Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil

by Tell the Truth

  The predominance of derisive and pejorative names reveals the esteem in which Jews were held.

  Anti-Semitism is so instinctive that it may quite simply be called one of the primal instincts of mankind, one of the important instincts by which the race helps to preserve itself against total destruction. I cannot emphasize the matter too strongly. Anti-Semitism is not, as Jews have tried to make the world believe, an active prejudice. It is a deeply hidden instinct with which every man is born. He remains unconscious of it, as of all other instincts of self preservation, until something happens to awaken it. Just as when something flies in the direction of your eyes, the eyelids close instantly and of their own accord. So swiftly and surely is the instinct of anti-Semitism awakened in a man...there is not a single instance when the Jews have not fully deserved the bitter fury of their persecutors. (Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live, 1934, pp. 31/32).

  Initially, Jews manoeuvred themselves into positions of trust from which, for instance, they advised local rulers and advanced money to them for their needs. However, to develop their infernal plan, they had to control the source of money itself, so as to be able to manipulate the markets, to flood them with money or to withhold it by raising or lowering interest rates, and by restricting or increasing the money supply, thus creating so-called boom and bust.

  Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate (within a few weeks of making this statement, on July 2, 1881, President Garfield was assassinated).

  “Money plays the largest part in determining the course of history” (Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto)

  While most people define “honour” as synonymous with nobility of mind and an allegiance to what is right, and one of the basic qualities that distinguishes man from beast, the original Rothschild is quoted thus: “My money is my honour and whoever takes my money, takes my honour.” (The “Berlin Antisemitism Dispute,” 1879-1881: A Controversy Surrounding the Integration of German Jew Into the Nation, commented source edition, Munich, Saur, 2003, p. 778) This pathetic and despicable creed defines such creatures as freaks that belong in a circus, next to the bearded lady and the Siamese twins, rather than in the company of respectable people.

  Or to quote a modern equivalent: “We don’t want to hide the fact that we are inspired by riches. We have had enough of Lenin’s lifestyle! Our goals are clear, our tasks defined – we want to be billionaires…Our idol is His Majesty, Capital.” (M. Chodorkowski/ L. Newslin: “Der Mann mit dem Rubel”, 1993)

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

  ***

  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. 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. (Roosevelt, letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933)

  ***

  I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money...And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people. (Reginald McKenna, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders, January 24, 1924)

  ***

  If you want to be the slaves of banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the banks create money (attributed to Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1920)

  ***

  The Bank of Amsterdam, established in 1609, was the precursor to, if not the first, modern central bank (Quinn, Stephen; Roberds, William (2005), The Big Problem of Large Bills: The Bank of Amsterdam and the Origins of Central Banking).

  In England, perhaps the most important consequence of the Civil War-- more properly “English” Revolution in the present context-- was the creation by royal charter in 1694, under William III, of the Bank of England, an institution owned by bankers, whereby a private “national” bank lent money at interest to government. It had the sole right to print money. The model used for its invention was copied in 1791 with the introduction of the First Bank of the U.S. (1791-1811), and in 1816 with the Second Bank of the U.S. (1816-1836) and, finally, on December 23, 1913 with the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve. The history of the British national debt can be traced back to the reign of William III, who engaged a syndicate of City traders and merchants to offer for sale an issue of government debt (£1.2million at 8% plus an annual service charge of £4,000), which evolved into the Bank of England. (“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing”-- William Paterson, one of the founders of the Bank of England). “In 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, British government debt reached a peak of more than 200% of GDP.” (Wikipedia) (230% after WWII -- BBC) Thus, at a stroke, the National Debt was instituted, pledging taxes to pay the interest on the bank’s loans. In the U.S., the 16th Amendment of February 3, 1913 allowed Congress to levy an income tax for the same purpose (a fundamental rule laid down by the Communist Manifesto is “a heavy, progressive or graduated income tax”). Private central banks are legally enabled to counterfeit national currency for private gain, but they do not produce the money to cover the interest payable to them by national treasuries, so that national debt can never be repaid. Thus began what may be called the Modern Time during which Satan’s snowball gathered momentum and significance.

  Some insights into the historical sequence leading up to this disaster are provided in a video called The Money Masters (1996), whose transcript is, in parts, reproduced here:

  By the mid-1700s, the British Empire was approaching its height of power around the world. Britain had fought four wars in Europe since the creation of its privately-owned central bank, the Bank of England. The cost had been high. To finance these wars, the British Parliament, rather than issuing its own debt-free currency, had borrowed heavily from the Bank. By the mid- 1700s, the government’s debt was £140,000,000 - a staggering sum for those days.

  Consequently, the British government embarked on a program of trying to raise revenues from its American colonies in order to make the interest payments to the Bank. But in America, it was a different story. The scourge of a privately-owned central bank had not yet landed in America, though the Bank of England exerted its baneful influence over the American colonies after 1694. Benjamin Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own money.... In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to fight for colonial paper money. Called Colonial Scrip, the endeavor was successful, with notable exceptions.... Officials of the Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the new-found prosperity of the colonies. Without hesitation he replied: “That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers... In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.” (The Money Masters, video transcript)

  As a result, Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins... Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said: “In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.” Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for the American Revolution. As Franklin
put it in his autobiography: “The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.”

  By the time the first shots were fired in Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, the colonies had been drained of gold and silver coin by British taxation. As result, the Continental government had no choice but to print its own paper money to finance the war. At the start of the Revolution, the U.S. (colonial) money supply stood at $12 million. By the end of the war, it was nearly $500 million. This was partly a result of massive British counterfeiting. As a result, the currency was virtually worthless. Shoes sold for $5,000 a pair. George Washington lamented, “A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon of provisions.” (ibid.)

  Earlier, Colonial scrip had worked because just enough was issued to facilitate trade and counterfeiting was minimal. Towards the end of the Revolution, the Continental Congress grew desperate for money. In 1781, they allowed Robert Morris, their Financial Superintendent, to open a privately-owned central bank in hopes that would help. Called the Bank of North America, the new bank was closely modelled after the Bank of England. It was allowed to practice (or rather, it was not prohibited from) fractional reserve banking - that is, it could lend out money it didn’t have, then charge interest on it. Few understood this practice at the time, which was, of course, concealed from the public as much as possible. Further, the bank was given a monopoly on issuing bank notes, acceptable in payment of taxes. The value of American currency continued to plummet, so, four years later, in 1785, the Bank’s charter was not renewed, effectively ending the threat of the Bank’s power. Thus the second American Bank War quickly ended in defeat for the Money Changers. The leader of the successful effort to kill the Bank, a patriot named William Findley, of Pennsylvania, explained the problem this way: “This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be varied in its object ... to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state.” (ibid.)

  As Jefferson later put it: “If the American people ever allow private 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 up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” (ibid.)

  ***

  I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from the government the power of borrowing. (Jefferson)

  ***

  In 1790, less than three years after the Constitution had been signed, the Money Changers struck again. The newly-appointed first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton proposed a bill to the Congress calling for a new privately-owned central bank. Coincidentally, that was the very year that Meyer Rothschild made his pronouncement from his flagship bank in Frankfort: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws.”

  ***

  Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King warned in 1935: “Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

  ***

  Alexander Hamilton was a tool of the international bankers. He wanted to create another private central bank, the Bank of the United States, and did so. He convinced Washington to sign the bill over Washington’s reservations and over Jefferson’s and Madison’s opposition....Hamilton had written Morris a letter, saying: “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing.” The new bank was to be called the First Bank of the United States. “Never was a great historic event followed by a more feeble sequel. A nation arises to claim for itself liberty and sovereignty. It gains both of these by immense sacrifice of blood and treasure. Then, when victory is gained and secure, it hands the nation’s credit - that is to say a national treasure - over to private individuals, to do as they please with.” (Alexander Del Mar, historian) Like the Bank of England, the name of the Bank of the United States was deliberately chosen to hide the fact that it was privately controlled. And like the Bank of England, the names of the investors in the Bank were never revealed. “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 Bank of the United States” (Gustav Myers, History of the Great American Fortunes, 1936).

  ***

  Although it was called the First Bank of the U.S., it was not the first attempt at a privately-owned central bank in this country. As with the first two, the Bank of England and the Bank of North America, the government put up the cash to get this private bank going, then the bankers loaned that money to each other to buy the remaining stock in the bank. It was a scam, plain and simple. In 1811, a bill was put before Congress to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States. The debate grew very heated and the legislature of both Pennsylvania and Virginia passed resolutions asking Congress to kill the Bank. The press corps of the day attacked the Bank openly, calling it “a great swindle,” a “vulture,” a “viper,” and a “cobra.” A Congressman named P.B. Porter attacked the bank from the floor of Congress, prophetically warned that if the bank’s charter were renewed, Congress, “will have planted in the bosom of this Constitution a viper, which one day or another will sting the liberties of this country to the heart.” That year, the bank’s charter expired and was not renewed. (The Money Masters)

  ***

  In Washington, in 1816, just one year after Waterloo and Rothschilds’ alleged takeover of the Bank of England, the American Congress passed a bill permitting yet another privately-owned central bank. This bank was called the Second Bank of the United States. The new Bank’s charter was a copy of the previous Bank’s. The U.S. government would own 20% of the shares. Of course, the Federal share was paid by the Treasury up front, into the Bank’s coffers. Then, through the magic of fractional reserve lending, it was transformed into loans to private investors who then bought the remaining 80% of the shares. Just as before, the primary stockholders remained secret. But it is known that the largest single block of shares - about one-third of the total - was held by foreigners. As one observer put it: “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.

  Prospects didn’t look good for the Bank. Some writers have claimed that Nathan Rothschild warned that the United States would find itself involved in a most disastrous war if the Bank’s charter were not renewed. But it wasn’t enough. When the smoke had cleared, the renewal bill was defeated by a single vote in the House and was deadlocked in the Senate. By now, America’s fourth President, James Madison, was in the White House. Madison was a staunch opponent of the Bank. His Vice President, George Clinton, broke a tie in the Senate and sent the Bank, the second privately-owned central bank based in America, into oblivion. (ibid.)

  ***

  By 1816, some authors claim, the Rothschilds and their allies, some by now related by marriage, had taken control over the Bank of England and backed the new privately-owned central bank in America (the 2nd BUS) as well. With Napoleon’s defeat about the same time, they began to dominate the Bank of France as well.

  After about a decade of monetary manipulations on the part of the Second Bank of the U.S., the American people, once again, had had just about enough. Opponents of the Bank nominated a famous senator from Tennessee, Andrew Jackson, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans, to run for president. No one gave Jackson a chance initially. The Bank
had long-ago learned how the political process could be controlled with money. (ibid.)

  ***

  Faced with the possibility that the Second Bank of the U.S.’s charter would not be renewed, Nicholas Biddle, the president, made the following threat: “Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress... Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm monetary] restriction -and I have no doubt that such a course will ultimately lead to restoration of the currency and the re-charter of the Bank.” Nicholas Biddle made good on his threat. The Bank sharply contracted the money supply by calling in old loans and refusing to extend new ones. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep economic depression. Predictably, Biddle blamed (President) Jackson for the crash, saying that it was caused by the withdrawal of federal funds from the Bank. Unfortunately, his plan worked well. Wages and prices sagged. Unemployment soared along with business bankruptcies. The nation quickly went into an uproar. (ibid.)