Part 1
Three Hundred Trillion Dollars and Counting
 


Chapter 1
MONEY

1.1 The Money Magicians
1.2 The Banking Cartel

The Western money monopoly is the central pillar of the New World Order monolith. The ownership and control of commercial activity by a few European and American families has created the necessary concentration of financial power to manipulate public policy at all levels through co-option of politicians, policy institutes, charities, educational establishments, and media outlets. Maintaining this international army is a very expensive business, so it is important to understand the source of its funds.
 

 


1.1 THE MONEY MAGICIANS

I am afraid that 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

speaking to stockholders as Chairman of the Board of Midland Bank in January 1924.(1)

G. Edward Griffin's book The Creature from Jekyll Island is the source for the following explanation(2) - a benchmark publication on the subject of banking and the New World Order.

Western banks create money through a fractional-reserve lending system. Central banks lend money to governments to make up for the deficit in taxation receipts. The banks print money out of nothing and receive interest bearing government bonds in return. These bonds are called "securities" because they are backed by the full credit and integrity of taxpayers who pay back the loans through taxation.

Eventually every pound or dollar borrowed passes through the current accounts and savings accounts operated by commercial banks. Under the rules of fractional-reserve banking, for the purpose of lending money, the commercial banker is allowed to print nine more pounds or dollars than he holds on deposit, or what ever ratio the central bank decides. He pays savers a modest rate of interest and charges borrowers a much higher rate on up to ten times the amount. His only costs are his buildings, employees, and book-keeping. The only risk he takes is an accounting risk if too many loans go into default at once. However, if he gets into serious trouble the central bank will come running to his aid with more money printed out of nothing.

Looking for the equity in this system is fruitless. Every penny and cent in circulation requires interest payment to the money powers because money is debt. Hundreds of billions of dollars world-wide are paid in interest every year to men who print money out of nothing.

A frequently asked question is, 'where does the money come from to pay the interest on the loan?' Quite simply there is none. Interest payments are serviced by payment in kind - through labour. This is a game of musical chairs where the money keeps on circulating between creditors and debtors. The profits from the banks are used by their shareholders to buy goods and services, passing the money to the workers to pay back the capital and the interest. If the game of musical chairs ever stopped there wouldn't be enough money in circulation to repay a penny or cent of interest. But the game is designed to go on forever.

Having said all this, the bankers are permanently and necessarily interposed between parties in the market place, allowing us to trade goods and services for money. But they charge a high price for their services, as many Third World nations have found out, and have become fantastically wealthy as a result. The problem of this money monopoly is as much a political one as an economic one.

On the eve of the 2001 General Election, Prime Minister Tony Blair was interviewed by the BBC's leading news presenter, Jeremy Paxman. There was an extraordinary exchange over the question of whether or not someone can become too rich.(3) In describing the extent to which money really is power, the rest of this book explains one of the reasons why Tony Blair did not want to answer that question.

PAXMAN: Do you believe that an individual can earn too much money?

BLAIR: I don't really - it is not -no, it's not a view I have. Do you mean that we should cap someone's income? Not really, no. Why? What is the point? You can spend ages trying to stop the highest paid earners earning the money but in an international market like today, you probably would drive them abroad. What does that matter? Surely the important thing is to level up those people that don't have opportunity in our society.

PAXMAN: But where is the justice in taxing someone who earns £34,000 a year, which is about enough to cover a mortgage on a one-bedroom flat in outer London, at the same rate as someone who earns £34 million. Where is the justice?

BLAIR: The person who earns £34 million, if they're paying the top rate of tax, will pay far more tax on the £34 million than the person on £34,000.

PAXMAN: I am asking you about the rate of tax.

BLAIR: I know and what I am saying to you is the rate is less important in this instance than the overall amount of tax that people would pay. You know what would happen, if you go back to the days of high top rates of tax. All that would happen is that those people, who are small in number actually, and you can spend a lot of time getting after the person earning millions of pound a year, and then what you don't do is apply the real energy where it's necessary on things like the children's tax credit, the Working Families Tax Credit, the minimum wage, the New Deal, all the things that have helped people on lower incomes.

PAXMAN: But where is the justice in it?

BLAIR: When you say where is the justice in that, the justice for me is concentrated on lifting incomes of those that don't have a decent income. It's not a burning ambition for me to make sure that David Beckham earns less money.

PAXMAN: But Prime Minister, the gap between rich and poor has by widened while you have been in office. BLAIR: A lot of those figures are based on a couple of years ago before many of the measures we took came into effect. But the lowest income families in this country are benefiting from the government. Their incomes are rising. The fact that you have some people at the top end earning more

PAXMAN: ..Benefiting more!

 

BLAIR: If they are earning more, fine, they pay their taxes.

 

PAXMAN: But is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to widen?

 

BLAIR: It is acceptable for those people on lower incomes to have their incomes raised. It is unacceptable that they are not given the chances. To me, the key thing is not whether the gap between those who, between the person who earns the most in the country and the person that earns the least, whether that gap is.

PAXMAN: So it is acceptable for gap to widen between rich and poor?

BLAIR: It is not acceptable for poor people not to be given the chances they need in life.

 

PAXMAN: That is not my question.

 

BLAIR: I know it's not your question but it's the way I choose to answer it. If you end up going after those people who are the most wealthy in society, what you actually end up doing is in fact not even helping those at the bottom end.

 

PAXMAN: So the answer to the straight question is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to get wider, the answer you are saying is yes.

BLAIR: No, it's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that my task is.

 

PAXMAN: You are not saying no.

 

BLAIR: But I don't think that is the issue.

 

PAXMAN: You may not think it is the issue, but it is the question. Is it OK for the gap to get wider?

BLAIR: It may be the question. The way I choose to answer it is to say the job of government is make sure that those at the bottom get the chances.

 

PAXMAN: With respect, people see you are asked a straightforward question and they see you not answering it.

BLAIR: Because I choose to answer it in the way that I'm answering it.

PAXMAN: But you are not answering it.

BLAIR: I am answering it. What I am saying is the most important thing is to level up, not level down.

PAXMAN: Is it acceptable for gap between rich and poor to get bigger?

BLAIR: What I am saying is the issue isn't in fact whether the very richest person ends up becoming richer. The issue is whether the poorest person is given the chance that they don't otherwise have.

PAXMAN: I understand what you are saying. The question is about the gap.

BLAIR: Yes, I know what your question is. I am choosing to answer it in my way rather than yours.

PAXMAN: But you're not answering it.

BLAIR: I am.

PAXMAN: You are answering another question.

BLAIR: I am answering actually in the way that I want to answer it. I tell you why I want to answer it in this way. Because if you end up saying no, actually my task is to stop the person earning a lot of money earning a lot of money, you waste all your time and energy, taking money off the people who are very wealthy when in today's world, they probably would move elsewhere and make their money. What you are not asking me about, which would be a more fruitful line of endeavor, is what are you doing for the poorest people to give them a boost.

PAXMAN: Let's talk about tax. You have promised...

BLAIR: Why don't we talk about the poorest of society and what we are doing for them.

PAXMAN: I assume you want to be Prime Minister. I just want to be an interviewer. Can we stick to that arrangement?
 

 

1.2 THE BANKING CARTEL

The monopoly underlying all other monopolies is the banking cartel. The wealth of the Rothschild dynasty in the nineteenth century was legendary. In building the mightiest private bank the world has ever seen, the Rothschilds amassed the largest private fortune in the history of capitalism. Since 1919, the world gold price has been fixed daily at the office of N.M. Rothschild & Sons in London. However, before World War I the European and American money powers had already formed a lasting partnership. Potential competitors on Wall Street, which included European banking houses, decided that they could reduce competition from the provincial banks and achieve higher profits if only they had a functional central bank like those in Europe and cooperated in printing America's money.(4)

A central bank is a private cartel enforced by the police power of government. Created in 1913, the Federal Reserve 'System' was designed to benefit the most powerful New York banks, halting the loss of business to the hundreds of smaller banks in the southern and western states. The system appeared to distribute power equally between the twelve regional branches but in reality, it gave power to the New York branch controlled by The Money Trust on Wall Street.(5)

 

The Jekyll Island Plan for the Federal Reserve Act was drawn up by the five biggest banking houses in Europe and America: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg and Kuhn Loeb.(6) It's chief architect was Paul Warburg of the German and Swiss banking house who moved to America only nine years earlier. He brought with him all the experience of European central banking. His brother Max Warburg was financial adviser to the Kaiser and later Director of Germany's central bank, The Reichsbank.(7) Paul Warburg's Wall Street banking operation was a partnership with the Rothschilds in Kuhn Loeb & Co..

After working together to create the 'Fed', the members of the cartel devised the acceptance market which powered up their newly created money printing press. Through the 1920s the acceptance market created over half of all the money printed by the Fed.(8)

Since then, the agents of the private commercial banks, who sit on the boards of the central banks throughout the world, have worked together to formulate international monetary policy. In 1966, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown University, Professor Carroll Quigley, described the system in his book Tragedy and Hope: (9)

The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers... who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international co-operation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks... In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

 

This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at infrequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of this system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations...

The international nature of the cartel was evidenced during the 1920s when the Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Benjamin Strong, worked with Montague Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, to assist the economy of Great Britain at the expense of American investors. Increasing the

U.S. money supply contributed to a massive speculative boom in the stock market and the Wall Street Crash in 1929.(10)

Woodrow Wilson was the U.S. President when the Fed was created. In his book The New Freedom he commented on the centralization of banking power:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacturing are afraid of somebody, afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocking, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.(11)

In July 2003 it was mentioned in the news that the Rothschild international investment banking group is controlled by a parent company called Rothschild Continuation Holdings A.G., located in Switzerland. Far from being competing factions, the English and French Rothschilds have worked out a deal merging control of their respective banking houses by forming a new holding company, Concordia B.V..(12)

It is these family run private banks which continue to coordinate central bank policy. On 28 June 1998, The Washington Post published an article about the Bank for International Settlements describing how "this economic cabal.... this secretive group... the financial powers who control the world's supply of money" shape the world's economy.(13)

The next chapter asks the question, 'who today really has all the money and where is it invested?'. This is not possible to answer with satisfactory precision but there are some good indicators that provide much food for thought.
 

 


Chapter 1 End Notes

  1. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, The MacmillanCompany, New York, 1966, p.325

  2. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Media, Fourth Edition,2002,

  3. Transcript of Jeremy Paxman's Newsnight interview with Tony Blair,4th June 2001.BBC news on-line. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1372220.stm 

  4. Ibid., p.437

  5. Ibid., p.473

  6. Ibid., p.12

  7. Ibid., p.18

  8. Ibid., p.482

  9. Quigley, op cit., pp. 324, 326-327

  10. Griffin op cit., pp. 474-475

  11. Globalization, Robert Gaylon Ross Sr.

  12. Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG: Restructuring, Clarinet News, 9 July 2003. See http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/de/Brothschilds-continuation.R-J1_Dl9.html

  13. Dr. Stanley Monteith, The Brotherhood of Darkness, Hearthstone Publishing, 2000, p.33.

Back to Contents