stated that the Bank also loaned $2 million to the cash-poor U.S. government.  The consequence of Hamilton’s actions were summarized by Cowen, saying,

“…when the First Bank of the United States open it doors for the first time in December 1791, it flooded the economy with credit.”

He noted that securities speculators in particular were ‘quite pleased at the prospect of easy money.’  And elsewhere he mentioned that,

“the (Bank) had somewhat recklessly over-expanded its credit creation when it first opened.”

In other words, the concealed power that controlled Hamilton and the First Bank of the United States, took no time to begin its fraudulent maneuvers of maximize its profits, carry out a concealed scheme to cause a financial panic to the advantage of the concealed power, and to violate its charter to stabilize the American economy.  The great shark was in the depths, undetected, and moving ominously toward its prey.

Consequently, three months after opening, in March of 1792, the New York Stock Exchange experienced the cost of “irrational exuberance” as stock market prices shot up to new heights in anticipation of the new easy credit posture of the Bank.  And, to make matters worse, there was the simultaneous presence of two manipulators working in concert to try to corner the market in U.S. government bonds as well as the stocks of the First Bank of the United States and Hamilton’s earlier Bank of New York; just the kind of behavior that threatens the fragile trust of all securities markets.

This time the predators were William Duer and Alexander Macomb, who drove the prices of all three securities through the roof, only to see the prices begin a rapid decline before they had accumulated a sufficient number of shares to gain the control they sought.  Instead, they, unwittingly, precipitated a bank run, and securities all across the board  plummeted 25% over a two-week period.  Having already set the stage for this crisis by flooding the economy a huge influx of new lending, Hamilton made matters far worse.  According to David Cowen, new research has made it clear that Hamilton attempted to use the First Bank of the United States’ supervisory role to make the nation’s commercial banks gradually restrict credit.  The brakes were put on too fast, which put the finishing touches on the first Wall Street crash.  Then, in perfect harmony with today’s “central” bank practices, Hamilton, instead of allowing the securities market to sort out its own problems with irrational exuberance and manipulators, came in again with Bank funding to rescue Wall Street, and confirm that its culture of irresponsibility could continue.  But the story of the Panic of 1792 only gets worse from here (and from the beginning, it appears that the concealed power was orchestrating the Panics).

The Financial Panic of 1797

The enormous credit expansion launched by Hamilton’s First Bank of the United States, had far-reaching consequences.  First, it led almost immediately to inflation, which served to decrease the purchasing power of all Americans.  Second, it fostered a sense of irresponsibility among investors in all sectors of the economy, causing, among other things, a real estate bubble to grow out of control and too many investment dollars in manufacturing, far in excess of demand.  The inflation caused American export prices to spike, which, in turn, reversed America’s import/export balance and put pressure on its gold reserves, so vital to maintaining the nation’s balance of payments with its trading partners (if our exports drop below our imports level, American gold has to be shipped to those countries that have not received sufficient American goods to balance the goods the countries have sent to America).  Then, another unhappy factor came into play: reacting to rapid inflation and stock market speculation, Hamilton increased the bank’s interest rates, which diminished demand for loans, which, in turn decreased business activity, which, in turn, further diminished American exports, which, in turn,  caused an accelerated loss of American gold reserves, which, in turn, will further restricted bank lending.

In other words, when Hamilton flooded the economy with easy money, he unleashed another flood—-a flood of unintended consequences.  Curtis Nettels, in his The Emergence of a National Economy (1962), wrote that the First Bank of the United States operations alone pumped as much as $20 million in brand-new money into the economy on top of an existing money supply of $11.5 million prior to the Bank’s existence.  Who was Hamilton working for?  The First Bank of the United States was doing exactly the opposite of its mission statement, which the public had relied on.  What is that called?  That is called fraudulent practices.

It appears that Hamilton’s intent was to maintain a strong government bond market characterized by rising bond prices and low interest rates (which reduce the government’s interest charges on the bond debt).  His intent also appears to have been to stimulate the stock market with easy money to make more investment capital available for American industry and agriculture.  I imagine that like today, Hamilton also wanted to keep the wealthy investors in America and abroad happy with a rising American securities market.

But there was also a concealed intent.  Hamilton insisted that the First Bank of the United States be solely responsible for issuing paper money, not the U.S. government.  He was protecting the mother lode of “central” bank profitability, namely, the ability of the Bank to have the monopoly to print the paper money and, through a grand deception, treat that printed money as if were an interest-bearing loan from the bank to the government.  It is accomplished by having the Bank purchase government bonds with the new money it prints.  By doing so, the Bank holds the government bonds, which pay interest to the Bank, and the principal is referred to as national debt to be paid back to the Bank sometime in the future.

The Panic of 1797, which started with the stock market crash in 1792 was America’s first economic recession.  It was further exacerbated by the ongoing wars between Britain and France, which interrupted trade between America and the French, due to a British blockade of French ports of entry.  And, in February 1797, the Bank of England ran low in gold reserves due to high war costs and suspended redemption of its banknotes in gold.  This inability to provide the expected amount of gold in its trading arrangements constituted a restriction in credit, making it harder for American merchants involved in trans-Atlantic trade to finance their voyages, impairing the market for American exports and likewise American’s ability to import European goods.

More about how gold fits in the picture: when the value a country’s imports exceed its exports, it moves some of its gold to the country it owes.  But if a country’s gold supply gets below a certain point, it will no longer allow its gold to be redeemed (exchanged) for paper money, when so requested by its citizens.    And also, when a country’s gold supply drops too far, lenders get nervous, loans are harder to arrange, and the country’s debt-financed economy starts to falter.

The American Public’s Reaction To the First Bank of the United States’ Track Record?

In a nutshell, when it came time to decide whether to extend or terminate the Bank charter for another 20 years, Congress, in a very close vote, terminated the charter as of January 24th, 1811.  The Bank got good marks for its supervisory role in controlling commercial banks across the nation, but it could not shake its image of being an instrument serving the American Eastern Establishment bankers and industrialists and the shrouded foreign interests that owned the Bank.  It is worth repeating that three authors make mention of foreign ownership of the First Bank of the United States:

Derek Wilson, in his Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty (1988), wrote:

“Over the years since N.M. (Rothschild), the Manchester textile manufacturer, had bought cotton from the Southern states, the Rothschilds had developed heavy American commitments.  Nathan had made loans to various states of the Union, had been, for a time, the official European banker for the U.S. government and was a pledged supporter of the (First) Bank of the United States.”

Gustavus Myers, in his History of the Great American Fortunes (1936), wrote:

“Under the surface, the Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws.  The law records show that they were the power in the old (First) Bank of the United States.”

G. Edward Griffin wrote:

“The Rothschilds, therefore, were not merely investors nor just an important power.  They were the power behind the (First) Bank of the United States!”

“As it was, the Bank was the means by which the American people lost forty-two per cent (42%) of the value of all the money they earned or possessed during just  five-year period.  We must not forget either, that this confiscation of property was selective.  It did not work against the wealthy classes which were able to ride the wave of inflation aboard the raft of tangible property which they owned.  And it especially did not work against those elite few, the political and monetary ‘experts’ (the undisclosed owners of the Bank), who were making huge profits from the enterprise (meaning their invention they referred to as a ‘central’ bank).  The Bank had done precisely what Hamilton had advocated: ‘…unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with those of the government.’”

Griffin stated that the development of this plutocracy was well described by Gouverneur Morris (Senator of New York), one who worked among the banking elite, and who warned:

“The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest.  They always did.  They always will…That will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by such a government, keep them within their spheres. We should remember that the people never act from reason alone.  The rich will take advantage of their passions, and make these the instruments for oppressing them.  The result of the contest will be a violent aristocracy, or a more violent despotism.”

Griffin also stated that an interest group comprising of “wildcat” banks (banks in the western region of the nation running with no supervision), land speculators, and empire-building entrepreneurs, joined the fight to end the charter of the First Bank of the United States due to its supervisory efforts to moderate their activities.

You know by now that the concealed power, along with certain betraying American Eastern Establishment families, operate in accordance with a playbook that evolved from even before the British Empire experience; a set of available options to overcome obstacles in its path, including deep bribery, coercion, violence and assassination.  There was no way that the concealed power was going to accept the non-renewal of the First Bank of the United States charter.  In trying to predict the reaction of the great shark, we must follow history to February 1817, when the concealed power was successful in receiving a new charter from the U.S. Congress for the Second Bank of the United States.

The tells from January 1811 to February 1817 were all we have to try to determine the maneuvers of the great shark that were done in the depths, below the surface of the water.

Tell #1:  The War of 1812 broke out between Britain and the United States on June 8, 1812 that ultimately run up America’s national debt to an unsustainable level.

Tell #2:  Congress encouraged a large expansion of state banks and printing of large amounts of new unbacked paper money to purchase state government war bonds to cover the costs of the war.  Griffin wrote:  The state banks had created enough instant money for the federal government to raise the (national) debt from $45 million to $127 million, a staggering sum for the fledging nation.

Tell #3:  Given the twenty-year exposure to the concealed power’s influence during the life of the First Bank of the United States, the states banking system was thoroughly corrupted.  Accordingly the banks of the day were already known for their fraudulent practices and there was already a sense that bank insolvencies would, in all probability, be covered by bailouts by the federal government.

The Financial Panic of 1819

With its supervisory pressure removed, state banks created large quantities of unbacked paper money—printed out of thin air—that stimulated financial speculation, rising real estate prices, and easy money available to borrow.  It also stimulated inflation because more money entered the banking system with no commensurate increase in goods and services.  In other words, the money supply increased, but America’s economic productivity did not rise with it.  However, the agricultural sector benefited somewhat from the price inflation because crop prices rose, enabling farmers to pay down more of their land mortgages and their debt on equipment and supplies.

On the international front, in 1811, Britain was locked in a series of military conflicts referred to as the Napoleonic Wars, which lasted from 1803 to 1815.  U.S. tensions were high with Britain over U.S. trade with France being blockaded by the British Navy, U.S. ships being boarded and searched for British deserters as a perceived pretext for apprehending American sailors and shifting them to serve on British ships, which were undermanned.  In addition, American expansion in the northwest of the country was being impaired by British support of Indian tribes that resisted that expansion.  In 1812, America declared war on Britain and engaged in sea and land battles with the British that ended with the Treaty of Ghent in December 24th, 1814.

That conflict played a part in the Panic of 1819, because the cost of war destabilized American finances.  Its gold reserves were depleted.  Gold had to be borrowed from foreign investors, and the U.S. government had to rely on the state banks for additional loans, which added a huge new infusion of paper money that propelled inflation even higher. Furthermore, the unsupervised state bank system was expanding exponentially and was increasingly marked by fraudulent activity.

Unfortunately, with the end of the war on December 24th, 1814, these circumstances played into the hands of the foreign and domestic supporters of the former First Bank of the United States, who began a new campaign to regain a charter for the Bank.

G. Edward Griffin wrote:

“By 1814, Thomas Jefferson had retired to Monticello and had bitterly resigned himself to defeat on the issue of money.  In a letter to John Adams he said:

‘I have ever been the enemy of banks; not of those discounting for cash (that is, charging interest on loans of real money, i.e. money backed by gold or silver), but of those foisting their own (unbacked) paper (money) into circulation, and thus banishing our cash (gold).  My zeal against those institutions was so warm and open at the establishment of the bank of the U.S. that I was derided as a Maniac by the tribe of bank-mongers, who were seeking to filch from the public their swindling and barren gains….Shall we build an altar to the old paper money of the revolution, which ruined individuals but saved the republic, and burn all the bank charters present and future, and their notes with them?  For these are to ruin both republic and individuals.  This cannot be done.  The Mania is too strong.  It has seized by its delusions and corruptions all the members of our governments, general, special, and individual.’  Our research indicates that the Mania was induced by heavy bribery and coercion by the concealed power that thoroughly corrupted American lawmakers at all levels of American government.’

Griffin continued:

“Jefferson was right.  Congress had neither the wisdom nor the courage to let the free market clean up the mess that remained after the demise of the First Bank of the United States.   If it had, the fraud soon would have become understood by the public, the dishonest banks would have folded, the losses would have been taken, and the suffering would have been ended, perhaps forever.  Instead, Congress moved to protect the banks, to organize the fraud, and to perpetuate the losses.  All of this was accomplished in 1816 when a twenty-year charter was given to the Second Bank of the United States.”

Does this sound familiar?  Instead of $700 billion from TARP and $16.3 trillion from the Federal Reserve over the period from late 2008 to now, just to extend life support to the insolvent global banking system, which is still insolvent, what if we had let them all fail, take their losses, and replace them with new banking organizations that would operate on the “up and up?”  And, doesn’t this also make a strong case for flushing Congress of its long history of bribery and coercion?

Support for the chartering of the Second Bank of the United States also came from President James Madison (the fourth President of the United States), who, along with Thomas Jefferson, fought hard in 1790 to block the formation of First Bank of the United States.  What had changed from 1790 to 1816 that would explain now-President Madison’s support for the Second Bank of the United States?  It was simply that in the period of the War of 1812 with the British (1812-1814), it was very difficult to borrow sufficient war funds just using the state banking system and modest foreign borrowings.  President Madison realized that the defense of the country was impaired by the absence of a more powerful borrowing capacity positioned at the federal level of the government.  Of course, Madison was also mindful of the tremendous pressure coming from Congress, caused by heavy bribery from the pro-“central” bank supporters, including the previous stockowners of the First Bank of the United States, behind whom, the concealed power lurked.

But, let’s get back to the Panic of 1819.  What can you imagine happen next, once the Second Bank of the United States received its charter in 1816?

Griffin continued:

“In every respect the new bank was a carbon copy of the old, with one minor exception.  Congress unashamedly extracted from the private investors (including the original foreign investors of the First Bank of the United States) what amounted to nothing less than a bribe in the form of $1.5 million ($19 million in 2011 dollars) ‘in consideration of the exclusive privileges and benefits conferred by the Act.’  The (private investors of the Second Bank of the United States) were glad to pay the fee, ….because it was a modest price for such a profitable enterprise.”

“(An) important continuity between the old and the new Bank was the concentration of foreign investment (in its private ownership group).  In fact, the largest single block of stock in the new Bank, about one-third in all, was held by this group.  It is certainly no exaggeration to say that the Second Bank of the United States was rooted as deeply in Britain as it was in America.”

Until 1818, the Second Bank of the United States played along with and magnified the easy money trends, making profitable loans and participating in what were later determined to be fraudulent transactions. And the bubble economy swelled.  Furthermore, in late 1818, $4 million of interest payments were due to a group of foreign investors assembled by two collaborating international banking firms, Britain-based Baring Brothers & Co. and Amsterdam-based Hope & Co.  The interest payments pertained to the April 30th, 1803 Louisiana Purchase during the Jefferson Administration, which encompassed all or part of present-day Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado.  The loan arranged by the Barings and Hope banking firms was for $15 million ($216 million in 2011 dollars).  Payment of the $4 million in interest on the loan was to be in gold or silver, not Second Bank of the United States paper money.  Having insufficient gold or silver in its possession, the Second Bank called in many of its loans to the state banks and require such repayment in gold or silver, causing one of its several huge credit contractions, which, in this case, not only ruined a significant number of state banks, but also transferred most of America’s gold and silver to foreign investors.  The state banks affected by these several Second Bank credit contractions, in turn, had to call in the loans of its borrowers, which included Andrew Jackson, who was to acquire a hostile attitude to the entire banking system, but particularly an hostility to the Second Bank for having precipitated the credit crisis.

Murray Rothbard, in his The Mystery of Banking (1983), wrote:

“Starting in July 1818, the government and the BUS (Second Bank of the United States) began to see what dire straits they were in; the enormous inflation of money and credit, aggravated by the massive fraud, had put the BUS in danger of going under and illegally failing to maintain specie (gold) payments.  Over the next year, the BUS began a series of enormous contractions, forced curtailment of loans, contractions of credit in the south and west….The contraction of money and credit swiftly brought to the United States its first widespread economic and financial depression.  The first nationwide ‘boom-bust’ cycle had arrived in the United States……The result of this contraction was a rash of defaults, bankruptcies of business and manufacturers, and a liquidation of unsound investments during the boom.”

In sharp contrast to its actions, the Second Bank charter, like its predecessor, enumerated its purposes as follows:

• To establish financial order, clarity and precedence in and of the newly formed United States.

• To establish credit—both in country and overseas—for the new nation.

• To resolve the issue of the fiat (paper) currency.

Are you beginning to sense what is actually going to happen behind the wall of false reality currently being maintained by the American media and American education?

Are you beginning to recognize a standard pattern of behavior of the concealed power that burrowed into the ownership of the Second Bank of the United States and that applies to our situation today?  The concealed power has a time-tested repertoire: like the great shark in the depths, it orchestrates an increase the money supply (by print more unbacked paper money), and arranges easy credit terms, and then fraudulently puts the word out through its propaganda branches that such actions will stimulate economic growth.  Meanwhile the actual result is the creation of extraordinary profits as stock and bond prices soared and the bubble swells.  Then, the time comes to trigger higher interest rates and a contraction in lending, which pulls the rug out from under overexposed and vulnerable industries and the over-extended farmers—–all in preparation for the great shark to swoop up from the depths to eat its prey, i.e. to buy the most attractive debris for pennies on the dollar, eliminating more domestic businesses to the advantage of its transnational corporations, and getting ready to trigger the next highly profitable boom before crashing it again.  That is the real definition of the financial panics experienced by America since its inception.  There is always a great shark at work in the depths.

That repertoire is repeated over and over: everyone else gets hurt in the financial panic and the subsequent economic collapse, except the concealed power, that only makes extraordinary profits in its cyclical pillages.  And, in the process, income and wealth continues to shift from the victims to the pillagers, building extreme income inequality as an integral and permanent condition of our society.

In the aftermath of the depression caused by the Panic of 1819, the American public developed strong ill-will toward the Second Bank of the United States and the many state banks that engaged in fraudulent activities and continued on to wipe out their depositors.  But, even more problematic, the perception of Americans through the South turned hostile to the northern bankers (the Eastern Establishment at work) who they believed were trying to destroy their livelihoods and culture.  And, they had a point because at every turn, the federal government, seemingly under banker control, maintained financial policies that were clearly against the vital interests of the South’s agricultural economy, and entirely beneficial to the industrial North.  Therein lay the seeds of the Civil War.  U.S. tariffs blocked lower-priced European manufactured imports from reaching the South.  Their debt-financed agricultural base could not survive sudden and deep credit contractions.  Their economy could not function without its existing slave labor arrangement.  And, there was always a suspicion that the northern bankers were intentionally provoking problems in the South, rather than trying to find compromises in the spirit of American unity.  Persistent rumors also suggested that the international bankers were intent on creating the conditions that would split America into two separate nations that the bankers would be more able to penetrate with their “central” banking scheme.

The Concealed Power Is Confronted by President Andrew Jackson

The Second Bank of the United States had eight years remaining on its 20 year charter when President Andrew Jackson (the seventh President of the United States) came to office on March 4, 1829.  Jackson, raised in the Carolinas, and the military hero who defeated the British Army at New Orleans in the War of 1812, appealed to the American public based on his tough and aggressive spirit as well as his opposition to the (Eastern Establishment), typified by the northern bankers.  He fully reflected the revulsion much of the American public felt about the banking system and the depression of 1819-1823, which many believed was caused by the violent credit contractions and fraudulent machinations of the Second Bank of the United States.  Accordingly, President Jackson made it clear to the American public that his intention was to eliminate the Second Bank in 1836, when its charter was to come up for Congressional renewal.  This set of circumstances led to a strong reaction from the head of the Second Bank, Nicholas Biddle.

Biddle was a different cut of cloth from President Jackson.  He came from a wealthy Philadelphia merchant family, graduated from Princeton early, served as a secretary to the U.S. minister to France, worked on the details of the Louisiana Purchase, and, later, became secretary to the U.S. ambassador to Britain, James Monroe.  And, as early as 1811, as a member of the Pennsylvania legislature, he advocated for the renewal of the First Bank of the United States charter.  Apparently, Biddle’s experiences created a sense of self-importance because as the head of the Second Bank during the early Jackson Administration, he irritated the President by his repeated refusal to effectively investigate charges of political interference by some Second Bank branches during the 1928 elections.

G. Edward Griffin wrote:

“Biddle had one powerful advantage over his adversary.  For all practical purposes, Congress was in his pocket.  Or, more accurately, the product of his generosity was in the pocket of Congressmen.  Following the Rothschild Formula, Biddle had been careful to reward compliant politicians with success in the business world.  Few of them were willing to bite the hand that fed them.”

Kenneth Galbraith wrote:

“Biddle was not without resources.  In keeping with his belief that banking was the ultimate source of power, he had regularly advanced funds to members of Congress when delay on appropriations bills had held up their pay.  (Senator) Daniel Webster was, at various times, a director of the Bank and on retainer as its (legal) counsel. Webster wrote,

‘I believe my retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual.  If it be wished that my relation to the Bank should be continued, it may be well to send me the usual retainers.’

Numerous other men of distinction had been accommodated, including members of the press.

Our research indicates that Nicholas Biddle was groomed by the Rothschild family to head the Second Bank of the United States.  He certainly acted like he was a minion of the concealed power, as you will see, next.

Griffin continued:

“The year was 1832.  The Bank’s charter was good for another four years.  But Biddle decided not to wait that long for Jackson to build his forces.  He knew that the President was up for reelection (in November of 1832), he reasoned that, as a candidate, (Jackson) would hesitate to be too controversial.  To criticize the Bank is one thing, but to come down squarely for its elimination altogether would surely cost him many votes.  So, Biddle requested Congress to grant an early renewal of the charter as a means of softening Jackson’s campaign against it.  The bill was backed by the Republicans led by Senator Henry Clay (and Senator Daniel Webster) and was passed into law on July 3rd, 1832, just before the election campaigns began in earnest.”

Our research indicates that Senators Henry Clay and Daniel Webster were on Nicholas Biddle’s payroll.  The fact that the concealed power could gain control of Congress at the very top and as far back as 1832 and before, punctures the false reality that surrounds all Americans in a meaningful way.

Jackson immediately vetoed the bill and explained to Congress and the American public the reasons for his decision.  The Second Bank of the United States had the following flaws, he wrote:

• It concentrated the nation’s financial strength in a single institution.

• It exposed the government to control by foreign interests.

• It served mainly to make the rich richer.

• It exercised too much control over members of Congress.

• It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

• Banks are controlled by a few select families.

• Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations, forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them.  And they improve the fortunes of an ‘elite circle’ of commercial and industrial (interests) at the expense of farmers and laborers.

Appropriately, President Jackson drove home his concern about foreign ownership of a bank monopoly that controls America’s financial system, and the necessity of government to provide equal protection to rich and poor.  Herman Kooss, in his Documentary History of Banking Currency in the United States (1983), quotes President Jackson:

“Regarding the danger of our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?…(is there not) cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war?…Or the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt…Controlling our currency, receiving our public monies, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than a naval and military power of the enemy.”

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.  Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government.  Equality of talents, or education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions.  In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to the natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers—who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.  There are no necessary evils in government.  Its evils exist only in its abuses.  If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favor alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.  In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.”

Of Biddle’s machinations, fueled by over $3 million from banking and industrial lobbies ($65 million in 2011 dollars) G. Edward Griffin wrote:

“Congress, the banks, speculators, industrialists, and segments of the press; these were the forces commanded by Biddle.  But Jackson had a secret weapon which had never been used before in American politics.  That weapon was a direct appeal to the electorate.  He took his message on the campaign trail and delivered it in words well chosen to make a lasting impression on the voter.  He spoke out against a moneyed aristocracy which had invaded the halls of Congress, impaired the morals of the people, threatened their liberty, and subverted the electoral process.  The Bank, he said, was a hydra-headed monster eating the flesh of the common man.  He swore to do battle with the monster and slay it or be slain by it.  He bellowed his position to every crowd he could reach:  Bank and no Jackson, or no bank and Jackson!  On the subject of paper money, the President was equally emphatic.  His biographer describes the campaign:

‘On his homeward journey he reportedly paid all his expenses in gold.  No more paper money, you see, fellow citizens.  Gold, hardly the popular medium of exchange, was held up to the people as the safe and sound currency which Jackson and his administration hoped to restore to regular use.  Unlike paper money, gold represented real  value and true worth.  It was the coin of honest men.  Rag money, on the other hand, was the instrument of banks and swindlers to corrupt and cheat an innocent and virtuous public.’”

President Jackson received an overwhelmingly positive public response:  he received 80% of the electoral college vote in his second term, but the Second Bank had four more years before its charter ran out.  It was to be a tumultuous contest of wills between Jackson and Biddle.  In early 1833, knowing that the Second Bank made much of its profits on interest from funds it received and held for the federal government, Jackson ordered Secretary of the Treasury William Duane to begin moving federal funds out of the Second Bank and into various state banks across the country.  However, Secretary Duane refused to do so and promptly received a letter from President Jackson, which read:  Your further services as Secretary of the Treasury are no longer required.  And the transfer of federal funds began.

Are you surprised at how easily the concealed power is able to insert its minions in high places such as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury?  And that the concealed power has continued this practice all the way up to our current U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner?  How does the concealed power do it?  The answer is that time-honored offer that cannot be refused, namely pick a number that is beyond your imagination.  On January 15, 2011, a senior newsletter source, Bob Chapman, posted an unconfirmed report about hidden funds in the Vatican Bank, including $1 billion in the name of Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Whether or not this is a true fact, the number is an example of the incredible bribery amounts our research indicates that are paid to carry out its concealed schemes.

The Minion of the Concealed Power, Nicholas Biddle, Squares Off With President Jackson

The next maneuver by Nicholas Biddle was right out of the concealed power’s playbook and resonates with its current behavior that has precipitated our current social and economic crisis.  Ignoring the core principle of the Second Bank’s charter to “establish financial order and clarity……….,” Biddle engaged in a typical banking panic scheme marked by rapidly contracting the nation’s money supply and inflict financial hardship on the American public.  He reasoned that Jackson would be blamed and Congress would have sufficient cause to override his veto (given his deep bribery of Congress).

Robert Remini, in his Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Democracy 1833-1845 (1984) and The Life of Andrew Jackson (1988), wrote:

“Biddle counterattacked.  He initiated a general curtailment of loans throughout the entire banking system…It marked the beginning of a bone-crushing struggle between a powerful financier and a determined and equally powerful politician.  Biddle understood what he was about.  He knew that if he brought enough pressure and agony to the money market, only then could he force the President to restore the (federal) deposits.  He almost gloated.”

“Biddle wrote to an associate:

‘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……The ties of party allegiance can only be broken, he declared, by the actual conviction of existing distress in the community.  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 Bank of the United States shall not break.’”

For several months, the many bought and paid-for Biddle minions in Congress came forward one after the other to accuse Jackson of arrogant and harmful conduct: for dismissing the Secretary of the Treasury; for provoking the Second Bank by transferring federal funds to the state banking system; for collapsing the American economy, and; for defying the will of Congress.  And the American public watched Jackson stick to his guns.  At one point, facing a banking lobby delegation he boomed:

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

A corrupt Congress and a corrupt media—taking money from Biddle and his minions—led to a Senate vote to censure President Jackson, passing 26 to 20; the first censure of an President in America’s short history.  About Jackson’s affect on public opinion, Griffin wrote:

“During all this time, imperceptibly at first, but quickly growing, the public had been learning the truth.  Jackson, of course, was doing everything within his power to hasten the process, but other factors also were at work, not the least of which was Biddle himself.  So large was his ego that he could not keep from boasting in public about his plan to deliberately disrupt the economy.  People heard these boasts and they believed him.  The turning point came when Governor George Wolf of Pennsylvania, the Bank’s home state, came out publicly with a strong denunciation of both the Bank and Biddle.  This was like the starting bell at a horse race.  With the Bank’s home state turned against it, there was no one left to defend it and, literally within days, the mood of the country and of Congress changed……The Democrats wasted no time consolidating these unexpected gains….On April 4th, 1834, they called for a vote in the House on a series of resolutions which were aimed at nullifying the censure in the Senate……The first resolution, passed by a vote of 134 to 82, declared that the (Second) Bank of the United States ‘ought not to be rechartered……..The second (resolution), passed by a vote of 118 to 103, agreed that the (federal funds) ‘ought not to be restored (to the Second Bank)…..And the third (resolution), passed by an overwhelming vote of 175 to 42, called for the establishment of a special committee of Congress to investigate whether the Bank had deliberately instigated the current economic crisis…..It was an overwhelming victory for Jackson…..(leading to overturning) the previous (Senate) censure.”

Biddle, and the concealed power he served—in London and in America—were lacking a sense of when to make a strategic retreat and would not cooperate with the Congressional investigation.

Griffin wrote:

“When the investigating committee arrived at the Bank’s doors in Philadelphia armed with a subpoena to examine books, Biddle flatly refused.  Nor would he allow inspection of correspondence with Congressmen related to their personal loans and advances.  And he steadfastly refused to testify before the committee back in Washington.  For lesser mortals, such action would have resulted in citations of contempt of Congress and would have carried stiff fines or imprisonment.  But not for Nicholas Biddle.”

Robert Remini wrote:

“The committeemen demanded a citation for contempt, but many southern Democrats opposed this extreme action, and refused to cooperate.  As Biddle bemusedly observed, it would be ironic if he went to prison ‘by the votes of members of Congress because I would not give up to their enemies their confidential letters.’  Although Biddle escaped a contempt citation, his outrageous defiance of the House only condemned him still further in the eyes of the American public.”

Those House resolutions that reflected strong public opinion against Biddle and the Bank occurred on April 4th, 1834.

President Jackson Paid Off the America’s Entire National Debt

And Jackson had something big in mind, following the victory over the Second Bank.  Previous administrations had made it practice to take possession of a small portion of land in payment from each U.S. territory that was granted state status.  Jackson authorized the sale of that land and, on January 8th, 1835, with the land sale proceeds, he paid off the entire national debt.  When he came to office in March of 1829, the national debt was $58 million ($1.3 billion in 2011 dollars).  January 8th, 1835 was a memorable:  it was the first, and only, time that an American President paid off the entire national debt.  A surplus of $50 million from the land sales was authorized by Jackson to be divided among the states for public works projects.

The Concealed Clique Decides To Play the Assassination Card In Its Playbook

January 30th, 1835 was another date to remember: it was the first attempted assassination of an American President.  Griffin wrote:

“With these accomplishments close on the heels of his victory over the Bank, the President earned the undying hatred of (bankers), both in America and abroad.  It is not surprising, therefore, that on January 30th, 1835, an assassination attempt was made against him.  Miraculously, both pistols of the assailant misfired, and Jackson was spared by a quirk of fate……The would-be assassin was Richard Lawrence who either was truly insane or who pretended to be insane to escape harsh punishment.  At any rate, Lawrence was found not guilty due to insanity.  Later, he boasted to friends that he have been in touch with powerful people in Europe (he was born in England in 1801) who had promised to protect him from punishment should he be caught.”

Commentary: Here, on January 30th, 1835, was an historic moment for the American people—-a foreign power dares to arrange for the assassination of an American president.  Today, Americans have a long retrospective to examine.  There was no meaningful action against the perpetrators taken by President Jackson following this attempted assassination.  With no consequences to face, the concealed power went on to orchestrate a stream of attempted assassinations of American presidents, Senators,  Representatives of the House, and other national leaders.  From beginning to today the list is a disgrace:

1.  President Andrew Jackson, January 30, 1835   (unsuccessful assassination attempt)

2.  President James Garfield, September 19, 1881

3.  President William McKinley, September 14, 1901

4.  President Abraham Lincoln, April 15, 1865

5.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, February 15, 1933  (unsuccessful assassinatiion attempt)

6.  Congressman Louis Thomas McFadden, October 3, 1936

7.  President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, November 22, 1963

8.  Reverend Martin Luther King, April 4, 1968

9.  Senator Robert Francis Kennedy, June 6, 1968

10.  Ronald Wilson Reagan, March 30, 1981    (unsuccessful assassination attempt)

11.  Senator Paul David Wellstone, October 25, 2002

The long infiltration of our government and our other key institutions with minions of this clique of dynastic banking families has allowed this shameful condition to continue.  All the members and minions of the clique of families will be rounded up, tried, deported from their home countries, and incarcerated for life in a primitive location, abroad.  And all future, would-be parties that attempt to bring harm to American officials will meet the same fate.

President Jackson Ends America’s Debt Dependency, But the Concealed Clique Stayed Embedded By Massive Bribery, Blackmail, and Other Forms of Coercion

Although the Second Bank of the United States was already being brought to a standstill and the non-renewal of its charter a certainty, the real defeat of the concealed power’s banking scheme in America can be traced to January 30th, 1835, when President Jackson paid off the national debt.  It ended the debt dependency—the major debt owed to the concealed power-controlled Bank of the United States in their fraudulent exchange of unbacked printed money for government IOUs—that constituted the concealed power’s seemingly permanent stranglehold on the American people.

What were the similarities you can see between President Jackson’s ordeal and the dilemma America faces today?

First, Biddle’s supreme arrogance was a reflection of the same mind-set of the members of the concealed power.  He worked for their interests, not the interests of the United States or of the American people, and he did not carry out the Second Bank charter he swore to follow.   Now observe Ben Bernanke, his counterpart at the today’s Federal Reserve.  He has failed to following the charter of the Federal Reserve, he has paid immense sums of U.S. taxpayers’ money and credit to the global banking system and the transnational corporations, but nothing to America’s real economy.  That arrogance is even greater than Biddle’s.  And our research indicates that Bernanke is participating, like Biddle, in a controlled disintegration of the American economy.

Second, because of the members of Congress in Biddle’s employ, the investigation was blunted and he was not held to account for his illegal behavior.  Likewise, Bernanke acts as if he is immune from his actions due to the profound corruption of the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration, not to mention the profound betrayal of the American media and American education, intentionally maintaining the wall of false reality and trying to prevent the American people from understanding their predicament.

Third, just like the American public of President Jackson’s time, the American people of  the 21st century are imperceptibly at first, but quickly growing, the public had been learning the truth.

The Financial Panic of 1837

The economic, social and political dynamics of Jackson’s Presidency, coupled with ever-present machinations of the concealed power, were a potent brew.  Underlying it all, the country was experiencing an explosive population expansion westward, which triggered intense land speculation and an accompanying expansion of the state banking system to provide loans that fueled the speculation to even greater heights.  Price inflation of land and consumer goods accelerated.  Investor perceptions of the growth potential of the expanding area became increasingly unrealistic.  Larger and larger infrastructure projects—canals, roads, and railroads in their infancy—all attracted investor funding.  Inadvertently, President Jackson’s policies helped destabilized the national economy in four ways:  (i) by moving federal funds out of the Second Bank and into aggressive state banks across the country, Jackson enlarged the active money supply, (ii) by engaging in his massive land sales program to generate funds to pay off the national debt, he multiplied the frenzied land speculation and created new loan demand, (iii) by weakening the Second Bank, he weakened its supervisory role in moderating the aggressive lending policies of the state banks, and (iv) in one of his last official acts, he tried to reduce the pace of inflation and land speculation by requiring that all future land purchases be paid for in gold or silver.  President Jackson underestimated the investor reaction to the new land payment policy.  The was a mad rush by investors to exchange state bank paper money to gold and silver and many banks failed on the spot, contributing to a series of bank runs.

Then, predictably, the concealed power saw the opening.  Henry Clews, in his Fifty Years In Wall Street (2009), wrote:

“The Panic of 1837 was further aggravated by the action of the Bank of England  (controlled, of course, by the concealed clique) which, in one day, threw out all the paper connected with the United States.  The banks on this side (the U.S. banks) refused to discount paper (sell their paper money for a discount), and as a retaliatory measure in self-defense the business men and speculators withdrew their deposits from the banks.  This had a tendency to cripple business still more, and cause utter prostration (collapse).  In their selfish frenzy bankers and merchants completed the ruin of each other, hastening the catastrophe from their inability to take a broad, cool and generous view of the situation.”

“There was a general suspension of the New York banks on May 10th, 1837, and the banks throughout the country followed in their wake within a week afterwards, producing a financial convulsion unparalleled in the history of the Republic.  The country was brought to the verge of bankruptcy from the effects of which a long time was required for recovery.  After two years’ struggle to regain the credit and stability lost through false methods of financing, the banks suffered a relapse, and underwent a severe process of weeding out the weakest, nearly one-third of which happened to be of this description.  Out of 850 banks, 343 closed their doors permanently.”

The actions of the Bank of England that caused tremendous social and damage to the United States were perceive to be punishment for President Jackson’s successful effort to prevent the charter renewal of the Second Bank of the United States, of which the Bank of England had an ownership interest and unprecedented control of America’s financial system through its bribery and coercion of members  the U.S. Congress.

The Financial Panic of 1857

The dynamics of the Panic of 1857 were similiar to the Panic of 1837: an unrealistic surge in land speculation, adjoined with extension of easy money loans by the state banks, overextension of the new railroad companies, combined with the collapse of the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, caused by a crippling embezzlement scheme carried out by the manager of its New York Office.

The concealed clique played a key roll in a new boom by lending heavily, particularly in railroads and cotton production, which turned into a highly speculative economic upswing.  And they were there like vultures after the crash.  Stanley Jackson, in his J.P. Morgan (1983), wrote:

“The clouds lifted dramatically when the Bank of England announced a loan to (George Peabody & Company, a financial agent in New York for the N.M. Rothschild) of 800,000 Pounds, at very reasonable interest, with the promise of further funds up to a million Pounds if and when required.  It was a remarkable vote of confidence as Thomas Hankey (Governor of the Bank of England) had already rejected similar appeals from various American firms who did not measure up to his standards…. Peabody & Company recovered almost overnight and indeed hoisted its (turnaround) above pre-slump levels.”

Griffin continues:

“With an almost unlimited access to cash and credit backed by the Bank of England, Peabody and (J.P. Morgan) were able to wade hip deep through the depreciated stock and bonds that were sold to them at sacrifice prices on Wall Street.  Within only a few years, when sanity had been restored to American markets, the assets of the (merged Peabody/J.P. Morgan) firm had grown to gigantic proportions.”

Abraham Lincoln Confronts the Concealed Clique: 1860-1865

This is a classic example of the concealed power engaging in a massive scheme of long planning and grave consequences to America’s sovereignty as well as the concealed power’s exercise of assassination from its playbook.

The traditional explanations of the causes of the American Civil War have placed a deal of emphasis on the issue of slavery.  Less emphasized was the growing rift between the agricultural South and the industrial North of national economic and trade policies.  The concealed power, with J.P. Morgan leading, along with their industrial corporations, were in control of such policies, which led to the policy of preventing lower-priced manufactured goods from being imported to the U.S. from Britain and Europe through the imposition of high tariffs.  In an ironic way, this policy, as it affected the South, was similar to Britain, in the American colonial period, effectively blocking the importation of all manufactured goods to the colonies, except manufactured goods from Britain and its other possessions.  It created monopolistic conditions that led Americans in the South to believe that the Northern industrialists, with the Northern bankers behind them, were artificially raising prices of their manufactured goods, without fear of competition, to maximize their (profits), while harming the South’s economy by blocking access to considerably cheaper manufactured goods from overseas.  In other words, an antagonism over the belief by Americans in the South, that an economic war was being waged upon them that the South had no way, through democratic processes, to rectify.  Added to this mounting antagonism, the antislavery agitation in the North that threatened the South’s vital labor pool, made the future of the South’s economy looked hopeless.  Did the bankers and industrial magnates intentionally create this antagonism to split America apart and gain control over two weakened governments hostile to one another?

Who Was August Belmont?  the Concealed Clique Plants Its Agent To Head the Democratic Party

The conditions described above split the Democratic Party because southern Democrats became estranged from Democrats in the North.  In 1860, Democratic Party leadership asked an extraordinarily wealthy investment banker and major Democratic funder, August Belmont, to become Chairman of the National Democratic Committee, presiding over the selection of presidential candidates, a position he held for 12 years.  Born in 1813, near Frankfurt am Main, August Belmont’s first job, at the age of 15, was to be an apprentice to the Rothschild banking house, and was groomed to rise to a private secretary, learn English, arithmetic, and writing, and then be passed through the Rothschild’s operations in Naples, Paris and Rome.

In 1837, on a trip to check the Rothschilds’ investments in Cuba, Belmont passed through New York City during the height of the 1837 Panic and the Rothschilds appointed him as their official financial agent in New York City to replace the earlier agents whose businesses had collapsed.  From there, as the manager of the Rothschilds’ American investments, he built an enviable business for himself and became a very powerful figure in American politics, noted for the extraordinarily large scale of his financial generosity.  That largess included helping fund the purchase of the New York World newspaper, which became the reorganized Democratic Party media outlet.  He went on, in 1849, at the age of 36, to marry Caroline Slidell Perry, the niece of Oliver Hazard Perry, the War of 1812 naval hero whose fleet defeated the British on Lake Erie. He became an Episcopalian.  Belmont then connected to U.S. Senator John Slidell, Caroline Perry’s uncle, who immersed him in Democratic Party politics.  He pressed hard to have the United States annex Cuba and make it a state in the Union.

Can you believe that just as the concealed power is orchestrating the Panic of 1837, that it sent its own groomed and trained representative to America to spread vast sums of money around to profoundly deepen the corruption of American public officials, purchase and shape the New York Times to become a propaganda arm of the concealed power, and eventually become installed as the Chairman of America’s Democratic Party?  It is unbelievable to me that Mr. Belmont wasn’t stopped in his tracks, but it was a reflection of how the world actually works.

Belmont wrote a number of letters to President Lincoln, directly and indirectly, during the Civil War.  They reflect an effort by Belmont to speak for prestigious domestic and foreign figures who warned of discussions of armed foreign intervention that might occur if the Union blockage of Southern ports was not lifted and the cotton trade was not allowed to resume with Britain (May 9th, 1862)  (Of course, the concealed power had vast investments in the large southern plantations)  In another letter, he mentioned a consensus among his friends and contacts in favor of negotiations with the Confederacy to settle differences that would retain the Union.  He presented a long list of advantages to the Lincoln administration of taking this course of action (July 20, 1862).  President Lincoln courteously explained the reasons for not taking Belmont advice.

When President Lincoln relieved Major General George McClennan of his command over all Union forces for an inexplicable pattern of not effectively engaging with numerically inferior Confederate forces in every of the many battles from July 26th, 1861 to November 5th, 1861, particularly the inconclusive Battle of Antietam were Lincoln’s patience finally broke, Belmont wrote Lincoln, recommending that, based on the sentiment of many of his prestigious friends and contacts, General McClennan should be restored to his command.

Belmont’s letter stated:

“The people are ready to bring every sacrifice for the restoration of the Union, but right or wrong they have lost confidence in the head of the War Department (Edwin M. Stanton).  They have seen the fearful results of the intermeddling of civilians in military affairs and they want to see an experienced soldier at the helm.”  (September 4, 1862)

Our research leads us to believe that General McClennan, who strongly opposed the end of slavery and whose closest friends were from aristocratic southern families, was under the control of the concealed power.  His unwillingness to engage decisively and aggressively with the Confederate forces was not, in my opinion, due to a flaw in his leadership abilities, but rather the unmistakable sign of betrayal of his responsibilities as the head of the Union Army.  Equally suspicious was his orchestrated selection by August Belmont, after retiring, as the Democratic Party candidate for president in the 1864 elections.  Given the long planning process of the concealed power, I believe it is likely that General McClennan had been selected, groomed, and elevated to General-in-chief of the Union Army in preparation for being inserted as the Democratic candidate for the Presidency, through the corruption of America’s nomination and electoral processes.  Is it not astounding to consider the possibility that the concealed power was so deeply entrenched in its control of America in the 1860s that they reached for and controlled the head of the United States military?

President Lincoln remove General McClennan from his command on November 5th of 1862.

David Black, in his The King of Fifth Avenue: The Fortunes of August Belmont, wrote:

“Consequently, in 1862, Belmont began a campaign to recruit, nominate and elect George McClellan as the Democratic candidate for President in the 1864 elections.  Just before the……Presidential election, Mr. A. Belmont….made a public offer to bet $10,000 ($222,000 in 2011 dollars) that, if President Lincoln should be reelected, the war would outlast his second term.”

“Belmont’s public visibility was rising in a negative manner. He had postponed the Democratic convention until late August (1864) in order to take maximum advantage of whatever political situation the battlefield situation created.  He sought to unite the Democratic Party but ended up nominating a pro-war candidate (McClellan was not in favor of a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy) with an anti-war platform—-making the lives of Democrats very difficult. Belmont backed the Democratic campaign generously—–with donations and with his own wagers.  He was oblivious to the contradictions of his own political position—–hoping for a restoration of the South to (its earlier) status quo in a nation that had irreversibly changed.  But it was not just the Democratic peace plank and Democratic presidential candidate that came under attack.”

Quoting a particularly terse New York Times article, David M. Black wrote:

“Let us look at a few undeniable facts….The notorious undenied leader of the Democratic Party…..was the agent of the Rothschilds.  Yes, the great Democratic Party has fallen so low that it has to seek a leader in the agent of foreign bankers.”

In Diary of the Civil War–1860-1864, (1864), Allan Nevins wrote:

“On Election Day (1864) New York attorney George Templeton Strong stood for two hours in a line to vote:  ‘A little before me was Belmont, whose vote was challenged on the ground that he had betted on the election.  The inspector rejected it…….and Belmont went off in a rage.  Very few men would have been challenged on that ground, but this foreign money-dealer has made himself uncommonly odious, and the bystanders, mostly of the Union persuasion, chucked over his discomfiture…..”

David Black noted that after McClellan’s defeat and retirement from politics, Democratic Party leadership was still in Belmont’s hands, but that he was the target of rumors of complicity in the President’s assassination.  Black wrote:

“Many people believed that he had led the conspiracy, and this belief forever shadowed him and affected how he was viewed in public and private life.  To some he was a hero, the defender of the Republic; to others he was a traitor.”

How Did President Lincoln Cover the Costs of the Civil War?

Lincoln and Salmon Chase, the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, knew that neither raising taxes, nor borrowing money from state banks, nor issuing government bonds to the American public (even at an above-average interest rate with principal paid back in gold) were going to come even near the high level of funding needed to prosecute the Civil War.  And the U.S. Constitution did not permit the federal government to issue paper money (referred to as bills of exchange).  This arena they were about to enter was the domain of the international bankers; the Morgans, the Kuhn Loebs, the Bank of England, and, of course, the Rothschilds at the top.

But in the course of a reluctant discussion with the Rothschilds, the proposed cost of the Civil War loans was, reportedly, in the interest rate range of 24% to 36%, (another source mentions 27.5%) which ended the negotiations before they even got started.  It was obvious that the Rothschilds had another strategy that didn’t include the Union emerging victorious.

With nowhere to go, President Lincoln and Secretary Chase had no choice but to improvise.  In 1862, the Congress authorized the U.S. Treasury to print $150 million in unbacked paper money for the federal government to pay war expenses and to add to the money supply for use by the public to pay all their expenses except taxes and government duties.  This new unbacked paper money was “legal tender” in that it was backed, not by gold, but by the “full faith and credit” of the federal government.  Because the paper money was printed in green ink, the public called them “Greenbacks.”  A total of $432 million Greenbacks was issued by the end of the Civil War.

The bad news is that with that much money in circulation, the tremendous price inflation it caused reduced the purchasing power of the Greenbacks by 65% during the period of the war (1861-1865).  The good news about the Greenbacks method of covering Civil War costs was that the concealed power were prevented from having anything to do with America’s financial system at the federal level.

It could not carry out its “debt-money” scheme, namely, setting up a private bank that they owned and attaching it to America’s financial system to print unbacked paper money that was treated as American national debt owed to their private bank with regular interest payments on that fictitious debt payable to their private bank for doing nothing other than printing the paper money.

An Insider Look at the Concealed Power’s Perspective and a Tell about Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase

An 1862 official government report of the U.S. Congress under the direction of Congressman Charles A. Lindburgh includes a memo referred to as The Hazard Circular, prepared by an American agent of British financiers stated:

“The great debt (that comes out of the war) must be used as a means to control the volume of money.  To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. (in other words, the fraudulent ‘debt/money’ scheme of the concealed power must be restored)  We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury (Salmon Chase) to make this recommendation to Congress.  It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that.  But we can control the bonds (government bonds) and through them the bank issues (the printing  paper money not backed by gold or silver).”

Commentary:  Notice that once again, the concealed clique has sufficient control of the U.S. government to have its minion, Salmon Chase, hold the office of Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

The Concealed Clique Gets To Congress: The National Banking Act of 1863-64

The tell is the mention in The Hazard Circular above of “waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury (Salmon Chase).”  Another tell is that President Lincoln pushed Salmon Chase out of his cabinet in mid-1864, elevating him to Chief Justice of U.S. Supreme Court.  The third tell is from Irving Katz’s August Belmont: A Political Biography, in which it is noted that August Belmont, in his capacity as Chairman of the National Democratic Committee, was considering Salmon Chase as possible Presidential challenger to President Lincoln in the 1864 elections, which would have required Chase to switch his party allegiance from Republican to Democrat.

Can you now understand why the concealed power today believes it has the American people all sown up and can do what it pleases to ruin our economy and our national solidarity?  Look at its power in the 1860s.  Congress, on its own initiative, passed the National Banking Act on February 25th 1863, a bill that President Lincoln did not want in any way, shape, or form.  This was a repeat performance similar to Congress delivering the unwanted bill to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States to President Andrew in 1832.

In other words, the concealed power could simply order its bought and paid-for Congressmen to pass any bill they required and then pass it on to the President for signature.

G. Edward Griffin wrote:

“The structure was similar to the Second Bank of the United States with the exception that, instead of one central bank, with power to influence the activities of the others, there were now to be many national banks with control over all of them coming from Washington….(and) it created a market for government (war) bonds and then transforming those bonds into circulating money.”

Under this arrangement, when the federal government needed more paper money, it would sell government bonds to the U.S. Treasury Department and the bonds would remain in the possession of the Treasury Department.  Then the Treasury Department would issue the national banks new paper money it had just printed.  This paper money could be used as legal tender (backed by the “full faith and credit” of the United States) for payment of taxes and government duties, but not other expenses.  This arrangement gave the national banks the ability to earn interest on the bonds being held by the Treasury Department and also earn interest on the paper money they received from the Treasury Department that the national banks then lent out to their customers.

Griffin continued:

” When all the smoke and mirrors were moved away, it was merely a variation on the ancient scheme.  The (concealed power) had simply converted government debt into money, and the bankers were collecting a substantial fee at both ends of their service….The one shortcoming of the system, at least from the point of view of the manipulators was that, even though the (paper money) were widely circulated they were not classified as (legal tender) for all debts, just for taxes and duties.  (Gold and silver) and greenbacks were still the country’s official money.  It was not until the arrival of the Federal Reserve System fifty years later that government debt in the form of bank notes would be mandated as the nation’s official money for all transactions.—under penalty of law.”

“The National Banking Act of 1863 required banks to keep a percentage of their (loans) and customer deposits in the form of (gold and silver) as a reserve (about 12% of the total loans and deposits) to cover the possibility of a (bank) run.  That means a bank with $1 million in loans and (gold and silver) customer deposits could use approximately $880,000 of that ($1 million less 12%) to purchase government bonds, exchange the bonds for (paper money), lend out the paper money, and collect interest on both the bonds and the loans, using the paper money…..Needless to say, the bonds were gobbled up just as fast as they could be (issued), and the problem of funding the war had been solved.”

“Another consequence of the national banking system was to make it impossible from that date forward for the federal government ever to get out of debt.”

This is worth repeating to make sure it has really sunk in:  The “ancient scheme,” as Griffin calls it, of printing money and fictitiously calling it “national debt” is fraudulent to the core.  First, it requires the American taxpayer to pay interest on debt that doesn’t really exist.  Second, the rising national debt is like a boa constrictor that increases its grip and control of its victim (the U.S. government and the U.S. taxpayers).  Third, the unwarranted and huge interest payments to the concealed power drain the financial resources of America, when that money could be put to important uses.  And, fourth, the boa constrictor grip on the American government, makes a mockery of American democracy, self-determination, and the American Revolution.

Griffin continued:

“On June 25th, 1863, exactly four months after the National Bank Act was signed into law (yes, President Lincoln, in the throes of the Civil War, signed it, thinking he could undo it later), a confidential communique was sent from the Rothschild investment house in London to an associate banking firm in New York.  It contained an amazingly frank and boastful summary:

‘The few who understand the system (bank loans earning interest and also serving as money) will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent upon its favors that there will be no opposition from that class while, on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending…..will bear its burdens without complaint.’”

Reference for this confidential communique is from pages 99-100 of Robert L. Owen’s National Economy and Banking System, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1939).

In a letter dated November 21st, 1864, President Lincoln described a particular concern of his to Colonel William F. Elkins.  This quote from the letter is taken from The Lincoln Encyclopedia: The Spoken and Written Words of A. Lincoln (1950), page 40:

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.  It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood…..It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.  As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.  I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.  God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

Griffin wrote:

“One of the persistent legends of this period is that John Wilkes Booth was not killed in Garrett’s barn, as generally accepted, but was allowed to escape; that the corpse actually was that of an accomplice…..But, when the voluminous files of the War Department were finally declassified and put into the public domain in the mid-1930s, historians were shocked to discover that there are many facts in those files which lend credence to the legend…….Izola Forrester was the granddaughter of John Wilkes Booth.  In her book, This One Mad Act (1937), she tells of discovering the secret records of the Knights of the Golden Circle…..Forrester recounts the experience:

‘It was five years before I was able to examine the contents of the mysterious old package hidden away in the safe of the room which contained the relics and exhibits used in the Conspiracy Trial…..I would have never have seen them, had I not knelt on the floor of the cell five years ago and seen into the back of the old safe where the package lay.  It is all part of the old mystery about the case by the officials of the war period—the concealment of these documents and articles, and the hiding away of the two flakes of bone with the bullet and pistol.  What mind ever grouped together such apparently incongruous and macabre exhibits?…..Here at last was a link with my grandfather.  I knew that he had been a member of the secret order founded by Bickley (of) the Knights of the Golden Circle.  I have an old photograph of him taken in a group of the brotherhood, in full uniform, one that Harry’s daughter had discovered for me in our grandmother’s Bible.  I knew that the newspapers, directly following the assassination, had denounced the Order as having instigated the killing of Lincoln, and had proclaimed Booth to have been its member and tool.  And I was reminded again of those words I had heard from my grandmother’s lips, that her husband had been the tool of other men.’

Griffin wrote:

“The Order of the Knights of the Golden Circle was a secret organization dedicated to revolution and conquest.  Two of its better known members were Jesse James and John Wilkes Booth.  It was organized by George W.L. Bickley who established its first castle in Cincinnati in 1854, drawing membership primarily from Masonic (Freemasonry) lodges.  It had close ties with a secret society in France called The Seasons, which itself was a branch of the Illuminati.  After the beginning of the (Civil) war, Bickley was made head of the Confederacy’s secret service, and his organization quickly spread throughout the border and Southern states as well.”

Our research indicates that both President Jackson and President Lincoln were simply victims of the concealed power’s playbook calling for assassination when its vital interests are threatened.

The Financial Panic of 1873

The instability began in Europe in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War, which led the way to a period of economic expansion, but left France, the loser, with 200 million Pounds of reparations to be paid to a unified Germany.  The United States, in the aftermath of the Civil War, suffered a brief recession (1865-1867) and then gave way to an investment boom focused on railroad expansion, a large population movement and, of course, hoards of investors, many of whom were foreign individuals and international banking houses.  An economic bubble developed on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Panic came on May 8th, 1873, when the Vienna Stock Exchange collapsed.  The Panic arrived in New York on September 18th, 1873, with the collapse of the Jay Cooke and Company and its Northern Pacific Railway.  The New York Stock Exchange was closed for 10 days on September 20th.

Behind the scenes were two principal components:

1.  In mid-to-late 1872, during the Presidential election campaign, the news broke of a giant fraud within the Union Pacific Railroad—–a story that heavily weakened the general public’s confidence in the American financial sector.  At the beginning of construction of this transcontinental railroad, its senior officers secretly created what appeared to be an independent organization, Credit Mobilier of America, that competed for the contract to build the railroad.  Credit Mobilier won the lucrative contract and commenced construction.  The concealed scheme entailed progress payments to Credit Mobilier by check.  Credit Mobilier principals would illegally use the money to purchase stocks and bonds in the Union Pacific at a much lower price than market price, and then would sell the cheap stock and bonds shortly thereafter for enormous profits, and the secret owners of Credit Mobilier (the Union Pacific Railroad’s senior officers) would be, essentially, looting the railroad all during its long construction phase.  The federal government was also the loser because it was a major source of funds for the construction along with private railroad bond investors.

2.  On February 12, 1873, President Ulysses S. Grant, signed the Coinage Act of 1873, which brought to fruition a full effort on the part of the concealed power to create a shift to a deflationary world economy by tying the value of all currencies to the value of gold (returning to the “Gold Standard”).  This vast machination followed the Civil War period when there was a critical need for paper money to cover the enormous war costs, which, in turn, led to an inflationary economy.  Now that the War was over, the concealed power, at all costs, had to create an economy of no inflation, and, if necessary, one of falling prices.  A deflationary economy is the ideal environment for concealed power because its loans would be paid back in dollars (or other currencies) that would increase in value over time.  In other words, a lender’s dream world is one in which loans are made in dollars of lower purchasing power and paid back in dollars with higher purchasing power.  Conversely, lender’s hate to lend money in dollars of higher purchasing power and get repaid in dollars of lower purchasing power.  Therefore, pegging the value of the dollar to the value of gold, eliminates the potential for inflation, and can easily lead to an economy of falling prices (a deflationary economy).  To engineer this shift to the Gold Standard has a major negative impact on any economy and that was the largest underlying cause of the Panic of 1873—the international bankers maneuvered Congress and President Grant into supporting the Coinage Act of 1873.  More fraud.

Other factors came into play, bringing about a four-year depression with painful social and economic consequences for the American public, but the disinformation campaign from the American media and American education, as usual, characterized the crisis as if it were a weather event, unfortunate, but unavoidable.

From Daniel Alef’s, J.P. Morgan: America’s Greatest Banker:

“The Panic of 1873 thrust Pierpont (J.P. Morgan) into the heart of American finance.  Three powerful bankers, Jay Cooke, Seligman and the Rothschilds of Europe (in one syndicate) sought the lucrative business of buying and reselling the U.S. government’s $300 million Civil War refunding bond issue.  They joined battle for the issue with a rival syndicate headed by Drexel, Morgan, J.S. Morgan & Co. successor to George Peabody & Co., and Barings Bank.  The battle ended in a stalemate, each syndicate getting half of the government’s business.”

“Then, the Credit Mobilier scandal of Union Pacific, and Cooke’s excessive spending on the Northern Pacific Railroad, came to light, and the panic was on.  Cooke failed on Black Thursday, September 18, 1873, a day as dark in the Gilded Age as the stock market crash of Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929.  Five thousand commercial firms and fifty-seven Stock Exchange firms went under with Cooke.  Pierpont (J.P. Morgan), however, was in his element.  At the first hint of trouble with Cooke & Co., Pierpont called in all of Drexel, Morgan’s loans and began accumulating cash reserves.  ‘Impossible foresee future consequently important prepared for any emergency,” he cabled his father.  He had more than $1.5 million in cash on hand.  While others drowned, he made a million dollars.  ‘I don’t believe there is another concern in the country that can begin to show such a result,” he bragged to his father.  Other titans also took advantage of the depressed economy.  Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, both well-known for running extremely efficient organizations, acquired dozens of concerns in their respective industries for pennies on the dollar.  The depression lasted for a number of years before the national economy recovered and began flexing its muscles.  Between 1873 and 1875 more than 18,000 businesses failed and unemployment reached 14% a year later.  Another predatory sweep.

In the 1870s the British Rothschilds had interests in certain American railways but had not undertaken public issues of these loans in the London market. After Baron Lionel de Rothschild’s death in 1879, the London Rothschilds became more interested in American railroads, the Pennsylvania, the Illinois Central, the New York Central. The Paris Rothschilds in 1882 invested in the Illinois Central. By the 1880s both the British and the French Rothschilds had become important owners of American railroad securities.  At the end of that decade, the Paris Rothschilds were major participants in a major (American) copper mining syndicate. In 1890 the British Rothschilds were involved in the organization of Fraser & Chalmers, London, which acquired an American manufacturing plant. That year Lord Rothschild appeared as a money subscriber to the Cataract Construction Company, which was undertaking power developments at Niagara Falls.

After the many long-term machinations by the leadership of the concealed power and the transnational corporations it owned to gain control of America’s financial system, three events, two of which it orchestrated, around the turn of the 20th century encouraged another even more powerful takeover effort.  The first event was the Civil Service Reform Act of 1883; the second was the Depression of 1893; and the third was the Panic of 1907.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1883: Concealed Schemes To Solidify the Concealed Power’s Control

The nominating process that leads to elections in democratic governments has always been a target for groups who wish to subvert the public will.  But an impediment blocked the concealed power and the transnational corporations it owned from controlling the nomination process, namely, party conventions organized to control the nomination process, dominated by entrenched party machines that received their funding, not from the bankers and transnational heads, but from (i) voters who received patronage appointments, (ii) medium and small domestic business interests, and (iii) the regular voters.  In the era leading up to the turn of the 20th century, Carroll Quigley wrote:

“…the elected official from 1840 to 1880 found himself under pressure from three directions:  from the popular electorate which provided him with the votes necessary for election, from the party machine which provided him with the nomination to run for office as well as the patronage appointments by which he could reward his followers, and from the wealthy interests which gave him the money for campaign expenses with, perhaps, a certain surplus for his own pocket.  This was a fairly workable system, since the three forces were approximately equal, the advantage, if any, resting with the party machine.  This advantage became so great in the period of 1865-1880 that the forces of finance, commerce, and industry were forced to contribute ever-increasing largesse to the political machines in order to obtain the services from government which they regarded as their due…”

Using their media and educational sources, the concealed power and the transnational corporations it controlled built a front that had nothing to do with its objective to neutralize the party machines across the nation.  The story for public consumption was that the patronage system was corrupt, inefficient and created excessive costs of government.  The Civil Service Reform Act they engineered through Congress was about basing government jobs on merit, using competitive exams, and making it illegal to hire, fire, or demote government employees for political reasons.  Behind the public story, was the objective of substantially weakening the party machines that controlled the nomination process and making them and those running for political office to be much more dependent on the bankers and transnationals for campaign funding.  Essentially, the objective was to use their massive money resources to subvert American democracy by placing American politicians under a deep system of deception, bribery and coercion.  Passage of the Civil Service Reform Act was accomplished on January 16th, 1883.

Quigley wrote:

“When the business interests, led by William C. Whitney, pushed through the first installment of civil service reform in 1883, they expected that they would be able to control both political parties equally.  Indeed, some of them intended to contribute to both and to allow an alternation of the two parties in public office in order to conceal their own influence, inhibit any exhibition of independence by politicians, and allow the electorate to believe that they were exercising their own free choice.  Such an alternation of the parties on the Federal scene occurred in the period 1880-1896, with business influence (or at least J.P. Morgan’s influence) as great in Democratic as in Republican administrations.”

“This period, 1884-1933, was the period of financial capitalism in which investment bankers, moving into commercial banking and insurance on one side and into railroading and heavy industry on the other, were able to mobilize enormous wealth and wield enormous economic, political, and social power.  Popularly known as ‘Society,’ or ‘400,’ they lived a life of dazzling splendor.  Sailing the ocean in great private yachts or traveling on land by private trains, they moved in a ceremonious round between their spectacular estates and town houses in Palm Beach, Long Island, the Berkshires, Newport, and Bar Harbor; assembling from their fortress-like New York (City) residences to attend the Metropolitan Opera………or gather for business meetings of the highest strategic level in the awesome presence of J.P. Morgan himself.”

Commentary:  Doesn’t this era sound familiar: the extreme income inequality, a tiny percentage of the national population holding power over the American government and the American people, a parasitic aristocracy that Americans thought they had defeated in the American Revolution?  And no clue that these series of financial panics were orchestrated by the concealed clique of foreign, dynastic banking families from the City of London for a purpose, namely, to create sufficient public fear to open the way for a fraudulent “Federal Reserve System” to take over and control America’s banking and finance activities—-essentially taking away America’s control of its own financial resources.  It was incredible—unbelievable—and that’s why the controlled clique’s monumental fraud worked.  We Americans were naive to the extreme and we were surrounded by a majority of our “public officials” who were ripe for committing treason against their own country because they were already deeply bribed and blackmailed by the concealed clique.  

Can you understand now why we must add “teeth” to our Constitution to deport and incarcerate in solitary confinement for life any and all Americans who commit acts of treason?

Now Came the Long-Planned Big Financial Panic:  The Depression of 1893

Depressions are caused principally by the behavior of the concealed power that engineer a gross misallocation of income and wealth to themselves, leaving the vast majority of a nation’s citizens with inadequate income and, therefore, inadequate purchasing power.  With such little purchasing power, consumption of goods and services collapses and the economy falls into a depression.  The build up of this extreme income inequality comes from the concealed power and the transnational corporations it controls doing their machinations on at least two fronts:  (i) they hold down salaries and wages to maximize their profits; and (ii) and to further maximize their profits, they pursue a relentless drive to eliminate competition by building complex monopolies in every economic sector with which they become involved.  Doing so enables them take away the profits of competing firms and also artificially inflate the prices and fees they and their transnational corporations charge, thereby capturing more of the consumers’ already limited income.  In other words, the vast majority of a nation’s citizens are squeezed from two directions by the concealed power and the result is that their purchasing power is greatly impaired.

In the time of the Depression of 1893, this description of economic reality would never have reached the public and, instead, they would receive the false reality through government, media, educational channels, and above all, from economic “experts” that, collectively, would make the depression appear to be like the weather; unpredictable and the result of unfortunate forces beyond anyone’s control.

On of the inventions of the Tavistock Institute’s psychologists who run the concealed power’s psychological warfare operation and build the false reality for American and global consumption is the term headwinds.  You will find that term used in the discourse of all concealed power’s economic experts.  It’s a weather term and is used systematically to convey the false reality that economic happenings are not engineered from behind the scenes, but rather are unpredictable events that just happen with no human interference, just like a weather event happens.  The initial response from all the concealed power’s minions in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse was that no one could have predicted it (like a tornado), which was an extreme example of false reality, once the real reasons quickly floated to the surface for the public to see and understand.  What the concealed power’s minions were disguising was the immense level of fraud being used by the concealed power and its minions to maximize their profits and to ruin the American economy and to destroy the solidarity of the American people.

The havoc of the Depression of 1893 was nearly as bad as The Great Depression of the 1930s.  In addition to the principal cause—extreme income inequality—other factors came into play under the following groupings:

The Financial Sector

First, on the global level, the concealed power maintained its strict control over the world monetary system that heavily favored their core business—lending very large sums to governments and heavy industry—because it blocked all avenues leading to even moderate inflation (rising prices).  It bears repeating that lenders become very unhappy in periods of inflation (rising prices) when they receive repayment of their loans in dollars of lower value than the value of the dollars they had lent, and that is exactly what happens in periods of inflation (rising prices)—bankers profits on their loans are squeezed.  Conversely, when a recession or depression brings deflation (falling prices), bankers’ profitability is increased when borrowers repay their loans in dollars that are worth more than the dollars that they had lent.

Second, the concealed power and its minions were speculating in railroad stocks and drove railroad expansion past the actual transportation needs of agriculture, manufacturing, and mining operations, and, consequently, a speculative bubble began to develop.  The next step was to wait for the right moment to prick that bubble at it height and then sweep in like vulture to pick among the debris for pennies-on-the dollar opportunities.

Third, among the concealed power and the bankers, there was a deep culture of fraudulent activity and reckless behavior that weakened the public’s trust in the financial sector.  Breaking that trust has always been a root cause of depressions and recessions, because it sends large numbers of the public rushing to withdraw their money from the banking system in crippling “bank runs.”  Two major disturbances of this kind occurred, leading up to the Depression of 1893.

In November 1890, the most prestigious bank in Britain nearly collapsed due to a reckless investment in Argentina when the bank advanced its own money before it had raised the money from investors.  Unfortunately, in the same time period the Argentine government suffered a coup and the Argentine agricultural sector suffered a failure of the wheat crop.  In a profound misjudgment of its ability to bring investors together for the investment, the bank found itself exposed and nearly insolvent.  This caused a breach of trust and a financial panic in the international financial sector.  In The Collapse of Barings (1997), Stephen Fay wrote:

“There was no getting away from the almost unthinkable consequences if Barings did go down: not only would the failure of the City’s (the City of London’s) leading acceptance house inevitably bring down a host of other firms, including all the discount houses, but (also threatened would be) the preeminence of the City as an international financial center.  Because the stakes were so high, Barings was bailed out in November 1890 by a consortium organised by the governor of the Bank of England, William Lidderdale.  The consortium drew on money from the Bank itself and from the (British) government…….Once the government had committed, Rothschilds joined in, the rest of the City (the big financial firms) followed, and a fund finally amounting to 17,326,000 Pounds Sterling—worth a billion Pounds 100 years later—met Barings commitments.”

Throughout the 1880s and early 1890s, the concealed power arranged extraordinarily large investments in new and expanding American railroad companies.

Daniel  Alef wrote:

“….by 1879 Pierpont (J.P. Morgan) was beginning to emerge from his father’s shadow.  Peirpont was not a gambler.  He was not greedy and did not have a lust for power for the sake of power.  However, he arrogantly believed that he and he alone, knew how to run the nation’s economy.  William Vanderbilt retained Pierpont’s firm to sell 250,000 shares of New York Central (Railroad), at the time the single largest public offering of stock ever made.  Pierpont did it nimbly and secured an unprecedented $3 million commission.  Other sources confirm the J.P. Morgan placed New York Central public offering entirely with British investors.”

“It is interesting to note that J.P. Morgan launched a major capital-raising effort in the railroad industry, leading up to the Depression of 1893. Encyclopedia Britannica states:

‘Because of his links with the Peabody firm, Morgan had intimate and highly useful connections with the London financial world, and during the 1870s he was thereby able to provide the rapidly growing industrial corporations of the United States with much-needed capital from British bankers.  He began reorganizing railroads in 1885, when he arranged an agreement between two of the largest railroads in the country, the New York Central Railroad and the Pennsylvania Railroad, that minimized a potentially destructive rate war and rail-line competition between them.  In 1886, he reorganized two more major railroads with the aim of stabilizing their financial base.  In the course of these corporate restructurings, Morgan became a member of the board of directors of these and other railroads, thereby amassing great influence on them.  Between 1885 and 1888, he extended his influence to lines based in Pennsylvania and Ohio.’”

The first blow to public confidence began on February 20th of 1893 with the announced bankruptcy of the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, financed by a group of investors led by J.P. Morgan in 1886.

Then, successive bankruptcies were announced:

• Erie Railroad in July 1893 (J.P. Morgan-arranged financing)

• Northern Pacific in October of 1893 (J.P. Morgan-arranged financing)

• Union Pacific in October 1893  (J.P. Morgan-arranged  financing)

• Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe in December 1893

By the time the Depression 1893 ran it course, six years later, a total of 74 railroad companies had failed.  It is clear that J.P. Morgan and firms such as Kuhn Loeb & Company were largely responsible for organizing the lion’s share of the financing for U.S. railroad industry expansion leading up to the Depression of 1893.  What is also noteworthy is that J.P. Morgan, in particular, played an opportunistic role in the depth of the Depression to reorganize bankrupt railroads and transfer control to himself.  A long list of railroads were acquired at bargain basement prices, which included, but were not limited to: the Philadelphia and Reading (first railroad to file for bankruptcy in 1893), Erie Railroad, Northern Pacific, Union Pacific, Great Northern, New York Central, Chesapeake and Ohio, Lehigh Valley, Jersey Central, and the Southern Railway.  As he did during the Panic of 1873, J.P. Morgan had minimized his exposure to the Panic of 1893 and the subsequent Great Depression of the 1930s.  And, as in the Panic of 1873, he make extraordinary profits in buying shattered companies, this time in the railroad industry.

If we were to apply forensic accounting methods to draw conclusions about J.P. Morgan’s modus operandi, it would not be a stretch to consider that he intentionally played a large role in helping inflate a railroad stock and bond bubble, reduced his exposure by standing aside of the economic collapse, and then pounced on the extraordinarily profitable opportunities that follow a crash.  In two Panics—1873 and 1893—he made unprecedented profits during the inflation of the railroad industry bubble and then did it all over again as the dust settled after each crash.  In forensic accounting, one looks, first, at the consequences of certain events, and then, ignoring the conventional explanations, one determines who benefitted most from those consequences.  Then, one imagines how those who benefitted the most may have engineered those specific consequences to happen.  I’m saying that stock and market swindles have, historically, followed this same pattern.  The idea that J.P. Morgan, as the undisclosed agent of the Bank of England, controlled by the Rothschilds, intentionally set the stage for American’s 1893 economic collapse is quite possible.  The motive would have been:  (i) to make enormous profits, riding the ups and then buying among the wreckage; and (ii) to destabilize the American economy and the American public as conditioning for the insertion, when the time was ripe, of a Bank of England, Rothschild-controlled “central bank” to replace the Second Bank of the United States that President Jackson had terminated.

Then, in May of 1893, the financial sector in American was rocked by a failed attempt by the ownership of the National Cordage Company to create a monopoly by “cornering the market” in imported hemp, an irresponsible maneuver to purchase enough of a stock, commodity, or asset to be able to manipulate its price to a desired level that is not reflective of actual supply and demand forces in order to achieve an extraordinary profit.  This failed financial machination rocked the financial markets and weakened public trust in the American financial system, resulting in bank runs that closed 500 banks, cost untold numbers of depositors to loose their savings and ruined 15,000 business.  When would this boom/bust fraud ever end?  Never, so long as the concealed power used the American media and American education to maintain the wall of false reality that surrounds the American people, who are viewed as sheep, to be shorn over and over again.

The Agricultural Sector

While agriculture in the United States had become a less dominant component of the national economy near the turn of the 2oth century, it was still significant—it was 19% of gross national product, well below the 30% produced in manufacturing and mining, but agriculture still engaged 40% of the American workforce.  Three forces converged to bring very hard times to the farmers:  (i) as the bankers poured more and more speculative dollars into the expansion of the railroads, the further extension of the railroads also caused an unwise surge in new farms and new production, and (ii) the overall output of the agricultural sector had already skyrocketed in the late 1880s with the acquisition of new farm machinery and planting techniques, just as Egypt, India and other competing agricultural regions of the world increased their own production for the world market; and (iii) the agricultural sector was squeezed by the deflation (falling prices) that was the agenda of the concealed power.  Deflation was a key cause of the depression and farmers were unable to get help from the government to promote even moderately inflationary (rising prices) conditions because of the intransigence of the international bankers and their control of the (President) Cleveland Administration and Congress. The government allowed the deflation to continue, and the economy never recovered until six years later in 1899.  Accordingly, as prices fell, farmers were unable to cover the mortgages on their land and their loans owed to the banks for equipment and supplies to carry on their planting and harvest functions.

American Labor

Accordingly, the deflation (falling prices) that marked the Depression of 1893 amounted to a disaster for the agricultural sector and particularly for farm labor, which was a very significant percentage of the entire American workforce.  Deflation had the same negative impact on America’s non-farm labor as well, because falling prices meant that manufacturing and mining profitability would also fall dramatically and cause massive layoffs of workers that pushed national unemployment into the 12% to 18% level for a six-year period, and causing the most social and economic damage to the American middle class whose income and purchasing power was devastated by waves of home foreclosures.  This pattern, after a long series of financial panics, was unmistakable, but locked in as a permanent fixture of how the world actually works due to massive corruption at all levels.

Consequences of the Depression of 1893

The American public sensed that the Depression was caused, or at least, prolonged by the predatory behavior of the financial sector, and particularly the international bankers.  The public also perceived the extreme income inequality in the nation and understood that it was orchestrated by the international bankers and big business owners.  As result, the following developments emerged.  A severe wave of strikes in coal mining centers took place in 1894, and led to violence in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois.  The “Pullman Strike” shut down much of the nation’s railway system in mid-1894.  The strike was precipitated when George Pullman, the owner of the Pullman Palace Car Company, which manufactured railroad passenger cars with sleeping accommodations, cut wages as demand for sleeper cars fell off and profits declined.  The employees protested the wage cuts, while still requiring the standard sixteen-hour work day, and the company’s refusal to reduce the rents and price of goods (the company provided rental housing and a company store).  Railway employees across the nation refused to run trains with Pullman sleeper cars and the strike expanded to twenty-nine railroads and involved 125,000 workers.  The railway owners tried to bring in replacement workers, who were blocked by the strikers, and violence escalated.  The strike was finally broken by President Cleveland, who ordered in United States Marshals and 12,000 U.S. Army troops, based on the premise that the strike interfered with deliver of the U.S. mail, violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and represented a threat to public safety.  Thirteen strikers were killed and fifty-seven were wounded and damage to the property of the railroad companies amounted to approximately $340,000 or $8 million in 2011 dollars.

The first “March on Washington” in American history occurred on April 30, 1894, when 6,000 unemployed workers, many of whom had worked for the railroads, arrived in Washington, D.C. from their starting point in Massillon, Ohio.  The core members of the group were referred to as “Coxey’s Army,” named after their leader, Jacob Coxey.  Many of the group blamed railroad companies, President Cleveland’s monetary policies, and excessive freight rates for their plight.  In other words, their focus was on the financial speculation in railroad expansion and the efforts of railway owners to maximize their profits by artificially driving up freight rates.  Their position was that President Cleveland must help create jobs which would involve building roads and other public works improvements (referred to today as “infrastructure” jobs)  It is interesting to note that President Cleveland, referred to as a “Bourbon Democrat,” supported the position most important to the concealed power, namely, deflation (falling prices), rather then take action during the severe Depression to increase the money supply to create price inflation to help the agricultural sector and American labor.  Instead of receiving assistance in the form of public works employment by the government, the leadership of the marchers were arrested and the rest were dispersed.  Accordingly, the U.S. government allowed extreme income inequality to deepen and the 1893 Depression was allowed to continue for a total of six years, causing great personal suffering, and imprinting in the minds of the American public the perception of the criminal nature of America’s financial system.

Getting the Hook Set:  The Financial Panic of 1907

The overall context within which the Panic of 1907 played out was a period in American history referred to as The Gilded Age, which began at the end of the Civil War in early 1865 and ran to the beginning of the 1900s.

The American economy in that period grew over 400%, and was marked by technological advances, major population expansion westward, an explosion of railroads, high immigration, unfettered capitalism practiced by completely out-of-control predators who built huge banking and industrial monopolies, and machinations by the concealed power that continuously plundered the American economy and did considerable damage to America’s democracy and social fabric, and embedded extreme income inequality as a seemingly permanent feature of American life.

The era was marked by low wages, long hours, and few benefits for the American working class, leading to social unrest and the emergence of political movements to correct the evolution of a social arrangement that was clearly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the American nation.

The term Gilded Age referred to the process of applying a superficial layer of a gold leaf or gold paint on a surface and is meant to make fun of pompous displays of wealth by the very rich, while under the thin, shiny top layer there was the reality of vast inequality that was not consistent with American principles or sensibilities.  A fundamental core of social anger was building under the gleam of extraordinary economic growth and it would periodically break the surface in the form of labor strikes and boycotts, which would be quelled, when necessary, with military force.

It was from this bubbling up of anger on the part of working Americans that the term Robber Barons evolved to describe the more notorious banking and corporate leaders who were identified with fraudulent behavior and reckless speculation that provided spectacular profits and continuously violated the public interest.

In other words, the public anger reflected the belief that such individuals routinely “gamed” the American way of life with their lawless behavior that worked against the public trust, posing as aristocrats in a land that expelled its aristocrats long ago, and using extensive bribery of government officials, law enforcement figures and judges to corrupt American democracy, its media, its educational system, and its justice system.

More than the dollar cost of the economic damage incurred by the nation, the real cost of such unchecked behavior was the insidious decay of American’s belief in the founding principles of its own nation and their fundamental belief in themselves as the masters of their own fate as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Very methodically, the deck became more and more stacked against the American public and their power was being progressively eroded.  Much of the machinations of the concealed power were well-disguised, but there were also a long train of abuses to, and usurpations of, American democracy that broke the surface, although intentionally mischaracterized by a controlled American media and by betraying American educational institutions.

In this unfortunate context, the seeds of the Panic of 1907 , not surprisingly, were found in a decision by the Bank of England to nearly double its loan interest rate (3.5% to 6%) in late 1906 and, consequently, disrupt American/British trade payments to its advantage.  The fraudulent explanation for the rate hike was to respond to the April 18, 1906 San Francisco fire that called for a large outflow of insurance proceeds from London insurers that provided most of the fire insurance coverage in San Francisco.  This action by the Bank caused American firms to have to pay a very substantial increase of interest payments on borrowings from the Bank that, in turn, led to large outflows of gold from America to Britain, thereby weakening our gold reserves and reducing America’s money supply.  From that late 1906 rate hike, the American stock prices began to decline, U.S. business confidence was affected, and industrial production also began a decline.  By the summer of 1907, the stock market had declined 50% from its 1906 peak.  A New York City bond issue failed for the lack of investors.  U.S. Steel Corporation reported declining earnings, as did the railroad companies across the country.  There were concerns about whether financing could be arranged for the American fall harvest of 1907.

Then the panic broke the surface.  On Wednesday, October 16th, an effort to corner the copper market by Augustus and Otto Heinze and Charles W. Morse, partially bankrolled by Charles T. Barney, president of the third largest trust, Knickerbocker Trust Company, came crashing down and produced escalating, multiple bank runs by frightened depositors.  By Thursday, October 24th nine banks collapsed in New York City.  In March of 1907, J.P. Morgan left the United States for a five-month trip, shuttling back and forth between London, Paris, Rome, Florence and playing host on his new yacht, Corsair III, in the Adriatic.  He returned the U.S. in late August.

There is little doubt that Morgan met with officials of the Bank of England, the Rothschilds, and other international bankers with whom he routinely worked.  You can sense the nature of the Panic of 1907, as it broke the surface in October of that year, from a portion of a Life Magazine article, dated April 25th, 1949, written by Frederick Lewis Allen, who produced a glowing narrative about Morgan’s leadership, dispelling accusations that he ( Morgan) had intentionally precipitated the panic:

“In New York City the crisis was mounting. A group of speculators headed by a swashbuckler named F. Augustus Heinze made a disastrous attempt to corner the stock of the United Copper Company and went to the wall. Heinze was also head of the bank, the Mercantile National, and naturally rumors began at once to fly that the bank might have been involved in his speculations. A run on the bank began. Short of money with which to pay depositors, the bank appealed to the Clearing House for aid. (There was at the time no Federal Reserve System, and therefore the Clearing House an association of banks set up for the clearing of checks was the logical agency to turn to if one’s bank was in trouble.) Among Heinze’s associates in his stock market adventures had been two other speculators, Charles W. Morse and E. R. Thomas, who likewise controlled banks, and presently these banks, too, were beset by suspicion. Whereupon the bankers who headed the New York Clearing House, decided that the situation called for prompt and drastic surgery, and demanded the resignation of Heinze, Morse and Thomas from all their banking connections. The Clearing House announced simultaneously that these men’s banks had been examined and found to be in sound condition, but by now the rumors of trouble to come were redoubled.”

“People began especially to question the reliability of trust companies, which were permitted to engage in banking operations almost as if they were national banks, but without being subject to the strict regulations with which national banks were surrounded. Many plungers and stock market operators had got into the managements of some of these trust companies, whose funds could be invested in enterprises more adventurous and more risky then ordinary banks were permitted to engage in.  Investors, speculators and bank depositors began to run for cover selling stock, calling loans, drawing their funds out of suspect trust companies. It was the beginning of a panic.”

“Morgan set up in his library until after midnight Sunday, October 20th, 1907, studying the problem that confronted him talking with partners and friends, with bank presidents, with trust company heads; hearing about the demoralized condition of the stock exchange, the widespread calling of loans, the runs on bank after bank; looking at financial statements; listening to the appeals of men who wanted him to lend cash to this institution or that.”

“The next morning Monday, October 21st he made a first move. He asked (an Morgan assistant) Herbert Satterlee, his son-in-law, to get in touch with some able young bankers who could assemble figures and facts for him and if necessary rapidly examine the condition of a bank which applied for aid. Then he went downtown. Among the banks which appeared to be headed for trouble was a very big trust company, the Knickerbocker, whose fine main office was conspicuously situated at what was then the chief crossroads of the city, the corner of Fifth Avenue and 34th Street. Some of the Knickerbocker’s funds were said to have been dubiously invested and depositors were beginning to draw out their cash. After banking hours a committee of the Knickerbocker’s directors came to see Morgan. They reported that because the name of the popular and amiable president of the Knickerbocker, Charles T. Barney, had been too closely linked in the public mind with Heinz and Morse, they had called for Barney’s resignation. That very afternoon the National Bank of Commerce, which customarily cleared checks for the Knickerbocker, had sent word that it would do so no longer. The committee appealed to Morgan for help for the bank.”

“Morgan would promise nothing. He was a stockholder in the Knickerbocker himself, some of his own firm’s money was on deposit in it, and he had a sentimental attachment for it because it had been founded by an old school friend of his, but he doubted that it could be saved. He advised the committee to assemble at once a meeting of all the directors of the Knickerbocker and to see whether they themselves could devise a plan to prevent its downfall.”

“The Knickerbocker meeting was held that evening at Sherry’s restaurant in a room so lamentably not private that strangers wandered in and out, picking up fragments of the talk, telephoning their friends, spreading the news that the Knickerbocker was in jeopardy. That evening Morgan remained by the fire at Satterlee’s house. He went to bed after midnight with a cold coming on a tired and uncertain man.”

“Tuesday, the 22nd, came and with it the expected run on the Knickerbocker. Benjamin Strong, one of Morgan’s team of examiners, had been making a quick examination of the Knickerbocker’s condition, and his report, while incomplete, was unfavorable. There was nothing to be done. The run continued and at two o’clock in the afternoon the Knickerbocker came to the end of its cash. It suspended payment. It had failed.  The news of the failure of this large and important and widely known bank came like a thunderclap in the midst of a gathering storm. Every banker, and especially every trust company president, knew that he faced the possibility of a run on his own bank the next day. The Secretary of the Treasury, George B. Cortelyou sped to New York to see what use could best be made of such government funds as were available. Again Morgan conferred with anxious financiers half the night. It was at this time, says Cortelyou, that he (Morgan) organized the group or committee of bankers who voluntarily submitted their statements to him and permitted him to allocate to each one the sum of money which he felt was appropriate and necessary to make up the total amount needed to carry the weaker institutions through the panic.  He tried to get the heads of the trust companies, too, to organize for mutual aid, but failed. Not until after three o’clock in the morning did he turn in, still miserable with the heavy cold that had fastened itself upon him.”

“Where would the lightning strike next? As a matter of fact, the direction it was to take was largely determined by something that happened on that very evening of Tuesday, October 22, an episode that was subsequently to become a subject of furious controversy.  Among the bankers who discussed possible plans of action that night was George W Perkins, one of Morgan’s partners. When the session was over the reporters clustered round, and Perkins attempted to brief them on the situation to date. As a result there appeared in the next morning in the New York Times a statement which Perkins later denied that he had made that the sore point was now the Trust Company of America. The statement added that the Trust Company of America had not applied for help, but that provision had been made to supply it with all cash it might need the next morning, and that it was sound and would pull through.”

“That statement, centering as it did the attention of frightened men on a single bank, was so injudicious, to say the least, that the Associated Press refused to send it out. Under the circumstances it was not surprising that, although there were runs on many institutions the next day, by all odds the worst one besieged the Trust Company of America.”

“Did Morgan precipitate the panic?”

“Oakley Thorne, the president of that particular trust company, testified later before a congressional committee that his bank had been subjected to only moderate withdrawals on Tuesday (1 1/2 million, as against 13 million on Wednesday), that he had not applied for help, and that it was the sore point statement alone that had caused the run on his bank. From this testimony, plus the refusal of Morgan to help the Knickerbocker, plus the disciplinary measures taken by the clearinghouse against the Heinz, Morse and Thomas Banks, plus other fragments of supposedly pertinent evidence (even including Bishop Lawrence’s account of Morgan’s cheerful singing in the dining car on Sunday morning), certain chroniclers have arrived at the ingenious conclusion that the Morgan interests took advantage of the unsettled conditions during the autumn of 1907 to precipitate the panic, guiding it truly as it progressed so that it would kill off rival banks and consolidate the preeminence of the banks within the Morgan orbit. To this hypothesis the most obvious answer, given over and over again by bankers, is that no banker in his senses encourages a bank panic. That would be like dropping a match in a powder keg: he would be too likely to go up in the explosion himself.”

However, if those certain chroniclers were right—that the Panic of 1907 was secretly planned in an elaborate machination by the concealed clique, then it succeeded—spectacularly—in setting up the essential conditions for the later creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, as noted by Frederick Allen’s concluding commentary:

“The lesson of the Panic of 1907 was clear, though not for some six years it destined to be embodied in legislation: the United States gravely needed a central banking system which could build up reserves to be disposed where they were most needed.”

Please save that thought about “gravely needing a central banking system” and reflect on what the real lessons of the Panic of 1907 should have been.  Try to think of an alternative set of lessons that would start with erecting criminal statutes to finally address the lawlessness of America’s financial system that was allowed to expand to our current social and economic crisis.

This is a good reflection of the character of the concealed power-controlled banking sector.  There was no mention of:  (i) the infestation of hoards of swindlers who roam free to destroy confidence in the investment markets; (ii) the panic-causing and destructive machinations of the concealed power; and, (iii) the deep bribery that the financial sector inflicts on American institutions including all parts of the U.S. government, the media, and American education for the purpose of opening the doors wide to national and international plunder.  Nor is there any mention of the very high level of economic loss and social devastation suffered by the American public from these three conveniently unmentioned influences.

In the same The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, March 1908, S. Wexler, Vice President, Whitney-Central National Bank, New Orleans, Louisiana offered these insights about the roots of the Panic of 1907:

(1) A Wave of Public Irresponsibility:  “Much of our trouble has been caused by the blind worship by the lesser lights of the great commercial and financial luminaries.  Men famed for wealth, however acquired, in charge of the great financial organizations, have allowed their names to serve as the lodestone to draw the small investor into innumerable unsound financial schemes which, had he carefully investigated as he does matters pertaining to his own business, he would have scrupulously avoided.  The (American) people must (also) learn that extravagance is not comfort and that ostentatious display of wealth not only denotes ill-breeding, but promotes anarchy and socialism.  They must learn something of that quality which the Germans call ‘Gemuthlichkeit,’ which means comfort and contentment, the willingness to be satisfied with prosperity without stretching every enterprise to the point of breaking.  They should become imbued with a greater desire for the modest comforts of home life, and in turn instill such ideas into their children, so as to change at least that characteristic of our people, that we term ‘strenuosity,’ into a more modified form of applied energy.”

(2) The Extraordinarily Low Quality and Behavior of Congressmen and Senators: “The individual termed statesman, but more often deserving the (name) of  politician, may well learn a most important lesson in fidelity to his country and appreciation of her needs.  He is most often chosen, not for his peculiar fitness for his duties, but because he is a ‘good fellow,’ a liberal spender and a good stump speaker.  He frequently goes to our legislative halls without even a familiarity with the Constitution of his country or of his native state.  But few know the first principles of the important questions of tariff, finance or revenue.   Most measure a question by how it will look to their constituents and often prefer to vote wrongly than correctly, subject to the necessity of explaining at home.  We learn that we must send better men to make our laws, and that real students, politically disinterested, should be consulted in framing our important measures.  There is no greater evidence of the lack of patriotism or inability of our legislators can be shown, than their attitude on the currency question now pending. This question, involving the very fundamentals of our commercial and financial systems, is at this moment the subject of political bickering and policies that are a disgrace to the nation. Our Senate committee has framed an iniquitous (grossly unfair or immoral) bill which is shamefully in the interest of a few private bankers who hold a large amount of unsold railroad and municipal bonds, and is without a scintilla of the principles of sound finance; but, being a party measure, (a bill that all Congressmen and Senators in a party are required to vote for as ordered by the money sources by which they are controlled) we have still to hear the voice of a single Republican in protest. The House committee in turn has presented a bill which is violently socialistic (opposed to unrestrained capitalism), providing that the strong and safe bank shall guarantee the weaker ones, making the banker who conducts his business safely and conservatively, pay for the deficiencies of those who are reckless and inexperienced. Yet, we hear no violent protests against this bill, which is contrary to every constitutional principle of right. Must we learn from this that our legislators are without the ability to frame a proper and consistent law, or that they are lacking in fidelity to their country and shirking their responsibilities for fear of losing office? Let these gentlemen learn the valuable lessons of the hour and read the clear handwriting on the wall, that unless this Congress passes sound currency legislation and makes proper amendments to the national banking law, we may be called upon to write the lessons of the Panic of 1907; and with the distrust of capital and the suffering of labor incident thereto, the next lesson may entail internal social and political complications the contemplation of which may well cause even the conservatives serious alarm.”

Of the Panic of 1907, Carroll Quigley wrote:

“The influence of (J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller) was so great that the Morgan and Rockefeller groups acting together, or even Morgan acting alone, could have wrecked the economic system of the country merely by throwing securities on the stock market for sale, and, having precipitated a stock-market panic, could then have bought back the securities they had sold but at a lower price.  Naturally, they were not so foolish to do this, although Morgan came very close to it in precipitating the ‘Panic of 1907,’ but they did not hesitate to wreck individual corporations, at the expense of the holders of common stocks, by driving them to bankruptcy.  In this way, to take only two examples, Morgan wrecked the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad before 1914 by selling it, at high prices, the largely valueless securities of myriad New England steamship and trolley lines; and William Rockefeller and his friends wrecked the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad before 1925 by selling to it, at excessive prices, plans to electrify to the Pacific…..and a worthless branch railroad (the Gary Line).”

“These are but examples of the discovery by financial capitalists that they made money out of issuing and selling securities rather than out of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and accordingly led them to the point where they discovered that the exploiting of an operating company by excessive issuance of securities and/or bonds not only was profitable to them but made it possible for them to increase their profits by causing the bankruptcy of the firm (when the concealed power-engineered debt burden toppled the firm), providing (them) fees and commissions of reorganization as well as the opportunity to issue new securities (during the recovery stage).”

The Rothschilds in America up to 1907

The Rothschild name surfaced frequently in the 1890s in a variety of US investments. And N.M. Rothschild & Sons, London, became more heavily interested in US railroads, especially the Louisville and Nashville. In 1895 the Rothschilds, with J.P. Morgan, took part in the February contract with the U.S. Treasury to attempt to stem the U.S. gold drain. The incentive for the transaction was reported to have come from the London Rothschilds. In the 1890s the Paris Rothschilds remained prominent in the international copper trade and held a quarter of the shares of Anaconda, America’s largest copper producer, and marketed its copper in Europe. Many of the Rothschild U.S. mining interests were in gold (an outcome of the Rothschild’s long involvement in buying and selling that monetary metal). In 1897-1901 the British Rothschilds acted as broker for the Guggenheims for huge silver sales in Europe. The Paris Rothschilds in 1912 aided in financing the entry of Royal Dutch Shell in oil production in Oklahoma. The London and Paris Rothschilds rescued their New York representative, August Belmont, in 1907, when he became overextended in his dealings on the New York subway system.

Throughout, both the London and the Paris Rothschilds retained as American agent the private banking house August Belmont & Company, New York, headed by. August Belmont, Sr., who had become the Rothschild representative in America in 1837. Over the years the relationships were sporadically stormy, but they persisted. When Belmont died in 1890, his son August (1853-1924), who on his father’s death dropped the Jr., took charge.  For American businessmen, the name August Belmont was synonymous with Rothschild interests.

The Rothschilds were well informed on what was happening in America. Their correspondence contains detailed information.  Lord Rothschild in 1907, for example, wrote his Paris cousins on a range of American matters:

“American shares are booming.   There is a huge American account here. (January 7, 1907)although Union Pacific has fallen a little, the disclosures (by Harriman) do not seem to have produced the same effect in Wall Street as here (January 8, 1907);  early this morning we could have lent considerable sums of fresh money on American securities at very high rates, but although we went on with all our old money we decline to lend anymore the American market. (January 14, 1907); American railway shares are somewhat under a cloud, but it would be a mistake to be too pessimistic (January 18, 1907).”

The London Rothschilds expressed dismay at Theodore Roosevelt’s hostility to railroad enterprise (March 14, 1907).

On March 15, 1907, Lord Rothschild wrote,

“our telegrams from America do not tell us much more than is in the papers and even the best informed like Sir Edgar Spreyer can only conjecture, in all probability the sales in New York were occasioned by fears of socialistic legislation or actions on the part of Roosevelt and the various states.”

Lord Rothschild thought American railways instead of being over-capitalized, are undercapitalized. (April 3, 1907).

In London the Rothschilds followed the course of the 1907 American panic. In its midst, their correspondence express confidence and noted “all the leading American houses and the great many bargain hunters were considerable buyers of American stock all the morning.

The Rothschilds role in American finance was noteworthy. A recent study by Stanley D. Chapman suggests that in the years 1870-1914 and N.M. Rothschild & Sons measured by capital was the most important merchant bank in London while its American business had its ups and downs, its extent remained impressive; the Rothschilds by no means neglected America.

The Biggest Financial Panic Ever:  The Great Depression of the 1930s Was Engineered As a Major “Controlled Disintegration” of America and To Benefit Britain

In 1919, in the aftermath of World War I, Britain was in trouble.  British exports had become too overpriced to be competitive in world trade, which impinged on the nation’s income.  The British were spending more on imports than they was taking in through their exports, which meant that its gold reserves were being drained as the nation was forced to use its gold to pay other countries to cover the trade imbalance.

G. Edward Griffin wrote:

“The handwriting was on the wall.  If this process continued, the nation soon would be broke.  It was a situation, incidentally, which was amazingly parallel to what has plagued the United States since the end of World War II, and for mostly the same reasons. The British economy was, not only badly anemic, it was experiencing a monetary hangover from the vast inflation of World War I.  In other words, it was undergoing a painful but, in the long run, healthy recovery and a return to reality.”

“Such a condition was intolerable to the (Bank of England and its international banking players) who were determined to find a quick and painless remedy (to allow) the binge to continue…..America had also (experienced an inflationary economy) during (World War I) but not nearly as much (as Britain)…..She also had a gold standard, but the stockpile of gold was very large and still growing…..”

“The therapy chosen for this problem was simple.  Perform a monetary transfusion from the healthy patient to the unhealthy one.  All the London financiers had to do was find a large and robust specimen who, without asking too many question, would be willing to become the donor.  The specimen selected, of course, was Uncle Sam himself…..(the method of transfusion) was ingenious:  to have one nation deliberately inflate its currency at a rate greater than the other nation so that real purchasing power, in terms of international trade, moves from (the nation—America—with less inflation to the one with more inflation—Britain).”

“It was so subtle and so sophisticated that not one in a thousand would even think of it, much less object to it.  It was, therefore, the ideal method chosen in 1925 to benefit (Britain) at the expense of America.”

Murray Rothbard, in his The Federal Reserve as a Cartelization Device, Money in Crisis (1984) wrote:

“In short, the American public was nominated to suffer the burdens of inflation and subsequent collapse (the crash of 1929) in order to maintain the British government and the British trade union movement in the style to which they insisted on becoming accustomed.”

Griffin continued:

“The Bank of England provided (Benjamin Strong, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) with an office and a private secretary during his visits, and the two men (Strong and Montagu Norman) kept in close contact with each other through the weekly exchange of private cables.  All of these meetings and communiques were kept in strict secrecy.  By 1926, the heads of the central banks of France and Germany were occasionally included in their meetings…..”

“The culmination of these discussions took place at a secret meeting in 1927 at which it was agreed that the financial lifeblood of the American people would be donated for a massive transfusion to (Britain).”

John Kenneth Galbraith, in his Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went (1975), wrote:

“On July 1st, 1927, the Mauretania arrived in New York with two notable passengers, Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, and Hjalmar Schacht, head of the German Reichsbank…..The secrecy covering the visit was extreme and to a degree ostentatious.  The names of neither of the great bankers appeared on the passenger list.  Neither, on arriving, met with the press….In New York the two men were joined by Charles Rist, the Deputy Governor of the Banque do France, and they went into conferences with Benjamin Strong, the Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York……”

“The principle, or in any case the ultimately important, subject of discussion was the persistently weak reserve position (the low level of gold holdings) of the Bank of England.  This, the bankers thought, could be helped if the Federal Reserve would ease interest rates, encourage lending (and initiate a new economic boom).  Holders of gold would then seek the higher returns from keeping their metal in London.  And, in time, higher prices in the United States would ease the competitive position of British industry and labor.”

Griffin continued:

“Gilbraith speaks with soft phrases to cushion a harsh reality. What he is saying is that the purpose of the meeting was to finalize a plan whereby the Governor of the Federal Reserve System was to deliberately create inflation in the U.S. so that American prices would rise, making U.S. goods less competitive in world markets and causing American gold to move to the Bank of England. Governor Strong needed little convincing. That is precisely what he and Norman had planned to do all along and, in fact, he had already begun to implement the plan. The purpose of inviting the Germans and the French to the meeting was to enlist their agreement to create inflation in their countries as well. Schacht and Rist would have no part of it and left the meeting early, leaving Strong and Norman to work out the final details between them.”  (Calvin Coolidge was the U.S. President at the time—Herbert Hoover became President in March of 1929 and left office, after one term, in March of 1933, replaced by Franklin D. Roosevelt.)

“The burst of inflation came in the latter half of 1927, immediately following the secret meeting between Strong, Norman, Schacht, and Rist…….As anticipated, people with gold then preferred to send it to London where it could earn a higher yield, and America’s gold supply began to move abroad. Furthermore, as inflation began to eat its way into the purchasing power of the dollar, the prices of American-made goods began to rise in world markets making them less competitive; U.S. exports began to decline; unemployment began to rise; low interest rates and easy credit led to speculation in the securities markets; and the system lunged full speed ahead toward the great crash of 1929.”

When the Great Depression struck, the Federal Reserve drew the attention of critics all over again, but on a much greater scale, due to the severity of economic conditions and the belief of some that the Federal Reserve was a prime cause.

The Federal Reserve: Congressman Louis McFadden Penetrates the High Wall of False Reality

Republican Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Banking and Currency, expressed his views of the purposes and performance of the Federal Reserve Board in a scorching, 25-minute critique that took place on June 10th, 1932, blaming the Fed for causing the national crisis.  Congressman McFadden had a banking background:  In 1892, he entered the employ of the First National Bank in Canton, Pennsylvania.  In 1899, he was elected cashier, and became its president on January 11, 1916, serving until 1925.  He served as treasurer of the Pennsylvania Bankers Association in 1906 and 1907, and as president in 1914 and 1915.  The following is a portion of his commentary. The length of this excerpt is worth the read because of its insights.  Congressman McFadden, in an open session of Congress spoke forcefully:

Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known.  I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks.  The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt.  The depredations and iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board has cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over.  This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government.  It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministrations of that law by the Federal Reserve, and through the corrupt practices of the money vultures who control it.

Some people think the Federal Reserve Board banks are United States Government institutions.  They are not Government institutions.  They are private credit monopolies, which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.  In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.

These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.  Those bankers took money out of this country to finance Japan in a way against Russia.  They created a rein of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along.  They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia and thus drove a wedge between the Allies in the World War.  They financed Trotsky’s disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors.  They have since begun the breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children.

It has been said that President Wilson was deceived by the attentions of these bankers and by the philanthropic poses they assumed.  It has been said that when he discovered the manner in which he had been misled by Colonel House, he turned against that busybody, that holy monk of the financial empire, and showed him the door.  He had the grace to do that, and in my opinion he deserves great credit for it.  President Wilson died a victim of deception.  When he came to the Presidency, he had certain qualities of mind and heart which entitled him to ahigh place in the councils of this Nation, but there was one thing he was not and which he never aspired to be; he was not a banker.  He said that he knew very little about banking.  It was, therefore, on the advice of others that the iniquitous Federal Reserve Act, the death warrant of American liberty, became law in his administration.

The passion emanating from Congressman McFadden came, in part, from the popular sentiment at the time that the European central banks had caused enormous economic instability and financial distress in Europe with their capture of each country’s banking system.

It was Republican Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, the key American attendee of the 1910 meeting that brought the Federal Reserve System to life, who presented the bill to Congress that paved the way for adoption of the Fed.  The Democratic Party platform that elected Woodrow Wilson for President opposed the bill.

Congressman McFadden continued:

Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill.  He was the tool, but not the accomplice, of the European-born bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this country and who in 1912 had spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.  Thirteen months later, that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the kings bank to control us from the top downward, and to shackle us from the cradle to the grave. The danger that the country was warned against came upon us and is shown in the long train of horrors attendant upon the affairs of the traitorous and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks are fully liable.  This is an era of financed crime and in the financing of crime, and the Federal Reserve Board does not play the part of a disinterested spectator.

In the eighteen years that have passed since Senator Lodge wrote his letter of warning (opposing the Aldridge bill) all of his predictions have come true.  The Government is in the banking business with horsethieves and card sharps, bootleggers, speculators, and swindlers in all parts of the world.  Through the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks the riffraff of every country is operating on the public credit of the United States Government.  Meanwhile, and on account of it, we ourselves are in the midst of the greatest depression we have ever known.  Thus the menace to our prosperity, so feared by Senator Lodge, has indeed struck home.

From the Atlantic to the Pacific our country has been ravaged and laid waste by the evil practices of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks and the interests, which control them.  At no time in our history has the general welfare of the people of the United States been at a lower level or the mind of the people so filled with despair.

The people of the United States are being greatly wronged.  If they are not, then I do not know what wronging the people means.  They have been driven from their employments.  They have been dispossessed of their homes.  They have been evicted from their rented quarters.  They have lost their children.  They have been left to suffer and to die for lack of shelter, food, clothing, and medicine.

The wealth of the United States and the working capital of the United States has been taken away from them and has been locked in the vaults of certain banks and the great corporations.  So far as the people of the United States are concerned, the cupboard is bare.  It is true that the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are full, but the warehouses and coal yards and grain elevators are padlocked and the great banks and corporations hold the keys.  The sack of the United States by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks is the greatest crime in history.

Mr. Chairman, a serious situation confronts the House of Representatives to-day.  We are trustees of the people and the rights of the people are being taken away from them.  Through the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks, the people are losing the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution.  Their property has been taken from them without due process of law.  Mr. Chairman, common decency requires us to examine the public accounts of the Government and see what crimes against the public welfare have and are being committed.

What is needed here is a return to the Constitution of the United States.  We need to have a complete divorce of Bank and State.  The old struggle that was fought out here in Jackson’s day must be fought over again.  The independent United States Treasury should be re-established and the Government should keep its own money under lock and key in the building the people provided for that purpose.  Asset currency, the device of the swindler, should be done away with.  The Government should buy gold and issue United States currency on it.

The business of the independent bankers should be restored to them.  The State banking systems should be freed from coercion.  The Federal Reserve districts should be abolished and the State whose people own them, and this reserve money of the people should be protected so that the international bankers and acceptance bankers and discount dealers can not draw it away from them.  The exchanges should be closed while we are putting our financial affairs in order. The Federal Reserve Act should be repealed and the Federal Reserve banks, having violated their charters, should be liquidated immediately.  Faithless government officers who have violated their oaths of office should be impeached and brought to trial.  Unless this is done by us, I predict that the American people, outraged, robbed, pillaged, insulted, and betrayed as they are in their own land, will rise in their wrath and send a President here who will sweep the money changers out of the temple.”

There were three efforts to assassinate Congressman McFadden.  The third was successful, by poison.  Based on my research, I conclude that the concealed power reverted to its standard playbook to order up an assassination when their concealed schemes were exposed to the public light by Congressman McFadden.
Pull up: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/louis-t-mcfadden-1876-1936-an-american-hero-by-richard-c-cook/

In Schlesinger’s third volume on the Roosevelt era, The Politics of Upheaval (1960), the actions of the Federal Reserve System drew considerable attention.  The issue emerged after President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Marriner S. Eccles to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in 1934.   Schlesinger wrote:

“As a result, Eccles felt, the System tended to serve the interests of the bankers (and especially of New York bankers) rather than the general interests of the country.  Once this was (changed), the Board and the System could make an effective contribution to recovery.  Henry Morgenthau, Jr., head of the U.S. Treasury agreed.”

The move to integrate Eccles changes in the Banking Bill of 1935 collided with the strenuous contrary efforts of Carter Glass, the former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President Wilson and former Chairman of the House Committee of Banking and Currency in 1913 that oversaw Congressional approval of the original Federal Reserve Act.  My research indicates that Senator Glass worked for the concealed clique.

The false reality that surrounds us explains away the Great Depression as if it were an unpredictable weather event.  In fact, the Federal Reserve carried out a concealed scheme that simultaneously boosted Britain’s faltering economy and intentionally damaged America’s economic strength, as well as the well-being of the American people.

The Rockefeller family reflects the same basic characteristics of the Eastern Establishment:  (i) living in an alternative universe, (ii) pretensions of entitlement and privilege, (iii) a fundamental contempt for American principles as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, (iv) an allegiance to the British old-wealth families, (v) complicity in destroying America’s economic strength and national solidarity, and lastly, (v) extensive funding of plans and actions to bring about global depopulation.

The Rockefeller family was and continues to be at the center of Eastern Establishment power and has the longest history for participating in machinations to weaken American society and bring about a concealed power-controlled one-world government.  The Rockefeller family is synonymous with global oil production and global banking operations, which are second in profitability only to the concealed power’s carefully disguised global narcotics trade monopoly.

The most effective way to gain an understanding of the profile of the Rockefeller family is to become familiar with David Rockefeller, the family legacy of fraud going back to his great-grandfather, William Avery Rockefeller, and then review the many schemes orchestrated by the concealed power and carried out by the Rockefeller family.  David Rockefeller, age 97, was the great-grandson of William Avery Rockefeller, believed to be related to immigrating French Huguenots (Protestants, severely persecuted by the Catholics) who fled to Germany in the 1700s and later moved to America.  William Rockefeller, born in 1810 in Granger, New York, resided in Richford, New York, near Ithaca and, according to Ron Chernow, in his Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (1998),

The locals referred to the mysterious but fun-loving man as Big Bill, and Devil Bill.  Throughout his life, (he) gained a reputation for shady schemes rather than productive work.  Eliza (his wife), a homemaker and devout Baptist, struggled to maintain a semblance of stability at home, as William was frequently gone for extended periods.  She also put up with his philandering and his double life, which included bigamy.  Purportedly, William was a traveling salesman of bottled oil that seeped up from salt wells owned by Samuel L. Kier at Tarentum, Pennsylvania.  The elixir was first referred to as Kier’s Magic Oil, which William Rockefeller went on to market as, among other cures, a cancer therapy.

According to Grant Segall, in his John D. Rockefeller: Anointed With Oil (2001), William Rockefeller’s son, John D. Rockefeller, learned cheating on his father’s knee:

“He followed his father’s advice to “trade dishes for platters,” and always get the better part of any deal.  Big Bill once bragged, “I cheat my boys every chance I get.  I want to make ’em sharp.”

The Rockefeller family devoted considerable time and money to develop the field of eugenics, a race superiority movement spawned in the early 1900s based on pseudo-scientific genetic inheritance theories.  Yet, here we have a family that is, on the one hand, presenting itself as genetically superior, while its progenitor, William Rockefeller, is, if anything, an inferior human specimen—an anti-social being, disloyal to his wife, a purveyor of fraudulent goods, and a father who intentionally teaches his children to take advantage of others by means of cheating.  In other words, the Rockefeller family, from its inception, has been all about fraudulent behavior taken to its extremes, beginning with its pretensions of racial superiority.

John Davison Rockefeller, William Avery Rockefeller’s son, was born in 1839 in Richford, New York.  The family moved to Cleveland, Ohio, where he completed high school and attended Folsom’s Commercial College, where he studied bookkeeping.  Starting as an assistant bookkeeper in a produce firm, he eventually accumulated sufficient savings to join in a produce enterprise and then partner in the development of a small oil refinery in Cleveland’s industrial sector.  His brother Frank fought in the Civil War, but John D. Rockefeller, hired substitute soldiers to take his place and continued to work in the oil business, eventually bought out his partners, and was well-positioned in the post-Civil War period to take advantage of the country’s industrial growth westward expansion.  He gained the attention of Jacob Schiff of the Kuhn Loeb investment firm who coached him in business tactics and arranged for funding of Rockefeller’s activities through the Rothschild-controlled National Bank of Cleveland (Schiff’s family and the Rothschild family lived together in the same home in Frankfurt, Germany when Jacob was growing up).  In June of 1870, John Rockefeller formed Standard Oil of Ohio, which became one of the largest refiners and shippers of oil and kerosene in the U.S.  Its success had a great deal to do with a combination of business tactics designed to eliminate all of Standard Oil’s competition.

One of the most noteworthy schemes designed by Rockefeller and Schiff (who had orchestrated a massive amount of Rothschild family investment into the burgeoning American railroad industry), was the formation of the South Improvement Company, controlled by Standard Oil.  A secret rebate agreement was arranged with the three railroads that carried freight between Cleveland and New York, the Pennsylvania Railroad, the Erie, and the New York Central, with the following terms:

• The railroads planned to double their freights (rates), including a new rate of $2.56 per barrel of oil for all refiners shipping from Cleveland to New York.

• But, South Improvement Company would secretly receive a rebate of $1.06 per barrel on the Standard Oil shipments.

• The railroads would also secretly pay South Improvement Company $1.06 per barrel on all other non-Standard Oil refiners’ shipments.

• The railroads would also give secret reports of the shipping destinations, costs, and dates of all of Standard Oil’s competitors.

• Fraud appeared to be a Rockefeller family trademark from the beginning.  The definition for fraudulent activity is:  activities intended to wrongfully or criminally deceive others to achieve financial or personal gain.

Grant Segall wrote:

“This touched off a firestorm of protest from independent oil well owners, including boycotts and vandalism, which eventually led to the discovery of Standard Oil’s part in the deal.  A major New York refiner, Charles Pratt and Company, headed by Charles Pratt and Henry H. Rogers, led the opposition to this plan, and railroads soon backed off.  Pennsylvania revoked the cartel’s charter and equal rates were restored for the time being.  Undeterred, though vilified for the first time in the press, Rockefeller continued with his self-reinforcing cycle, coached by monopoly-encouraging Jacob Schiff, of buying competing refiners, improving the efficiency of his operations, pressing for discounts on oil shipments, undercutting his competition, making secret deals, raising investment pools, and buying rivals out.  In less than four months in 1872, in what was later known as ˜The Cleveland Conquest,” or ˜The Cleveland Massacre,” Standard Oil had absorbed 22 of its 26 Cleveland competitors (fueled by funding by the Rothschild family).  Eventually, even his former antagonists, Pratt and Rogers, saw the futility of continuing to compete against Standard Oil:  in 1874, they made a secret agreement with their old nemesis to be acquired.  Pratt and Rogers became Rockefeller’s partners.  For many of his competitors, Rockefeller had merely to show them his books so they could see what they were up against, then make them a decent offer.  If they refused his offer, he told them he would run them into bankruptcy, then cheaply buy their assets at auction. By the end of the 1870s, Standard was refining over 90% of the oil in the U.S. (and) Rockefeller had already become a millionaire (in 1870 dollars).”

In order to expand its burgeoning banking combine, it was John D. Rockefeller, Jr, who, in 1930, orchestrated the merger of Chase National Bank in New York with the Rockefeller family’s Equitable Trust Company of New York.  In 1955, the Chase National Bank and the Manhattan Company (another New York City bank) merged to create Chase Manhattan Bank and, in 2000, J.P. Morgan & Co. acquired Chase Manhattan Bank to become today’s largest global bank, J.P. Morgan Chase.

With its worldwide influence in both the petroleum and the banking industries, the Rockefeller family thereby maximized its political and economic influence across the world.  With that extraordinary combined power of money and political influence, it did not lead America and the world to a future better condition.  Instead, it intentionally undertook a course to subvert American principles as described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and to undermine the economic and social strength of America.  The irony being that the Rockefeller family could never have built its family fortune except in America under the American principles which it holds in such contempt.  To benefit so spectacularly by taking advantage of America’s protection of individual rights and freedoms, and then to so systematically try to destroy those same rights and freedoms for the American population and its next generations is nothing less than a profound betrayal.  The Rockefeller family’s actual track record would have made their progenitor, William Avery Rockefeller, proud:

1.  Aligning With the Foreign Dynastic Banking Families:  The Rockefeller family, along with the other Eastern Establishment families, (i) aligned itself with the clique of foreign dynastic banking families to facilitate the British objective of recapturing America as a colony, and (ii) attempted to impose on America a one-world government under the dominance of the concealed power. The Rockefeller family pursued its business and one-world government objectives by the use of widespread bribery and coercion of American government at both the federal and state levels.

2.  Sabotaging American Education:  The family formed its Rockefeller Foundation on May 14, 1913 and joined forces with the Carnegie Endowment to subvert American education for the purpose shifting the perspective of our next generations away from an understanding of American principles described clearly in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.  By the use of bribery, massive grant fundings, coercion, and their intermediate network of Rockefeller-funded associations, they were successful in supplying altered textbooks, altered teaching methods, biased research, and a fraudulent revision of American History.  To further accomplish its subversion, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment used a network of educational associations to dumb down the next American generations to create a docile, uninformed, and muddled future American populations.  The Rockefellers helped fund the indoctrination of hand-picked American graduate students by sending them to London to Oxford, the London School of Economics, and other British institutions and then systematically placing them, upon return to the U.S., on important career tracks in America to support the objectives of the concealed clique.  (see The Tax-Exempt Foundations (1980) by William H. McIlhany, II and read Chapter One of A Grandfather’s Encouragement To Our Next Generation (2013).

3.  Taking Over America’s Financial System:  In 1910, under the strictest veil of secrecy, seven men met at Jekyll Island, Georgia to create a private bank (deceptively named, the Federal Reserve to suggest that it was part of the U.S. Government) designed to take over America’s financial system to benefit its private owners and gain overwhelming control of the American government.  The clandestine meeting was orchestrated by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families and included the following individuals:

Treasonous Americans Controlled by the Rockefellers:

1.  Nelson W. Aldrich, Senate Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, whose daughter, Abby, married John D. Rockerfeller, Jr.

2.  Abraham Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury,  Lawrenceville School, Princeton University, Harvard Graduate School, faculty member in the Economics Department.

3.  Frank A. Vanderlop, President of National City Bank of New York, a
Rockefeller-controlled international banking institution.

Treasonous Americans Controlled by the Rothschilds:

1.  Paul Warburg, Warburg banking family of Hamburg and Amsterdam; and partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Company, which also represented Rothschild interests in America.  Warburg acquired an American citizenship.

2.  Henry Davison, Senior Partner of J.P. Morgan & Co., representing Rothschild interests in America.

3. Charles D. Norton, President of 1st National Bank of New York, controlled by J.P. Morgan & Co, representing the Rothschild interests in America.

4.  Benjamin Strong, President of Bankers Trust Company, controlled by J.P. Morgan & Co., which represented the Rothschild interests in America.

The private ownership of the Federal Reserve was secretly held by the concealed clique through its agents in America.

It bears repeating that Rockefeller-controlled Frank Vanderlip, one of the seven members of the Jekyll Island meeting, later admitted his complicity on behalf of the Rockefeller family in the scheme to bring about the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913:

“Despite my views about the value to society of greater publicity for the affairs of corporations, there was an occasion, near the close of 1910, when I was as secretive—indeed, as furtive as any conspirator.  I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. We were told to leave our last names behind us.  We were told, further, that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure.  We were instructed to come one at a time and as unobtrusively as possible to the railroad terminal on the New Jersey littoral of the Hudson, where Senator Aldrich’s private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of a train for the South.  Once aboard the private car we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names.  We addressed one another as “Ben,” “Paul,””Nelson,””Abe,”—it is Abraham Piatt Andrew.  Davison and I adopted even deeper disguises, abandoning our first names.  On the theory that we were always right, he became Wilbur and I became Orville, after those two aviation pioneers, the Wright brothers.  The servants and train crew may havd known the identities of one or two of us, but they did not know all, and it was the names of all printed together that would have made our mysterious journey significant in Washington, in Wall Street, even in London.  Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted.  If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had got together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress.”

This profound destruction of American sovereignty and betrayal of the best interest of the American people was guided through Congress by Rockefeller-controlled Senator Nelson Aldrich, who, using stealth, brought the bill to a vote on December 23, 1913, when many opponents to the bill, caught unawares, had already left for home during the Christmas holiday (see The Creature from Jekyll Island–A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (2004), G. Edward Griffin and read Chapter Two of A Grandfather’s Encouragement To Our Next Generation (2013).

This narrative by Frank Vanderlip is an excellent example of the kind of colossal fraud that is the trademark of the concealed clique.  The fact that a completelyfraudulent private bank controlled by the concealed clique could be foisted upon the American people through a secret meeting on a small island offshore Georgia by a cabal of   high American officials and conspiring foreign and domestic bankers is PREPOSTEROUS; it is UNTHINKABLE on its face.  But it did actually happen.  And, thus, the success in carrying out this fraud from its inception on December 23, 1913 to today must have resulted from the concealed clique wielding full power of  its imperial playbook, including, but not limited to: massive bribery, maximum surveillance, deep blackmail, mortal threats, deadly violence, and assassinations of American public figures.

I use the term PREPOSTEROUS and UNTHINKABLE because the vast majority of Americans cannot conceive of any such thing happening in America.  And that is why most Americans—who are unaware of the long psychological warfare and propaganda waged on them by the concealed clique, which is yet another PREPOSTEROUS and UNTHINKABLE notion—are highly resistant to alternative explanations of “how the world actually works,” particularly explanations that they have never heard of before and that are so seemingly bizarre and potentially disorienting that they reject them out of hand, frequently with considerable anger and ridicule directed at the messenger of the explanation.

Earlier, I mentioned that when everything else fails, the use of Irish gallows humor might help penetrate the high wall of false reality that surrounds most Americans.  Here is a relevant example of such humor that may be of help:

4.  Subverting the American Medical Profession:  Using bribery, grant fundings, coercion, and a myriad of Rockefeller-funded associations, as they did in American education, they gained control over the policy-making processes of the American medical profession, and in particular, American medical education, for the purpose of maximizing their pharmaceutical profits, instead of a balanced use of treatments that would also include use of nutrition/vitamin and natural substances (homeopathy).  Accordingly, the American medical field is overwhelmingly dominated by drug and surgery treatments.  Behind this successful scheme is a global pharmaceutical cartel that began when the Rockefeller family formed the I.G. Farben and Standard Oil Company cartel—a global monopoly in the pharmaceutical field.  G. Edward Griffin provides an important insight about the purposes behind the objective of one-world government:

It follows, also that if big government is good for cartels, then bigger government is better, and total government is best.  It is for these reason that, throughout their entire history, cartels have been found to be the behind-the-scenes promoters of every conceivable form of totalitarianism.  They supported the Nazis in Germany; they embraced the Fascists in Italy; they financed the Bolsheviks in Russia the “super rich” so often are found in support of socialism or socialist measures there is no competition and there is no free enterprise government becomes the tool of the very forces that, supposedly, it is regulating.  The regulations, upon close examination, almost always turn out to be what the cartels have agreed upon beforehand, except that now they have the police power of the state to enforce them.

The extreme example of cartel power is in cancer research and treatment.  Griffin wrote:

“Laetrile got in the way.  First, the nutritional concept upon which it rests is anathema to the drug industry.  Second, the fact that it is a product of free-enterprise was an affront to the bureaucracy of big government.  Third, the final solution to the cancer problem surely will terminate the gigantic cancer-research industry, most of the radio-therapy industry, and much of the surgery now being performed.  Loss of revenue in these fields would be catastrophic to thousands of professional fund-raisers, researchers, and technicians.  And fourth, the elimination of cancer from the national medical bill would reduce the dose of medical care each year so drastically that much of the current political pressure for socialized medicine would evaporate.  (Laetrile, a chemical found in the pits of peaches, nectarines, plums, apricots, and almonds, thought by some to be a cancer cure, was banned as a cancer treatment by the Federal Drug Agency in 1971.)”  (see World Without Cancer—The Story of Vitamin B-17 (1997), by G. Edward Griffin).

5.  Fomented War:  The Rockefeller family provided major funding to support the Bolshevik Revolution against Czarist Russia that created the USSR, and also provided major funding to support the rise of Nazi Germany, which led directly to World War II.  Moreover, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company continued to provide petroleum to Nazi Germany throughout its war with the U.S.

6.  Major Funding for the Foreign Dynastic Banking Families’ Council on Foreign Relations in New York:

In yet another fraudulent action, the Rockefeller family provided major funding that helped maintain a highly influential, concealed clique’s planning and oversight organization in New York City—the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)—for the purpose of subverting American principles, diminishing U.S. sovereignty, weakening the American economy and spreading disinformation to promote one-world government.  Since its inception, the Council on Foreign Relations  membership has included an elite list of American politicians, U.S. government officials, senior faculty of U.S. universities, heads of U.S. foundations, and top executives of the concealed power’s transnational corporations, all of whom are under the influence, to one degree or another, of the concealed clique for their careers.

Although the CFR was originally funded and dominated by J.P. Morgan interests since its inception in 1921, control shifted to the Rockefeller family.  As you read on, it will become clear that the Rockefellers are an integral part of the concealed power.  While the British hold the dominant power, the Rockefeller family appears in the lead with regard to concealed power-controlled schemes that are focused on America.

To connect the dots from the concealed clique and its target of colonial control, America, one has only to read the salient part of Cecil Rhodes’s will and Rhodes’ intent, written in 1877:

“To and for the establishment, promotion, and development of a secret society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of the system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and (Crete), the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not here to for possessed by great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity.”

And from David Rockefeller’s autobiography, Memoirs (2003), he wrote:

For more that a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions.  Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure; one world, if you will.  If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

If only the U.S. Constitution had teeth, David Rockefeller would have been deported and incarcerated in solitary confinement for life for treason against the United States of America.  This might be the best example you will find of the fact that the Eastern Establishment families live in an alternative universe.  They made their money in America because America threw off the feudal shackles of the British monarchy and organized a government that supported individual rights and freedoms.  But now that the Rockefellers have secured their fortunes they want to further maximize their profit-making by removing those individual rights and freedoms, eliminating America’s nation-state status and forcing it into a one-world government under their control.  That is why deportation and incarceration must be the consequence of such treasonous behavior.

7.  Involvement With the Foreign Dynastic Banking Families in the Global Narcotics Trade Monopoly

One of the most insightful sources of information about the global narcotics trade comes from the Executive Intelligence Review, which published revelatory books:  Dope, Inc.—The Book That Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy (1992) and an updated version, Dope, Inc—Britain’s Opium War Against the World (2010).  EIR began this book series with the first edition of Dope, Inc. in the late 1970s.  Lyndon LaRouche, EIR’s founder, stated that it was in 1977 that he recognized a flood of new narcotics trafficking throughout America that, if left unchecked, would become the highest threat to our national security.  The Executive Intelligence Review was established by LaRouche as a privately-supported intelligence network to be of service to the American and world public.  He also formed the U.S. Labor Party and ran for U.S. President in presidential campaigns from 1976 to 2004.  The work of EIR and his political activism provoked retaliation in the form of a 15-year prison sentence for alleged conspiracy to commit mail fraud and tax code violations, but he continued his campaign to draw attention to the burgeoning global narcotics monopoly orchestrated by the concealed power that was savaging populations in countries across the world.  He was finally paroled in 1994 and continues his efforts.  (see: http://www.larouchepub.com/)

EIR wrote:

In the years of 1919 and 1920, two events of critical strategic importance for Britain’s opium war against the United States occurred.  First, the Royal Institute of International Affairs was founded.  The purpose of this institution had been set forth over forty years before in the last will and testament of empire-builder Cecil Rhodes.  Rhodes had called for the formation of a secret society that would oversee the reestablishment of a British empire that would incorporate most of the developing world and recapture the United States.  Toward this objective, Rhodes’s circle, including Rudyard Kipling, Lord Milner, and a group of Oxford College graduates known as Milner’s Kindergarten, constituted the Round Table at the turn of the twentieth century.  In 1919, the same grouping founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs as the central planning and recruitment agency for a British one-world empire.

The second event occurred on January 6, of the next year.  Britain declared its opium war against the United States.  Americans knew it as Prohibition.  Prohibition brought the narcotics traffic, the narcotics traffickers, and large-scale organized crime into the United States.  Illegal alcohol and illegal narcotics made up two different product lines of the same multinational firm.  The (British East India) Company networks, through their distilleries in Scotland and Canada, and from their opium refineries in Shanghai and Hong Kong, were the suppliers.  The British, through their banks in Canada and the Caribbean, were the financiers.  Through their political conduits in the United States, the British created the set of political conditions under which the United States might finally be won back.  Two tracks led to the drug epidemic in the United States, one in the Far East, and the other in the United States and Canada.  Against the outcry of the League of Nations and nearly the entire civilized world, the British stubbornly fought to maintain opium production in the Far East, expanding the illegal supply of heroin, just as the drug went out of legal circulation in American in 1924.  In North American, Canada—which had had its own period of Prohibition—went wet one month before the United States went dry.

In interviews with the authors (EIR staff), Drug Enforcement Administration officials have emphasized the similarity of the alcohol and narcotics modus operandi.  When the agents of Arnold Rothstein and Meyer Lansky made their first trips to the Far East in the 1920s, they purchased heroin from the British with full legality.  What the American gangsters did with the drug was their own business; the British opium merchants were merely engaging in free enterprise.  When British leading distilling companies sold bulk quantities of liquor to Arnold Rothstein and Joseph Kennedy—for delivery either to the Bahamas or to the three-mile territorial limit of the United States coastal waters—they had no responsibility for what happened to the liquor once it reached American shores.  (The identical explanation was offered by an official of the British Bank of the Middle East, which now services the Far East drug traffic through a smugglers market in gold bullion in Dubai, on the Persian Gulf.  “We only sell the gold, old boy,” the banker said.  “What those fellows do with it once they get it is up to them.”

Which of the American syndicates obtained this month’s franchise for drug or liquor was immaterial to the British traffickers.  The greater the extent of inter-gang bloodshed, the less obvious their role would be.  In fact, the British distillers could provoke such events at will by withholding needed inventory of bootleg alcohol.

The “Noble Experiment,” (as Prohibition was called) was aimed at degrading the American people through popular violation of the law and association with the crime syndicate controlled by (big Wall Street banks, which were) an extension of the London Rothschild banking network and British Secret Intelligence into the United States.

With this lower Manhattan-Canada centered grouping acting as the political control, the Prohibition project was launched during the early 1910s under the shadow of the United States entry into World War I.  It is a fraud of the highest order that Prohibition represented only a mass social protest against the evils of alcohol.  The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and its Anti-Saloon League offshoots enjoyed the financial backing of the Astors, the Vanderbilts, the Warburgs, and the Rockefellers.

Then as now, the funding conduits were principally the tax-exempt foundations—especially the Russell Sage Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.  John D. Rockefeller was hoodwinked by Lord Beaverbrook and former Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King into not only bankrolling the WCTU, but providing it with the services of the foundation’s entire staff of private investigators.  One strand of the Temperance Movement was run by Jane Addams, who studied the Fabian Society’s London settlement house Toynbee Hall experiment, and came to the United States to launch a parallel project which later produced the University of Chicago.

These three British-spawned cults agitated nationally for Prohibition.  The amendment was fully ratified by 1917; however, the Volstead Act that defined the federal enforcement procedures was not scheduled for implementation until January 6, 1920.  In Canada, a brief Prohibition period (1915-1919) was enacted by order of His Majesty’s Privy Council principally to create the financial reserves and bootlegging circuit for the U.S. Prohibition.  In this period, Canada’s Bronfman family established the local mob contacts in the United States and consolidated contractual agreements with the Royal Liquor Commission in London.  In New York, primarily out of Brooklyn, teams of field agents of the Russell Sage Foundation conducted a reorganization and recruitment drive among local hoodlum networks—already loosely organized through Tammany Hall’s New York City Democratic Party machine. “Legitimate” business fronts were established, replacing neighborhood nickel-and-dime loan sharking operations, and specially selected individuals—largely drawn from the Mazzini Mafia transplanted to the United States during the late 1800s Italian migrations—were sent out of Brooklyn into such major Midwest cities as Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis in the twelve months leading up to the Volstead enforcement.  One such Brooklyn recruit was Al Capone.

The British oligarchy did much more than supply the gutter elements of the crime syndicates with their stock in trade.  To a surprising extent, the Anglophile portion of America’s upper crust joined in the fun.  The case of Joseph Kennedy—who owed his British contracts for liquor wholesaling to the Duke of Devonshire, and later married his daughter into the family—is notorious.  In some respects more revealing is the strange case of Robert Maynard Hutchins, the President of the Rockefeller-founded and supported University of Chicago from 1929 to 1950.  Hutchins had American citizenship, but was so close to the British aristocracy that he became a Knight Commander of Her Majesty’s Venerable Order of St. John of Jerusalem, swearing an oath of chivalric fealty to the head of the order, the British monarch.  Under the guise of social studies research, several well-known University of Chicago postgraduate students received their apprenticeships in the service of the Capone gang, as late as the 1960s, retired University of Chicago President Hutchins himself was under investigation for his involvement with drug-trafficking and other black market enterprises.  Through the late 1960s his Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions was financed principally through Bernie Cornfeld’s Investments Overseas Service (IOS)—an international pyramid swindle and drug money-laundering enterprise.  Furthermore, Hutchins was simultaneously the president of a little-known Nevada foundation called the Albert Parvin Foundation, which several congressional committees investigating organized crime cited as a front for Las Vegas gambling receipts.

Chase Manhattan Bank chief David Rockefeller’s bid for “mafia money” started in the mid-1960s, at the same time that Citibank cranked up its “international personal banking” group to manage illegal capital movements, and Bank of America bankrolled the Banco Ambrosiano in Italy (which later collapsed due to irregularities).  But not until David Rockefeller bought himself a U.S. administration in 1976 (installing Jimmy Carter as President in 1977-81), as the ancient European (families) installed themselves in Wall Street, did narcotics traffic start to become serious business for the world’s biggest banks.  Salomon Brothers was the last of the big Wall Street firms and most important, to go, merging in 1981 with the trading arm of the Oppenheimer family, Philbro.  In the process, the Oppenheimers acquired effective policy control of the largest American commercial bank, Citibank.  What is new and ominous is that the men who perform the dirty work of the British families have moved out of shadows of Caribbean offshore banking and Hong Kong smuggling, and into the board rooms of the most powerful American financial institutions, and close to the councils of the United States government itself.

Our research indicates that this penetration of Wall Street, beginning with the  latter part of the Carter Administration, and in full bloom during the Reagan Administration, by these criminal narcotics operatives was the beginning of the over-the-top fraudulent practices that the American public can now see clearly in the operations of the top banks of the financial industry.  Reagan’s Presidency was marked by CIA-inspired and supported drug trafficking to provide financial support for the Contras, who were paid to oppose the  Sandinista-controlled Nicaraguan government.

Almost at the moment the Jimmy Carter administration took office, the Ibero-American dope traffic exploded into the big time, producing havoc in the distribution of cash throughout the Federal Reserve System by the end of 1978.  After a mere two years of Jimmy Carter’s White House, an extra $3.3 billion per year in cold cash was piling up in the Florida offices of the Federal Reserve, the $13 billion dope traffic had become Florida’s largest industry, and American narcotics consumption had jumped to $100 billion per year by EIR’s estimates, perhaps triple the level of the earlier 1970s.  Through G. William Miller’s Treasury and Paul Volcker’s Federal Reserve, the United States backed the International Monetary Fund’s campaign to force Ibero-America (Mexico, Central America and South America) to produce dope to pay its debts (to the big banks).  Volcker had been Rockefeller’s vice president for strategic planning (at Chase Manhattan Bank) at the time the (1966) “mafia money” memoranda ( circulated within the Bank, encouraging new deposits from that source), and Chase went begging to the likes of Y.K. Pao and the HongShang Bank for a cut in the Hong Kong dirty money pool.  Now the Trilateral Commission, the Rockefeller front organization which had nominated its mascot Jimmy Carter for the presidency, hit Ibero-America from all sides.  Chase’s international advisory board  Chairman Henry Kissinger, also the Trilateral Commission’s chairman, set in motion the Caribbean policy which culminated in the 1980 marijuana coup in Jamaica, with the backing of Trilateral Commission member Cyrus Vance’s Department of State.  Above all, the International Monetary Fund turned the financial screws on the Ibero-American debtors, with special emphasis on Jamaica, Columbia, Bolivia, and Peru—the major suppliers of marijuana and cocaine to the U.S. market.

8.  Massive Subversion and Looting of Caribbean, Central and South American Countries

Our research indicates that the Rockefeller family perceived Caribbean, Central and South American countries (Ibero-America) as their special turf, a fertile ground for any and all colonial-style excesses and machination to achieve unimaginable profits which were not going to be challenged, but rather strongly supported by the concealed power-controlled U.S. State Department and the U.S. military.  The Rockefeller formula for success was to orchestrate the combined impact of:

• American-based transnational corporations that sought monopoly positions in resource-rich countries with weak governments;

• Wall Street banks seeking to lend large amounts to such countries to create debt-dependency that led to control over such governments;

• The U.S. State Department running interference with the governments of such countries to insure the banks and transnational corporations would achieve their goals;

• The U.S. Marine Corps to intervene militarily to support the State Department’s control over the Ibero-American governments.

Using just one example, the Marine Corps was called into Cuba in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920.  By the 1950s, the U.S. corporations owned 80% of Cuban utilities, 90% of Cuban mines, close to 100% of the country’s oil refineries, 90% of its cattle ranches, and 40% of its sugar industry.  Cuba was also an extraordinarily profitable haven for U.S. organized crime’s casinos, bordellos, hotels, and other resort facilities.  And the U.S. State Department insured the stability of this country-wide looting operation by installing a strong and violent dictatorship under Fulgencio Batista, who was finally overthrown in the Cuban Revolution of 1959 by Fidel Castro.

It is interesting to note that this formula evolved into the now-thoroughly debunked Washington Consensus, which simply added the supra-national agencies—the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Association—to make the subversion of the vulnerable governments all across the world ever more efficient, and the looting of their populations all the more profitable for the banks and their transnational corporate partners.  In other words, the Washington Consensus was just an amped up version of the earlier Rockefeller formula used for the Ibero-American countries from the early 1900s on, to be applied on a global level.  It has been a form of thinly disguised financial colonialism that is now recognized in these oppressed countries for its thoroughly fraudulent and enormously destructive character.  But the onslaught suffered by the Ibero-American countries was not over, because beginning in the late 1970s, a immensely larger transnational corporation—–the concealed power-controlled global narcotics monopoly—–hit the Ibero-American countries with unprecedented force, as described by EIR:

……..food production in Ibero-America has collapsed.  At the same time, drug mafias have sequestered fertile lands and enslaved campesino (peasant farmer) populations—to grow coca,  amapola (poppies), and marijuana.  The suppliers have created internal markets.  Drug consumption inside the Ibero-American nations themselves has increased radically, and the human wreckage caused by addiction now rivals in size the percentages of addiction in the populations of the advanced sector nations…….The proper name for what is happening in Ibero-America today is recolonization.  The inheritors of the old British East India Company—the same British monarchy and some of the same banking houses—–have launched the new Opium War just as they did the first; to loot nations, destroy them, and exalt the power of the Empire.  Today the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has replaced the British East India Company.

The cultural optimism that accompanied the partially successful development of the 70s in Ibero-America was the product of a religious and cultural heritage that reflected a deep-seated belief in progress (but) the lack of development enforced by the current economic collapse has produced a state of undeclared war on the continent.  With the debt crisis of the 1980s, came the hopelessness of mass unemployment, chronic malnutrition, and economic marginalization of ever-larger sections of the Ibero-American population.  This imposed a climate of cultural pessimism appropriate for the spread of drug addiction, terrorism, and social chaos.

Does this sound like the violent turmoil that the Mexican people are suffering currently?

It is not widely known that President Nixon was a casualty in the war against Britain’s drug invasion of the United States.  Had Nixon not taken up the most basic interest of the nation in launching a wholesale effort to shut down the drug-trafficking—from the top down—it is likely that he would not have been unceremoniously forced out of office by Henry Kissinger, Edward Kennedy, and their British masters.  Documents are available in the public domain from the Drug Enforcement Administration and other executive agencies showing that Nixon’s ‘War on Drugs’ was directed at the top—at the banking institutions, the transportation grids, and only then at the distribution channels delivering the volumes of drugs onto the streets of the country.  At the same time that Nixon generically understood the top-down nature of the problem, he and his assistants scarcely understood that by going after the drug infrastructure they were taking on the British oligarchy and the entire underpinnings of the Eurodollar market, the Soviet KGB, recently reorganized under Yuri Andropov, and the People’s Republic of China.  Had Nixon understood the drug problem as a London-Moscow-Beijing problem, he would have perhaps been better prepared to deal with the ‘inside-outside’ attack against his presidency.

“Let us backtrack, for a moment, to the point of origin of the London-Beijing joint drug-running venture in the Far East, the wartime deal between the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and Zhou Enlai.  Detailed records of the relevant years have recently been made available.  In August 1978, the U.S. State Department released 3,100 pages of documents to the public dealing with American diplomacy in China at the time of the Maoist takeover.  From the British side, the RIIA in 1977 released its own records of its wartime and postwar operations group in the region, the Far East Committee—the real British Foreign Office.  Both sets of documents yield the same interpretation:  the creation of the Peoples Republic of China included an alliance between the British dope-runners and the Chinese dope-runners.  This was negotiated from the British side by Sir John Henry Keswick and from the Chinese side by Zhou Enlai.  From both the British and the Chinese side, the alliance was explicitly against the United States.  The credit for the re-creation of the alliance between Britain and the (Chinese Communists) must go to Sir John Henry Keswick, the Royal Institute’s man-on-the-spot at the British Embassy in Chungking during  World War II.  Keswick, of the hereditary drug-trading family that founded and still controls Jardine Matheson, also represented the Royal Institute and its sub-branch, the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), to the United States.  (It was) the IPR that produced the pro-Maoist group in the State Department centered around John S. Service and John Carter Vincent (who were later subjects of the McCarthy Investigations looking into the ‘loss of China’ to the Chinese Communists, the U.S. State Department’s bias in their favor, and potential subversion by the American branch of the IPR).  Although the IPR included American citizens and was funded through the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations, it functioned as a branch of the RIIA and British policy-making.  The dead giveaway on the IPR’s British character is the organization’s move to Canada subsequent to the 1950 McCarran Committee investigation, which mistook pro-British treason for pro-Communist treason.  With hearty British cheers, the disgraced Institute for Pacific Relations moved to Canada.

9.  Subversive and Un-Constitutional Control of American Foreign Policy

David Rockefeller’s other motivation in creating the Trilateral Commission was the declining effectiveness of the Council on Foreign Relations, much of it caused by an incendiary public debate over the Vietnam War (a horrendous modern war that Rockefeller supported).  Although the Eastern Establishment’s position had shifted to calling for an immediate withdrawal—now that the war had been deemed too financially costly to continue—the Council on Foreign Relations itself remained divided between supporters and opponents of the war.  These divisions came to a head in 1970 when David Rockefeller, as the new CFR chairman attempted to appoint William Bundy, one of the architects of the Vietnam War, as editor of (the influential CFR publication) Foreign Affairs.  The appointment provoked outrage among those new CFR members, mostly academics, who opposed the war on moral grounds, some of them publicly branding Bundy a war criminal.  This upset Rockefeller, who considered Bundy to be a man of quality and culture, but it was also clear to him that the war had poisoned the atmosphere at the Council.  The impact on Rockefeller of the battle over Bundy’s appointment was profound.  According to journalist John B. Judis, David Rockefeller lost confidence that high-level policy discussions (does this mean ‘treasonous high-level discussions?) could be carried on at the Council on Foreign Relations, and to remedy this he began to cast about for a new organization.   EIR wrote:

Underlying this Trilateral agenda was an antipathy towards democracy.  This was best expressed by its controversial report, The Crisis of Democracy (1975), (co-written by Harvard historian Samuel Huntington, a Rockefeller minion) which found fault with the pursuit of the ‘democratic virtues of equality and individualism’ as it had led to the ‘de-legitimation of authority’ generally and a loss of trust in leadership, not to mention an unacceptable rise in ‘nationalistic parochialism.’  To stem this excess of democracy, which had surged since the 1960s to challenge existing systems of authority, public and private, there needed to be, argued the report’s American co-author, Samuel Huntington, a greater degree of moderation in democracy.  People no longer felt a compulsion to obey those whose authority was based on hierarchy, expertise and wealth; and there had been a decline in the measure of apathy and non-involvement the democratic system required to function.  Richard Gardner, personally close to Chase Manhattan chief, Rockefeller, drafted all the major financial documents of The Trilateral Commission, including the 1976 plan to replace national governments control of economic policy with a truly global world bank.  (This is exactly why the U.S. Constitution must have teeth in order to indict and try those who decide to subvert its principles)

David Rockefeller has also had a long association with the secretive Bilderberg group.  In 1954, Rockefeller attended the first meeting of the Bilderberg group as a member of the 20-strong American contingent.  He had been one of 40 prominent Americans identified and subsequently contacted by John Coleman, chair of the Committee for a National Trade Policy and of the American committee of what was known quite simply as the Group, to see if he would be willing to attend the planned conference.  Rockefeller, naturally accepted and went to become one of the Group’s most regular participants.  The Bilderbergers have long been controversial, with many researchers attributing to the annual secret gathering a role in establishing the European Union and facilitating the planning of a world government.

The Cold War, which began immediately after the end of World War II ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.  During its break-up, David Rockefeller used his Trilateral Commission to get out in front of the U.S. State Department’s diplomatic contact with President Gorbachev in order to shape events more to fit the Rockefeller perspective(again, this is exactly why the U.S. Constitution must have teeth in order to indict and try those who decide to subvert its principles).

After leading business delegations to meet with Gorbachev, Rockefeller visited the USSR again in early 1989 at the head of a high-powered Trilateral Commission delegation which included Henry Kissinger, former French President Giscard d’Estaing, former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, and William Hyland, editor of the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs.  In their meeting with Gorbachev, the Trilateral delegation sought an explanation of how the USSR would integrate into the world economy.  “In phases.” Gorbachev replied.  The delegation also suggested that the USSR was too large to be outside of international economic organizations such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank.  Gorbachev, despite indicating that the Soviet leadership was close to making a decision on whether to join those bodies, said the Soviet Union wanted reciprocal steps from the West as they could not ‘accept the rules of participation’ for those organizations.

In their report to the Trilateral Commission released later that year, Kissinger, d’Estaing and Nakasone, reflected the delegation’s collective impatience with Gorbachev’s responses.  Among their recommendations was the admonition that no global financing should be offered to the USSR as it would only perpetuate ‘an unbalanced economy’ without delivering the ‘necessary fundamental reforms’ in prices, freer enterprises and convertibility of the ruble.  They also recommended against giving the USSR full membership in the IMF and GATT until it is clear that the Soviet Union is ready to accept the obligations of being a member, and that its economic system has been sufficiently altered to assure reciprocal benefits to its economic partners.  Instead the Soviet Union should only be offered observer status in those bodies so the USSR could learn to adapt its own rules to normal international practice.

In Memoirs, Rockefeller notes that the main problem with Gorbachev was that he remained strongly committed to the essential of a centralized Communist economy.  Obviously what was needed was a new leader, one who was prepared to make the hard decisions that Gorbachev could not and would not make; someone who would deliver the desired radical transformation of the Soviet system.  That new leader soon emerged in the person of Boris Yeltsin, a flamboyant Communist Party member who had resigned from the Politburo amid much controversy in October 1987 for criticizing the slow pace of reform.  Despite being cast out, Yeltsin had staged a comeback, establishing himself as one of the USSR’s highest profile and more radical reformers, who supported private property rights, cuts in defense spending, and an end to special privileges for the Communist Party hierarchy.  Inevitably he came to Rockefeller’s attention.  The extent of this interest became apparent when in September 1989, Yeltsin came to the US on a week-long private speaking tour organized by the Esalen Institute, another of the multitudes of little-known groups formed and funded by David Rockefeller and several other wealthy Americans.  The first speech of Yeltsin’s tour was at the Council on Foreign Relations headquarters in New York.  Rockefeller introduced Yeltsin, though his comments, noted the Washington Post, could not be reported under the CFR’s off-the-record rules.  It cannot be confirmed how crucial Rockefeller’s public praise was, but the fact Yeltsin was actually in the country seemed to prompt a last-minute invitation from the otherwise Gorbachev-friendly White House.  Yeltsin went on to have his first ever meeting with President H.W. Bush; he also met with National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker.  The Bush Administration never quite embraced Yeltsin, but in line with the Trilateral Commission’s recommendations, the Bush Administration refused to provide financial aid to the USSR.

Commentary:  Isn’t this narrative actually about the “controlled disintegration” of the Soviet Union?

Stop for a second and give this some thought. If we believed that the national sovereignty of America was intact, wouldn’t we be outraged and demanding to know who authorized David Rockefeller—this unelected, un-appointed busybody—to have any influence over the sensitive U.S. relations with the Soviet Union?  We would lament about how screwed up we have allowed things to become.  Here we have a multi-billionaire oil and banking tycoon bribing and coercing everyone in his way and speaking for the United States government with no authorization to do so, and threatening to block access to the IMF and the World Bank.

But that is not the way the world actually works. The false reality of a sovereign American government in charge of its foreign policy is exposed and what we see is that the American government has lost its sovereignty and takes its orders from the concealed clique, which uses its junior partner,  the Rockefeller family, to oversee and control America’s foreign policy.  

David Rockefeller did not re-emerge in the picture until sometime after the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991.  In February 1992, Rockefeller attended a dinner held in Yeltsin’s honor at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  According to a New York Times report, the dinner brought Yeltsin together with about 50 prominent people now or recently in government, finance and business (later as Yeltsin cooperated with a high speed privatization of the Soviet economy demanded by the Federal Reserve, he stated: “We are already taking a lot of unpopular measures in order to speed up the advance to a market-based system.”)

As related by dissident former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, the (speeded-up conversion to a market economy Yeltsin spoke of was the ‘most egregious example of bad privatization in Russia (in this case, ‘privatization’ means colossal theft of Russian state assets).  When the Russian Government took out a series of loans from private (Russian) banks, it put up shares in many of its (industrial) enterprises as collateral.  Then the (Russian) government defaulted on its loans; the private banks took over the companies in what might be viewed as a sham sale; and a few (Russian) oligarchs (who owned the private banks) became instant billionaires.

Far worse conclusions can be drawn concerning the period of IMF-directed ‘shock therapy’—supported by the Federal Reserve and Rockefeller—which plunged most of the Russian population into poverty and hardship.  It was estimated in 1996, for example, that nearly 45 million Russians had fallen into poverty since 1991.  Infant mortality had also risen during the period of shock therapy, while life expectancy in men and women, after five years of reforms, had dropped by approximately four years (forcing Yeltsin) to rule by decree in 1993 to neutralize Communist opposition to the reform program.

In other words, David Rockefeller got ahead of the U.S. government, marginalized the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, the President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, groomed a naive Boris Yeltsin as his replacement, and then stampeded Yeltsin into backing a concealed power-controlled fraud of whirlwind privatizations with Russian oligarchs and bankers, who in fact, were minions of the concealed power.  Can you see that the entire Rockefeller involvement in the break-up of the USSR was yet another enormous fraudulent scheme; this time led by an American Eastern Establishment family —-under direction of the concealed clique—-with profits to go all around from the massive theft of Russian industrial properties, and the substantially weakening of the Russian population to prepare it for subjugation by a one-world government?   And can you see that Rockefeller had no problem in launching the machination, which supported Yeltsin, without coordination with the U.S. government?  Who works for whom?  Our research indicates that the Bush Administration and Congress worked for David Rockefeller, the visible part of the concealed clique and that the objective was predictable:  to further maximize the concealed clique’s profit-taking by looting a nation-state’s economy of the size of the USSR and leaving the Russian population in ruins.

But with the U.S. Administration and Congress in his pocket, David Rockefeller, time and again, has been in the forefront of flurries of trade agreements that continue to undercut the American economy and weaken the American population, blocking the Kennedy Administration’s sound Alliance for Progress plan for U.S./Central and South American economies.  Instead, he saddled America with more concealed power schemes like NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that left economic destruction in its wake, including impossible-to-be-repaid loans that heavily burdened the participating countries.  And today, Rockefeller’s latest brainchild, a new trade zone—the North American Union—consisting of the United States, Mexico and Canada is well into its planning stage, designed along the lines of a European Union and with potential for an exponential expansion.  A South American diplomat summed it up:

“If the free trade agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. goes through, all of South American will quickly climb on board, creating an even more vast trading zone.”

And, as we are watching the long European Union machination breaking down the nation-state status and sovereignty of its member countries in preparation for joining a regional one-world government, Rockefeller is steering American into his North American Union, characterized by (i) privatization of government services including water, sewer systems, roads, and other municipal services; (ii) the creation of a ‘charter of rights’ that would protect corporations from national governments; (iii) the deregulation of national banking institutions, and (iv) the dollarization of the western hemisphere, all under the control of the concealed power.  All this planning found its way into a Council on Foreign Relations report released in mid-2005—-‘Creating a North American Community’—which was subsequently amplified by the author, Robert Pastor’s testimony before Congress.  His report called for a government above the national levels of the United States, Canada and Mexico, using terms such as ‘North American Commission,’ ‘North American Parliamentary Group,’  ‘Permanent Court on Trade and Investment, ‘  ‘North American Customs and Immigration Force,’and a ‘North American passport.’ Pastor insisted that (nation-state) sovereignty is not a fixed concept and was critical of all three governments (American, Mexico, and Canada) for being ‘zealous defenders of an outdated conception of sovereignty.’

10. Subversive and Un-Constitutional Control Over the Nomination and Electoral Process of U.S. Presidents and Other American Officials

I mentioned that the trademark of the Rockefeller family is fraudulent activity, beginning with the great-grandfather, William Avery Rockefeller, selling a petroleum substance as a cancer cure and teaching his children to also engage in fraudulent behavior.  Now we come to evidence of Rockefeller tampering with America’s nomination and electoral processes in contempt of our Constitution.  Accordingly, it should be no surprise that evidence is accumulating that not only was Barack Obama selected and groomed like Woodrow Wilson and later Presidents within sham nomination processes by the Rockefellers and others, but could it be that they are so audacious to have forged documents and brought about the election of a non-U.S. citizen?

Just like the 9/11 investigations that continue to tear down the high wall of false reality that misrepresents the causes of the attack on the Twin Towers in New York in 2001, the same accumulation of investigations into the true identity of Barack Obama is occurring.  The concealed clique’s control of the American media and American education has been successful in orchestration the re-election of President Obama, but the facts that represent the truth keep accumulating and the American public is awakening.

There are five investigations concerning Barack Obama’s identity that bear attention:

The first investigation:  We have selected the early March 2012 report of the six-month investigation into President Obama’s qualifications by the Sheriff’s Office of Maricopa County, Arizona.  This investigation provides evidence that Obama’s birth certificate and his Selective Service Registration Card are both forgeries and that fraud has been committed concerning Barack Obama’s identity.

The forged long-form birth certificate and Selective Service Registration Card are the tip of the iceberg in uncovering what our research suggests is one of the most wide-ranging acts of fraud in American history.  The alternative story about Obama is that he is a former CIA operative born in Kenya, working for the U.S. in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the Taliban to fight the Russian intervention in the early 1980s.  His name was Barry Soetoro, with several other aliases.  His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, applied for a U.S. passport on April 27, 1981, indicating that she was in Indonesia working on a two-year contract as a Program Officer for the Ford Foundation from January 1981 through December 1982.  At the time, Dunham was working on a microfinance program for the Ford Foundation, which was overseen by Peter Geithner, the father of Timothy Geithner, the current U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.

A second investigation by Reverend James Manning culminated in a symbolic trial with results described in the following trial transcripts.  Pull up: http://atlah.org/the-cia-columbia-obama-sedition-and-treason-trial-transcripts/  One conclusion of the Reverend Manning’s investigation and trial was that Barry Soetoro did not attend Columbia University and was given a fraudulent diploma from that learning institution.  In addition, please pull up:  http://atlah.org/2010/05/20/guilty-verdict-press-conference/

A third investigation by the Northeast Intelligence Network, Douglas J. Hagmann, Director, suggests the possibility of a long grooming period that Obama experienced:

“In our investigation, we found that the scrubbing and altering of records pertaining to Obama began well before he became an Illinois state senator in the 1996 election cycle.  The scrubbing or alteration of records did not begin or end with Obama, but also extended to his mother and other associates as well.  In fact, a very large and extremely relevant part of the investigation of Barry Soetoro, or Barack Hussein Obama II, as he is known, revolves around his parents, step-father, and grandparents and extends from the U.S. mainland to Hawaii and other points across the globe.  To understand how a virtually unknown politician from Illinois could rise to occupy the most powerful position in the free world in less than a decade after he became state senator, one must take a few steps backward to understand the complete picture, and that Obama was selected long before he was elected to become president.”

Pull up:  http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35298 

A fourth investigation culminated in a book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack is not Eligible to be President (2011), by Jerome R. Corsi.

And a fifth investigation culminated in a book, Obama: the Postmodern Coup (2008), by Webster Griffin Tarpley, who made a surprisingly good prediction of Obama’s record would be as president after taking office in early 2009.  It was Tarpley’s contention that Obama was long ago selected, groomed, and funded by the Rockefeller family to become the public face of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the concealed power’s advisor.

It was David Rockefeller who also selected, groomed and funded the nomination and election of Jimmy Carter, whose presidential term ran from 1977 to 1981, and conformed to the concealed power’s agenda to inflict as much damage to the American economy as possible in order to continue their long and concealed scheme of “controlled disintegration”  of America.  It became clear later that Obama was heavily funded by Wall Street bankers, much more so than his rival, John McCain, and against his campaign pledges, he appointed all of Wall Street’s choices in key economic positions including, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Paul Volcker and Austan Goolsbee, thereby insuring that the disintegration of America is kept on track.

Is it possible that the early success of their 9/11 scheme in bringing about a modern police state in America encouraged them to to plant what may be a completely fictitious person in the Oval Office.  In any case, the holes in the official story of Obama/Soetoro are multiplying and what is emerging is the public realization that Obama’s behavior, his appointments of public officials, and especially his unconstitutional executive orders have made a mockery of the American Constitution and the Separation of Powers.  (See Judicial Watch investigation of Obama’s executive orders: http://www.judicialwatch.org/obama-overreach/i/POTUS-Will-Wait-Special-Report-PDF.pdf

11.  Co-Architects of the Global Depopulation Scheme

Our research indicates that David Rockefeller and the Rockefeller family are the chief architects of the concealed clique’s global depopulation scheme, which has many programs already underway.  I believe that this is the area where maximum investigatory focus must be directed in order to strike the Achilles heel of the concealed clique to bring about public focus, and in order to halt all depopulation activities that are impacting the world’s populations.

12.  Rockefeller Funding the Tavistock Institute: the Concealed Power’s Psychological Warfare Apparatus With Its American Media, American Education, and American Entertainment Branches

In his The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations: Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political, and Economic Decline of the United States of America, Dr. John Coleman wrote:

To recap on some of the information already provided:  Tavistock Institute was established in Sussex, England, in 1921 by command of the British monarchy, for the purposes of mind control and public opinion-making, and to establish on a carefully-examined scientific basis, at what point the human mind would break down under subjection to prolonged bouts psychological distress.  Elsewhere I have shown that it was first founded in pre-WWI times by the 11th Duke of Bedford, the Marquise of Tavistock.  In the early 1930s, the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation Fund contributed heavily to Tavistock.  The fact that so many of the chief practitioners of mind control and behavioral modifications were, and are, closely associated with the secret societies that embrace cults of many different ideas and beliefs, notably Isis-Orsiris, Kabala, Sufi, Cathjari, Bogomil and Bahai (Manichean) mysticism should be noted.  The association with Illuminism is obvious.  For the uninitiated the very idea that prestigious institutions and their scientists would be involved in cults and even with Satanism and Illuminists would be a very difficult thing to believe, if it were not for the prominent personalities involved.  The connection is very real.  We can see just why Tavistock was so interested in these subjects.  Random school shootings by young people subjected to prolonged bouts of stress, and under the influence of habit-forming drugs, are remarkable in that in a large number of these tragic episodes happenings, the perpetrators nearly always claim that they were directed by voices to do their deadly work.

13.  David Rockefeller, Living In an Alternative Universe

Social commentator Ferdinand Lunberg identified Rockefeller as a “finpol” or “financial politician,” living in that social strata comprising the big stockholders and managers of the corporations, whose daily activity is identical with the work of government leaders, except that they have at their fingertips vast financial resources for which they are not held strictly accountable, and they rarely hold elected office, though they are as powerful as typical politicians.  Many other commentators have shared this assessment.  David Rockefeller is the single most powerful private citizen in American today, claimed Florida State University academic Thomas R. Dye in his 1976 book, Who’s Running America?

The journalist Bill Moyers, in his 1980 TV special, The World of David Rockefeller, described the plutocrat respectively as “the unelected if indisputable chairman of the American Establishment and one of the most powerful and richest men in America, who “sits at the hub of a vast network of financiers, industrialists and politicians whose reach encircles the globe.  “David is the undisputed, unelected and self-appointed head of the international corporate and financial community, claimed Robert Eringer in his book The Global Manipulator (1980).

Commentary:  How many times do we have to watch people who accumulate great wealth in a particular field, decide to use that money to influence events where they have no business doing so?  Like David Rockefeller, like the Koch Brothers, like Michael Bloomberg, like Bill Gates, and like George Soros?  Do you think that the public good is served well by these individuals?  Should they be allowed to orchestrate programs that interfere with the public interest?

David Rockefeller downplayed the idea that he had any such power, saying:

“I have no power in the sense that I can call anybody in the government and tell them what to do.  Because of my position I’m more apt to get through on the telephone than somebody else, but what happens to what I suggest depends on whether they feel this makes sense in terms of that they are already doing.”

Dye disputes this, claiming that the real reason for David Rockefeller’s elaborate denial is simple when it is already well known that he exercised great power, the plutocrat has no reason to try to impress anyone by admitting it.  In fact, Dye states, Rockefeller’s position and behavior are similar to that of the Medici banking family, who unofficially ruled 15th-century Florence by subverting the elaborate electoral system through a combination of deception, corruption, and violence.  The Medicis were effectively the shadow government of Florence—a fact acknowledged in the Florentine expression, “the secret things of our town.” That was because, as Tim Parks notes in the New York Times Review of Books, the Medici family leadership understood that to hold power for any length of time, one must appear not to hold it.  Although not known for emulating their more controversial practices, David Rockefeller is like the Medicis, his shadowy, yet powerful political role one of the “secret things” of Washington, DC.

Dye wrote:

“Rockefeller’s preference for this behind-the-scenes political role stems from his profound distaste for normal democratic politics.  Although clearly interested in power, David Rockefeller, after working for Mayor La Guardia, apparently found the idea of having to depend on the whims of the voting public unattractive.  ‘The danger in that field,’ he later commented, ‘is that you spend all of your time running for office.’  Unstated, of course, is the plutocrat’s probable discomfort at the prospect of being publicly accountable in any way for his actions—something that would be an affront to the enormous power this Rockefeller saw as his due.  And thus David Rockefeller’s real agenda becomes clear:  the rich must govern, limiting the role of elected officials; but the multitude must be placated least they clamor for the return of real democracy, threatening the reign of the plutocrats.”

“….more troubling has been Rockefeller’s advocacy of legislation to legally entrench the right of the corporate sector to assume a governing role.  Addressing an American Bar Association conference in 1973—he was its keynote speaker—David Rockefeller appealed to the nation’s lawyers and judicial system for their assistance in developing ‘new legislation that would give the corporate sector the necessary statutory power to respond more effectively to its public responsibilities.’  Rockefeller was particularly keen on ‘new statutes that would encourage substantive public involvement of corporations.’  Despite presenting his proposals as a benevolent action which would ensure that corporations would serve public needs, Rockefeller’s actual objective was to weaken government power over corporate activities, while ensuring corporations assumed more government powers.”

To round out the profile of the Rockefeller family, and understand the family’s mind-set, it is helpful to focus attention on David Rockefeller’s upbringing.  Now age 100, his biography states he was born in 1915 and he,

“grew up in a nine-story mansion at 10 West 54th Street, the then-largest private residence in New York City, and is now part of the complex that is the Museum of Modern Arts.  He spent much time as a child at the vast family estate of Pocantico.  Summer vacations were spent at the Eyrie, a vast 100-room mansion in Seal Harbor” (on a small island offshore Maine).

He attended the experimental Lincoln School of Teachers College at Columbia University, funded by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.  David Rockefeller graduated from Harvard University and the London School of Economics, and received a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, which received its initial funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.

In other words, David Rockefeller’s formative schooling was at Teachers College, Columbia University, the center of the subversion of American education that consisted of altering American History, shifting education away from American principles of individual rights and government by the consent of the governed, and systematically “dumbing down” future America’s next generations to prepare them for the concealed power’s one world government.

His early work experience consisted of being placed in positions such as (i) an intern working for New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, where he developed a dislike for the disorder associated with activities at the grassroots level of democracy, (ii) an military intelligence officer during World War II, and (iii) an assistant military attache for the American Embassy in Paris.

In 1946, he joined the staff of the Rockefeller-owned Chase National Bank, which was ultimately merged with the current J.P. Morgan Chase Bank.  The chairman of the bank at the time David Rockefeller joined it was Winthrop Aldrich, the son of U.S. Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, who orchestrated the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which attached a private bank owned by the concealed power to America’s financial system.  Fourteen years later, in 1960, David Rockefeller was appointed President of the  Chase National Bank.

He formed a life-long association with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), where he became a director, in 1949.  He served as Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1970 to 1985.  It should be noted that David Rockefeller became dissatisfied with the Council on Foreign Relations as the primary network to facilitate the machinations he and the other families contemplated.  One of David Rockefeller’s more infamous and enduring achievements in service of his one-world government scheme is his creation of the Trilateral Commission.  What is particularly striking about his one-world government vision is that, despite his sometimes flowery rhetoric about democracy, he has never engaged the voting public about his agenda, which is already having a profoundly negative impact on their lives.  Instead, he has used his power and influence to convince, cajole, and even coerce political leaders and government officials into supporting policies that ordinary voters are never make privy to.  The top of the political pyramid remains David Rockefeller’s focus.  His public utterances are infrequent, most of his lectures are before exclusive audiences, and the true extent of his dealings with the upper echelons remains shielded from the public and thus cloaked in mystery.  In a working democracy, the exercise of such unelected power is both un-American and unconstitutional.  But he has gone along this way, almost entirely unchallenged.  His modus operandi is to create a large bow wave of new interlocking organizations which he fills with minions who act like an un-constitutional shadow government and who attempt to shape social and economic policy in accordance with his global rule agenda,   The Rockefeller family believes it can operate above the law and above American principles of government by the consent of the governed.  For example, the key goals the Rockefeller-inspired and funded Trilateral Commission include: (i) establishing a new elite policy-planning organizations to supplement, if not replace, the Council on Foreign Relations, which Rockefeller considered too fractured by the Vietnam War to be effective; (ii) reining in the Nixon Administration, which had taken advantage of Establishment divisions to reject Rockefeller’s personal recommendations; and (iii) encouraging unity among the industrialized powers as a temporary alternative to a United Nations increasingly dominated by radicalized Third World states.  The role of the Trilateral Commission was also to “assist and perhaps even accelerate the further development of international financial institutions such as the World Bank, with a scheme leading to the implementation of a global taxation system, perhaps starting with one of the concealed power’s larger machinations, namely, a global warming narrative to justify a global carbon tax.

Important Clarifications:

First, the American National Service website is offered as an educational and reference source for the benefit of our next generations and other interested parties.  The perspective contained herein is not presented as the final and conclusive word on the subject of “How the World Actually Works and Who Is Pulling The Strings At the Top” because this material is subject to verification in the course of full criminal investigations.  The perspective is just one reference point the readers can use to help develop their own personal perspectives of the social and economic dilemma that surrounds them and what to do about it.

Second, the perspective presented in this website presents the notion that there is a concealed clique of foreign, dynastic banking families located in the City of London that is the root source of America’s dilemma and the dilemma of the global population.  This notion includes the view that the clique has junior partners, namely, American families of great wealth who are the core of the betraying American Eastern Establishment.  Moreover, the notion includes the existence of many Israeli Trojan Horse minions who have embedded themselves in key institutions of targeted nation-states—including America—for the purpose of carrying out the clique’s concealed deadly schemes across the world.  While considerable research supports this notion, verification by future criminal investigations is necessary.  Accordingly, all individuals under scrutiny, as mentioned in this perspective, are to be considered solely as “persons of interest” at this time and in those upcoming investigations.

Third, when subjected to public scrutiny, some of the clique members, their junior partners, and their minions have, historically, tried to hide behind authentic Judaism and deceptively claim antisemitism and hate crimes at work.  These individuals who pretend to be Jews are impostors and are not members of authentic Judaism in any way.  The colossal destruction and enormous loss of life to Gentiles and Jews alike in the wake of the clique’s deadly and depraved schemes have proven irrefutably that they do not have a religious or humanitarian bone in their bodies. This concealed clique of foreign banking families is nothing less than a deadly global pestilence, a lower order sub-species, in no way identified with, or following the norms of, humankind.  Its modus operandi is based on massive fraud, mass murder, global genocide, and unspeakable depravity; the last dregs of a dying feudal order of 10th Century Venetian origin.

Fourth, no statements or information in this perspective are to be construed as recommendations or plans to violate the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the key purpose of this perspective is to help the American people reverse America’s dire condition by non-violent means and rebuild America and its economy from the ground up within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.