As you are probably already aware, the modern abortion movement is an outgrowth of the Eugenics movement. Eugenics, or the practice of selective breeding on a societal level applied to humans for the purpose of improving the species, was a concept reaching as far back Plato but in our modern era popularized in the United Kingdom and the United States.

American Eugenicist - Charles Davenport

Hitler was inspired mainly by American and British Eugenicists, many of which were based in my home town of Cold Spring Harbor, New York at the Eugenics Records Office and funded by the Harriman and Carnegie families and other like-minded elites. The German counterpart to the Eugenics Records Office was funded by the Rockefeller family and became the intellectual nucleus for the Nazi movement.

In reaction to Nazi abuses, eugenics became almost universally reviled in many of the nations where it had once been popular (however, some eugenics programs, including sterilization, continued quietly for decades). Many pre-war eugenicists engaged in what they later labeled “crypto-eugenics”, purposefully taking their eugenic beliefs “underground” and becoming respected anthropologists, biologists and geneticists in the postwar world (including Robert Yerkes in the U.S. and Otmar von Verschuer in Germany).

For example, after WWII a prominent eugenicist, namely Julian Huxley, became the Director-General of UNESCO and a founder of the World Wildlife Fund but he also remained a Eugenics Society president and a strong supporter of eugenics. In fact notice the following quote from him on what the purpose of UNESCO would be:

• Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. –Julian Huxley

Whenever discussing Julian Huxley it is important to remember that he was the brother of Aldous Huxley who was the writer of Brave New World. While published as a science fiction novel, Aldous on many occasions clarified that he wrote the book based on what he had found was the basic plan of Eugenicists for the world.

Now when you hear the term “Birth Control” you probably think of “the pill”. But in actuality the term Birth Control was synonymous with Eugenics, so the term “birth control pill” was simply describing the purpose of such a pill. But in the broader sense of the term “Birth Control” notice the following quote:

• “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race“. –Margaret Sanger, 1922

American Eugencist - Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger was the founder of the American Birth Control League, which after WWII changed its name to Planned Parenthood to distance themselves from the Nazi Eugenics-related atrocities.

Most of the eugenicists believed in “racial hygiene” and that Nordic people had the purest genes, while other races were “degradations”. Now the above quote from Sanger was pretty mild but by 1939 her statements got bolder. Notice the following quote detailing the methods to be used to get America’s black population to accept birth control and abortion:

• “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” –Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble

So what has been the effect on the black community by the wide-scale acceptance of the Planned Parenthood agenda? Well the below table stops at 1994, but at that time the percentage of abortions done on black woman had risen to 34.7 percent. By some indications this has risen to over 37% by the year 2000, the last year for which reliable statistics are currently available.

Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, January 3, 1997, Vol. 45 / Nos. 51 & 52. Published by Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta.

With over 1.3 million abortions performed annually (with over 480,000 of them performed on African-American mothers) in the United States how has this changed the demographic of the nation? With African-Americans making up just 12% of the population and 37% of the abortions we can see that if no abortions had taken place in this time the population and prominence of the African-American community would have been much greater. Today black representation in congress is roughly commensurate with population so we could extrapolate that the make-up of congress would also have been drastically affected.

What would it have been without Eugenics?

When you think of the quote earlier from Julian Huxley “thinking the unthinkable” it makes you wonder what their plans are for the future. I mean if eliminating 12 – 20 million African-Americans (plus their offspring) from the general population via abortion was Act I, what is Act II? Now that I think about it I wouldn’t mind if they skipped the third act dénouement altogether.

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments to Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948).

Follow on Twitter: CorruptionShow

Okay, so sooner or later on every show about the New World Order the subject of Assassinations comes into play. Now I have never been one to be too interested in the finer details of the JFK assassination; I don’t really care if there was one shooter, two shooters, a knoll that was grassy or not so grassy, etc.

Is There a Common Thread?

However, I am quite interested on a more “macro” level and looking at not just the assassination of JFK, but at all of the Presidential assassinations to see if there is a common thread. To that end some basic details need to be reviewed.

Lincoln

First there have been four successful Presidential assassinations, at least three of which were ardent opponents to the central banking monopoly of power. Starting with Abraham Lincoln, the first successful Presidential assassination, we see that the bankers and the President were diametrically opposed. Lincoln did serve the interest of the bankers in bringing the country into Civil War (both sides of which the banks financed). While engaging in the war Lincoln made two very significant changes in monetary policy, both were done to raise money for the civil war.

The first measure was the signing of the National Banking Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Banking_Act). This act tied the issuing of Bank Notes to government debt. In other words, it allowed National banks (and all but forbade smaller State chartered banks) to issue bank notes, or paper promises to provide real money, which circulated as currency. The reason this war time measure was taken was because the National bank reserves now had to be in the form of government bonds (debt). This is one of the main factors that funded the Civil War. The more money the National Banks created and used to buy government bonds, the more the government was going into debt to the bankers.

National Bank Notes - Created by Banks and Backed By Government Debt

The second measure, which was much less popular with the bankers, was the issuance of “greenbacks” from the Treasury. These greenbacks, or United States Notes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note), were actually issued by the government whereas today there are “Federal Reserve Notes” which are issued by the Federal Reserve, a corporation whose stock is owned by powerful multi-national banks. Greenbacks were the first non-debt based national currency since the Revolutionary War. This meant that when the government authorized and printed these greenbacks they could spend them into the economy (largely for the war effort) and there was no debt to pay back left in their wake. In most other cases the government needs to “borrow” new money that is created by bankers and pay the bankers back plus interest.

Does Your Money Say "United States Note"?

So Lincoln’s greenbacks were in direct competition with the National Bank notes. The more the government printed and used the greenbacks (US Notes) the less they were dependent on selling debt to the bankers in exchange for money (National Bank Notes) they created. Since the government’s war-time need for money was so huge the bankers didn’t mind too much sharing the market with the greenbacks. After the civil war ended, when the governments demand for cash was drastically reduced, the bankers wanted to kill the issuance of greenbacks so that any deficit spending of the government would mean the government, or by extension the general public, would become more and more indebted to the bankers.

While they did successfully stall any further issuance of greenbacks, Lincoln had big plans for the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. Notice the following quote from Lincoln taken from Senate document 23, page 91 from 1865:

• The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency… needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”

Not exactly music to the ears of the bankers who were planning to have the power to issue all the currency in the form of national bank notes that were built on government debt. They would one day have their wish as is the case today when none of the money in your wallet says “United States Note” instead it is all issued by the authority of the “Federal Reserve” which is a privately owned bank under very limited government regulation. However, this dream may never had been able to be realized if Lincoln had been able to expand the US Notes to the point where they would have satisfied the nations need for currency and the public would have enjoyed the benefits of having money provided without the government going into debt in the process (as is the case today).

The Monetary War

So, what did the bankers do about it? Well, I must pause a moment just to say that the implication that is about to follow is somewhat speculative. In life there is always a difference between what you believe and what you can prove definitively, I just like to make it clear when I am presenting a belief. However, in the context of the other assassinations you will see that this is not such an unreasonable belief. I am of course referring to the fact that 5 days after General Lee surrendered, officially ending the war and opening the way for Lincoln to phase out National Bank Notes in favor of United States Notes, he was shot dead.

Again, all of the above is 100% fact, the only speculative portion being the implication that the bankers arranged the assassination. Look, of course Booth was the one who shot him and he was a Confederate that wanted to be immortalized in history. The stories we are taught in school about these events are “true” but are they the whole truth? Was he helped along, given access and other help to complete the difficult act of assassinating a world leader? In Latin there is an expression that is used to cut right to the heart of a matter: Cui Bono, which means “to whose benefit?”. I leave you with the facts above showing how the ones who had the most to gain from Lincolns death were the central (or national) bankers that wanted to keep control of the power to issue money.

In this context, notice what a contemporary had to say about Lincoln’s assassination, namely the statesman of Germany, Otto Von Bismark:

• “The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great enough to wear his boots… I fear that foreign bankers with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it systematically to corrupt modern civilization. They will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that the earth should become their inheritance”.

Unfortunately, this would not be the only President he would live to see assassinated. It is interesting how he puts the onus on foreign bankers that had been seeking to gain control of the issuance of money in the U.S. since its independence from Great Britian. What’s interesting is that often times xenophobia is blamed for any mention of “international bankers” but Bismark also being foreign to the United States was not speaking out of xenophobia but was just plainly explaining the state of affairs that was understood then but which has been obscured in modern history books and in the media.

Garfield

James A. Garfield was not a friend of the central bankers. Unfortunately for the bankers they didn’t know this until after he was inaugurated. Notice the speech he gave shortly after his rise to the office of President:

• “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce… when you realize 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”.

Quote is from just weeks before his assassination!

To give some context to the above statement, Garfield became in favor of forcing banks to provide the gold they claimed to have when customers came in to redeem their Bank Notes or withdraw their demand deposits. In the National Banking Act we discussed there were several loop holes where banks could avoid having to fork up the real money the certificates claimed to represent.

For banks this meant that their ability to, not just loan out their money but to create new money that had no gold to back it would be greatly reduced. In a sense, depositors would have a means of keeping a bank “honest” if Garfield had his way.

Now before his election the bankers may have thought he would be useful since he did oppose silver which the banks hated because again it competed with their National Bank notes. However, the reason Garfield opposed silver was because it had been overvalued as compared to gold but it became clear that he would be open to silver money if the exchange of Gold to Silver would be more equitable.

Anyway, to get back to the main point here, we can plainly see that President Garfield was not happy with the fact that a few powerful bankers had the power to control the volume of money in circulation, which he rightly equated with them being the unknown masters of society.

A few weeks after he is recorded as making that daring attack on the banking elite, he was shot by his eventual assassin. I say eventual because he did not die on the spot. It was a slow death that was hastened by his doctors that ruptured his liver while apparently attempting to remove a bullet. Thomas Edison even tried to help with this difficult bullet inventing a metal detector to find it, but to no avail.

What was the result? Ten years later the letter below was issued by the American Bankers Association in 1881. While reading the quote keep in mind that they are talking about what they will do three full years in advance:

• “On September 1st, 1894, we will not renew our loans under any consideration. On September 1st we will demand our money. We will foreclose and become mortgagees in possession. We can take two-thirds of the farms west of the Mississippi, and thousands of them east of the Mississippi as well, at our own price… Then the farmers will become tenants as in England.”

So the letter, while sounding sinister also sounds like they will just be enforcing their legal options – which is true. However, if Garfield had lived he would have drastically limited the power of the banks, or at least attempted to by limiting their ability for the banks to create money out of thin air. With the laws remaining in their favor it made the above letter more than idle words.

It may be wise to reflect on these statements made by Lincoln and Garfield and ask yourself this question: when was the last time you heard a President ardently denounce the banking system (not just bonuses to banking CEO’s which ironically could be considered one of the more legitimate aspects of banking by comparison)? Well, while you are thinking of the answer we will just tell you to make it easier: John F. Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy

Now, historically speaking, the Kennedy family was involved in many shady business dealings that are well documented and don’t need to be harped on here. My point in bringing it up is not to brand the Kennedy family as corrupt boot-legging Nazi-collaborators (although there is evidence to that effect) but to point out that the banking establishment had reason to believe that JFK would have been easy to manipulate. Also, he expressed in his campaign support for various spending programs that had the potential to put the government in greater debt to the banks by running deficits.

Banker Friend or Foe?

However, shortly after JFK became President they were abruptly woken up by the fact that JFK was not afraid to discuss some touchy topics. Indulge me a bit in the following simplified timeline:

January 20th, 1961 – JFK enters office as the President of the United States. Three months later he gives what is often referred to as the “Secret Societies” speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association. In this speech he says that America had been “inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.” He then went on to describe what can only be a description of the international banking elite when he said “we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

Some may say he was simply referring to the soviet empire, but yet if so there would be no reason to leave out any reference to the Russians. Also the connection to secret societies would have no relevance in the context of the Cold War. Not too say that they didn’t play a part in this “monolithic conspiracy” of which he was referring. We could speculate all day about the finer details but what is of much greater use is to examine the public record.

There were a few significant steps that Kennedy was taking that would have been hubris in the banking community. First, on October 11, 1963, Kennedy signed NSAM 263, initiating a withdrawal of 1,000 troops (roughly 5 – 10%) from the American presence in Vietnam. Other documents, including planning documents from the spring of 1963, show that this was the first step in a planned complete withdrawal. There is always some question with regard to government documents because often times there are several contradictory plans that are being championed by different interests in an administration.

The Role of Bankers Is Downplayed

What is known for a certainty is that the bankers, who had financed both sides of every war since the days of Napoleon, made major profits financing the war. In recent history, the banks are set up in multiple ways to profit from war. The most direct way is by ownership in most of the defense companies. Every company, individual and even government are in debt to the banks paying vast sums of interest to them annually which they shrewdly use to increase their ownership of not only defense companies but the Fortune 500 which they own directly and indirectly via holdings of the Federal Reserve. Another way the bankers, who own and control the Federal Reserve Corporation, make out in war time is by the debt built up by the Government which is justified as needed to win the war. Remember when the Government goes into deficit territory it makes up the budget difference by going to the federal reserve and giving them an IOU (or treasury bond) in exchange for newly created money.

What is also a matter of public record is what happened in Vietnam after JFK was assassinated; President Johnson drastically escalated the logistics police action into an all out war. I bring up Vietnam first because in actuality there was something much more threatening JFK had done to the banking elite. Wars come and go, but one thing the bankers don’t ever want to lose is their authority to create money.

Now JFK wasn’t about to take that power away from banks, but he did take an enormously significant step in that direction with the signing of Executive Order 11110. There is a scant description of the order on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110) but it does not express the significance of this order.

Executive Order 11110 ordered the re-circulation of more silver certificates, among other provisions. This may sound in itself insignificant, but remember that these silver certificates were “United States Notes” that were issued by the Treasury and represented real silver. This form of money, which was essentially Lincoln’s greenbacks, could be issued by the government and spent without creating debt. Just like the Vietnam troop withdrawal this was just a first step towards fulfilling Lincoln’s dream that “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency…” as we discussed earlier. This would have put the power to issue money back in the hands of the government and taken it away (at least partially) from private bankers. That should strike the average person as strange that bankers can, in any way, create or issue money. This strange privileged has been compared to putting the police department under the control of the Mafia.

It took just five months after the signing of Executive Order 11110, and just one month after the signing of the first troop withdrawal from Viet Nam, for John F. Kennedy to be assassinated. Every President since has steadily increased the power of the privately owned Federal Reserve and none has said so much as a word about the reintroduction of the “greenbacks”, the United States Notes. The 150 year struggle for the central bankers not to take over has been nearly erased from the history books and no one in the media ever questions why we all walk around with money that proudly declares it was issued by a privately owned bank with the words “Federal Reserve Note”.

AJ on a Federal Reserve Note?

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments to Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948). Follow on Twitter: CorruptionShow

On our radio program a common theme we stress is teaching the history of the transfer of power worldwide from monarchs to a small handful of powerful bankers. This is the core problem with how history is deceptively taught in most educational institutions. We are taught to believe that the power has shifted from Monarchs to individuals.

Two areas that show this steady shift of power are Campaign Finance Reform and the 17th Amendment. Starting with the 17th Amendment, most people have never even heard of it. What this amendment did was to fundamentally change the way Senators are elected. Before the amendment the state legislators would be the ones to vote for the Senator, thus proving the United States to be a Republic. The fundamental difference between a Republic and a Democracy is that in a republic elected representatives make decisions whereas in a Democracy direct voting, or mob rule, wins the day. It is interesting to note that some of the founding fathers of the United States referred to a Democracy as “two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner”.

What's For Dinner?

So, in the creation of the Constitution the Senate was put in place to make sure that somewhere in the process there would be representatives with cool heads, so that when the mob would be angered about something and the House of Representatives knew they were all up for re-election in less than 2 years, then the House would be respond to the whim of the people but the Senate would have cooler heads since they were elected by state legislators creating a level of abstraction between them and the mob. Then these two houses would come to some agreement so that the will of the people would be expressed but it would be tempered. In this way they referred the Senate to being like the saucer that a cup of tea sits on. Apparently people used to pour their tea on the saucer if it was too hot to cool it down, and this was the intention of the Senate.

While the founders expounded on the various benefits of this arrangement it does create a problem. The senators were hard to manipulate. If you think about it, the senators answered to one or two hundred of their counterparts in the state legislatures. If a company, bank, or other financial interest wanted to get the senator to do what they wanted they would have to curry the favor of hundreds of state legislators in order to put the pressure on the senator that would answer to the state legislature at the next election.

This was tedious for the banking elite, or for anyone wishing to manipulate legislation, and discouraged consolidation of power by dispersing it to hundreds of state legislators. Also, as the country expanded and new states joined the union the decentralization of power spread. For every 2 senators came another couple of hundred legislators that divided up the nations power.

A Different Sort of Senate

The solution to this problem for the bankers, and other moneyed interests, was the 17th Amendment. This 17th provided for direct election of senators. Sounds good to some; why should the state legislators decide? Why not let “the people” decide for themselves, was the argument. But understanding the nature of people the banking elite knew that the number one determining factor in most elections is name recognition. After the 17th amendment the banking elite could inject huge sums of money into any election where they wanted to decide the outcome. Most campaigns are determined by small sums of money in comparison to the wealth of the most powerful bankers. For example in the last presidential election the winning candidate raised 700 million in campaign contributions, mainly from large corporations filtered through the 527 groups. In the banker bailout alone the bankers are walking away with over 700 billion! And that is truly just the tip of the iceberg. One of the most powerful banking families are the Rockefeller family who, by some estimations, may have as much as 11 trillion (thats trillion with a “T”) under their control. In this light, the money to determine even the top election is tiny. Senators come even cheaper.

The next major change has come with “Campaign Finance Reform”. Now I know when people hear that they think “McCain-Feingold”, but lets take it back to the much more significant Campaign Finance Reform that took place in the early 1970s.

Before discussing the reform we should take a moment to see how elections worked and why they wanted to reform it in the first place. The way most congressional races worked were that they were determined by local or state party bosses. The way it would work is this: say you had a democratic stronghold like Chicago, for example. In Chicago whoever is run by the democrat party for congress is going to win (because most districts are either predominately democrat or republican). So if you can choose who will run in the general election you choose who is going to be elected. Unlike today, before the reform in the ’70s, there was not always a primary to decide who would be the Democrat candidate (or Republican). In fact, in most cases it was up to the local party boss. So if you were head of the Chicago Democrat party you essential got to decide who would be the congressmen representing the districts that fell in your city. This is the problem they were trying to fix when the put in the reforms of the early 1970’s that forced a primary if an appropriate amount of signatures were collected by more than one primary candidate.

However, as is the case much of the time the cure was worse than the disease. We see again that the pre-1970’s system, while having its problems for sure, spread power to local and state party bosses. Therefore if you are trying to consolidate power it is more difficult because you need to curry favor with hundreds of party bosses around the country. Also, the amount of corruption was limited since the congressman only had to please one party boss. Of course the party boss would have all his family members in plush government jobs, he would likely have business interests that would receive lucrative government contracts, along with various other favors. But the point is that the congressman only had to please one local party boss who was satisfied with a relatively small amount of privileges.

Transfering Power to Whom?

Campaign Finance “Reform”

Now with the 1970’s campaign finance reform a few things changed. As mentioned, it made it much easier for candidates to force a primary election to decide who would be the party’s candidate. Now money could be injected into campaigns to determine who would come out on top. With this change came the creation of Political Action Committees (PAC) which created the “Special Interest Groups” that everyone has been beating up on. It also shifted power from the local party bosses to the national parties who could receive an almost unlimited amount of “soft money” that could be spent to elect their candidates.

Now a congressional candidate needs to please every special interest group, not to mention every corporate and banker interest that provided the soft money through the national parties.

We hardly have time to get too deep into the most recent Campaign Finance Reform, McCain-Feingold, but suffice it to say that it has not “taken money out of politics” nor has it returned the “power to the people”. What it has done is drastically increase the power of the 527 groups that are not as restricted as the PAC’s. It took this power from the national parties that were the brokers of the large corporate and banker contributions of the past.

Their Names Were Known

So by all this power is even more consolidated. Those flush with cash, mainly the small banker elite and the companies that are under their control, can directly inject money to determine the outcome of elections. The power has slowly shifted from state legislators, to local party bosses, then to national parties, and now directly to the wealthiest banking elite. While bankers have been the dominate holders of power since the demise of the Monarchs, never before in history has so much power been so consolidated in the hands of a few than it is today. And unlike the pharaohs, the Caesars, the kings and emperors, most people don’t even know their names.

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and main contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments at Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948)

In any modern discussion of Imperialism the onus is almost always on times past. In other words, Imperialism was something those evil British white people (in their funny costumes) used to perpetrate before Democracy re-established itself to bring on a Second Renaissance of cultural and economic liberation for the common man. Of course this perspective is based on a glaring illusion.

Yes, Imperialism emerged out of the middle ages during the 16^th century with Great Britian eventually coming out on top. But that is hardly the end of the story. The world felt directly the force of British imperialism because it was confrontational in nature. However, in actuality the time we live in now is by far more imperialistic with greater wealth disparity that has been created, not by any free market, but by managed and manipulated trade, and domestic monetary policies. This needs to be understood now more than ever because the world is about to enter the most imperialistic time period in human history, in part by adopting a Global Reserve Currency.

"The Bank Wars"

The first thing that needs to be understood is “Why did European countries begin engaging in Imperialism in the first place?”

Did some greedy king one day decide that he did not have enough wives, or foreign delicacies, or timber and then ordered troops to go terrorize some indigenous people in some distant land to satisfy his royal fancy? HARDLY!

The middle ages were marked with what I will refer to as “normal wars”, or small wars over border disputes or civil wars between warring dynasties (normally when a clear heir was not put in place by the previous Monarch). Europe did not begin engaging in any real imperialism until FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING took effect. There is hardly the opportunity in this article to detail all the dynamics of this financial deception. And I know the average person will mentally check out (possible even bemoaning to themselves “BORING”) when they start to hear financial terms discussed, but this idea of fractional reserve banking has caused more war and death than the invention of the Atomic Bomb. Families are torn apart because of it; our food is being corrupted because of it; the thought process of the average person is being crushed because of it; vast sections of the world are in a state of near starvation because of it; and everyone is up to their eyeballs in debt because of it.

To keep it simple fractional reserve banking is basically the ability for bankers to create money out of thin air. The money we have today does not represent gold or some other real asset like it used to. It is just a piece of paper that the bankers can print as much of as they like. In addition to fractional reserve banking, in almost every country of the world there is a central bank (the bank that has the right to authorize the printing of new money – like the Federal Reserve in the United States). All these central banks are either owned or at least controlled by a handful of powerful bankers. So the Federal Reserve, for example, is not part of the government but a corporation whose stock is owned by bankers (many of them foreign to the United States). As the saying goes “The Federal Reserve is about as Federal as Federal Express”.

So in the 1600’s (after a few hundred years of individual banks issuing pieces of paper for gold they didn’t have) the bankers smartened up and basically said to themselves “Instead of issuing paper certificates from our bank that people could come to us and try to redeem for Gold, wouldn’t it be better if we could print money that had the countries seal on it and people thought was printed by the government?”

See before that if people lost faith in their bank they would take the paper promises for real gold they issued and bring them in for redemption (before the bank went bankrupt). This limited how much fake paper money the bankers could issue because they feared mass redemption. Since entire nations don’t regularly go belly up, the bankers used the stable image of the nation to fool people into accepting paper money.

Sound Money?

To make matters worse, these bankers would not just print money, but then they would “loan” the money back to the government at interest. So, now the bankers had a huge motive for the government to go into debt. See, the bankers flush with cash would buy up legislators in a countries parliament with campaign money (and other dirty money for sure). Then they would get their bought legislators to get the government to spend vast sums of money on wasteful endeavors, such as wars and costly public projects. Of course the government never wants to directly tax people for these projects because that is unpopular. The taxes came for sure but there is a limit to what they could tax people. It is much easier to turn to the bankers who can print the money (thereby stealing money evenly from the public through inflation which is not immediately felt).

So they went to the bankers who would print the money and the exchange goes like this. The bankers give the government the money to spend wastefully, and at the same time the government gives the bankers an IOU or bond saying the taxpayer will pay them back with interest. Imagine having the ability to print money like that. Most people are happy to get 4% interest in a CD, or by buying stocks or bonds, and that is on money we actually earn. The bankers could print the money out of thin air and loan it to the government at interest. Amazing! Of course, I am drastically simplifying this at the moment but the principle holds true.

THERES THE RUB

So now that the bankers were given this ability to print money endlessly did they print like crazy to the point that the public rejected the phony money and it lost all its value? Well no, they were smarter than to do that. They want the illusion to continue so they would bring the currency back and forth from the brink of collapse only to save it by cooling off on the printing (I mean even they need a break now and then to count their piles of stolen money).

But the hunger of the bankers to print ever more money was strong but they wanted a way to print like crazy and still have the money hold its value. But that’s kind of like saying you want to eat like a pig, not exercise, and still be in great shape.

Unfortunately, while your body has defined limitations bankers are always finding ways to further manipulate money and other “financial instruments”. So the question arises: how can you drastically increase the supply of money without destroying its value? The answer is quite simple: like any other market commodity increased demand can stabilize the price or value of something that has increased in supply.

While you are soaking that in, you can ask yourself “how can you increase the demand of a country’s money?” Well you need to find homes for it outside your country. If you can imperialize another country, open up the market under conditions favorable to investors in your home country then they will pour money into the new markets. More importantly you get the money out of your home country, thus hiding the inflationary printing of the money.

It is no coincidence that inflationary paper fiat money and imperialism arose in the same time period in Europe. As long as there is paper money printed by privately owned central banks imperialism will keep increasing.

And it has. Many text books and reference works refer to the last vestiges of imperialism ending in 1914 C.E. with the outbreak of WWI. Nothing could be further from the truth. After WWI the League of Nations was set up supposedly to keep any future wars from breaking out and to establish world peace so everyone can hug each other singing “we are the world, we are the children”. In actuality, its purpose was to set up its Economic Council which induced League of Nation members (especially those on the losing end of the war) to stock British Pounds (instead of actual gold) in their central banks. This was called the “gold-exchange standard” and it allowed Great Britain to still print and spend pounds like crazy and still have the pound hold its value (because they would float to other countries and stay there – not increasing supply in England itself).

No Peace

Sounds great for Great Britain but this came at the expense of the dominated nations that agreed to pretend these paper bills were equal to their face value in gold when they were not. This equated to nothing else than a transfer of wealth from the world’s nations to Great Britian (and the US actually but that is complicated). Now you can understand why England “appeased” Germany as they started to welch on the payments they had to make to pay back for WWI. See, as long as England could keep their pounds stored in central banks throughout Europe they were happy and did not want to upset the apple cart. Incidentally, while this program exploited the League of Nation members most of their leaders were not too bothered by it, because they still had access to inflationary money. See, as an example, let’s say Germany wanted to print 10 marks. Before the WWI (since they had a central bank) they would need to have 10% reserved in gold, 1 mark worth of gold. Under the Gold-Exchange system they would hold 1 mark worth of British Pounds instead. So the local politicians were satisfied with storing British pounds and getting access to inflationary money. This is what prevented them from taking the Pounds back to England for Gold Redemption. See if they redeemed 1000 Pounds that would take 10,000 Pounds worth of German Marks out of circulation in Germany because of the relationship of circulated money and money reserved in the central bank.

With WWII the system broke down and out of the ashes came the United Nations, which was really set up to establish the Bretton Woods financial system. Basically it was a remake of the Gold-Exchange Standard but this time the US Dollar was the reserve currency of choice. This is one of the main contributors to the relative prosperity of the United States in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. Excess dollars were being printed but the inflation was not being felt at home because neo-imperialism made sure the dollars not only went abroad but stayed there.

Even as the dollar as the reserve currency of choice is crumbling, China and other countries have huge reserves of dollars that they have been induced not to dump onto the open market. But they are getting restless and a Global Reserve Currency that is a composite of the following currencies is being floated to replace it: British Pound, US Dollar, Japanese Yen, Euro, Saudi Arabian Riyal, Indian Rupee, Chinese Yuan.

The end result is that demand for the dollar will wean, as it has been since the Euro and Yen have been gaining status already. For the other currencies listed demand will increase and wealth will be transferred to those countries from basically any other country on the planet that will be forced to stock this common currency. Mind you the Dollar, Yen, Pound, etc. will not be going away. The Global Currency will not actually replace the individual currencies, but a global bank (they will probably use the Bank of International Settlement in Bassel – possibly in conjunction with the IMF, think IMF = Treasury and BIS = Federal Reserve) will set the exchange rates so that the basket of currencies inflate together evenly. Every other country will suffer. India will become dominate in sub-continental Asia, Saudi Arabian will make their dominance in the middle east permanent, Europe will dominate Africa like never before, Japan and China will be master over the rest of Asia, and the United States will keep its dominance in the Americas while somewhat taking a step down.

United We Stand To Rob The World

However sometimes it clouds the issue to speak of Nations as distinct entities. Great Britain in general will not benefit, nor will Japan and the other dominate countries – in the sense that a pimp doesn’t truly benefit from his exploitation of prostitutes. What would truly benefit everyone is for them to return to sound money, which is not based on debt. As long as debt is tied to the money supply domestic policy will include wasteful and manipulative spending and taxation.

Also, as if national central banks were not bad enough, a global bank owned by offshore bankers will be even harder to stop. Recently there has been increased pressure to audit the Federal Reserve, which they oppose with all their might. The audit will not go through but the Bankers do not like to have to answer tough questions in congressional hearings. With the dollar being king, one country could turn on the Bankers (as JFK tried to do 5 months before he was assassinated with Executive Order 11110) and interfere with their operation. With the super power broken down and the power divided among about 8 nations it is much easier for them to manipulate the power from an unseen seat of power. No one President or Prime Minister will be able to oppose them because the financial regulatory power will have been handed over to a global private bank.

This wont happen overnight. They are just introducing the idea and they are giving lip service to the dollar as the worlds reserve currency in Pittsburgh at the G-20 meeting. What that ignores is that the Dollar is already sharing reserve status with other currencies. See they talk about doing things when they are already half way towards accomplishing it. That is evident in Exhibit A:

Exhibit A - Ground Work for Global Reserve Currency Already Laid

The global bank is at the center for the push for World Government, which will make it so no corner of the earth is out of the reach of a few bankers that are more powerful than any king or emperor from the history books. Do you think you have seen world hunger? Do you think you have seen atrocities? Have you seen genocide, corruption, wealth disparity, and fighting over scarce resources? Just you wait!

By

Jordan Kaufman

Jordan is host of the Las Vegas based radio program Corruption Radio, on KDWN 720 AM and is editor and contributor of CorruptionRadio.com

Send Jordan your comments at Jordan@CorruptionRadio.com (VM: 702-560-1948)