Casse di Risparmio dell'Umbria

Transcription

Now it was time for the Money Changers to get back to the business of a new, private central bank for America. During the early 1900s, men like J.P. Morgan led the charge. One final panic would be necessary to focus the nation's attention on the supposed need for a central bank. The rationale was that only a central bank could prevent bank failures. Morgan was clearly the most powerful banker in America and a suspected agent for the Rothschilds. Morgan had helped finance John D. Rockefeller standard oil empire he had also helped finance the monopolies of Edgar Herman in railroads, of Andrew Carnegie in steel and of others in numerous industries. But, on top of that, J.P. Morgan's father, Junius Morgan, had been American financial agent to the British. After his father's death, J.P. Morgan took on a British partner, Edward Grenfell, a long-time director of the Bank of England. In fact, upon Morgan's death, his estate contained only a few million dollars. The bulk of the securities most people thought he owned, were in fact owned by others. In 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt allegedly went after Morgan and his friends by using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to try to break up their industrial monopolies. Actually, Roosevelt did very little to interfere in the growing monopolization of American industry by the bankers and their surrogates. For example, Roosevelt supposedly broke up the Standard Oil monopoly. But it wasn't really broken at all. It was merely divided into seven corporations, all still controlled by the Rockefellers. The public was aware of this thanks to political cartoonists like Thomas Nast who referred to the bankers as the "Money Trust." By 1907, the year after Teddy Roosevelt's re-election, Morgan decided it was time to try for a central bank again. Using their combined financial muscle, Morgan and his friends were secretly able to crash the stock market. Thousands of small banks were vastly overextended. Some had reserves of less than one percent (1%), thanks to the fractional reserve principle. Within days, banks runs were commonplace across the nation. Now Morgan stepped into the public arena and offered to prop up the faltering American economy by supporting failing banks with money he manufactured out of nothing. It was an outrageous proposal, far worse than even fractional reserve banking, but Congress let him do it. Morgan manufactured $200 million worth of this completely reserveless, private money and bought things with it, paid for services with it, and sent some of it to his branch banks to lend out at interest. His plan worked. Soon, the public regained confidence in money in general and quit hoarding their currency. But as a result, banking power was further consolidated into the hands of a few large banks. By 1908 the panic was over and Morgan was hailed as a hero by the president of Princeton University, a man by the name of Woodrow Wilson: Economics textbooks would later explain that the creation of the Federal Reserve System was the direct result of the panic of 1907: "with its alarming epidemic of bank failures, the country was fed up once and for all with the anarchy of unstable private banking." But Minnesota Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., the father of the famous aviator, "Lucky Lindy," later explained that the Panic of 1907 was really just a scam: So, since the passage of the National Banking Act of 1863, the Money Chnagers had been able to coordinate a series of booms and busts. The purpose was not only to fleece the American public of their property, but to later to claim that the banking system was basically so unstable that it had to be consolidated into a central bank once again. After the crash, Teddy Roosevelt, in response to the Panic of 1907, signed into law a bill creating something called the National Monetary Commission. The Commission was to study the banking problem and make recommendations to Congress. Of course, the Commission was packed with Morgan's friends and cronies. The Chairman was a man named Senator Nelson Aldrich from Rhode Island. Aldrich represented the Newport, Rhode Island homes of America's richest banking families. His daughter married John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and together they had five sons: John, Nelson (who would become the Vice-President in 1974), Laurence, Winthrop, and David (the head of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Chairman of Chase Manhattan bank). As soon as the National Monetary Commission was set up, Senator Aldrich immediately embarked on a two-year tour of Europe, where he consulted at length with the private central bankers in England, France and Germany. The total cost of his trip alone to the taxpayers was $300,000 an astronomical sum in those days. Shortly after his return, on the evening of November 22, 1910, some of the wealthiest and most powerful men in America boarded Senator Aldrich's private rail car and in the strictest secrecy journeyed to this place, Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia. With the group came Paul Warburg. Warburg had been given a $500,000 per year salary to lobby for the passage of a privately-owned central bank in America by the investment firm, Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Warburg's partner in this firm was a man named Jacob Schiff, the grandson of the man who shared the Green Shield house with the Rothschild family in Frankfort. Schiff, as we'll later find out, was in the process of spending $20 million to finance the overthrow of the Tsar of Russia. These three European banking families, the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, and the Schiffs were interconnected by marriage down through the years, just as were their American banking counterparts, the Morgans, Rockefellers and Aldrichs. Secrecy was so tight that all seven primary participants were cautioned to use only first names to prevent servants from learning their identities. Years later one participant, Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank of New York and a representative of the Rockefeller family, confirmed the Jekyll Island trip in the February 9, 1935 edition of the Saturday Evening Post: The participants came here to figure out how to solve their major problem how to bring back a privately-owned central bank but there were other problems that needed to be addressed as well. First of all, the market share of the big national banks was shrinking fast. In the first ten years of the century, the number of U.S. banks had more than doubled to over 20,000. By 1913, only 29% of all banks were National Banks and they held only 57% of all deposits. As Senator Aldrich later admitted in a magazine article: Therefore, something had to be done to bring these new banks under their control. As John D. Rockefeller put it: "Competition is a sin" Secondly, the nation's economy was so strong that corporations were starting to finance their expansions out of profits instead of taking out huge loans from large banks. In the first 10 years of the new century, 70% of corporate funding came from profits. In other words, American industry was becoming independent of the Money Changers, and that trend had to be stopped. All the participants knew that these problems could be hammered out into a workable solution, but perhaps their biggest problem was a public relations problem, the name of the new central bank. That discussion took place right here in this room, one of the many conference rooms in this sprawling hotel today known as the Jekyll Island Club Hotel. Aldrich believed that the word "bank" should not even appear in the name. Warburg wanted to call the legislation the National Reserve Bill or the Federal Reserve Bill. The idea here was to give the impression that the purpose of the new central bank was to stop bank runs, but also to conceal its monopoly character. However, it was Aldrich, the egotistical politician, who insisted it be called the Aldrich Bill. After nine days at Jekyll Island, the group dispersed. The new central bank would be very similar to the old Bank of the United States. It would eventually be given a monopoly over U.S. currency and create that money out of nothing. How does the Fed "create" money out of nothing? It is a four-step process. But first a word on bonds. Bonds are simply promises to pay - or government IOUs. People buy bonds to get a secure rate of interest. At the end of the term of the bond, the government repays the bond, plus interest, and the bond is destroyed. There are about 3.6 trillion dollars worth of these bonds at present. Now here is the Fed moneymaking process: Step 1. The Fed Open Market Committee approves the purchase of U.S. Bonds on the open market. Step 2. The bonds are purchased by the Fed Bank from whoever is offering them for sale on the open market. Step 3. The Fed pays for the bonds with electronic credits to the seller's bank, which in turn credits the seller's bank account. The trick is that these credits are based on nothing. The Fed just creates them. Step 4. The banks use these deposits as reserves. They can loan out over ten times the amount of their reserves to new borrowers, all at interest. In this way, a Fed purchase of, say a million dollars worth of bonds, gets turned into over 10 million dollars in bank accounts. The Fed, in effect, creates 10% of this totally new money and the banks create the other 90%. To reduce the amount of money in the economy, the process is just reversed: the Fed sells bonds to the public, and money flows out of the purchaser's local bank. Loans must be reduced by ten times the amount of the sale. So a Fed sale of a million dollars in bonds, results in 10 million dollars less money in the economy. So how does this benefit the bankers whose representatives huddled at Jekyll Island? 1st - it totally misdirected banking reform efforts from proper solutions. 2nd - it prevented a proper, debt-free system of government finance like Lincoln's Greenbacks - from making a comeback. The bond-based system of government finance, forced on Lincoln after he created Greenbacks, was now cast in stone. 3rd - it delegated to the bankers the right to create 90% of our money supply based on only fractional reserves which they could then loan out at interest. 4th - it centralized overall control of our nation's money supply in the hands of a few men. 5th - it established a central bank with a high degree of independence from effective political control. Soon after its creation, the Fed's Great Contraction in the early 1930s would cause the Great Depression. This independence has been enhanced since then, through additional laws. In order to fool the public into thinking the government retained control, the plan called for the Fed to be run by a Board of Governors appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. But all the bankers had to do was to be sure that their men got appointed to the Board of Governors. That wasn't hard. Bankers have money, and money buys influence over politicians. Once the participants left Jekyll Island, the public relations blitz was on. The big New York banks put together an "educational" fund of five million dollars to finance professors at respected universities to endorse the new bank. Woodrow Wilson at Princeton was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon. But the bankers' subterfuge didn't work. The Aldrich Bill was quickly identified as the bankers bill a bill to benefit only what become known as the "Money Trust." As Congressman Lindbergh put it during the Congressional debate: Seeing they didn't have the votes to win in Congress, the Republican leadership never brought the Aldrich Bill to a vote. The bankers quietly decided to move to track two, the Democratic alternative. They began financing Woodrow Wilson as the Democratic nominee. As respected historian James Perloff put it, Wall Street financier Bernard Baruch was put in charge of Wilson's education: So now, the stage was set. The Money Changers were poised to install their privately-owned central bank once again. The damage president Andrew Jackson had done 67 years earlier had been only partly repaired with the passage of the national bank act during the civil war. Since then, the battle had raged on across the decades. The "Jacksonians" became the "Greebackers" who became the hard-core supporters of William Jennings Bryan. With Bryan leading the charge, these opponents of the Money Changers, ignorant of Baruch's tutelage, now threw themselves behind democrat Widrow Wilson. They and Bryan would soon be betrayed. During the Presidential campaign, the Democrats were careful to pretend to oppose the Aldrich Bill. As Rep. Louis McFadden, himself a Democrat as well as chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, explained it 20 years after the fact: Once Wilson was elected, Morgan, Warburg, Baruch and company advanced a "new" plan, which Warburg named the Federal Reserve System. The Democratic leadership hailed the new bill, called the Glass-Owen Bill, as something radically different from the Aldrich Bill. But in fact, the bill was virtually identical in every important detail. In fact, so vehement were the Democratic denials of similarity that Paul Warburg - the father of both bills – had to step in to reassure his paid friends in Congress that the two bills were virtually identical: But that admission was for private consumption only. Publicly, the Money Trust trotted out Senator Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip, the president of Rockefeller's National City Bank of New York and one of the Jekyll Island seven, to oppose the new Federal Reserve System. Years later, however, Vanderlip admitted in the Saturday Evening Post that the two measures were virtually identical: As Congress neared a vote, they called Ohio attorney Alfred Crozier to testify. Crozier noted the similarities between the Aldrich Bill and the Glass-Owen Bill: During the debate on the measure, Senators complained that the big banks were using their financial muscle to influence the outcome. "There are bankers in this country who are enemies of the public welfare," sayd one Senator. What an understatement! Despite the charges of deceit and corruption, the bill was finally rammed through the Senate on December 22, 1913, after must Senators had left town for the Holidays, after having been assured by the leadership that nothing would be done until long after the Christmas recess. On the day the bill was passed, Congressman Lindbergh prophetically warned his countrymen that: On top of all this, only weeks earlier, Congress had finally passed a bill legalizing income tax. Why was the income tax law important? Because bankers finally had in place a system which would run up a virtually unlimited federal debt. How would the interest on this debt be repaid, never mind the principal? Remember, a privately-owned central bank creates the principal out of nothing. The federal government was small then. Up to then, it had subsisted merely on tariffs and excise taxes. Just as with the Bank of England, the interest payments had to be guaranteed by direct taxation of the people. The Money Changers knew that if they had to rely on contributions from the states, eventually the individual state legislatures would revolt and either refuse to pay the interest on their own money, or at least bring political pressure to bear to keep the debt small. It is interesting to note that in 1895 the Supreme Court had found a similar income tax law to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court even found a corporate income tax law unconstitutional in 1909. As a result, Senator Aldrich hustled a bill for a constitutional amendment allowing income tax through the Congress. The proposed 16th Amendment to the Constitution was then sent to the state legislatures for approval, but some critics claim that the 16th Amendment was never ratified by the necessary 3/4s of the states. In other words, the 16th Amendment may not be legal. But the Money Changers were in no mood to debate the fine points. By October of 1913, senator Aldrich had hustled the income tax bill through Congress. Without the power to tax the people directly and bypass the states, the Federal Reserve Bill would be far less useful to those who wanted to drive America deeply into their debt. A year after the passage of the Federal Reserve Bill, Congressman Lindbergh explained how the Fed created what we have come to call the "Business Cycle" and how they use it to their advantage: Congressman Lindbergh was correct on all points. What he didn't realize was that most European nations had already fallen prey to the central bankers decades or centuries earlier. But he also mentions the interesting fact that only one year later, the Fed had cornered the market in gold; this is how he put it: "Already the Federal Reserve banks have cornered the gold and gold certificates..." But Congressman Lindbergh was not the only critic of the Fed. Congressman Louis McFadden, the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency committee from 1920 to 1931 remarked that the Federal Reserve Act brought about: Notice how McFadden saw the international character of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve. Another chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, Wright Patman from Texas, put it this way: Even the inventor of the electric light, Thomas Edison, joined the fray in criticizing the system of the Federal Reserve: Three years after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, even President Wilson began to have second thoughts about what had been unleashed during his first term in office. Before his death in 1924, President Wilson realized the full extent of the damage he had done to America, when he confessed: "I have unwittingly ruined my government." So finally, the Money Changers, those who profit by manipulating the amount of money in circulation, had their privately owned central bank installed again in America. The major newspapers (which they also owned) hailed passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, telling the public that "now depressions could be scientifically prevented." The fact of the matter was that now depressions could be scientifically created. Power was now centralized to a tremendous extent. Now it was time for a war - a really big war - in fact, the first World War. Of course, to the central banker, the political issues of war don't matter nearly as much as the profit potential, and nothing creates debts like warfare. England was the best example up to that time. During the 119-year period between the founding of the Bank of England and Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years. And much of the remaining time, she'd been preparing for war. In World War I, the German Rothschilds loaned money to the Germans, the British Rothschilds loaned money to the British, and the French Rothschilds loaned money to the French. In America, J.P. Morgan was the sales agent for war materials to both the British and the French. In fact, six months into the war, Morgan became the largest consumer on earth, spending $10 million a day. His offices at 23 Wall Street were mobbed by brokers and salesmen trying to cut a deal. In fact, it got so bad that the bank had to post guards at every door and at the partners' homes as well. Many of the New York bankers made out as well from the war. President Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head the War Industries Board. According to historian Jarnes Perloff, both Baruch and the Rockefellers profited by some $200 million during the war. But profits were not the only motive. There was also revenge. The Money Changers never forgave the Tsars for their support of Lincoln during the Civil War. Also, Russia was the last major European nation to refuse to give in to the privately owned central bank scheme. Three years after World War I broke out, the Russian Revolution toppled the Tsar and installed the scourge of communism. Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. bragged on his deathbed that he had spent $20 million towards the defeat of the Tsar. Money was funnelled from England to support the revolution as well. Why would some of the richest men in the world financially back communism, the system that was openly vowing to destroy the so-called capitalism that made them wealthy? Researcher Gary Allen explained it was this way: As W. Cleon Skousen put it in his 1970 book "The Naked Capitalist": But what if these revolutionaries get out of control and try to seize power from the super rich? After all, it was Mao Tse Tung who in 1938 stated his position concerning power: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The Wall Street/London axis elected to take the risk. The master-planners attempted to control revolutionary communist groups by feeding them vast quantities of money when they obeyed, and contracting their money supply, or even financing their opposition, if they got out of control. Lenin began to understand that although he was the absolute dictator of the new Soviet Union, he was not pulling the financial strings; someone else was silently in control: Who was behind it? Rep. Louis T. McFadden, the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee throughout the 1920s and into the Great Depression years of the 1930s, explained it this way: In other words, the Fed and the Bank of England, at the behest of the international bankers who controlled them, were creating a monster, one which would fuel seven decades of unprecedented Communist revolution, warfare, and most importantly - debt. In case you think there is some chance that the Money Changers got communism going and then lost control, in 1992, The Washington Times reported that Russian President Boris Jeltsin was upset that most of the incoming foreign aid was being siphoned off "straight back into the coffers of Western banks in debt service." No one in his right mind, would claim that a war as large as World War I had a single cause. Wars are complex things with many causative factors. But on the other hand it would also be equally foolish to ignore as a prime cause of WWI those who would profit the most from the war. The role of the Money Changers is no wild conspiracy theory. They had a motive - a short-range, self-serving motive as well as a long-range, political motive of advancing totalitarian government, with the Money Changers maintaining the financial clout to control whatever politicians might emerge as the leaders. Next, we'll see what the Money Changers' ultimate political goal is for the world. Shortly after WWI, the overall political agenda of the Money Changers began to be clear. Now that they controlled national economies individually, the next step was the ultimate form of consolidation: world government. The new world government proposal was given top priority at the Paris peace conference after WWI. It was called the League of Nations. But much to the surprise of Paul Warburg and Bernard Baruch, who attended the peace conference with president Wilson, the world was not yet ready to dissolve national boundaries. Nationalism still beats strong in the human breast. For example, Lord Curzon, the British foreign secretary called the League of Nations a good joke. Even though it was the stated policy of the British government to support it. To the humiliation of president Wilson, the U.S. Congress wouldn't ratify the League either. Despite the fact that it had been ratified by many other nations, without money flowing from the U.S. treasury, the League died. After WWI, the American public had grown tired of the internationalist policies of democrat Woodrow Wilson. In the presidential election of 1920, republican Warren Harding won a landslide victory with over 60% of the votes. Harding was an ardent follower of both bolshevism and the League of Nations. His election, which opened a 12 year run of republican presidents in the White House, lead to an unprecedented era of prosperity known as the "roaring twenties". Despite the fact that war had brought America a debt ten times larger than its civil war debt, still the American economy surged. Gold had poured into the country during the war and it continued to do so afterwards. In the early 1920's, the governor of this bank, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a man named Benjamin Strong, met frequently with the secretive and eccentric governor of the Bank of England, Montague Norman. Norman was determined to replace the gold England had lost to the U.S. during WWI and returne the Bank of England to its former position of dominance in world finance. On top of that, rich with gold, the American economy might get out of control again, just like it had done after the civil war. During the next 8 years, under the president seize of Harding and Coolidge, the huge federal debt built up during WWI was cut by 38%, down to $16 billion. The greatest percentage drop in U.S. history. During the election of 1920, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge ran against James Cox, the governor of Ohio, and the little known Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had previously risen to no higher post than president Wilson's assistant secretary of the navy. After his inauguration, Harding moved quickly to formally kill the League of Nations. Then he quickly moved to reduce domestic taxes while raising tariffs to record heights. Now, this was a revenue policy of which most of the founding fathers would certainly have approved. His second year in office, Harding took ill on a train trip in the West and suddenly died. Although no autopsy was performed the cause was said to be either pneumonia or food poisoning. When Coolidge took over, he continued Harding's domestic economic policy of high tariffs on imports while cutting income taxes. As a result, the economy grew at such a rate that net revenue still increased. Now, that had to be stopped. So, just as they had done so frequently before, the Money Changers decided it was time to crash the American economy. The Fed began flooding the country with money. They increased the money supply by 62% during these years. Money was plentiful. This is why it was known as the "roaring twenties". Before his death in 1919, former president Teddy Roosevelt warned the American people what was going on. As reported in the March 27th, 1922 edition of the NY Times, Roosevelt said: Just one day before, in the NY Times, the major of NY, John Highland quoted Roosevelt and blasted those he saw as taking control of America, its political machinery and its press: Why didn't people listen to such strong warnings and demand that Congress reverse its 1913 passage of the Federal Reserve Act? Because remember: it was the 1920s: a steady increase in bank loans contributed to a rising market. In other words, just as it is today, in times of prosperity, no one wants to worry about economic issues. But there was a dark side to all this prosperity. Businesses expanded and became strong out on credit. Speculation in the booming stock market became rampant. Although everything looked rosy, it was a castle made of sand. When all was in readiness, in April of 1929, Paul Warburg, the father of the Fed, sent out a secret advisory warning his friends that a collapse and nationwide depression was certain. In August of 1929, the Fed began to tighten money. It is not a coincidence that the biographies of all the Wall Street giants of that era, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Bernard Beruch etc. all marvelled that they got out of the stock market just before the crash and put all their assets in cash or gold. On October 24th, 1929, the big NY bankers called in their 24-hour broker call loans. This meant that both stockbrokers and customers had to dump their stocks on the market to cover their loans, no matter what price they had to sell them for. As a result, the market tumbled and that day was known as "black Thursday". According to John Kenneth Galbraith, writing in "The great crash 1929", at the height of the selling frenzy, Bernard Beruch brought Winston Churchill into the visitors gallery of the NY stock exchange here, to witness the panic and impress him with his power over the wild events down on the floor. Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Committee on banking and currency from 1920 to 1931, knew whom to blame. He accused the Fed and the international bankers of orchestrating the crash. But McFadden went even farther: he openly accused them of causing the crash in order to steal America's gold. In February 1931, in the midst of the depression, he put it his way: Curtis Dall, a broker for Lehman brothers, was on the floor of the NY stock exchange the day of the crash. In his 1970 book, "FDR: my exploited father in law", he explained that the crash was triggered by the planned sudden shortage of call money in the NY money market. Within a few weeks, $3 billion of wealth simply seemed to vanish. Within a year, $40 billion had been lost. But did it really disappear? Or was it simply consolidated in fewer hands? And what did the Fed do? Instead of moving to help the economy out, by quickly lowering interest rates to stimulate the economy, the Fed continued to broodily contract the money supply further, deepening the depression. Between 1929 and 1933, the Fed reduced the money supply by an additional 33%. Although most Americans have never heard that the Fed was the cause of the depression, this is well known among top economists. Milton Friedman, the Nobel price-winning economist, now at Stanford University, said the same thing in a national public radio interview in January of 1996: But the money lost by most Americans during the depression, didn't just vanish. It was just re-distributed into the hands of those who had gotten out just before the crash and had purchased gold, which is always a safe place to put your money just before a depression. But America's money also went overseas. Incredibly, as president Hoover was heroically trying to rescue banks and prop up businesses, with millions of Americans starving as the great depression deepened, millions of dollars were being spent re-building Germany from damage sustained during WWI. Eight years before Hitler would invade Poland, representative Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, warned Congress that Americans were paying for Hitler's rise to power. Franklin D. Roosevelt was swept into office during the 1932 presidential election. Once Roosevelt was in office, however, sweeping emergency banking measures were immediately announced, which did nothing but increase the Fed's power over the money supply. Then, and only then, did the Fed finally began to loosen the purse strings and feed new money out to the starving American people. At first, Roosevelt railed against the Money Changers as being the cause of the depression. Believe it or not, this is what he said on March 4th, 1933 in his inaugural address: But two days later, Roosevelt declared a bank holiday and closed all banks. Later that year, Roosevelt outlawed private ownership of all gold bullion and all gold coins with the exception of rare coins. Most of the gold in the hands of the average American was in the form of gold coins. The new decree was, in effect, a confiscation. Those who didn't comply risked as much as ten years in prison and a $10,000 fine, the equivalent of a $100,000 today. Out in small town America, some people didn't trust Roosevelt's order. Many were torn between keeping their hard earned wealth or obeying the government. Those who did turn in their gold, were paid the official price for it: $20.66 per ounce. So unpopular was the confiscation order, that no one anywhere in government would take credit for authoring it. No congressman claimed it. At the signing ceremony, president Roosevelt made it clear to all present that he was not the author of it and publicly stated that he had not ever read it. Even a secretary of the Treasury said he had never read it either, saying it was "what the experts wanted". Roosevelt convinced the public to give up their gold by saying that pulling the nation's resources was necessary to get America out of the depression. With great fanfare, he ordered a new bullion depository, built to hold the mountain of gold the U.S. government was illegally confiscating. By 1936, the U.S. bullion depository of Fort Knox was completed and in January 1937 the gold began to flow into it. The rip-off of the ages was about to proceed. In 1935, once the gold had all been turned in, the official price of gold was suddenly raised to $35 per ounce. But the catch was, only foreigners could sell their gold at the new higher price. The Money Changers, who had headed Warburg's note and gotten out of the stock market just before the crash and bought gold at $20.66 per ounce and then shipped it to London, could now bring it back and sell it back to the government nearly doubling their money while the average American starved. The Fort Knox bullion depository sits here in the middle of the Fort Knox military reservation, 30 miles southwest of Louisville, Kentucky. This is as close as we were permitted to get to the depository despite years of letters from members of Congress to allow our film crew inside. The 4-acre grounds immediately surrounding the building are guarded by an electrified steel fence, an open moat and four machine gun-armed guard pillboxes at the structure's corners. When the gold began arriving, on January 13th 1937, there was unprecedented security. Thousands of official guests watched the arrival of a nine-car train from Philadelphia, guarded by armed soldiers, postal inspectors, secret servicemen and guards from the U.S. mint. It was all great theatre: America's gold supply from across the land had been pulled, supposedly for the public benefit, and then safely tucked into Fort Knox. But all that security would soon be breached by the government itself. Now the stage was set for a really big war, one which would pile up death far beyond that of WWI. For example, in 1944 alone, the U.S. national income was only $183 billion, yet $103 billion was spent on the war. This was 30 times the spending rate during WWI. In fact, the American taxpayer picked up 55% of the total allied cost of the war. But, equally important, virtually every nation involved in WW-II greatly multiplied their debt. In the U.S. for example, federal debt went from $43 billion in 1940 up to $257 billion in 1950, an increase of 598%. Between 1940 and 1950, Japanese debt swelled 1348%. French debt grew 583% and Canadian debt swelled 417%. After the war, the world was now divided into two economic camps. Communist-command economies on one hand vs monopoly capitalists on the other, set to fight it out in one perpetual and highly profitable arms raise. It was finally time for the central bankers to embark in earnest on their three-step plan to centralize the economic systems of the entire world and finally bring about their global government or New World Order. The phases of this plan were: Step 1: central bank domination of national economies worldwide. Step 2: centralize regional economies through organizations such as the European Monetary Union and regional trade unions such as NAFTA. Step 3: centralize the world economy through a World Central Bank, a world money and ending national independence through abolition of all tariffs by treaties like GATT. Step 1 was completed long ago. Steps 2 and 3 are far advanced, nearing completion. What about gold? Amongst central banks, the largest holder of gold is now the IMF. It and central banks now control 2/3 of the world gold supply, giving them the ability to manipulate the gold market. Remember the Money Changers' golden rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules". But before we get into solutions to our problem, let's take a look to what happened to all that gold in Fort Knox. Because if we don't understand that the gold has been stolen, we will allow ourselves to be stampeded into the wrong solution: a gold-backed currency. Most Americans still believe that the gold is still here, at Fort Knox. At the end of WW-II, Fort Knox contained over 700 million ounces of gold, an incredible 70% of all the gold in the world. How much remains? No one knows. Despite the fact that federal law requires an annual physical audit of Fort Knox gold, the treasury has consistently refused to conduct one. The truth is that a reliable audit of whatever remains here, has not been conducted since president Eisenhower ordered one in 1953. Where did America's gold in Fort Knox go? Over the years, it was sold off to European Money Changers at the $35 per ounce price. Remember: this was during the time when it was illegal for Americans to buy any of their own gold from Fort Knox. In fact, there was a very infamous case where the Firestone family set up a string of dummy corporations to purchase Fort Knox's gold and keep it in Switzerland, never hitting U.S. shores. They were eventually caught, however, and successfully prosecuted. Finally, by 1971, all the pure gold had been secretly removed from Fort Knox, drained back to London. Once the gold was gone from Fort Knox, president Nixon closed the gold window by repealing Roosevelt's gold reserve act of 1934, finally making it legal once again for Americans to buy gold. Naturally, gold prices immediately began to soar: nine years later, gold sold for $880 per ounce, 25 times what the gold in Fort Knox was sold for. One would think that eventually, someone in the government would get wind of what was happening and blow the whistle. The largest fortune in the history of the world, stolen. Shades of the old James Bond film "Goldfinger". Well, as a matter of fact, Ian Flaming, the author of the James Bond series, was head of the British counter-intelligence service MI5. Some believed in the intelligence community that he wrote much of his fiction as a warning as many authors of fiction do. If the removal of all the good delivery gold from Fort Knox can be viewed as a deliberate raid on the U.S. treasury, then such an operation might well have been years in the making. Namely, 40 years. Certainly enough time for Fleming to get wind of it and try to prevent it. So just how did the story of the Fort Knox gold robbery get out? It all started with an article in a NY periodical in 1974. The article charts that the Rockefeller family was manipulating the Fed to sell off Fort Knox gold at bargain-basement prices to anonymous European speculators. Three days later, the anonymous source of the story, Louise Auchincloss Boyer, mysteriously fell to her death from the window of her 10th floor apartment in NY. How had Mrs. Boyer known of the Rockefeller connection to the Fort Knox gold heist? She was the long-time secretary of Nelson Rockefeller. For the next 14 years, this man Ed Durell, a wealthy Ohio industrialist, devoted himself to a quest for the truth concerning the Fort Knox gold. He wrote thousands of letters to over 1000 government and banking officials trying to find out how much gold was really left and where the rest of it had gone. Edith Roosevelt, the granddaughter of president Teddy Roosevelt, questioned the actions of the government in a March 1975 edition of the New Hampshire's Sunday news: Unfortunately, Ed Durell never did accomplish his primary goal: a full audit of the gold reserves in Fort Knox… It's incredible that the world's greater treasure has had little accounting or auditing. This gold belonged to the American people, not to the Federal Reserve and their foreign owners. One thing is certain: the government could blow all of this speculation away in a few days with a well publicized audit under the searing lights of media cameras. It has chosen not to do so. One must conclude that they are afraid of the truth such an audit would reveal. What is the government so afraid of? Here is the answer: when president Ronal Reagan took office in 1981, his conservative friends urged him to study the feasibility of returning to a gold standard as the only way to curb government's spending. It sounded like a reasonable alternative, so president Reagan appointed a group of men called the "Gold Commission", to study the situation and report back to Congress. What Reagan's Gold Commission reported back to Congress in 1982, was the following shocking revelation concerning gold: the U.S. treasury owned no gold at all. All the gold that was left in Fort Knox, was now owned by the Federal Reserve, a group of private bankers, as collateral against the national debt. The truth of the matter is that never before had so much money been stolen from the hands of the general public and put into the hands of a small group of private investors: the Money Changers. I'm standing in front of the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund, located in Washington D.C. Across the street, right over there, is the headquarters of the World Bank. What are these organizations? Who controls them? And, most importantly, are they about to create a huge worldwide depression? Let us step back in time for a moment to the aftermath of WWI. People were tired of war. So, under the guys of peacemaking, the international banker devised the plan to consolidate power even further. Claiming only an international government would stand the tide of world wars, the Money Changers pushed forward a proposal for world government, which stood on three legs: a world central bank, to be called the Bank of International Settlements, a world judiciary, to be called the world court located in The Hagues in the Netherlands and a world executive and legislator, to be called the League of Nations. As president Clinton's mentor, Georgetown historian Carrol Quigley, wrote in his 1966 book "Tragedy and Hope": Despite intense pressure from the international banker and the press, a handful of U.S. senators, lead by senator Henri Cabbot Lodge, kept the U.S. out of these schemes. Without U.S. participation, the League was doomed. Incredibly, event though the U.S. rejected the World Central Bank, the BIS, the NY Federal Reserve ignored its government and arrogantly sent representatives to Switzerland to participate in the central bankers' meeting right up until 1994, when the U.S. was finally officially dragged into it. Their World Government's schemes thwarted, the bankers resorted to the old formula: another war to wear down the resistance to world government while reaping handsome profits. To this end, Wall Street helped resurrect Germany through the Thissen Banks, which were affiliated with the Herman interests in NY, just as the Chase Bank had assisted in the financing of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia during WWI. Chase Bank was controlled by the Rockefeller family. Subsequently, it was merged with Warburg's Manhattan Bank to form the Chase-Manhattan Bank. Now, this has merged with Chemical Bank of NY making it the largest Wall Street bank. Their strategy worked: even before WW-II was over, world government was back on track. In 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the IMF and the World Bank were approved with full U.S. participation. The second League of Nations, renamed the United Nations, was approved in 1945. Soon a new international courting system was functioning as well. All effective opposition to these international bodies before the war had evaporated in the heat of war, just as planned. These new organizations simply repeated on a world scale what the National Banking Act of 1864 and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 had established in the U.S. They created a baking cartel composed of the world's central banks, which gradually assumed the power to dictate credit policies to the banks of all the nations. For example, just as the Federal Reserve Act authorized the creation of a new national fiat currency called Federal Reserve notes, the IMF has been given the authority to issue a world fiat money called Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs. To date, the IMF has created an excess of $30 billion worth of SDRs. Member nations have been pressured to make their currencies fully exchangeable for SDRs. In 1968, Congress approved laws authorizing the Fed to accept SDRs as reserves in the U.S. and to issue Fed notes in exchange for SDRs. What does that mean. It means that in the U.S., SDRs are already part of our lawful money. And what about gold? SDRs are already partially backed by gold, and with 2/3 of world's gold now in the hands of Central Banks, the Money Changers can go about structuring the world's economic future in whichever way they deem most profitable. Keep in mind: just as the Fed is controlled by its board of governors, the IMF is controlled by its board of governors, which are either the heads of the different Central Banks or the heads of the various national treasury departments, dominated by their Central Banks. Voting power in the IMF gives the U.S. and the U.K., that is to say the Fed and the Bank of England, effective control. Just as the Fed controls the amount of money in the U.S., the BIS, IMF and World Bank control the money supply for the world. So we see the repetition of the old goldsmiths' fraud, replicated on the national scale, with Central Banks like the Fed, and on the international scale by the three arms of the World Central Bank. Is this organization of the BIS, the IMF and the World Bank, which we refer to collectively as the "World Central Bank", presently expanding and contracting world credit? Yes. Regulations put into effect in 1988 by the BIS required the world's bankers to raise their capital and reserves to 8% of liabilities by 1992. Increased capital requirements put an upper limit to the fractional reserve lending similar to the way cash reserve requirements do. What is this seemingly insignificant regulation made in a Swiss city 8 years ago meant to the world? It means our banks cannot loan more and more money to buy more and more time before the next depression as a maximum loan ratio is now set. It means those nations with the lowest bank reserves in their systems have already felt the terrible effects of this credit contraction as their banks scramble to raise money to increase their reserves to 8%. To raise the money, they had to sell stocks, which depressed their stock markets and began the depression first in their countries. Japan, which in 1988 had among the lowest capital and reserve requirements, and thus was the most affected by the regulation, has experienced the financial crash, which began almost immediately in 1989, which has wiped out a staggering 50% of the value of its stock market since 1990 and 60% of the value of its commercial real estate. The Bank of Japan has lowered its interest rates to 0.5%, practically giving away money to resurrect the economy, but still the depression worsens. Due to the $20 billion U.S. bailout of Mexico, the financial collapse in that nation is already known here. Yet, despite the bailout, the economy continues to be a disaster. One huge debt after another is rolled over, as new loans have been made simply to enable Mexico to pay the interests on the old loans. In the south of Mexico, the poor have been in open revolt, as every spare peso has been siphoned out of the country to make interest payments. It is important to note that a radical transfer of power is taking place as nations become subservient to a supra-national WCB, controlled by a handful of the world's richest bankers. As the IMF creates more and more SDRs by the stroke of a pen on IMF ledgers, more and more nations borrow them to pay interests on their mounting debts and gradually fall under the control of the faceless bureaucrats of the WCB. As the worldwide depression worsens and spreads, this will give the WCB the power of economic life and death over these nations. It will decide which nations will be permitted to receive further loans and which nations will starve. Despite all the rhetoric about development and the alleviation of poverty, the result is a steady transfer of wealth from the deader nations to the Money Changers' Central Banks, which control the IMF and the World Bank. For example, in 1992, the third world deader nations, which borrowed from the World Bank, paid $198 million more to the central banks of the developed nations for World Bank funded purposes, then they received from the World Bank. All this increases their permanent debt in exchange for temporary relief of poverty caused by prior borrowings. Already, these repayments exceed the amount of the new loans. By 1992 Africa's external debt had reached $290 billion, 2.5 times greater then in 1980, resulting in skyrocketing infant mortality rates and unemployment, deterioration of school, housing and the general health of the people. The entire world faces the immeasurable suffering already destroying the third world and now Japan, all for the benefit of the Money Changers. As one prominent Brazilian politician put it: Although it would be absurd to ignore the pivotal role played by influential families such as the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Shiffs, the Morgans and the Rockefellers, in any review of the history of central banking and fractional banking, keep in mind: by now, central banks and the large commercial banks are up to three centuries old and deeply entrenched in the economic life of many nations. These banks are no longer dependent on clever individuals such as a Nathan Rothschild. Years ago, the question of ownership was important, but no longer. For example, both the Bank of England and the Bank of France were nationalized after WW-II and nothing changed, nothing at all. They endure and continue to grow now protected by numerous laws, paid politicians and mortgage media, untouched by the changing of generations. Three centuries have given them an aura of respectability; the old-school tie is now worn by the sixth generation son, who has been raised in a system that he may never question as he is named to serve on the governing boards of countless philanthropic organizations. To focus attention today on individuals or families or to attempt to sort out the current holders of power, serves little useful purpose and would be a distraction from the cure. The problem is far bigger than that. It is the corrupt banking system that was and is being used to consolidate vast wealth into fewer and fewer hands, that is our current economic problem. Change the names of the main player now, and the problem would neither go away, nor even miss a beat. Likewise, among the hordes of bureaucrats working in the World Bank, central banks and international banks, only a tiny fraction have any idea of what's really going on. No doubt they'd be horrified to learn that their work is contributing to the terrible impoverishment and gradual enslavement of mankind to a few, incredibly rich plutocrats. So really, there is no use in emphasizing the role of individuals anymore. And the problem even transcends the normal spectrum of political right and left. Both, communism and socialism, as well as monopoly capitalism have been used by the Money Changers. Today they profit from either side of the new political spectrum: the big government welfare state on the so-called left wing, vs. the neo-conservative laissez-faire capitalists who want big government totally out of their lives, on the right wing. Either way the bankers win. Monetary reform is the most important political issue facing this nation. That clarified, let's proceed to the conclusions in the spirit Lincoln declared: "with malice towards none, with charity towards all". At the start of this video, we asked a number of troubling questions. Let's be sure we've answered them. What's going on in America today? Why are we over our heads in debt? Why can't the politicians bring debt under control? Why are we over our heads in debt? Because we're labouring under a debt money system, that is designed and controlled by private bankers. Some will argue that the Federal Reserve system is a quasi-governmental agency. But the president appoints only two of the seven members of the Fed's board of governors every four years. And he appoints them to 14 year terms, far longer than his own. The senate does confirm those appointments, but the whole truth is that the president wouldn't dare appoint anyone to that board of whom Wall Street does not approve. Of course, this does not preclude the possibility that some honourable men may be appointed to the board of governors. But the fact is that the Fed is specifically designed to operate independently of our government as are nearly all other central banks. Some argue that the Fed promotes monetary stability. We saw the current head of the Bank of England, Eddie George, claim that this was the most important role of a central bank. In fact, the Fed's record of stabilizing the economy, shows it to be a miserable failure in this regard. Within the first 25 years of its existence, the Fed caused three major economic downturns, including the great depression, and for the last 30 years has shepherded the American economy into a period of unprecedented inflation. Again, this is not some wild conspiracy theory; it's a well known fact among top economists. As Nobel price-winning economist Milton Friedman put it: We must learn from our history before it is too late. Why can't politicians control the federal debt? Because all our money is created out of debt. Again, it's a debt-money system. Our money is created initially by the purchase of U.S. bonds. The public buys bonds, like savings bonds, the banks buy bonds, foreigners buy bonds, and when the Fed wants to create more money in the system, it buys bonds but pays for them with a simple bookkeeping entry, which it creates out of nothing. Then, this new money created by the Fed is multiplied by a factor of ten by the banks, thanks to the fractional reserve principle. So, although the banks don't create currency, they do create check book money, or deposits, by making new loans. They even invest some of this created money. In fact, over one trillion dollars of this privately-created money has been used to purchase U.S. Bonds on the open market, which provides the banks with roughly 50 billion dollars in interest, risk free, each year, less the interest they pay some depositors. In this way, through fractional reserve lending, banks create over 90% of the money, and therefore cause over 90% of our inflation (approximately 97%). What can we do about all this? Fortunately, there's a way to fix the problem fairly easily, speedily, and without any serious financial problems. We can get our country totally out of debt in 1-2 years by simply paying off U.S. bonds with debt-free U.S. Notes, just like Lincoln issued. Of course, that by itself would create tremendous inflation, since our currency is presently multiplied by the fractional reserve banking system. But here's the ingenious solution advanced in part by Milton Friedman to keep the money supply stable and avoid inflation and deflation while the debt is retired. As the Treasury buys up its bonds on the open market with U.S. Notes, the reserve requirements of your hometown local bank will be proportionally raised so the amount of money in circulation remains constant. As those holding bonds are paid off in U.S. Notes, they will deposit this money, thus making available the currency then needed by the banks to increase their reserves. Once all the U.S. bonds are replaced with U.S. Notes, banks will be at 100% reserve banking, instead of the fractional reserve system currently in use. From this point on, the former Fed buildings will only be needed as a central clearing houses for checks, and as vaults for U.S. Notes. The Federal Reserve Act will no longer be necessary, and could be repealed. Monetary power could be transferred back to the treasury department. There would be no further creation or contraction of money by banks. By doing it this way, our national debt can be paid off in a single year or so, and the Fed and fractional reserve banking abolished without national bankruptcy, financial collapse, inflation or deflation, or any significant change in the way the average American goes about his business. To the average person, the primary difference would be that for the first time since the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, taxes would begin to go down. Now there's a real national blessing for you, rather than for Hamilton's banker friends. Now, let's take a look at these proposals in more detail. Here are the main provisions of a Money Reform Act, which needs to be passed by Congress. We've drafted a proposed Monetary Reform Act, which follows at the end of this tape. Of course, variations with the same results would be equally welcome. As Thomas Edison put it, if the U.S. can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. They both rest purely on the faith and credit of the U.S. government. This amounts to a simple substitution of one type of government obligation for another. One bears interest, the other doesn't. Federal Reserve Notes could be used for this as well, but could not be printed after the Fed is abolished, as we propose, so we suggest using U.S. Notes instead, to absorb the new U.S. Notes, which would be deposited and become the banks' increased reserves. Towards the end of the first year of the transition period, the remaining liabilities of financial institutions would be assumed or acquired by the U.S. government in a one-time operation. In other words, they too would eventually be paid off with debt-free U.S. Notes, in order to keep the total money supply stable. At the end of the first year, or so, all of the national debt would be paid, and we could start enjoying the benefits of full-reserve banking. The Fed would be obsolete, an anachronism. 3. Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the National Banking Act of 1864. These acts delegate the money power to a private banking monopoly. They must be repealed and the monetary power handed back to the Department of the Treasury, where they were initially, under President Abraham Lincoln. No banker or person in any way affiliated with financial institutions should be allow to regulate banking. After the first two reforms, these Acts would serve no useful purpose anyway, since they relate to a fractional reserve banking system. These institutions, like the Federal Reserve, are designed to further centralize the power of the international bankers over the world's economy and the U.S. must withdraw from them. Their harmless functions such as currency exchange can be accomplished either nationally, or in new organizations limited to those functions. Such a Monetary Reform Act would guarantee that the amount of money in circulation would stay very stable, causing neither inflation nor deflation. Remember: for the last three decades the Fed has doubled the American money supply every 10 years. That fact and fractional reserve banking are the real causes of inflation and the reduction in our buying power, a hidden tax. These and other taxes are the real reasons both parents now have to work just to get by. The money supply should increase slowly to keep prices stable, roughly in proportion to population growth, about 3% per year, not at the whim of a group of bankers meeting in secret. In fact, all future decisions on how much money would be in the American economy must be made based on statistics of population growth and the price level index. The new monetary regulators and the treasury department, perhaps called the Monetary Committee, would have absolutely no discretion in this matter except in time of declared war. This would ensure a steady, stable money growth of roughly 3% per year, resulting in stable prices and no sharp changes in the money supply. To make certain the process is completely open and honest, all deliberations would be public, not secret as meetings of the Fed's board of governors are today. How do we know this would work? Because these steps remove the two major causes of economic instability: the Fed and fractional reserve banking and the newest one as well, the BIS, Bank of International Settlements. But, most importantly, the danger of a severe depression would be eliminated. Let's listen to Milton Freedman on the single cause of severe economic depressions: Issuing our own currency, is not a radical solution. It's been advocated by Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Van Buren and Lincoln. But has been used at different times in Europe as well. Perhaps the best example is one of the small islands off the coast of France in the English Channel. Called Guernsey, it has been using debt-free money issues to pay for large building projects for nearly 200 years. Here we are in Guernsey, and this is the Guernsey flower and vegetable market. Guernsey is one of the most successful examples of just how well a debt-free money system can work. In 1815, a committee was appointed to investigate how best to finance this new market. The impoverished island could not afford more new taxes, so the State's fathers decided to try a revolutionary idea: issue their own paper money. They were just colourful paper notes, backed by nothing, but the people of this tiny island agreed to accept them and trade with them. To be sure they circulated widely, they were declared to be "good for the payment of taxes". Of course this idea was nothing new. It was exactly what America had done before the American Revolution and there are many other examples throughout the world. But it was new to Guernsey, and it worked miracles. This market is still in use, and remember, it was built for no debt to the people of this island's state. But what if we follow Guernsey's example? How would the bankers react to these reforms? Certainly the international bankers' cartel will oppose reforms that do away with their control of the world's economies, as they have in the past. But it is equally certain that Congress has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to authorize the issuance of debt free money, U.S. Notes, and to reform the very banking laws it ill-advisedly enacted. Undoubtedly, the bankers will claim that issuing debt-free money will cause severe inflation or make other dire predictions, but remember, it is fractional reserve banking which is the real cause of over 90% of all inflation not whether debt-free U.S. Notes are used to pay for government deficits. In the current system, any spending excesses on the part of Congress, are turned into more debt bonds, and the 10% purchased by the Fed, are then multiplied many times over by the bankers, causing over 90% of all inflation. Our fractional reserve and debt-based banking system is the problem. We must ignore its inevitable resistance to reform and remain firm until the cure is complete. As the director of the Bank of England in the 1920s, Sir Josiah Stamp put it, referring to this modern fractional reserve banking system: Americans are slowly figuring this out. Today, over 3,200 cities and counties have endorsed the proposal of a non-profit organization called "Sovereignty". The Sovereignty movement calls for Congress to authorize the secretary of the treasury to issue $90 billion per year of U.S. Notes, not Fed notes nor debt-based bonds, to loan money, interest-free, to cities, counties and school districts for needed capital improvements. Remarkably, and to their praise, the community bankers association of Illinois, representing 515 member banks, has endorsed this Sovereignty proposal, a good step in the right direction. As Milton Friedman has repeatedly pointed out, no severe depression can occur without a severe contraction of money. In our system, only the Fed, the BIS, with U.S. bankers cooperation or a combination of the largest Wall Street banks could cause a depression. In other words, our economy is so huge and resilient a depression just can't happen by accident. Unless we reform our banking system, they will always have that power. They can pull the plug on our economy any time they chose. The only solution is to abolish the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system and withdraw from the BIS. Only that would brake the power of the international bankers over our economy. And keep in mind, a stock market crash itself cannot cause a severe depression. Only the severe contraction of our money supply can cause a severe depression. The stock market crash of 1929 only wiped out market speculators, mostly the small and the medium ones, resulting in $3 billion in wealth changing hands. But it served as a smoke screen for a 33% contraction in credit by the Fed over the next 4 years, which resulted in over $40 billion of wealth from the American middle class being transferred to the big banks. Then, despite impotent howls of protest from a divided Congress, the independent Fed kept the money supply contracted for a full decade. Only WW-II ended the terrible suffering the Fed inflicted on the American people. In a depression, the remaining wealth of the debt-burned American middle class would be wiped out by unemployment, declining wages and the resulting foreclosures. If we start to act reforming our monetary system, the Money Changers may do what they did in 1929 and then the 1930s: crash the stock market and use that as a smoke screen while contracting the money supply. But if we're determined to fight to regain control over our money, we can come out of it fairly quickly, perhaps in only a very few months, as U.S. Notes begin to circulate and replace the money withdrawn by the bankers. The longer we wait, the greater the danger we'll permanently loose control of our Nation. But some still wonder why the international bankers would want to cause a depression. Wouldn't that be killing the goose that is currently laying all those gold and interest eggs? Remember what Larry Bates said at the first of this videotape: "In periods of economic crisis, wealth is not destroyed, it is merely transferred". Do we have any hints as to what the Money Changers have in store for us? Here is what David Rockefeller, the chairman of Chase-Manhattan Bank, the largest Wall Street bank, had to say: So, crisis is needed to fulfil their plans quickly. The only question is when the crisis will occur. Fortunately, we probably have a little time. It's unlikely that this crisis will occur before the 1996 elections but after that, the danger begins rising. But whether or not they decide to cause a crash or depression through relentless increases in taxes and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs being sent overseas, thanks to trade agreements such as GATT or NAFTA, the American middle class is an endangered species. Cheaper labour, including slave labour in red China, which Harry Wu has heroically documented, is being used to compete with American labour. In other words, money is being consolidated in fewer and fewer hands as never before in the history of this nation or the world. Without reform, the American middle class will soon be extinct, leaving only the very rich few and the very many poor as has already occurred in most of the world. We've been warned of all this by Congressmen, presidents, industrialists and economists down through the years. Religious leader too, have seen the danger. About 1898, during the time of William Jennings Bryan, Pope Leo XIII put it this way: More recently, during America's great depression, Pope Pius XI spoke of the same problem: Educate your friends. Our country needs a solid group who really understand how our money is manipulated and what the solutions really are, because, if a depression comes, there will be those who will call themselves conservatives who will come forward advancing solutions framed by the international bankers. Beware of calls to return to a gold standard. Why? Simple: because never before has so much gold been so concentrated outside of American hands. And never before has so much gold been in the hands of international governmental bodies such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. A gold-backed currency usually brings despair to a nation and to return to it would certainly be a false solution in our case. Remember, we had a gold-backed currency in 1929 and during the first four years of the great depression. Likewise, beware of any plans advanced for a regional or world currency: this is the international bankers' Trojan horse. Educate your member of Congress. It only takes a few persuasive members to make the others pay attention. Most Congressmen just don't understand the system. Some understand it, but are so influenced by bank PAC contributions that they ignore it, not realizing the gravity of their neglect. We hope we have made a valuable contribution to the national debate on monetary reform. It remains for each man to do his duty, consistent with his state in life. May God give us the light to help reform our nation, and ourselves. We say ourselves, because ultimately vast multitudes of men are going to be driven more and more to desperation by the accumulation of the world's wealth in fewer and fewer hands. Men will tend to become like their oppressors, selfish and greedy. Rather, let's keep in mind, during this period of reform, a warning not to lose sight of greater things. As Pope Pius XI put it: