Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Buylowsellhigh

The International Bankers

Recommended Posts

.

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.": Niccolo Machiavelli - (1469-1527) Italian Statesman and Political Philosopher

There is value in turning around and looking at the past to uncover movements of men in other ages, because their behavior in that setting is known. Then, the real meaning of the movements of men today are exposed. The patterns of history help us put together the puzzle of the present so that we can understand it. The material in this document constitutes the history of Banking, and the means by which the current global economic system was acheived. As much as was possible I have tried to allow the Bankers themselves, and their minions, to tell the story in their own words in the form of historically recorded quotes, with help from credible witnesses where it was not ...that way readers will be better positioned to evaluate the evidence objectively, and subsequently form their own opinions regarding credibility.

The International Bankers

Until the eighth century A.D., the Anglo-Saxons still practiced, with a lively appreciation, most of the ancient Biblical principles which characterized the precepts of People's Law. It was a system designed to preserve and protect the unalienable rights of the people. At the same time, it provided a divided, balanced, limited form of government.

1000 AD - Goldsmiths (banks) took in gold as deposit and loaned out more receipts as loans than they had gold in reserve. (the birth of fractional reserve banking).

1100 AD - Henry I took money power away from the money changers and established the tally stick system which lasted nearly 500 years.

1066 AD- The Normans, under William the Conqueror, subjugated the English people and established a royal dynasty, which still occupies the throne of England to this day. The Normans imposed on the English a system of Ruler's Law which destroyed the rights of the people.

1500 AD- Henry VII relaxed usury laws which infuriated the money changers.

1600 AD - Queen Elizabeth I controls money supply and issues own coin against the wishes of the moneychangers.

1649 - Oliver Cromwell, financed by the money changers had King Charles killed, then plunged England into debt from wars and took over the City of London.

1688 AD - Money changers (banks) financed William of Orange of the Netherlands to overthrow the Stuart Kings and took possession of the English Throne.

1694 AD - England is monetarily exhausted after 50 years of war with France and Holland. The private Bank of England is formed and secures itself with politicians and their laws to protect the bank and the debt of England. The tally sticks are attacked by the Bank of England who replace it with their own money system which took away the power of the King to control money.

1698 AD. - English debt then rocketed from 1.25 million pounds to 16 million pounds within a few short years.

1748 AD- Amschel Bauer in Germany opens a goldsmith shop under the sign of Red Shield. (in German tongue pronounced Rote schild, i.e. Rothschild). He had five Sons.

The New World

America was in the English colonies. This was where the first opportunity for local or provincial assemblies were developed, where the people elected the delegates. This was first inaugurated in Virginia as early as 1619. As the colonies gained in economic and political strength, they demanded the full recognition of their rights as Englishmen.

It was at this time that the colonies asserted their unalienable rights of self-government by issuing the Declaration of Independence to the King of England. The people of America then confederated together as the United States. Their form of government was a confederated republic, where the states remained supreme.

Prior to Revolution most commerce was done by barter and also by paper money printed by different states. All of it, however, was based on the production of goods and services created by the people. After the constitution was adopted, only gold and silver coin could be used as money in the United States.

The Times of London stated the following regarding fiat money in America: "if this mischievous policy, which has it's origins in North America, shall become endurrated down to a fixture, then the government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, the wealth of all the countries will go to North America. that country must be destroyed or it will destroy every Monarch on the globe".

As far as the English King was concerned, the Declaration of Independance constituted an act of war. However, most people do not realize that the primary reason for the war was not “taxation without representation,” but the forced payment of taxes to the King in gold not paper money. America was flourishing by using their own “fiat money” system based only on their production - not a gold based system that could be manipulated by the King. The King could not “control” the fiat money system and therefore passed a law requiring one to pay taxes in gold only. The King had most of the gold - the colonies had little; unemployment ensued ...and embittered souls cried for war. In effect, the Bankers demanded payment in a commodity(Gold) that they knew their debtors did not have sufficient supplies of, and so could never clear the debt. The choice was; re-adopt the English system, or defend themselves in a war. The colonists choose to defend the new system.

America did win the Revolutionary war with England, but there was a malfunction. The Money powers were waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.

So we have an example of the International Bankers willingness to use war as a means to further their interests.

The First National Bank

One of the first acts, within two years, that President Washington did was to declare an emergency. William Morris with the help of Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, heavily promoted the first national bank (Bank of England) to legislation in order to create a private bank. In 1781, Congress chartered the first national bank for a term of 20 years, to the same European bankers that were holding the debts before the war. The bankers loaned worthless, un-backed, non-secured printed money to each other to charter this first bank.

After thousands of lives were lost fighting a war to get control of the money, why did congress contract with the same bankers that STARTED the revolutionary war in the first place?

Very simple. Since the Crown (House of Rothschild) was the creditor, they demanded a private bank to hold the securities of the United States as the pledged assets to the Crown of England in order to secure the debt to which the United States had defaulted. The holder of the securities was the private bank. So under public international law, the creditor nation forced the United States to establish a private bank to hold the securities as the collateral for the loan.

1785 AD - The youngest Rothschild, Nathan, expanded his wealth to 20,000 pounds in a 15 year period by using other peoples money. An increase of 2500%.

1787 AD - Amschel Rothschild made the famous statement: "Let me issue and control a Nation's money, and I care not who writes the laws."

Thomas Jefferson stated, "If the American people ever allow the previous banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake homeless on the Continent their fathers conquered."

1798 AD - The five Rothschild brothers expanded by opening banks in each of the major cities of Europe. Amschel Mayer, Germany; Solomon, Vienna; Jacob, Paris; Nathan, London; Carl, Naples.

The War of 1812 and the Second National Bank

The charter for the private bank was for 20 years-- or until around 1811. What happened in 1812? The War of 1812. What did England attack? Washington, D.C... the ten miles square that was legally the United States. They burned the White House and other buildings.

Was the attack by England on the ten miles square an act of war? No, it was not. Under public international law, what was an act of war was the United States not extending the first national bank into the second national bank to continue to maintain the securities on the unpaid debt. So when the United States commited an act of war by not giving the lawful creditor his securities in a peaceful manner, the only remedy open under international law to the creditor was to come in on letters of marque and seize the assets to protect his loan.

Did the second national bank get approved? Absolutely. After England attacked the nation that was in default, Americans saw the penalty for not and enacted the second national bank. This was for another 20 years, which was to expire about 1836.

Once again the International Bankers have shown willingness to wage war as a means to further their interests.

The law of Commerce

There was also another important issue involved in that War of 1812, and that was the original 13th Amendment. Originally designed as a preventative policy primarily aimed at English nobility and the European Bankers, this amendment prohibited Attorneys and anyone with a title of nobility to hold any public office in America. All the states then had ratified this 13th Amendment except for Virginia.

Thus, the war of 1812 was partly waged to prevent the passage and enforcement of the new Thirteenth Amendment. Most book repositories throughout the states were burned to the ground and all records destroyed in an attempt to do just that.

As a result of the accumulated debt of waging that war and a bank-manufactured depression in the midst of war, a new Bank Charter was issued for another 20 years.

Andrew Jackson and the Bank

President Andrew Jackson put an end to this second Charter in 1836. Jackson's reasoning was simple: The Constitution does not delegate authority for Congress to establish a national bank. Jackson's rationale has never been seriously challenged, and the Constitution has never been amended to authorize Congress to establish a national bank. Nor, for that matter, does the Constitution delegate authority for the United States to establish corporations, particularly private corporations.

There was not a national bank established in America for more than 75 years, until 1913 with the Federal Reserve Bank. Andrew Jackson did an excellent job.

What did Congress do with Andrew Jackson? They fought him tooth and nail. Is that because Congress is made up mostly of attorneys? To whom do the attorneys owe their title of nobility? The Crown of England. So Congress is populated by attorneys who are Esquires, noblemen, who owe their allegiance to the Crown of England. So, who does our Congress represent? The Bankers. The bankers hired an assassin to kill Andrew Jackson using two pistols, however the plot failed as both pistols misfired.

Andrew Jackson violated public international law because he denied the creditor his just lien rights on the debtor. However, the bankers did not lend value (substance), so in actuality they had an unperfected lien so the law actually did not apply.

Andrew Jackson stated, "Controlling our currency, receiving our public money, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy."

The Civil War

On March 27, 1861, the Southern states declared their states rights pursuant to the Constitution and walked out of Congress. This created sine die, which literally means "without day," and in this case refers to an adjournment without provision for a date to reconvene.. Abraham Lincoln had been elected President and without a quorum, Congress could not transact business. He declared martial law and ruled by executive order. The constitutional republic was gone. Martial law was never ended and a constitutional facade has been maintained since then. Slavery was only window dressing for the Civil War. The war had nothing to do with slavery. It had to do with States Rights and the National debt to the bankers. The South wanted to be redeemed from the Crown in England. The North wanted to remain under their dominion and their debt.

When the South walked out of Congress, this ended the public side of the bifurcated Constitution as far as the government was concerned. What remained of the government was the private side, the democracy, and it was under the rule of the bankers.

Thus, the government operated fully under the authority of private law dictated by the creditor, a dictatorship of the banks.

President Lincoln, by Executive Order proclaimed the first Trading With the Enemy Act. President Lincoln stated, " The government should create, issue, and circulate all currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers." Further, he quoted, "The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the governments' greatest opportunity." Shortly thereafter President Lincoln was murdered. Many prominent politicians at the time speculated that he was murdered because he defied the bankers by printing interest free money to pay for the war efforts.

In 1871 the default again loomed and bankruptcy was eminent. So in 1871, the ten miles square of Washington DC was incorporated in England by the Bankers. They used the constitution as their by-laws. Not as authority under the Constitution but as authority over the constitution. They copyrighted, not only the constitution but also many names such as, THE UNITED STATES, U.S. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, USA and many other titles as their own. This is the final blow to the original constitution. From here on out the UNITED STATES was governed entirely by private corporate law, dictated by the banks as creditors. This entitled England to create laws as the Bank of England and International Bankers saw fit. What of the Bill of Rights ? Well the only Bill of Rights left at this point in time is four Amendments -- 13th, 14th 15th, and 16th. That is all the Courts are required to take cognizance of when you appear in their courts. The Bill of Rights is a facade to maintain tranquility as the International Bankers tighten the control still more.

In 1909, default loomed once more. The US government went to the Crown of England and asked for an extension of time. This extension was granted for another 20 years on several conditions. One of the conditions was that the United States allow the creditors to establish a new national bank. This was done in 1913, with the Federal Reserve Bank. This, along with the 16th Amendment, collection of Income tax, enacted February 25, 1913, and the 17th Amendment enacted May 31, 1913, were the conditions for the extension of time. The 16th and 17th Amendment further reduced the states power.

The year after the enactment of the Federal Resrve Act of 1913 ...another war.

It was time to put to work the latest version of the debt creation machine. The Federal reserve would fund the allied efforts of the war; http://the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20His...d_war_one-8.htm

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was appointed as Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt is on record as concluding that there was a conspiracy, at least in the United States. He once wrote to Colonel Edward Mandell House: "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson.) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis."

In 1917 the USA entered into the First World War, which wound its horrible course through the destruction of human lives and ended on November 11, 1918. The eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. Strange timing indeed.

On the political/diplomatic level, this informative article by Harry Elmer Barnes briskly retraces the steps taken to get at the facts of the First World War; http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/barnesww1.shtml and in the process provides not only the context necessary for understanding the Second World War, but the tools as well. Covering the human as well as the financial costs of the conflict, it has become known as the 'swan song' of interwar Revisionism.

Throughout the history of the USA runs a thread so sinister and diabolical the sheer scale of it beggars belief. By subtle infiltration the Bankers have taken possesion of the nations wealth, created it's laws, and installed a system of debt enslavement over which they have sole control. Who are these Bankers ? What do they want ? Is there a commonality which binds them together ? Is accumulation of massive wealth their primary motive ? Or is this the means to a greater design ? http://americandefenseleague.com/destofa1.htm . One thing is for sure, never before in world history has so much power been concentrated in such few hands.

(At this point it is important to differentiate between Zionism and Judaism. The term "Zionist" is used to describe a certain element within the Jewish community (not all of them!), who believe in Jewish Supremacy, thus putting their own interests ahead of those of any nation in which they reside. The main difference between Zionism and Judaism is that most Jews are not Zionists. A Jew is anyone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in conformity with Halacha, the Jewish religious law. This definition alone (one of birth) excludes racism. Judaism does not seek converts, but those who do convert are accepted on a basis of equality. The Jewish nation is different from all other nations as it does not depend for its existence on geographical boundaries, on secular sovereignty, or on an army or air force. As stated in the Talmud, the Jewish people are ordained to live in peace with the nations of the world and therefore they have no part in the political and military quarrels of the Zionist state with its neighbors. So not all Jewish people are at war with the Islamic world.

On the other hand, the creation of the state of Israel at the end of WW2 was a Zionist plan and most Jews are, in fact, completely oblivious of the vile politics involved in this plan.

It is a mistake to assume that all Jews are supporters of the Zionist Mafia or Jewish Supremacy. In fact, some of the strongest condemnations of Zionism and Jewish Supremacy comes from Jews themselves! Whereby the policies which served the Zionist agenda in the creation of the Israeli state have led to a homeland for the Jewish people, in no way can the vast majority of Jewish people be held responsible for Zionist political policies such as the creation of Israel and the fiat money system. To their credit, many prominent Jews have spoken out against Zionism, declaring it a "mischievous political creed "; http://www.rense.com/general69/makf.htmThroughout In this post, the Zionist Jews I am referring to are chiefly Ashkenazim Jews; they originate from eastern Europe, (Khazars; a non-Semitic, Asiatic, Mongolian tribe); History has recorded the Khazars as; warlike, ruthless and uncompromising; they are known for their inability to assimilate socially. They should not be confused with or compared to the Biblically referenced Sephardim Jews, who mainly congregate in the countries around the Mediterranean Sea. These Ashkenazim Jews are the descendants, not of Jews who were ever domiciled in Palestine, but of inhabitants of the Khazar Empire in Southern Russia, which flourished from the 7th to the 10th century; and whose early ruler became “converted” to the religion of the Jews and forced his subjects to do the same. They are the sons of Japheth;...the sons of Gomer. The Bible verifies that the Ashkenaz Jews [Khazars] are not the descendants of Shem and therefore cannot be Semite. Thus, neither the Ashkenazim Jews nor their ancestors have ever lived in Palestine. Also of interest is that the Zionists fully understand their Khazarian heritage, as the third edition of The Jewish Encyclopedia for 1925 records: "CHAZARS [Khazars]: A people of Turkish origin". IT IS THESE NON-JEWS THAT ARE BEING REFERRED TO THROUGHOUT THIS ARTICLE http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm

One of the basic aims of Zionism is aliyah, the immigration to the Zionist state of Jews from all other countries. The geographic location chosen for this immigration is Israel. Nevertheless, during the past few years hundreds of thousands of Israelis have out-gathered themselves from the Zionist "paradise", and many Jews have "voted with their feet" and have chosen not to be in-gathered into Israel. These Jews recognize that the Zionist state is in fact contrary to their individual freedoms.) However, and as can be seen here; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1506.htm the main body of the Jewish people do not welcome nor want it.

Continued...

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution

Having satisfied themselves that the West was won ...the Bankers turned their attentions to the East.

Like the World War, Bolshevism cannot be interpreted until it is seen who profits most by it. And the best place to start looking is the original investors. After all, they are most likely to be the principle profiteers in the endeavour.

"It is sometimes said, by way of explaining the Bolshevik movement, that it was financed from Germany, a fact which was seized upon to supply war propaganda. It is true that part of the money came from Germany. It is true that part of the money came from the United States. It is the whole truth that (Zionist) finance in all the countries was interested in Bolshevism as an (All-Zionist) investment. For the whole period of the war, the (Zionist )World Program was cloaked under this or that national name—the blame being laid on the Germans by the Allies, and on the Allies by the Germans, and the people kept in ignorance of who the real personages were."

This document from 1920, and therefore unblemished by decades of Hollywood propaganda, correctly identifies the real perpetrators of the Bolshevik revolution, and makes the frightening prediction that the same fate awaits the USA. http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Intl_Jew_full_version/ij20.htm .

Also on a predictive note, this document; http://www.acts1711.com/red_symphony.htm contains the transcript of an interview given by Bolshevik revolutionary C. G. Rakovsky in 1938 outlining the planned Communist overthrow of Europe by means of war. The events of the following year would play out exactly as Rakovsky had predicted. Gentile against gentile in a war of total annihalation.

1929 crash and The Great Depression

"The stock market crash and the deflation of the American people's financial structure was scheduled to take place... the Federal Reserve Board's final decision to trigger the Crash of 1929. Only the innermost council of "The London Connection" knew that it had been decided at this "mystery meeting" to bring down the curtain on the greatest speculative boom in American history. Those in the know began to sell off all speculative stocks and put their money in government bonds. Those who were not privy to this secret information, and they included some of the wealthiest men in America, continued to hold their speculative stocks and lost everything they had". http://the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20His...pression-12.htm

Stack in front of you the biographies of all the Wall Street giants, J.P. Morgan, Joe F. Kennedy, J.D Rockefeller, Bernard Baruch, and you'll find they all marvel at how they got out of the stock market and put their assets in gold just before the crash. Non mention a secret directive, since revealed, sent by the father of the Federal Reserve, Paul Warburg, warning of the coming collapse.

With control of the press and the education system, few are aware that the Fed caused the 1929 crash and 1930's depression. It is however a well known fact amongst leading top economists. "It was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurrence... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as rulers of us all." Rep. Louis T.McFadden (D-PA) 40 billion dollars seemed to vanished in the crash; It didn't really vanish, it simply shifted into the hands of the money changers. This is how Joe Kennedy went from having 4 million dollars in 1929 to having over 100 million in 1935. During this time the Fed caused a 33% reduction of the money supply, causing a deep depression.

As can be witnessed by the 1920's boom years, and today in the disaster that is Iraq, people don't tend to complain much in times of prosperity. The money changers create and use these boom times to defuse any complaints about their growing control. http://www.xat.org/xat/worldbank.html

In Europe, in the 1930s, the International Bankers declared several nations bankrupt. In 1933 President Roosevelt was elected and took office. His first act as President was to declare, publicly, the United States bankrupt. He further went on to issue his Presidential Executive Order on March 5th, 1933 that all United States Citizens must turn in all their gold in return for Federal Reserve Notes. This was passed into law by Congress on June 5th, 1933. The thing is, THE UNITED STATES is actually a Corporation, which consists only of the ten miles square of Washington, District of Columbia (D.C.), its territories of Guam, Samoa, Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico, etc.

The Federal Constitution states: Article 1, section 8, clause 16 and 17,; 16. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten mile square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased, by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and the needful buildings..

...so the citizens of the United States were not bankrupt at all. The ten miles square of Washington, District of Columbia (DC.), its territories of Guam, Samoa, Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico, etc ...was bankrupt ! Roosevelt actually stole the Gold from the people and gave it to the Bankers; http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1885 .

World War 2 ...who started it, and why ?

History has recorded that Hitler declared himself Chancellor of Germany and invaded Poland Chekoslovakia etc, in the quest for more land ? In reality, events are never that simple; http://www.ety.com/HRP/walshcomments/20010620.htm Unless of course you own the newspapers, the newswires, the television stations, the printing presses, the periodicals, and the entire movie industry ! Just as easy as it was to foment outrage to mobilise the consensus to war in just a few short months, so it was just as easy to create the historical record in peoples minds over decades through that same media monopoly.

At the end of WW1 Germany was devastated, and the Zionist vultures who had organised the entire affair were buying up German industry at pennies on the Dollar and assuming key political positions within the German Parliament ...that is, until Hitler re-organised the country and removed them. This enraged the Zionist so much that they lobbied the World Jewish Council to declare war on Germany, which they did, on April March 24, 1933, one day after Adolf Hitler was democratically elected by the German people through a parliamentary vote; http://www.ety.com/HRP/jewishstudies/jewishjehad.htm "As the struggle reached titanic proportions it became a war to the finish. Capitalism and Bolshevism, as being the two sides of the same international 'Zionist coin', maneuvered its Gentile mercenary armies against the expanding coalition of free-trade National Socialist alliance nations".

Most people will be aware of Hitler's rise to power. What they probably don't know is that he was almost completely financed by money drawn from the privately owned American Federal Reserve. There is no doubt that he was a madman; However, specifically, he was the Bankers madman.

Once Hitler was Chancellor he turned the tables on the Bankers by bypassing the moneychangers system. National Socialist Germany’s fairer approach to co-existence, with the introduction of a mutually beneficial interest-free trading system had evolved to threaten the Zionist control of world affairs "The real reason for America to go to war against Germany was Hitlers disruption of a working world economy (NWO)". (Hitler's Table Talks, Ullstein Publishers, Frankfurt 1989, p. 21.) Hitler's mistake was to cut-off the Bankers money supply. In effect, Nationalist Socialist Germany had rejected outright and was promoting the total abolition of usury, ie, the power to charge interest on money that does not exist, on the principle that a nation's wealth is in its work force, not its hoard of gold; http://www.ety.com/HRP/rev/thejewishwar.htm Hitler also implemented a barter system for the exchange of some goods where no money was involved in the transaction at all. Much like Hugo Chavez (Venezuela) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran) are doing now with their oil exports.

From commencement of hostilities in 1939 to the lifting of the sanctions/embargoes on German civilians in 1948, an estimated 65 million people were killed.

From the Horses Mouth

For obvious reasons, if you wish to hear the truth about a subject, you must ask someone who was alive at the time and who was in attendance when the truth was spoken. Better still if that person was of the same nationality and faith as those he is accusing. Even better still if he was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of those times, as this guy was. This is his 1960's expose on who those movers and shakers were. And how those same political elements are pushing for World War 3 using the same techniques; http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/freedman.html

Israeli Foreign Policy ...in the White House.

After Clinton http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/clilist.htm established a political platform conducive to a favourable Middle East directive policy, favourable to the Zionists that is, the Bush neocons http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bushlist.htm stepped in to pick up the Zionist torch, further sealing the fate of middle eastern Muslim peoples. When the media http://www.christianparty.net/mediaownership.htm report the latest administrative decisions from the White House, they are as likely to be reporting Likud policies. The Zionist Israelies control American foreign policy, and middle east policy in particular. How easy it is to conceal this truth when they own 95% of the media.

Iran and the PetroDollar system

Once again we are being warned of imminent danger from aggressors in a far off land. Courtesy of our Zionist controlled media we are being encouraged to embrace the flag or light the home fires for another round of sensless killing. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Herman Goering, Nueremburg 1945.

As we absorb another round of unsubstatiated lies from our 'protectors' in government, the hypocrisy of it all beggars belief; http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12350.htm The coalition of the willing are sharpening their spears in anticipation of another imperial war, while the fundamentalist Christian 'Bushies' in the US gear up for the 'end times' scenario as promised them in the Bible. What God wants, God gets.

What you won't hear on the evening news is the danger to the current fiat Dollar system should oil be allowed to trade in Euro's instead of US$Dollars; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm nor will you read US Senator Ron Paul's(Texas) take on the situation in any of the mainstream tabloids; http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm ...nor the correlation of the demise of the US$Dollar when Saddam switched sales of Iraq's oil reserves to Euro's ...and the Dollars subsequent rise again as soon as US troops secured the switch back to Dollars again; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11715.htm ...least of all that Iran have steadfastly refused to allow the Moneychangers to set up a Central Bank under their sole control, which is the single factor they have in common with all the other so called 'rogue' nations Syria, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan and North Korea.

We cannot rule out the possibility that Iran could be attacked sometime in the near future. If the Bankers follow the M.O. of the past 350 years, then conflict is a distinct possibility. The Bankers are likely to do whatever it takes to avert any potentially devastating effect on their Fiat money system.

If and when that happens, the United Nations will have to act fast if they hope to avert a currency crises, which means there may not be enough time to sanction 500,000 children to death; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11680.htm as happened after the first Gulf War. Instead, this time around it looks like we will be splitting atoms amongst them, which is not quite as profitable as the usual conventional affair, but with Oil trading around $70/Barrel, and $100+ on the event horizon, the Zionists will still have their precious profits ...and potentially, a world at war once again.

Summary

What most well intentioned people do not realise is that these same Banker families today control the governments, media, Financial Markets, World Bank, IMF etc... The very organisations that are pushing for a One World Government; http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...ericanunion.htm with unlimited powers to conduct affairs according to their own dictates and requirements. The rise of the 'Police State' in Britain and throughout the western world is a product of the policy directives of the Zionist Bankers through such institutions as The Council on Foreign Relations; http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publi...icle_3098.shtml , The Trilateral Commision, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, and various Round Table organisations. These directives are then implemented at a government level, and enforced when necessary through the Police departments and military that the Bankers set up for this purpose.

The central banking cult has unlimited funds. When it wants to make us feel good, (while it trashes civil rights, or wages senseless war) it makes the market go up. When it wants to fleece us, it crashes the market. By manipulating the money supply they manipulate us. Wars and depressions can be created at will and are a matter of course. Millions have died as a result of decisions taken by the Bankers who have manipulated the throne of power to an unimaginal degree. These are the 'protectors' at the helm of the Police State in Britain today.

The International Bankers http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=8234 share the same political Zionist agenda which many scholars are coming to realise has a One World facist government as it's end game.

What to do ?

It would be foolish to think that anything can be done to stop this manipulation. The most that anyone can hope to do is become aware and plan accordingly. Like the people who took videos of the Boxing Day tsunami as it rolled toward them, we have no concept of scale. When eventually we realise collectively that liberty and freedom are not a birthright, that they have to be strived towards, and then defended, it will be too late. It is already too late. In the end the Zionists will have their NWO...

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia...1_Part1_all.wmv

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/multimedia...pe2_128KBps.wmv

The Master Plan ?; http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic post

People are rushing about to make money yet few people understand just what it is and how it is controlled.

My eyes became opened after I spend a few weeks reading all the so called conspiracy theories about the 9-11 and then I realised just how controlled we are.

Enjoy the freedom on the net but don’t think it will last 4 ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well written, you have put together much that I have read over the last year in a very cohesive form.

Update on the Iran situation here.

There are further worrysome developments here

Perhaps more important to people living in the U.K.

We already have, in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, emergency powers accorded to Ministers which, if used, would permit them to make emergency regulations equivalent to an Act of Parliament or direct use of the Royal Prerogative, powers from which not even the provisions of Magna Carta are exempt and which would permit the confiscation and destruction of property (without compensation), the restriction of movement, censorship of the free press and even the curtailment of habeas corpus; all by Ministerial decree.

Full article here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Hitler while mad, was financed by the Americans to overthrow the Zionists (also funded by the Americans) and ww2 was an accidental by-product.

Yeah right, think I need to give reading this forum a bit of a rest, this is getting a little too extreme.

Byeeeeeeeee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Hitler while mad, was financed by the Americans

Wrong, he was financed through the Federal Reserve Bank.

So Hitler while mad ...overthrow the Zionists

Wrong again. I don't have the time to nurse you through this, but I would suggest you read the post, (and links) in it's entirety, which you obviously have not done, and then comment.

Lines of Credit;

"Jacques Rueff points out that [Hjalmar] Schacht did not invent Hitler's monetary policy; it was imposed on Germany "by American and British creditors to finance war preparations and finally unleash war itself" (Reuff, "The Monetary Sins of the West"). Rueff also points out that the Standstill Agreement of 1931 allowing Germany a moratorium on war debts through the 1930s was an amicable pact between the London, New York and German branches of the Warburg and Schroder [banking] houses. Max Warburg remained Schacht's deputy at the Reichsbank until 1938; Kurt von Schroder then became his deputy. (Schacht's father had been Berlin agent for the Equitable Life Insurance Co. of New York.) The industrialist levies for Hitler (the "Circle of Friends") were paid into the Schroder Bank."; http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/Ar...ticle=WorldCh03

This article; http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n5p33_Weir.html written by a friend and supporter of the Warburgs, and therefore more likely to be based on the truth, outlines who the principle Bankers were during Hitler's tenure as chancelor of Germany. If we take the official line, it would seem that the Zionist Jews paid for the suffering that their fellow's in faith would succumb to during the war.

Warburgs, Harrimans, Bush connection; "While Hitler cynically denounced the IG Farben company as an "international Jewish organization," Schacht simultaneously awarded that company huge contracts to produce munitions and chemicals for the military buildup. Throughout this period, up until 1937, banker Max Warburg was the leading stockholder of IG Farben. Warburg (like the Rothschilds, politically loyal to the British crown) meanwhile presumed to instruct his fellow Jews in the western countries not to boycott or otherwise protest Hitler's anti-Jewish persecution.

Max Warburg had brokered the Harriman-Bush takeover of German companies, and their subsequent staffing by Nazis. The Warburg family's Kuhn Loeb bank in New York had earlier launched the Harriman family's railroad fortune, with capital from the British monarchy. In the 1930s, Kuhn Loeb was selling new bonds in New York for Hitler and Schacht, to replace, at a lower interest rate, the German public and private bonds held by Americans. Max Warburg meanwhile served as Schacht's deputy at the German central bank."; http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2000/2733...ush_hitler.html

Further on the Bush family; http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm As if that were not bad enough, sadly it did'nt end there; http://www.hermes-press.com/crimes.htm

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theories!!!

Coincidence or what?

13th March 1996 mad gunman mows down and kills 16 in Dunblane!

28th April 1996 mad gunman killed thirty-five men, women and children Port Arthur, Tasmania.

10th May 1996 Australian gun laws enacted virtually outlawing guns in Australia.

February and May 1997 gun laws enacted, virtually outlawing guns in the UK.

These tragic events have led to stringent gun laws, possibly quite rightly, it's the closeness of the dates that get me!

May 29 1998 - French National Assembly votes to tighten gun laws.

The problem with all "conspiricy theories" is their very outragousness beggers belief. The thought of Dunblane and Port Arthur being anything other than coincidence is unthinkable, but a nagging doubt remains!

Conspiracy theories however deserve some critical consideration.

This is one I have researched

In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto was apparently untroubled by aspartame's clouded past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."

So what?

The FDA had actually banned aspartame based on this finding

Great.

only to have Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (currently the Secretary of Defense) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.

What?

Check it out here or here

The conspiricy theory dilema now becomes a question of "what can I believe" if Donald Rumsfeld can force the FDA to approve a poison for use in food and drink worldwide (enjoy your next Diet Coke BTW) what else is he and others capable of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another article for those interested in banking history!

Rothschild Warmongering

Watchinandwaiting,

I was wondering where you were going with the diet coke stuff :huh: but this is a good post, and a well researched article. I stumbled onto all this in December, and since then the wealth of evidence I have found has been impressive. Throughout the last hundred years or so, the comments and recorded quotes of many very prominent and respected individuals clearly point to a conspiratorial consolidation of finance, media etc.. by the International Bankers. They even admit it themselves; "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild.

Further to the defense that not all Jewish people are Zionist's; http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watchinandwaiting,

I was wondering where you were going with the diet coke stuff :huh: but this is a good post, and a well researched article. I stumbled onto all this in December, and since then the wealth of evidence I have found is impressive. Throughout the last hundred years or so, the comments and recorded quotes of many very prominent and respected individuals clearly point to a conspiratorial consolidation of finance, media etc.. by the International Bankers. They even admit it themselves; "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply." Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild.

Further to the defense that not all Jewish people are Zionist's; http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html

---

Buylowsellhigh

The point is that conspiricy theories abound, some I would consider totaly unbelievable, however once you can prove to yourself that "important people" can and do use their power and position to further their own interests, some conspiricy theories become more believable. Hence my reference to Donald Rumsfield and aspartame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh - I don't mind people believing idiotic stuff like this - hey, if believiing that God/ Jewish Bankers/ Martians are the reason for their life being shit gets them thru the day, then, whatever.

But pinning it? That seems to suggest the mods think this is of interest. While it is (psychologically - in that people lurve conspiracy theories) almost none of it is in the slightest bit true.

E.g. the explanation for the war of 1812. Or the original (proposed) 13th amendment - no, it wouldn't have banned lawyers/ attorneys from holding office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the original (proposed) 13th amendment - no, it wouldn't have banned lawyers/ attorneys from holding office.

Yes it would. It was ratified on March 12, 1819 in the state of Virginia; http://www.amendment-13.org/ "After appearing in numerous official publications until 1876, this Article "disappeared" from the Constitution, to be replaced by another made nearly 50 years later ... in effect, however, the original amendment was, and still is, the Law Of The Land."

Further; http://users.frii.com/gosplow/13th.html "There is question as to whether Virginia ever formally notified the Secretary of State that they had ratified this 13th Amendment. Some have argued that because such notification was not received (or at least, not recorded), the Amendment was therefore not legally ratified. However, printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification. Further, there is no Constitutional requirement that the Secretary of State, or anyone else, be officially notified to complete the ratification process. The Constitution only requires that three- fourths of the states ratify for an Amendment to be added to the Constitution. If three-quarters of the states ratify, the Amendment is passed. Period. The Constitution is otherwise silent on what procedure should be used to announce, confirm, or communicate the ratification of amendments.

Knowing they were the last state necessary to ratify the Amendment, the Virginians had every right to announce their own and the nation's ratification of the Amendment by publishing it on a special edition of the Constitution, and so they did."

Original 13th Amendment, the short version; "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

The Constitutional documents; http://www.amendment-13.org/va1819images.html

E.g. the explanation for the war of 1812.

So why did England attack the United States in 1812 ? If my explanation is "not in the slightest bit true", then why don't you enlighten us with what really happened and why ?

idiotic stuff like this - hey, if believiing that God/ Jewish Bankers/ Martians...

I'm afraid I can't help you with the Martians. You should seek help elsewhere for that. Likewise with God ...and the Bankers I am referring to are Zionists, which makes this a political issue, not racial issue.

But pinning it?

You will have to take that up with the Moderators.

And btw, my life is not sh*t.

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buylowsellhigh.

Where in the 13th amendment did it ban lawyers/ attorneys from holding office? What it did was try to ban foreign title holders from holding office. A license to practise law issued by a US state is, was and never will be a title from a foreign power.

Also, there is also (in the original consitution) clauses banning this.

Your sources claim that because "esquire" was often used by US lawyers in their letters (e.g. Thomas Jefferson Esq.) that this counts as a foreign title, because the origin of the honorific is from the English gentry. That is the same as saying because "Mr." comes from the french "monsieur" which is equally a title granted by the French king, no-one using the title "mr" could ever hold office... See why I think it is wrong?

The 1812 war. You do realise that it was America that attacked Britain, NOT the other way round? US congress declared war on June 1812. Parliament didn't declare war on US until Jan 1813 (hoping for negotiation - only after several US attacks on Canada did they declare war back)

The reasons for US declaring war are many - and note, the war was not backed by large sections of US. They include the UK embargo on US trade with France, UK support of Tecumseh in the Ohio Valley, and the desires of the "War Party" in US congress to try and annex/ liberate Canada. The war ended with a "status quo" peace. The reasons for UK declaring war were that the US had declared war on them, and didn't want to talk peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buylowsellhigh. You do realise that it was America that attacked Britain, NOT the other way round?

I don't think so. The British navy had been attacking the American navy long before war was declared by the Americans. In fact, by 1812, British ships had captured almost four hundred American vessels, and impressed the American crews into British naval service. If that's not an attack, then I don't know what is; http://library.thinkquest.org/22916/excauses.html

Where in the 13th amendment did it ban lawyers/ attorneys from holding office? What it did was try to ban foreign title holders from holding office. A license to practise law issued by a US state is, was and never will be a title from a foreign power.

My reasoning was that U.S. attorneys owe their allegiance, first to the Crown of England(house of Rothschild ...the Banks) next to the courts, and then to the public, and finally to their clients, which by my reckoning excludes them from holding US citizenship under the rules of the original 13th amendment.

13th Amendment; ...no person holding office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, prince or foreign state.

Attorneys are members of the BAR. The American Bar Association is a branch of the Bar Council, sole bar association in England. All laws, today in America, are copyrighted property of a British company, all state Codes are private, commercial, British-owned "law". All attorneys follow instruction from England.

As far as license to practice law in any state, the laws of all U.S. States are governed by a foreign incorporation;

Incorporation; the foreign bankers decided to design a fictional system, which "looks" like the real thing - but really is not. The first thing the Bankers done was to make an entity which looked and sounded like the federal republic entitled "united States of America." Notice that the "u" in united is a small "u" - that's because it is an adjective, describing the States (noun) of America. On the other hand, if you capitalized the "U", as in United States this would be a name, a "title". So, now we have a "title" for the republic. This title was incorporated in England in 1871 as an English corporation. By my understanding, this means the U.S. is being ruled by a private foreign operated corporation – NOT a government.

In 1944, the Buck Act also took the sovereignty away from the states so that the states could also have a "title" as in "The State of Arizona." Then came the counties and municipalities - each had their own corporations which usurped the organic government. This almost completed the inverse relationship to the original organic republics.

The U.S. Congress does have the right to make all laws regarding Washington D.C. within the ten miles square and territories owned by the united states. Interestingly, this tiny scope of legislative powers is the only authority of law relating to people of the various states.

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't attacking US navy ships. They were following the Navigation Act and searching ships that they suspected of trading with France (which UK was at war with)

Considerable numbers of RN deserters were found, and brought back into service :) Yes, this pissed off the Yanks (which is why I put it down as one of the causes)

Your speculations about US state law are just fantasy land - sorry. The ABA is not a branch of the UK bar.

Of course almost all state codes are derived from UK law - they follow the same jurisprudence of common law. The exception is Louisiana, which (as it was a French colony for a long time) has a code based on Napoleonic law.

You misunderstand the US constitution. The Supreme Court long ago held that the clause about "interstate commerce" being a Federal matter, not State, means that US congress has authority over anything that effects interstate commerce. In a famous case, a farmer was forced to follow USDA limits on production. Even though he wasn't selling the grain, the Supreme court held that the fact that he was producing surplus affected the interstate market, so USDA (federal, not state authority) had the right.

You may or may not think this was a good decision, but it was the decision.

Can you give me a source for your assertion that in 1871 the USA became a UK corporation? I have access to most search engines, so can find the bill/ company deeds if you point me in the right direction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't attacking US navy ships. They were following the Navigation Act

Lol. So the Americans just let the British search and impound their ships and allowed themselves to be press-ganged. Yeah, right. The Navigation act (1651) was just an excuse to monopolise power and control into the hands of the elite, in this case the Crown of England under Cromwell, as most commercial laws are. If you want to experience an example of this, try printing and issuing your own money and see what happens.

Of course almost all state codes are derived from UK law - they follow the same jurisprudence of common law.

U.S. Law is based upon Private Merchant Law, leaving the people as Surety and Debtor on the bankruptcy; http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/U.S._legal_history.htm

Your speculations about US state law are just fantasy land

They are not speculations, they are constitutionally recorded facts.

Can you give me a source for your assertion that in 1871 the USA became a UK corporation?

"After four years of horrendous fighting and bloodshed, the invaded Southern Nation called alternately “Dixie” was conquered and militarily occupied. However, the Union had bankrupted herself in the destruction of the South and pressure was exerted by the Bank of England for payment. The Union confiscated vast areas and plantations in the South to pay part of this debt, but it was insufficient.

Thus the Bank of England and the House of Rothschild insisted that a Corporation of the UNITED STATES of the District of Columbia be established over the 10 square miles of the territory of the Central government; http://www.federationofstates.org/articals/rcsavssn.htm

can find the bill/ company deeds

The 'bill' was the Incorporation itself. The company deed is the 'Corporation of the UNITED STATES of the District of Columbia and the 10 square miles of the territory'. The Corporation of the UNITED STATES was incorporated on February 21, 1871 by an act of the executive branch Congress

The original private corporate government back in 1789 was established on certain principles and rules, but it went through a bankruptcy almost right away, and with each stage of the bankruptcy there was reorganization. A reorganization created a new set of circumstances, and probably a new set of creditors or masters or rules to discharge the old bankruptcy. Roughly every 20 years it is re-organization again, so you get different changes in the rules and regulations, creditors etc, and it just goes on and on. As the bankruptcy gets worse and worse, the creditors create tighter and tighter rules in order to raise the revenue to keep the thing going, and that is what you see today.

With regards to who the real owners of the Corporation are; "Corp. U.S. began issuing bonds to cover the expenses of running government. By 1912 there was more bond debt due than there was money in the Treasury to pay and the debt was called. Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption. When Corp. U.S. couldn't come up with the money due, its owner (the actual government) was obligated to pay. The Treasury of the United States of America did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either but the seven families accepted all of the assets of the nation's Treasury along with all of the assets of Corp. U.S'. Treasury as a settlement of the debt saving the nation from bankruptcy."

Here is a communique from the Rothschild brothers; "The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on 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 the tremendous advantages...will bear

its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests." Rothschild Brothers of London communique to associates in New York June 25, 1863; http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/03-09-05/...ion.cgi.15.html

You are quick to criticise, but you are slow to provide evidence of your criticism's ...not a single link, in fact. If you are going to make a comment, then be fair and provide some evidence to back it up. You could even use those search engines you have access to.

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video 40 mins

Dr. Bill Veith and Alex Jones have a fantastic discussion about the fiat money system in place and controlled by the international banking cartel. Dr. Veith's understanding of the economic system is impeccable and shows in the clarity in which he presents this knowledge. He lays out in layman's terms how the economy is manipulated and how one can protect oneself in an economic colapse by owning gold and silver coins; tangible wealth that can not be deflated.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video 40 mins

Watchinandwaiting,

Thanks for posting. I went through a similar realisation as Bill Veith, in that just a couple of years ago I would have dismissed this type of information as pure nonsense. What was difficult for me, was accepting the fact that I had been so utterly deceived for the majority of my years, and that I had willingly joined in the charade. It was'nt until I made the connection between the consolidation of industry and obscene profits, that I realised the majority of us are simply pawns to be manipulated at the will of corporatism in pursuit of it's own interests. Our collective cognitive dissonance is allowing theft and murder to occur on a global scale, and unfortunately freedom has been reduced to something that's sung about before sporting events; http://proliberty.com/observer/20010607.htm

Another poster commented on another thread that the elite are simply more organised than we are, and I think that is exactly right. While they have been consolidating and organising, the rest of us have been digging cranial holes in the sand.

---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.